Wikipedia talk:User scripts/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Please create documentary pages for your scripts and categorize them

There are truly many highly useful scripts that make editing way more effective and time-efficient - however they are useless if people don't know about/use them. And that is the case for most of them. Creating documentary pages for scripts helps in making scripts better known to relevant people and used more in at least 3 ways:

  1. It allows the script to be findable by Google (make sure to include the "__INDEX__" magic word)
  2. The documentary page can/should at least roughly (2 sentences is sufficient already) explain what the script does which could help drive up the usage of scripts as people who e.g. got forwarded a link can learn what it's about and whether it suits their needs etc
  3. The documentary pages can be categorized

Also documentary pages are especially useful for scripts under development as many such scripts never get finished and describing what they do and making them findable despite not being featured on this page allows other programmers to build upon their work / continue it (it's also worth to note that many scripts never get finished).

Furthermore it would be nice if people here could help adding the __INDEX__ keyword, and relevant Wikipedia-categories to all script-documentary pages on here. I tried to do that in the last few days but can't do it alone (and probably won't do for new scripts). There are categories such as Category:Wikipedia citation/link tools & Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools but generally any script documentary page should be added to two categories: Category:Wikipedia scripts and the maintenance category (or categories in some cases) that comes closest to their intended use - e.g. Category:Wikipedia:Watchlist.

Also I'm thinking of creating a subcategory for unfinished scripts that are under development - it could be called Category:Wikipedia scripts under development or alike.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fixuture: A very good idea, never thought of the enabling indexing and categorising them per development status. That thought came across my mind at one point, what about those discontinued (inactive users), not finished or simply not added here? Couldn't think of a good way of finding and tagging all of them. Most of what you said may be added to Wikipedia:User scripts/Guide which doesn't talk about what to do after the script is made. I can help but adding docs is mostly done, ones without them as usually no brainer straightforward scripts (add subpage menu to top etc). One problematic one is User:Ravid_ziv/highlightSearch.js, what does it do? I tried installing it but couldn't figure out enough to write a doc. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: What the script is supposed to do is, on a search page, for each result's link, add a fragment to the end of the URL with the search keyword ?keyword=. Then when you click through the link, the search term you used is supposed to be bolded on the page. The issue is that the script is broken in how it actually gets the search term (it was too brittle to a UI change) and thus nothing gets highlighted. The script can be fixed by replacing the right side of the var searchName = code with mw.config.get("searchTerm"). Opencooper (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: Thank you! And also thanks for the link - that's useful.
I now thought of an additional thing that can be done here: when creating a user-space page that ends with .js / a user-script a hint for creating a documentary page could be displayed at the top of the page until the page is created. That's a Wikipedia-internal change though and I'll probably propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump later.
I know it would be kind of strange to create documentation pages for very short scripts that only do some basic stuff - but even those would be useful as others can use them module-wise and will benefit from at least the 3 points I listed above. I'm not entirely sure that there should also get documentation pages but besides the effort to create them I see no reason not to - even 5-lined scripts should be described for their functionality and may be useful to others. Also note that there's usable scripts that aren't even listed on this page.
Couldn't figure out what the script was doing by a glance either. I guess this would be the difficulty of creating missing documentation pages. Hence I hope to somehow get the writers of those scripts to document the scripts themselves (at least at first). I'm not sure what the best way for accomplishing this would be but maybe mass notices can be used to somehow be used to pm them. This talk page entry itself is an attempt at this as well. (Also @Opencooper:) this perfectly highlights the usefulness of this and potentially other reforms of the current management of user-scripts: the script could get fixed by a simply change after its intention was identified (should have been clarified instead). Now there's one problem with the current state of things: even though Opencooper user knows how the script can be fixed it can't be simply edited by him to make it work again. The current options are making an entry of the script's documentation's talk page (doesn't exist), the talk page of the editor or creating a fork of the script (how are users supposed to know the location of the working script? the only way would be to change any link to the script to point to the fork instead which is problematic for multiple reasons). Hence I suggest to improve the improvability of userscripts on Wikipedia. There are various ways this could be done. I thought about creating a {{script edit request}} template that can be placed onto the talk pages of script-documentary pages but that wouldn't really solve it as in this case there's no such page and the editor may never read it or not respond to it (or just very late). There could also be an additional user-level that's allowed to edit such pages and could review and approve such edit requests even when the script-creator is not responding though. Plus there could be a page for requests of that kind or the pending revision feature could be used to shelf such changes until it becomes approved by either script-creator or a user with said level. Thank you both for your involvement thus far.
As a sidenote in addition there could also be a Category:Wikipedia scripts with help requested for scripts whose development has been stalled by problems which are expected to be explained on the talk page if the category has been added.
--Fixuture (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Opencooper, makes sense now. Fixuture, isn't making a separate script edit request necessary? I don't know of anything forbidding making a normal fully protected edit requests to fix a user script. Really non-controversial here given that the script is one line away from being fixed. The problem is here we don't seem to have any advice on what to do in such situations (do we?).
Another question: is making it indexable allowed? WP:NOINDEX says userspace isn't per the robot.txt or something; so isn't overriding it thus controversial? (I didn't even verify whether this would work)
Check {{Script_doc_auto}}, it gives the message "This script seems to have a documentation page at..." etc currently. Maybe a slight modification to this would be more than enough. IMO, there's not much we can do if the creators don't make docs even after this template gives them the courtesy notification. As such, I think mass messaging would be excessive given that we haven't started searching for scripts which don't have any docs yet and are inscrutable; this only concerns active editors with scripts. Overall, nothing stops us from making doc pages for those scripts we have understood if we think that's helpful.
I'm pretty sure there must be a way to search for all the possible user scripts made. I know this from Help:Searching#Parameters: restricting it to userspace, we could exclude the words in title for "vector" "mono" and "common" etc and find everything in title ending with "~.js" or "~.css". Then as we find, we could verify whether they work or/and add them to the main list. Later work on what to do with all the categories you've discussed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast:
Fixuture, isn't making a separate script edit request necessary? I don't know of anything forbidding making a normal fully protected edit requests to fix a user script.
Alright I just looked up Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests and it seems to be explicitly intended for user scripts as well so a new template & category probably aren't needed. But I think that the current way of how to scripts can be improved upon by others is pretty roundabout. They need to copy the whole content to a new userpage or so, change it and then make a very-old style / inappropriate edit request on the talk page. I think this is counterintuitive, not efficient in any way etc. The whole process should probably be rethought and streamlined in a way so that scripts can be improved upon more easily. For instance there could be a "fork" button on all script pages that does the forking to ones userpage automatically and has the fork associated/linked with the original script. Then after one changed it there could be a "merge request" or "change request" button so that the original tool can easily be requested to be changed. It could become a git-like/-oriented process.
The problem is here we don't seem to have any advice on what to do in such situations (do we?).
Indeed I don't think there is any info on how this is expected to be done. I think once we cleared things up a bit more it should be added to e.g. Wikipedia:User scripts/Guide (or any other page?) and link to it from the relevant places. But as said I think the whole process needs a redesign imo.
is making it indexable allowed? WP:NOINDEX says userspace isn't per the robot.txt or something; so isn't overriding it thus controversial?
I didn't find any such statement there. Userspace pages are just not indexed by default. Also it is useful to index Wikipedia scripts so it should be done if nobody has any objections which can be expressed here. For the indexing we should probably add it to the userscript-infobox-template instead and then simply have that one added to all script-pages.
Check , it gives the message "This script seems to have a documentation page at..." etc currently. Maybe a slight modification to this would be more than enough.
Good find, that could be useful here. However it doesn't seem to work for me for the examples linked to on that page. Also I think this template then should show above all scripts' source code pages and maybe a change to Wikipedia would be needed here. And if not it probably needs to be mass-added.
As such, I think mass messaging would be excessive given that we haven't started searching for scripts which don't have any docs yet and are inscrutable; this only concerns active editors with scripts. Overall, nothing stops us from making doc pages for those scripts we have understood if we think that's helpful.
Maybe after we cleared things up a bit more a bot could run to crawl all .js scripts and make non-intrusive talk page entries for users which have a .js script without complimentary documentary page with instructions on how such can be made. And there could be a note that shows on top when a new .js page is created with that info. I don't think that this would be problematic especially considering that those who wrote a script know best what it's for. Additionally if a script is missing from this list (WP:User_scripts) a request to add it here could be featured in the message as well.
I'm pretty sure there must be a way to search for all the possible user scripts made. I know this from Help:Searching#Parameters: restricting it to userspace, we could exclude the words in title for "vector" "mono" and "common" etc and find everything in title ending with "~.js" or "~.css". Then as we find, we could verify whether they work or/and add them to the main list. Later work on what to do with all the categories you've discussed.
It appears that neither suffix-search nor word-exclusion is featured in the search :/ (and Google search doesn't work of course as those pages aren't indexed)
So the closest I got this was this.
Also I don't think that we should just add any script here as users might have intentionally avoided making an entry about it here for whatever reason (the developer is likely to be the only one that knows why - most of the time it would probably be major bugs and the like [hence that other suggested category]).
--Fixuture (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
actually, i am not sure about suffix, but exclusion is definitely there, using the minus sign. i think the search you want is something like: intitle:/\.js$/ -intitle:"common.js" -intitle:"monobook.js" -intitle:"vector.js" it seems to be a bit cavalier about the dot (i.e., it finds pages whose name ends with js, not just .js), but other than that, i think it does what you want. feed this to the advanced search and select "User" space - you should get all the pages in user space whose name ends with .js, excluding (common|vector|monobook).js. of course, a user can have (and even use) a script that lives in a page with a name that does not end with .js, but this is a rare exception. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That's good enough (for now). I tried forcing it even with ".js" but still ignores the period. Help:Searching also give an external link which uses regexp, which we could try. So, restricting to userpace, intitle:"*\?.js" -intitle:"common.js" -intitle:"monobook.js" -intitle:"vector.js". This seems more or less accurate and shouldn't be having too many wrong results. Appreciate help and will check if this can be refined even better.
Starting this search a little would be nice. I guess that the basic protocol would be check if script category exists, quickly assess its status (pasting it in the browser's console should show that), whether on this main page if required and adding the necessary categories on whether its fully functional, unknown/more investigation required, or not working/incomplete. By initiating it, we would get a stock of the situation, right now we can only reckon the amount of work. Even if we don't end up doing much, at least this plan is worked out for future and open to be continued any time. I don't think there was any previous such attempts at organisation (haven't checked). A bit swamped right now, I'll reply on what further is said above later. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Script for opening watchlist items

Is there a user script that allows one to open multiple unseen watchlist items at the same time, instead of clicking on each link? Alex|The|Whovian? 11:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Oh wow that would be really useful. More or less it's the only missing link for managing large watchlists efficiently after I quick-fixed the hollis gadget. If it's used in combination with that tool it would basically eliminate all the automatable watchlist-work so that users can entirely focus on actually checking the contents of watchlist entries. It could add a button on the watchlist page that opens a configurable number (e.g. 10) of those "since last seen"-links successively in new tabs from the bottom up. I really hope somebody gets onto this. --Fixuture (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian and Fixuture:  Done, see User:Evad37/Watchlist-openUnread - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the "since last visit" links are part of the enhanced watchlist, aren't they? (I don't actually use it myself) It will take a bit more work to get those links... - Evad37 [talk] 03:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, now uses the "since last visit" diff links from the enhanced watchlist. - Evad37 [talk] 04:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37: It seems to disappear when used with User:Theopolisme/Scripts/ajaxWatchlist, and the watchlist refreshes. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: The way the ajax script works was causing all content from the Watchlist options box to the end of the list to be deleted and replaced – including the content added by my script (which only executes on page load). I've added an option to my script to add the Open unread pages button above the Watchlist options box, which make it compatible – just add 
var openUnread_showAbove = true;
on the line after 
importScript('User:Evad37/Watchlist-openUnread.js');
in your common.js
Forgot to sign so need to ping again: @AlexTheWhovian: - Evad37 [talk] 17:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37: Great! Thank you for creating this. By this you help Wikipedia in a potentially incomparable way by significantly improving the time-efficiency of editors that will allow them to do more work here plus allow for longer watchlists which will also allow users to prevent more vandalism and misinformation.
There's just one issue with it: the "since last visit" diff links from the enhanced watchlist don't work hence the tool doesn't either. Just test it out for yourself: simply open up the history pages of articles that got edited multiple times since a few days ago (unseen) and then open up the "since last visit"-links for them (or make it so that the tool does it) → typically those diffs don't show all the changes that you can see on the history pages. So until this gets fixed for Wikipedia the tool won't work either.
I learned about this in a discussion with User:Quiddity (WMF) at 2016 Community Wishlist Survey where I suggested to "Make it easy to quickly see all changes since last visit". There I also learned about the hollis gadget from User:Stevietheman which didn't work either at the time but which I quick-fixed recently. The (quick-fixed) gadget is afaik the only way to have a diff of all unseen changes for watchlist entries.
So to make it work it either needs to be coupled with that gadget or have the (its) api-requests for getting the "since last seen"-diff-links directly built into it.
--Fixuture (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll look into using the api to generate "since last seen"-diff-links. - Evad37 [talk] 03:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture: Finally got around to coding this, better diff links are now generated using the api - Evad37 [talk] 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37: Nice - thank you! I still have one last suggestion for improvement: as of right now one can only open a specified number of watchlist entries once. If one clicks the button a second time it doesn't open the next few items in the list but the ones opened earlier already. Probably the diffs need to be added to an array of "seen" diffs upon opening or alike. By this one could go through a whole 30-day watchlist pretty quickly by clicking the button, checking a batch of diffs, clicking the button again, checking the next batch and so on. --Fixuture (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture:  Done. Plus the watchlist will now show the pages as "read" once the button is clicked. - Evad37 [talk] 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37: It works; can't thank you enough for this. It's incredibly useful...now I can finally focus on the actual work to be done :) Actually it's so useful that a potential issue I see here would be those using it having a significant advantage over those who not (as the improved time-efficiency allows for the better management of long watchlists). Especially due to that we should probably get this tool known to as many people as possible and I'll try my best with that. Maybe at some point it could even be added to Wikipedia itself (or become an option in the preferences). --Fixuture (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User script for non-free image patrol?

Is there a user script that makes adding |image_has_rationale=yes to non-free image tags a one-click task? Even better would be marking the file patrolled as well. — Train2104 (t • c) 20:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD closer has stopped working

Hey, MfD closer has stopped working for me in the last week or so. Does anyone know how to fix it? It looks like the owner is barely active anymore, so although I've left a message on his Talk page, I don't anticipate a reply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding support for MfD and RfD to my XFDcloser script (which already works with AfD, CfD, FfD, & TfD). This will take some time, I can let you know when it's ready. - Evad37 [talk] 02:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I would love that. Thank you! :D ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Script to turn off redirects?

Any idea on whether a script that could be created that would turn off redirecting? Ideally, this would cover both pages selected through links and those accessed otherwise (search, direct URL), but even to have the first would be useful. (and any other solutions to this would be welcome)Naraht (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The following snippet will turn off redirecting after clicking on a link:
$('#mw-content-text a.mw-redirect').each(function(){
    var oldhref = $(this).attr('href');
    var newhref = ( /\?/.test(oldhref) ) ? oldhref + '&redirect=no' : oldhref + '?redirect=no';
    $(this).attr('href', newhref);
});
- Evad37 [talk] 13:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I realize that turning off redirect on searches is a different concept, any ideas? (This would be so that if I type Phi Beta Kappa in the search box, it goes there rather than redirecting to Phi Beta Kappa Society, any ideas?Naraht (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Try this:
if ( mw.config.get('wgRedirectedFrom') ) {
	(function(conf) {
		document.location.replace(conf.wgServer + conf.wgArticlePath.replace('$1', conf.wgRedirectedFrom) + '?redirect=no');
	})(mw.config.get(['wgServer', 'wgArticlePath', 'wgRedirectedFrom']));
}
The target page will still initially load, but it will then reload the redirect without redirecting – e.g. search or otherwise navigate to Phi Beta Kappa → Wikipedia will redirect you to Phi Beta Kappa Society → this code will the send you back to Phi Beta Kappa?redirect=no. Put the code at the top of your common.js so it executes as soon as possible. - Evad37 [talk] 01:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One Click Archiver needs a new "owner"

User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver is widely used on noticeboards and other pages, but its maintainer has been blocked for a year and a half and it seems unlikely they will be returning anytime soon. I just had a bit of an issue with this script but didn't bother posting about since it appears nobody is minding the store. Anyone want to take this over? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I've started User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js, mainly because ClueBot III is down and I couldn't get any of the existing archiver scripts working. - Evad37 [talk] 05:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Technical Advice IRC meeting

We'd like to invite you to the weekly Technical Advice IRC meeting. The next one is tomorrow, Wednesday 3-4 pm UTC on #wikimedia-tech.

The Technical Advice IRC meeting is open for all volunteer developers, topics and questions. This can be anything from "how to get started" over "who would be the best contact for X" to specific questions on your project.

If you know already what you would like to discuss or ask, please add your topic to the page. -- Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets.js

Equazcion's CustomSummaryPresets user script appears to have stopped working. Does anyone know why, and how to get it working again? Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that this has been done, at User:Enterprisey/CustomSummaryPresets. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Self-redirects

Do we have a script that facilitates delinking self-redirects that are not linked to sections or anchors, or could someone write such a script? Sam Sailor 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, so this script would find links from other pages to these self-redirects, and remove those links? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Enterprisey. Well, no, let me give an example: Face to Face (punk band). If you have User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js installed you'll notice Rob Kurth and Chad Yaro, both link back to Face to Face (punk band). The normal reader will just see the normal blue links, and if the reader clicks them, (s)he is swiftly back on the band article, perhaps without noticing the line (Redirected from Rob Kurth) underneath From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and will maybe think "what is wrong here?" ... at least that is my understanding of why we avoid these WP:SELFREDS. I don't have the technical knowledge to suggest how such a script should work. Something that analyses all outgoing links, and if (a) the target is a redirect, and (b) the redirect is back to the current page, and (c) the redirect is not to a section, then delink the outgoing link. (Is this actually a job for a bot?) Sam Sailor 15:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It could be a bot task, especially if it's always uncontroversial to delete self-redirects. Such a bot would have to go through quite a few articles, though (mild understatement), so it may actually be better to fix them when we see them using a script. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter


Hi. Recently, I discovered a passion for created and understanding user scripts on wikipedia, and am planning to create a monthly newsletter about new scripts and projects (by anyone, not just promoting my own), and well as open script requests and other related information. If you would like to subscribe, please see User:DannyS712/subscribe to scripts. If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Is this aimed at script creators or general users? If its the former, I have an interview-ish Q&A exchange with The Transhumanist in my talk page archived from a little while ago that you can use. If it's the latter, you would probably be better off contributing to the WP:SIGNPOST's tech report, as they already have a substantial readership and would welcome new content. Cheers, - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Evad37: I had intended for this to be aimed at script creators. Something along the lines of: "A was created by B, C and D were updated, and the requests page lists EFGH as open requests. A new technique IJK was introduced by L as a work-around for the limitation M, etc". If there were any really powerful new scripts introduced (Twinkle, Script-installer, that kind of widely used script) it could go to the tech report, but this would be geared towards news for the script creators mostly. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Will you be including WP-oriented JS tips and tricks? (Please say "yes").    — The Transhumanist   02:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist: definitely. Submissions would be welcome. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Evad37: I noticed you didn't join the distribution list. I don't mean to harass you, but can I ask why? Users like you were my intended audience... --DannyS712 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your response till today ('m still backlogged with notifications from my recent wikibreak, and Timeless skin which I'm using has a mildly annoying bug where new notifications aren't coloured red/blue, just grey) - Evad37 [talk] 09:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@DannyS712: And see User:Evad37/Scripting Q&A for the Q&As which I mentioned, if you are interested in using them. - Evad37 [talk] 10:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft proposal: Script modules

Could javascript-savy users please review my draft proposal for script modules – bits of Javascript code intended to be easily reused by userscripts – and leave feedback on its talk page? Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: section for Frivolous/fun scripts?

It seems like the list of scripts don't contain any examples that change the interface in a funny way (they all seem like they do something! Could I add my script if it just changes the logo to something else? (say, if someone else would like to do the same thing). It could be a beginner-friendly introduction to scripting :) Tanginia (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tanginia: Do you have a specific script in mind? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps might be better as part of the WP:Department of Fun? And/or a subpage that could be linked to. - Evad37 [talk] 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Script Feedback

Hi, I recently created User:RhinosF1/StatusChange.js to work with User:RhinosF1/Template/StatusMonitor. Any feedback would be welcome via this thread or github. If anyone wants to expand the documentation then I'm happy for you do that although I ask, if possible, you assign the related issues on GitHub to yourself and close them when done or add the 'Test Team' project if you want them reviewing. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to move User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js. However, I have moved the documentation page back to User:Lourdes/PageCuration following the suggestion made by MusikAnimal and Enterprisey. feminist (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js and its documentation should move to a more accurate title. I tried talking to the script's creator but they appear to not want to do it. I believe the current title is very misleading because the script adds a shortcut link to the sidebar pointing to Special:NewPagesFeed. It does not, in any way, load up the PageCuration toolbar like anyone looking at the script for the first time would expect. I propose the script to be moved to another title, for example, User:Lourdes/NewPagesFeedShortcut.js to prevent confusion. Should it be moved? -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • No I think you're overreacting and probably trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. As per Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, Page curation...includes two main features, which are described below:
  • the New Pages Feed, a dynamic list of new pages for review by community reviewers; and
  • the Curation Toolbar...
This is exactly what the script provides to the probably greater than hundred editors or more who are using it on their scripts page, and you're the first one to complain. By the way, it adds a shortcut link to the top bar (and not the side bar), which probably shows you have misinstalled the script. The Page Curation toolbar, by its own process, is loaded up when you click on any unreviewed article in the feed. Are you doing that? And if it is not loading in your case, you can solve it by first installing this script, opening the new pages feed, and then going to the side tool bar and clicking on the menu item called "Open Page Curation". Wherever the script has been mentioned officially, its description very clearly provides the user with what it does. Wikipedia:PageCuration script is the actual documentation page for the script, moved by Oshwah to its current name. If you want, please read it. It contains the same details as are contained at the top of the script page. There is no confusion, as per me. Thanks, Lourdes 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not provide that. It provides a link in the sidebar pointing to the feature, not the feature itself. That's a huge difference and it's misleading. -- Flooded w/them 100s 15:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure we both are talking about the same script? This script does not mess with the side bar. The top message on the script page clearly mentions: "This script adds a "Page Curation" link to the top toolbar that points to Special:NewPagesFeed.". Special:NewPagesFeed is the primary page to start curating pages. In your case, if you believe this script adds a link (to the "sidebar" if you may) pointing to the feature, what is the problem you are facing? Doesn't it facilitate easy access to editors, who don't have to click on multiple links and go to multiple pages to access the feature? I'm confused what's going on here. This is a script page which is in my User space. You don't like it; don't use it. Lourdes 15:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The script page's description alone is not enough. Since the WP:USL description is displayed clearly, anyone looking at it ("Page Curation[103] (source) Install – adds a "Page Curation" link to the top toolbar, primarily designed for new page reviewers") would assume the script is about force-loading the PageCuration toolbar. "Adds a Page Curation link" does not really offer disambiguation, as it leads to the question - "what page curation link?". Page curation typically refers to the curation toolbar (yes, it can mean NPF as well by project definition but common sense-wise, the toolbar is more referred to in this way). In your case...what is the problem you are facing? - the script is not titled accurately to reflect what it does, therefore it should be renamed to do so. Doesn't it facilitate easy access to editors...access the feature - it does, it's a good simple script and it works well. It's great you've made it but my concern is more about the title than its function. This is a script page which is in my User space. You don't like it; don't use it - I get the MYOB hint but really, the title is misleading and for the sake of disambiguating to help new potential users of this script or any viewer of the USL page, this is necessary. -- Flooded w/them 100s 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
How about just adding that points to Special:NewPagesFeed" to the description at WP:US/L? - Evad37 [talk] 23:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Evad, that's a sensible suggestion. Can be done. Lourdes 04:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Flooded, you say that "the script's page description alone is not enough." Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help mentions: "What is Page Curation?:... It consists of the New Pages Feed and the Curation toolbar..." By your arguments, we should also be renaming this page too, no? This is actually too much of an effort being wasted over a non-issue. I'm out of here (I'm okay with Evad's suggestion; not with yours). Rest, the community can decide. Warmly, Lourdes 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It's okay, I'm done here. No need to keep this. Re-added to gain comments from more people. -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Updated: -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No its their own user script, they can name it what they want. Also, if the problem is the name, I didn't know about this script when I made User:DannyS712/New pages feed, which provides a link to the new pages feed (albeit in the "interaction" menu) named "New pages". If you want to use my script, that might mitigate all of this. If not, we could just make a fork of Lourdes'? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They can't if the name doesn't comply with page naming conventions. The script is named something but does something else. Also, it's not merely for my preference, but for the benefit of all Wikipedians. It may be a small matter but if it creates a problem (in this case, deception), then it should be fixed. -- Flooded w/them 100s 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a user script, and within the userpage of its author, frankly there's no way to compel them to rename it. It's akin to finding random subpages of users and asking them to be renamed because they are not clear or contain something different. If you think it's misleading, then don't use it, simple. I hope this should be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to somewhat agree with Flooded with them hundreds. As someone who has worked very hard on the Page Curation extension, I didn't appreciate that this tiny script was being advertised as integral to the process. It used to be worse, until Special:Diff/844587740 and Special:Diff/844586411. Personally I think everything is acceptable now, but if I had it my way the documentation wouldn't live in the Wikipedia namespace -- which is very rare for user scripts, at least ones that are but a few lines of code. I say all of this with utmost respect to Lourdes. Please don't take it as a personal stab :) — MusikAnimal talk 04:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Haven't commented in this discussion as I don't really have an opinion, but I do agree with your final point. I'll ask Oshwah if he's okay with moving the documentation back to the usual location; it's very, very unusual for script documentation to be in project space. (As opposed to gadget documentation.) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue This should be a requested move instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note. Oshwah has moved User:Lourdes/PageCuration to User:Lourdes/PageCuration –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just ignore this. I can't read. It said 2018 not 2019... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Voluntary code review

Would anyone be interested in a "request for code review" process? It would be entirely voluntary, and would operate similarly to Peer review, but for sandbox/proposed versions of user scripts (or gadgets). - Evad37 [talk] 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds pretty cool. Let me know if this gets off the ground and I'd be happy to contribute. Pinging MusikAnimal as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Great idea! Personally I am very busy and may not be able to contribute much (Amorymeltzer can tell you just how bad I've been about code reviews lately... :). I will definitely watchlist the page though, and of course feel free to ping me anytime. — MusikAnimal talk 03:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Evad37: I may be interested; I'll mention this in the next newsletter --DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The idea being to take some of the load off of VPT? Some of this happens to some degree there, although not too in-depth, and I think users needing a lot of help might get frustrated when all the traffic at VPT ignores their post. I suppose at least in theory user script questions (as opposed to Wikipedia questions) should end up here or somewhere like it rather than VPT? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, VPT isn't the best venue for actual code reviews. But this could also be for more experienced users to get someone else to look over the proposed changes and check if it looks sane. - Evad37 [talk] 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start at Wikipedia:Code review, please feel free to add to it - Evad37 [talk] 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: I was going to post it there, but then I realized that wasn't what code review was designed for, so I came here. My problem is that User:DannyS712/EFFPRH.js isn't working where it is supposed to (WP:EFFPR) despite working in an identical copy at User:DannyS712/EFFPRH/sandbox. Any ideas about what could be causing this? I just can't figure it out. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Right venue to request review of new user script?

What is "WP" in this context?

Requesting scripts?

Help: I am unable to use scripts to create redirects

Need help with helper script

Collapsed install codes

Gadget and userscript unit testing

User:Bellezzasolo Bot/userhighlighter.js/excon.js needs updating / bot inactive

Can gadgets fetch arbitrary web page(s) text?

Snippets section isn't useful

Sign?

importScript() vs mw.loader.load()

section-watchlist looking for beta testers

now.monthHeader() to local language value (viwkiki)

I made a couple of scripts

Help debugging a script that adds a "purge" button

Mobile accessibility

Incorporating usage stats into the list

Any XSS danger from getJSON()?

Script not appearing

Table changes

Columns for conflicts, alternates and last change dates

Watchlist

Not working

WP:PEIS

Turn on console errors in JavaScript

Uncaught TypeError

Not digging the new layout

Check if a page is "marked as reviewed"

Reusing this data in Toolhub

Edit summary

Documentation update

Unwatch scripts

Should we remove the "total" or "active" column?

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI