Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   WMF   Miscellaneous  
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for five days.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) (see also: Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical)
Click "[show]" next to each point to see more details.
If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache.
This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown.
No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box.
This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. See task 3864. There is an accesskey property on it (default to accesskey="f" in English). Logged-in users can set a gadget in their preferences.
No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checking bot.
You can use a web browser such as Firefox, which has a spell checker.
If you have problems making your fancy signature work, check Wikipedia:How to fix your signature.
If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, use this link.
Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem.
If an image thumbnail is not showing, try purging its image description page.
If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear.
For server or network status, please see Wikimedia Metrics.
« Archives, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185



Wmcz [ edit ]

On Help:Interwiki linking, it says that wm followed by two letters link to individual chapters of WMF. Are those local or non-local prefixes? --Gioguch (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "local or non-local"? Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The full list of interwiki prefixes understood by this WP is at Special:Interwiki. I assume that the list is intended to be the same on the other wikis. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Multiple prefixes are resolved from left to right, according to rules "local" to each step, if that's what you mean. If you link to something wacky like cs:q:fr:de:commons:w:it:wikt:es:sv:w:ca:en:wp:vpt you'll end up right back here, because cs is defined here to mean "goto Czech Wikipedia", q is defined on the Czech Wikipedia to mean "goto Czech Wikiquote", fr is defined on Czech Wikiquote to mean "goto French Wikiquote", and so on. While q:fr: and fr:q: have identical results, it's because we're on a well-configured grid of wikis, and not due to any general rule. You could, at your own risk, also jump through a series of non-WMF wikis, if suitable prefixes exist on each. ―cobaltcigs 00:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, you mean you can make one of these out of Wikilink prefixes? Who knew? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me: 1 cup.

On the second day of Christmas, Arbcom gave me a cease-and-desist notice.

cobaltcigs 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Allow whitelisted pages to exceed Wikipedia's technical limits [ edit ]

There are good reasons for particular pages to exceed Wikipedia:Template limits and other limits.

Recent examples include administrative and administrative-archive pages that use {{revisions}} extensively or which use {{backlog status}}, and some list-type pages that use {{ill}}, {{cfb link}}, or {{football kit}} extensively hit the expensive parser function call limit. Some very long, heavily-referenced articles hit the post expansion include size limit (several COVID- and US-2020-election-related pages are over the limit now).

Sometimes, as with sports lists that used {{flag}} extensively, the PEIS limit can be fixed by creating modules, like Module:Flagg. That doesn't always get a page below the limit though.

I recommend that the Wikimedia software be changed to allow whitelisted pages to have double the usual limits. I'm flexible on the "double" but it should be at least 1.5x but probably less than 3x. This whitelist would of course need to be on a fully- or perhaps template-editor-protected page. Note that pages that are above the normal limits should still be put in maintenance categories so they can be reduced where feasible (see Special:TrackingCategories). Pages should only be on the whitelist if there is no other good option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - Allow whitelisted pages to exceed Wikipedia's technical limits [ edit ]

  1. Support as the initial proponent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support as a temporary solution: I think it would make more sense to abandon these limits entirely and to instead improve (modernize) the Mediawiki software so that reference-templates and/or transclusions don't cause a high server load and long load-times and add ways to better display long articles and make them more accessible, navigable and useful.
The Post-expand include size limit seems to be due to the long Transclusion expansion time. I have detailed my research into this problem here. So far I have not received an answer what the main underlying problem is (neither there nor at this code issue at phabricator) – if anybody here knows, please leave a comment.
This has been a substantial problem at, for example, many COVID19-related articles (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in Japan) and 2020 in science (now fractured and incomplete which has a few disadvantages; note that most content is just text/wikilinks and images should lazy-load).
I partially agree with Izno's oppose and Headbomb's neutral: imo whitelisting would add unneeded resource-/workload/complexity. But it might be good way to test this out before allowing it for all pages, might not require as much resources/work as expected, could be built into the current review-mechanism and would be better than the current state. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Allow whitelisted pages to exceed Wikipedia's technical limits [ edit ]

  1. Not worth the additional complexity. This is one of those ideas that maybe should not be all votey. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose - There is no point to this. There are not any articles that need to come close to exceeding technical limits. It's a lazy response to articles which are too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. This would create a security threat as bad actors could exploit the whitelisting to lock up our servers. Also just not worthwhile when the articles can (and should) be split. Wug·a·po·des 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral - Allow whitelisted pages to exceed Wikipedia's technical limits [ edit ]

  1. Support in principle, this would be useful on a handful of pages. In practice, do we really want to devote WMF resources to handle a handful of pages? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments - Allow whitelisted pages to exceed Wikipedia's technical limits [ edit ]

  • A major consideration would be "how easy is this to abuse"? Is it likely that someone would cherry-pick pages with "larger limits" and use that to launch a denial-of-service attack? If the "higher limits" are reasonable, I don't think this will be a major issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Davidwr: Please open a phab ticket. It's pointless to discuss this here if MediaWiki developers are unwilling to implement it (see WP:CONEXCEPT). – SD0001 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    That will ultimately have to happen, but I want to get a sense of whether it's wanted by the community or not before I bother to open a ticket. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Davidwr: in this case - it needs to be wanted by the developer community or its not going to happen, we didn't ask for it to be in place it was foisted upon us. — xaosflux Talk 20:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Developers might be interested in which solutions have been proposed and the usefulness of suggested changes. Some solutions to the underlying problem/s (whitelisting being 1 of those) could make Wikipedia load much faster, substantially reduce server-load and costs, allow for hosting more content, help editors struggling and using workarounds to maintain articles (such as COVID19-related ones) and allow for later modernizations of WP via additions of otherwise commonplace features etc. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    What exactly would a whitelist do? Suppress an error message? The error would still occur, the templates would still not be expanded, nothing would be gained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, it wouldn't. The idea is that if a page IS on the whitelist, the Wikimedia software would refer to a different, higher, limit when checking the limits. You would have, say, two limits for "expensive parser functions" - 500 for pages not on the whitelist, and a higher number, say, 1000, for pages on it. Similar with other limits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well "technical limit" means "technical limit". Of course, it's possible to raise the limit, but that's not open to voting and so this discussion is not actually useful. What would be better use of time is to open a phabriactor task with detailed argument which shows understanding of the implications and why raising the limit is feasible and worthwhile at the same time. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No. I hope no developer will implement this proposal. The proper solution is to fix performance of local templates, not to jeopardize service availability by putting random loopholes in. --Malyacko (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Malyacko: Agree, but it doesn't seem like this is getting done and this proposal could be a good improvised temporary solution until it is. I have asked about what you described in a code issue at phabricator as well as, with more details, at talk:Template limits and so far haven't received any answer about what the root problems are or any indications of somebody of the WMF or of the current devs willing to resolve the underlying problem. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Without any official WMF buy-in, this is a pointless proposal. Also, any discussion should take on on Phabricator, and not on VPT (I'm pretty sure the WMF devs don't monitor this page). -FASTILY 04:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What are some examples of pages that need this? Is there no local hack that can be used to get around it (eg, do modules contribute to that? I could've sworn I read some kind of hack that involved modules for a similar issue? perhaps making it up), or performance improvements that can be made to those templates? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    I listed 2 examples in my comment above: COVID-19 pandemic in Japan and 2020 in science. There's also a category of pages which exceeded these limits and it contained a fair amount of articles despite editors being forced to implement workarounds. Many other COVID19-related articles were also affected.
    One workaround which could be used, and I think is often used, is to remove references or to stop using reference-templates (like {{cite journal|...) as these cause the longest "Transclusion expansion time". I don't think that this a good solution: usually most references are useful, required and important and using reference templates makes the references more convenient, machine-readable and formatted better.
    Performance-improvements to the way templates and alike are used is exactly what I was proposing in the discussion also linked in my comment above as well as in the phabricator issue. (However, I'm still not entirely sure if the problem is what I think it is – and hence whether or not the suggested solution would make sense – as no developer or WMF person has yet answered my questions.) --Prototyperspective (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In those cases where references are causing template loading issues, that indicates the article is too long and should be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It may indicate that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this is the case. Whitelisting instead of raising or removing those artificial limits for all pages may better facilitate attempts to keep the relevant articles shorter plus not implementing workarounds such as removing references and/or reference-templates.
Furthermore, there could also be other (imo long-overdue and otherwise very commonplace) technical features to keep articles short even though they are on one page (and not inappropriately split for the sake of it) – such as not loading/fetching collapsed tables and statistics until the [show]-button is pressed (I think content such as this is partly what caused many COVID19-related articles to exceed these limits). --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data is up to 333 references. For a single template. And it is a template that is no longer needed. It is in only one article: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory.
Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates is also in that article. It has more info (such as death rates by country), and is from a single source: Johns Hopkins University, Coronavirus Resource Center.
The table with 333 references should be removed from the article. It is regularly out of date compared to the John Hopkins table. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You make it sound like this was these articles had with the template limits and even that this would be the only problem this proposal is about. It's not. And the bold-formatting isn't appropriate imo.
Furthermore, these references probably were useful for the template but maybe they should have been displayed separately from the article's other templates (e.g. only show when the template is uncollapsed but not show when its state is collapsed).
Should we source information from one single private research organization instead of multiple sources due to artificial, and imo outdated, limits? I don't think we should for the sake of it but only when it is due. If, in this case, they have higher quality data than the respective sources this still wasn't the case earlier. But again: this wasn't the only thing COVID19-related articles had that made the artificial limit become a problem. Here you can see some, but not all, of the articles which have problems with the template-limits. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
undent: I have already provided the obvious work around for the COVID cases, which is to not transclude the table references directly into all of its targets (i.e., make the last table column <noincluded). That would remove some 300 references from each and every article those tables are transcluded to. It is pathological anyway and should not be driving software changes. I have so far seen one case where the limits might reasonably be raised or transclusion worked on in any meaningful fashion, and it's not even on Wikipedia, it's Wikisource. If you can find a case where the limit must be raised, I will be pleasantly surprised, but in almost every other case there is a workaround sufficient to meet both policy and guideline. --Izno (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox plurality [ edit ]

At {{Infobox newspaper}}, Funandtrvl recently observed that, since some newspapers have multiple managing editors, the |maneditor= parameter could display as Managing editor(s) instead of Managing editor. I think it's cleaner to not have to use the (s) formulation, so we set it up so that the label will display as Managing editor when |maneditor= is used and Managing editors when |maneditors= is used.

However, we're now looking at some of the other parameters, such as |owner= (with alias |owners=), which has displayed as Owner(s) for years. Changing this to work similarly to the managing editor parameter could potentially introduce some minor errors: if someone previously used |owner= for a plural, they would need to switch to using |owners= instead to get the plurality right, and I don't think we'd have any way of notifying pages that'd be affected. On the flip side, the change would allow the vast majority of newspapers with a singular owner to avoid the unsightly (s), and any pages displaying incorrectly would presumably eventually be fixed.

I bring this up here because this same issue applies to tons and tons of infobox templates, from Conviction(s) at {{Infobox criminal}} to Spouse(s) at {{Infobox person}}. We discussed the latter two months ago but haven't taken any action from it yet. {{Detect singular}} is available and is used on templates like {{Infobox settlement}}, but has a few limitations/bugs.

The extremely widespread applicability makes this topic worth discussing, imo (it would of course be extremely nitpicky at the level of an individual article). So, what approach do you all think we should take here? Is the tradeoff of potentially introducing the incorrect plurality to some existing pages worth it for setting up a better way to handle plurality that'll allow us to avoid having to use (s) into perpetuity? Or should we pursue the more technical route and try to get {{Detect singular}} working well enough to handle all of this for us automatically? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As you say above, there is a common pattern that we should handle in some generic way. How about a new template something like {{plural}}?
{{One or many|value for one|value for many|text for one|optional text for many if we do not just add an s}}
For example: the {{Infobox newspaper}} template has
| label4     = Owner(s)
| data4      = {{{owners|{{{owner|}}}}}}
which could be replaced with:
| label4     = {{One or many|{{{owner}}}|{{{owners}}}|Owner|Owners}}
| data4      = {{{owners|{{{owner|}}}}}}
The template could complain if both owner/owners are defined (and perhaps also if neither is defined, although that would be valid in some cases). We then might use {{Detect singular}} to generate a tracking category should it think that |owners= is singular or |owner= is a list. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Would something like {{Singular and plural}} work, or could be adapted to do this? Also, I am finding singular owners while using the plural "owners" in the template. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
{{Singular and plural}} looks like it's designed for when the link for Apples goes somewhere different than the one for Apple. That's a somewhat different purpose than what we're looking at here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe the number of users who will forget to change the parameter name when adding a second value is significant. I'm a highly-detail-picky developer and it seems like a mistake I would easily make. I don't see anything wrong with the (s) construct in the label. Even if the template code could figure out from the value whether to pluralize the label or not, I don't think it's worth the extra processing time, code maintenance, etc. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with warning about unreliable sources, please add which source is unreliable [ edit ]

Hi all

This morning I created Alliance of British Drivers and when I saved the page I received the message below. Currently I have no way of knowing which of the references I added is 'bad' which is very frustrating. I don't want to add bad references to Wikipedia but currently I have no way of understanding which one I should remove. Please could someone add this function to this template?



An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. References to these sources are generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Please cite a more reliable source instead. If the only source you can find for the claims is one of these deprecated sources then you should not add the content in question. Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed). If you have checked the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the deprecated source guidance (or checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and verified that your edit is one of the limited exceptions, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Please do not do this unless you have first verified that this specific use of the deprecated source has broad support, especially for biographical articles: deprecated sources are liable to be removed on sight and persistent addition can lead to editing restrictions.



Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: This was a result of edit filter 869, which warns users who add citations to deprecated sources. In this case, the filter was tripped because you added a citation to thisismoney.co.uk, which is another URL for the Daily Mail. There's unfortunately no way to provide further contextual information about what in particular was wrong with an edit in the template. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Samwalton9: I wasn't aware it was Daily Mail, I've removed it, is there a technical solution to this? Its hard to know what to do when the warning doesn't tell you what you did wrong.John Cummings (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like T216001 would be the technical solution but as far as I'm aware the abuse filter is only being maintained by volunteers right now so I don't know how likely work on that is. Sam Walton (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh or I just read the comment there. T174554 might also be the right task for this. Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Email unsubscribed bug [ edit ]

I just received two notifications in quick succession, both reading Your registered email address [my email] has been unsubscribed due to multiple message delivery failures. You can verify your email address again. When I click through to that, it says it's already sent a confirmation code, but I don't have anything in my inbox other than the normal emails I get for notifications.

This appears to be the same issue Quisqualis experienced a few weeks ago, and possibly llywrch as well. I'm trying removing and re-adding my email address, but this issue is severing emails from accounts, which seems fairly concerning as far as account security goes. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That can happen due to the server handling your email being busy or whatever. It's likely that whatever company supports the server will deny there is any problem, but there can be. The simplest is to ignore it and try again after a few hours, possibly 24 hours. You need to also find the email spam folder and check that it does not hold anything relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so I guess it's just my ISP living up to its reputation. :/ {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Encountering an error when trying to edit my Watchlist [ edit ]

My Watchlist is big. Too big. 21,820 entries. So it thought I should edit it to shrink it. Clicked on Edit your list of watched pages, and got - Internal error [9f8d036a-a25a-44ff-95a0-d6558795037d] 2020-10-22 02:49:10: Fatal exception of type "WMFTimeoutException". Tried it again. Got the same message but with a different code in the square brackets. Ideas? HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Try Special:EditWatchlist/raw. If it works, great, if it doesn't, the error codes should be helpful to someone who knows how to interpret them. You can also visit pages you know are on your watchlist and unwatch them one at a time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
To expand on that, edit the raw list, click in the box with the list, then Ctrl-A then Ctrl-C to select all and copy. Then paste that into a text editor and save a copy to a file on your computer. Keep that as a backup in case you ever want to find something you had watched. You now need to work out how to prune the list. You could just empty it (press Delete after Ctrl-A) and save, or keep your subpages or use something more clever to delete some items such as all rows with "User:". Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks folks. I did simple edit of the raw list, removing IP Users and a few other obvious ones en masse. Reduced it to 8,977. Much better. And I can now edit using the tool on my Watchlist page. Will keep at it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

coordinates grouped by category [ edit ]

{{GeoGroup}} provides a link to a map with blue pointers for all the sets of coordinates on a page and a legend that lists the name of each set of coordinates. I have asked at Template talk:GeoGroup#different_colours? whether there is a way to group them by status/category in the legend, and display each group with a distinct colour. This would be useful for things such as proposed/operating/decommissioned on pages such as lists of power stations or height ranges on lists of buildings. Is there a template/tool that can do something like this? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 13:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing "the First" redirects [ edit ]

Could someone create a list of all pages with the word "I" (upper case) as a non-first word, where no parallel page "the First" exists? 217.132.248.209 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify your request. I assume you mean something like Ramesses I and not The King and I? And is there even consensus to redirect Ramesses the First to Ramesses I ? RudolfRed (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
IP, you are going to get a list of 13,000+ articles that includes things like How I Met Your Mother, most likely. That search returns a lot of redirects, though, and someone over at Wikipedia:Request a query might be able to exclude redirects for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why not.
Also I think you'd actually want to filter for titles where:
  • The title contains a (for the sake of simplicity, potentially valid) Roman numeral (something \b[MDCLXVI]+\b), AND:
  • This Roman numeral either is:
    • ( At the end of the title, OR:
    • Immediately followed by opening parentheses, or the word "of", or a comma ((?= \(| of|\,)), or any other pattern that might be common for disambiguating royalty but unusual after "I" as a pronoun. )
  • AND The word prior to the Roman numeral consists of a capital letter followed by lowercase letters (but does not necessarily match \b[A-Z][a-z]+\b, due to diacritics).
False positives would be greatly reduced without losing much, but you'd still catch a few weird ones where the pronoun follows a verb, which (unlike "and") does get capitalized in song titles like "It Was I". This is probably not common enough to bother blacklisting specific words. ―cobaltcigs 11:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Should MediaWiki:Newpages-summary mention Special:NewPagesFeed? [ edit ]

On Special:RecentChanges, for example, there is a big header listing all of the alternate ways that you can look at recent changes -- but on Special:NewPages there's nothing. It seems to me like there ought to be some mention of Special:NewPagesFeed, which is currently accessible only through a roundabout way of following a link to Wikipedia:New pages patrol and clicking on the header link to the newpagefeed there. jp×g 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How to add a div id based on a counter [ edit ]

Is it possible to assign/rename a div id based on a counter using TemplateStyles? I'm looking to add an anchor to each thumbimage via this style.css (implemented at this test page) with each ID numbered using the figure-n-counter parameter. thanks in advance of any advice/assistance/ T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No, IDs cannot be changed in CSS, only by JavaScript. And even that I guess most wouldn't do. Lua may be able to do what you want if you hand-roll the thumbing of the images (i.e., use wiki syntax to display an image and then "thumb" it using Lua). That solution of course would be brittle and possibly would not display as expected into the future. --Izno (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:FAQ [ edit ]

Is there similar template which would allow us to add "recommendation"? There is Template:FAQ but I have no particular question and answer but I would like to mention something, additional explanation for talk page. It would be useful in articles which are often moved from correct to incorrect tittles. Something similar to Template:Correct title but for talkpage. Eurohunter (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Name [ edit ]

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I find some of the article names are in red instead of white. Can you explain the reason. Cheers.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Red is a link to an article that doesn't exist, either because it was deleted or because it hasn't been created yet. Popperman99 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Red link. Graham87 04:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Order of fields on top [ edit ]

Is there a way to configure the order of fields on the top right? I believe previously watchlist and contributions were to the left of preferences and sandbox. Contributions is something I use often, and since it is now next to Log out, I sometimes accidentally click on Log out - which is a total disaster, because I get logged out of all devices, and it costs me half an our to login again. If I had sandbox or preferences next to Log out, it would have been much safer.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A dumb workaround could be to create a second Contributions link called "My Edits" or something like that, to the right of the Sandbox link. Look at my vector.js for "Add link at top for Tools page" to see how to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There's also a script to confirm logouts by Writ Keeper, as discussed in this village pump thread. Graham87 04:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, both solutions should work. I installed the logout confirmation for the time being, will see how convenient it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandbox was never to the right of either watchlist or contributions, but it's possible that prefs was between contribs and logout at some point. When the sandbox link was first added, it was the leftmost link; but I don't recall whether it took up its present position (between talk and prefs) before or after the notifications icons were added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Add this line to your common.js $('#pt-logout').hide(); // remove the logout linkGhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Also bookmark Special:Logout or add the link to your user page, so you could log out if you really need to. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Private replication? [ edit ]

Would it be technically possible, under present offerings and available data, for a private replication of Wikipedia (all languages) maintained off-site outside the WMF data center? It would be similar to Toolforge's replication server where the database has a relatively short update lag. -- GreenC 18:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not a service that is presently offered. You could maybe do it yourself by starting with a database dump and then using eventstreams to keep it up to date. ST47 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. -- GreenC 03:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reftoolbar 2.0 Auto-format [ edit ]

I believe I'm using Reftoolbar 2.0. There is a little icon in the upper left on it that looks like a whisk broom. Always before, when I clicked on that, it put dashes in an ISBN, such as:

|isbn=9789882208902

The tool is still on the toolbar. But as of today when I click it – on either Firefox or Chrome – it doesn't do anything. And it tends to get very faint when I click on it. If I refresh the page, I can see it again. But it still doesn't do anything. I've tried several ISBNs as a test and nothing happens. Is someone working on this tool at the moment? I think it worked earlier in the day. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. It seems the tool doesn't like the one particular ISBN above, but it is otherwise working as normal. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Random article may not be totally random. [ edit ]

Sometimes when I'm bored I just come to Wikipedia and click "random article." Probably on average once a week, although with much variance -- sometimes several times in one week, other times not at all for months.

Today I clicked "random article" and came up with the article on Caryocolum leucothoracellum. As soon as I saw it, I recognized this as an article I read a couple weeks ago. I suppose I could be wrong about it, but I'm moderately certain. It's not the name I remembered (although I did remember that it was a moth with a long-ish name) but the range. I'm a geography geek, and when I read a list of countries I visualize them as if on a map. That visual stays with me after the names are gone.

Anyway, I'm certain that I read this article very recently, as in "within the last couple of weeks." With over six million articles on Wikipedia, it seems to me the odds are enormous against hitting the same one twice in a small number of attempts.

This is not a complaint in the traditional sense. I'm not harmed in any way by reading an article twice. I'm not particularly bothered, offended, irritated, or anything like that. It just made me wonder how robust is the randomness of the "random article" function? Does it deserve to be reviewed?

I can't supply much in the way of technical data. I use Chrome and Firefox interchangeably. Today I'm using Chrome, but I can't say for sure which I was using last time I read this article. But it doesn't seem that this would be a user-side issue, anyway.

Apologies if this is posted in the wrong areas. I did browse the site for some time looking for a more appropriate place to post this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:54A6:7800:CA9:7F10:D708:558F (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty interesting. If this gets moved somewhere, someone please notify me because I want to follow this. First of all I would hope that the function is not entirely random, such as to exclude potentially vulgar or controversial topics. IP editor, can you confirm for us if you indeed read the same article in the last month? You should be able to check your web page history on your browsers. If it was not the same article but an article about another moth, that would still be interesting. Also, how many random articles would you estimate you had loaded in the time between these two articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
See this technical FAQ entry. Graham87 04:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Also to note that while it is improbable it does not mean it is impossible. If enough people asked two friends to pick a random number between 1 and 6 million, eventually you'll find a group who pick the same number. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Help is needed to make the header row with sorting icons sticky [ edit ]

Need help with the template CSS:

Help is needed to make both the main header row, and the header row with sorting icons, sticky. The second link below has a partially collapsed table that is narrower due to a separate header row with sorting icons. But when you scroll down only one row is sticky (stays visible). Need both header rows to remain sticky.




Collapsed table. See table wikitext here: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox124

Cumulative Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) deaths at start of each month
Date Jan 11 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1
World 1 259 2,977 40,598 224,172 371,166 508,055 675,060 848,445 1,010,639
Days to double 6 4 16 8 18 37 56 70 80 94
Countries and territories 1 1 8 125 175 185 186 192 191 193
  USA 0 0 1 2,850 55,337 102,640 126,573 151,265 182,162 204,642
  Brazil 0 0 0 159 5,466 28,834 58,314 91,263 120,828 142,921
  India 0 0 0 38 1,147 5,394 17,400 36,511 65,288 98,678
  Mexico 0 0 0 28 1,732 9,779 27,121 46,000 64,158 77,163
  UK 0 0 0 1,789 26,771 38,489 43,730 46,119 41,501 42,143
  Italy 0 0 29 12,430 27,967 33,415 34,767 35,141 35,483 35,894
  Peru 0 0 0 24 943 4,371 9,504 19,021 28,788 32,396
  Spain 0 0 0 8,189 24,543 29,045 28,355 28,445 29,141 31,791
  France 0 0 2 3,514 24,342 28,746 29,760 30,147 30,494 31,746
  Iran 0 0 43 2,898 6,028 7,797 10,817 16,766 21,571 26,169
  Colombia 0 0 0 14 278 890 3,223 9,810 19,364 25,828
  Russia 0 0 0 17 1,169 4,855 9,536 14,058 17,299 20,891
  South Africa 0 0 0 5 103 683 2,657 8,005 14,149 16,734
  Argentina 0 0 0 24 215 530 1,283 3,466 8,498 16,519
  Chile 0 0 0 12 227 1,054 5,688 9,457 11,289 12,741
  Ecuador 0 0 0 75 900 3,358 4,527 5,702 6,556 11,355
  Indonesia 0 0 0 136 792 1,613 2,876 5,131 7,417 10,740
  Belgium 0 0 0 705 7,594 9,467 9,754 9,841 9,897 10,020
  Germany 0 0 0 732 6,288 8,511 8,985 9,148 9,302 9,500
  Canada 0 0 0 89 3,082 7,092 8,566 8,929 9,117 9,291
  Iraq 0 0 0 50 93 205 1,943 4,741 7,042 9,181
  Turkey 0 0 0 214 3,174 4,540 5,131 5,691 6,370 8,195
  Bolivia 0 0 0 6 59 310 1,071 2,894 4,966 7,931
  Pakistan 0 0 0 26 385 1,543 4,395 5,951 6,298 6,479
  Netherlands 0 0 0 1,039 4,795 5,956 6,113 6,147 6,215 6,397
  Egypt 0 0 0 46 392 959 2,953 4,805 5,421 5,914
  Sweden 0 0 0 180 2,586 4,395 5,333 5,743 5,820 5,893
  Philippines 0 0 1 88 568 957 1,266 2,023 3,558 5,504
  Bangladesh 0 0 0 6 168 650 1,847 3,111 4,281 5,251
  Romania 0 0 0 69 717 1,262 1,651 2,343 3,621 4,825
  Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 10 162 503 1,649 2,866 3,897 4,768
  China 1 259 2,873 3,321 4,643 4,645 4,648 4,668 4,730 4,746
  Ukraine 0 0 0 17 272 718 1,173 1,709 2,605 4,193
  Guatemala 0 0 0 1 16 102 746 1,924 2,760 3,246
  Poland 0 0 0 33 644 1,064 1,463 1,716 2,039 2,513
  Panama 0 0 0 24 178 330 620 1,397 1,995 2,364
  Honduras 0 0 0 2 71 201 485 1,312 1,858 2,323
  Morocco 0 0 0 36 170 205 228 353 1,141 2,152
  Dominican Republic 0 0 0 51 301 502 747 1,160 1,710 2,105
  Kazakhstan 0 0 0 2 25 41 188 793 1,878 2,075
  Portugal 0 0 0 160 989 1,410 1,576 1,735 1,822 1,971
  Ireland 0 0 0 71 1,232 1,652 1,736 1,763 1,777 1,804
   Switzerland 0 0 0 373 1,422 1,656 1,683 1,703 1,725 1,782
  Algeria 0 0 0 35 450 653 912 1,210 1,510 1,736
  Japan 0 0 5 57 432 892 974 1,011 1,296 1,571
  Israel 0 0 0 21 223 285 319 493 961 1,543
  Afghanistan 0 0 0 4 64 265 774 1,283 1,406 1,458
  Moldova 0 0 0 3 119 295 547 778 995 1,320
  Ethiopia 0 0 0 0 3 11 103 274 809 1,198
  Nigeria 0 0 0 1 58 287 590 879 1,013 1,112
  Kyrgyzstan 0 0 0 0 8 16 62 1,397 1,060 1,065
  Armenia 0 0 0 3 33 139 453 749 881 963
  Oman 0 0 0 1 11 49 176 421 685 935
  Australia 0 0 0 20 92 103 104 196 652 886
  Costa Rica 0 0 0 2 6 10 15 140 418 880
  Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 12 68 152 185 324 603 849
  El Salvador 0 0 0 0 9 46 174 448 717 843
  Paraguay 0 0 0 3 9 11 17 47 308 841
  Sudan 0 0 0 2 31 286 572 746 823 836
  Belarus 0 0 0 0 89 235 392 559 681 833
  Bulgaria 0 0 0 8 66 140 230 383 629 825
  Austria 0 0 0 128 584 668 705 718 733 799
  Hungary 0 0 0 16 323 526 585 596 615 781
  Serbia 0 0 0 13 179 243 277 573 713 749
  North Macedonia 0 0 0 9 77 133 302 486 603 739
  Kenya 0 0 0 1 17 64 148 341 577 711
  Puerto Rico 0 0 0 8 54 136 153 219 434 661
  Czechia 0 0 0 31 236 320 349 382 424 655
  Denmark 0 0 0 90 452 574 605 615 624 650
  Venezuela 0 0 0 3 10 14 48 158 381 621
  Kosovo 0 0 0 1 22 30 41 217 515 615
  Kuwait 0 0 0 0 26 212 354 447 531 610
  Azerbaijan 0 0 0 5 24 63 213 448 534 591
  Yemen 0 0 0 0 2 81 313 494 567 588
  Libya 0 0 0 0 3 5 24 74 237 551
    Nepal 0 0 0 0 0 8 29 56 228 498
  Uzbekistan 0 0 0 2 9 15 26 143 322 471
  Cameroon 0 0 0 6 61 191 313 391 414 418
  UAE 0 0 0 6 105 264 315 351 384 416
  South Korea 0 0 18 165 248 271 282 301 324 415
  Greece 0 0 0 49 140 175 192 206 266 391
  Albania 0 0 0 13 31 33 65 157 284 387
  Palestine 0 0 0 1 2 5 11 85 173 368
  Lebanon 0 0 0 12 24 27 34 59 167 361
  Finland 0 0 0 17 211 320 328 329 335 344
  Zambia 0 0 0 0 3 7 24 151 288 332
  Senegal 0 0 0 0 9 42 112 205 284 311
  Myanmar 0 0 0 1 6 6 6 6 6 310
  Ghana 0 0 0 5 17 36 112 182 276 301
  Croatia 0 0 0 6 69 103 107 145 186 280
  Norway 0 0 0 28 204 236 250 255 264 274
  DRC 0 0 0 8 31 71 169 214 258 272
  Bahrain 0 0 0 4 8 19 87 148 190 246
  Tunisia 0 0 0 10 41 48 50 50 77 246
  Madagascar 0 0 0 0 0 6 20 106 192 230
  Haiti 0 0 0 0 7 41 105 161 201 229
  Zimbabwe 0 0 0 1 4 4 7 67 202 228
  Qatar 0 0 0 2 10 38 113 174 197 214
  Syria 0 0 0 2 3 5 9 43 112 197
  Angola 0 0 0 2 2 4 13 51 108 183
  Malawi 0 0 0 0 3 4 16 114 175 179
  Montenegro 0 0 0 2 7 9 12 49 100 170
  Mauritania 0 0 0 0 1 23 128 157 159 161
  Nicaragua 0 0 0 1 4 35 74 116 137 151
  Slovenia 0 0 0 13 91 108 111 117 128 138
  Malaysia 0 0 0 43 102 115 121 125 127 136
  Mali 0 0 0 0 26 77 116 124 126 131
  Luxembourg 0 0 0 23 90 110 110 114 124 124
  Cuba 0 0 0 6 61 83 86 87 94 122
  Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 75 121
  Cote d'Ivoire 0 0 0 0 14 33 66 102 115 120
  Gambia 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 9 96 112
  Eswatini 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 40 91 109
  Jamaica 0 0 0 1 7 9 10 10 21 107
  Suriname 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 26 67 104
  Somalia 0 0 0 0 28 78 90 93 98 99
  Bahamas 0 0 0 0 11 11 11 14 43 95
  Lithuania 0 0 0 7 45 70 78 80 86 92
  Congo 0 0 0 0 9 20 41 56 78 89
  Chad 0 0 0 0 3 65 74 75 77 85
  Equatorial Guinea 0 0 0 0 2 12 12 83 83 83
  Liberia 0 0 0 0 16 27 36 75 82 82
  Guyana 0 0 0 2 8 12 12 20 37 78
  Tajikistan 0 0 0 0 0 47 52 60 68 76
  Trinidad and Tobago 0 0 0 3 8 8 8 8 22 75
  Uganda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 32 75
  Sierra Leone 0 0 0 0 7 46 60 67 70 72
  Niger 0 0 0 3 32 64 67 69 69 69
  Guinea 0 0 0 0 7 23 33 46 59 66
  French Guiana 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 43 59 66
  Estonia 0 0 0 4 52 68 69 69 64 64
  Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 59 62 62
  Jordan 0 0 0 5 8 9 9 11 15 61
  Djibouti 0 0 0 0 2 24 54 58 60 61
  Mozambique 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 11 23 61
  Cabo Verde 0 0 0 1 1 4 15 23 40 60
  Thailand 0 0 0 12 54 57 58 58 58 59
  Burkina Faso 0 0 0 14 43 53 53 53 55 57
  Guadeloupe 0 0 0 5 12 14 14 14 16 57
  Gabon 0 0 0 1 3 17 42 49 53 54
  Andorra 0 0 0 12 42 51 52 66 53 53
  Guam 0 0 0 2 5 5 5 5 10 49
  South Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 10 38 46 47 49
  Togo 0 0 0 1 9 13 14 18 27 48
  Uruguay 0 0 0 1 15 22 27 35 44 48
  Slovakia 0 0 0 0 23 28 28 29 33 48
  San Marino 0 0 0 26 41 42 42 42 42 42
  Mayotte 0 0 0 0 4 23 35 39 40 42
  Benin 0 0 0 0 2 3 21 36 40 41
  Georgia 0 0 0 0 6 12 15 17 19 40
  Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 1 8 24 27 33 39
  Latvia 0 0 0 0 15 24 30 32 34 37
  Lesotho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 31 36
  Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 34 35
  Malta 0 0 0 0 4 7 9 9 12 34
  Maldives 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 16 28 34
  Jersey 0 0 0 2 20 29 31 31 32 32
  Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 16 29
  Singapore 0 0 0 3 15 23 26 27 27 27
  Belize 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 13 26
  Aruba 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 10 26
  New Zealand 0 0 0 1 19 22 22 22 22 25
  Isle of Man 0 0 0 0 22 24 24 24 24 24
  Cyprus 0 0 0 8 20 17 19 19 21 22
  Sint Maarten 0 0 0 0 13 15 15 15 17 22
  Martinique 0 0 0 2 14 14 14 15 16 21
  Tanzania 0 0 0 1 17 21 21 21 21 21
  US Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 4 6 6 8 14 20
  Botswana 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6 16
  Reunion 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 5 16
  São Tomé and Príncipe 0 0 0 0 1 10 11 15 15 15
  Other 0 0 6 7 13 13 13 13 13 13
  Sri Lanka 0 0 0 2 7 10 11 11 12 13
  Guernsey 0 0 0 1 13 13 13 13 13 13
  Iceland 0 0 0 2 10 10 10 10 10 10
  Mauritius 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 10 10
  Bermuda 0 0 0 0 6 9 9 9 9 9
  Saint Martin 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 5 8
  Barbados 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7
  Comoros 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 7 7
  Papua New Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7
  French Polynesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
  Turks and Caicos 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 6
  Brunei 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
  Antigua and Barbuda 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3
  Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
  Fiji 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2
  Cayman Islands 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Curaçao 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Liechtenstein 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Monaco 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  British Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Burundi 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Montserrat 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Caribbean Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1




Narrower collapsed table. See table wikitext here: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox125

Cumulative Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) deaths at start of each month
Date Jan 11 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1


World 1 259 2,977 40,598 224,172 371,166 508,055 675,060 848,445 1,010,639
Days to double 6 4 16 8 18 37 56 70 80 94
Countries and territories 1 1 8 125 175 185 186 192 191 193
  USA 0 0 1 2,850 55,337 102,640 126,573 151,265 182,162 204,642
  Brazil 0 0 0 159 5,466 28,834 58,314 91,263 120,828 142,921
  India 0 0 0 38 1,147 5,394 17,400 36,511 65,288 98,678
  Mexico 0 0 0 28 1,732 9,779 27,121 46,000 64,158 77,163
  UK 0 0 0 1,789 26,771 38,489 43,730 46,119 41,501 42,143
  Italy 0 0 29 12,430 27,967 33,415 34,767 35,141 35,483 35,894
  Peru 0 0 0 24 943 4,371 9,504 19,021 28,788 32,396
  Spain 0 0 0 8,189 24,543 29,045 28,355 28,445 29,141 31,791
  France 0 0 2 3,514 24,342 28,746 29,760 30,147 30,494 31,746
  Iran 0 0 43 2,898 6,028 7,797 10,817 16,766 21,571 26,169
  Colombia 0 0 0 14 278 890 3,223 9,810 19,364 25,828
  Russia 0 0 0 17 1,169 4,855 9,536 14,058 17,299 20,891
  South Africa 0 0 0 5 103 683 2,657 8,005 14,149 16,734
  Argentina 0 0 0 24 215 530 1,283 3,466 8,498 16,519
  Chile 0 0 0 12 227 1,054 5,688 9,457 11,289 12,741
  Ecuador 0 0 0 75 900 3,358 4,527 5,702 6,556 11,355
  Indonesia 0 0 0 136 792 1,613 2,876 5,131 7,417 10,740
  Belgium 0 0 0 705 7,594 9,467 9,754 9,841 9,897 10,020
  Germany 0 0 0 732 6,288 8,511 8,985 9,148 9,302 9,500
  Canada 0 0 0 89 3,082 7,092 8,566 8,929 9,117 9,291
  Iraq 0 0 0 50 93 205 1,943 4,741 7,042 9,181
  Turkey 0 0 0 214 3,174 4,540 5,131 5,691 6,370 8,195
  Bolivia 0 0 0 6 59 310 1,071 2,894 4,966 7,931
  Pakistan 0 0 0 26 385 1,543 4,395 5,951 6,298 6,479
  Netherlands 0 0 0 1,039 4,795 5,956 6,113 6,147 6,215 6,397
  Egypt 0 0 0 46 392 959 2,953 4,805 5,421 5,914
  Sweden 0 0 0 180 2,586 4,395 5,333 5,743 5,820 5,893
  Philippines 0 0 1 88 568 957 1,266 2,023 3,558 5,504
  Bangladesh 0 0 0 6 168 650 1,847 3,111 4,281 5,251
  Romania 0 0 0 69 717 1,262 1,651 2,343 3,621 4,825
  Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 10 162 503 1,649 2,866 3,897 4,768
  China 1 259 2,873 3,321 4,643 4,645 4,648 4,668 4,730 4,746
  Ukraine 0 0 0 17 272 718 1,173 1,709 2,605 4,193
  Guatemala 0 0 0 1 16 102 746 1,924 2,760 3,246
  Poland 0 0 0 33 644 1,064 1,463 1,716 2,039 2,513
  Panama 0 0 0 24 178 330 620 1,397 1,995 2,364
  Honduras 0 0 0 2 71 201 485 1,312 1,858 2,323
  Morocco 0 0 0 36 170 205 228 353 1,141 2,152
  Dominican Republic 0 0 0 51 301 502 747 1,160 1,710 2,105
  Kazakhstan 0 0 0 2 25 41 188 793 1,878 2,075
  Portugal 0 0 0 160 989 1,410 1,576 1,735 1,822 1,971
  Ireland 0 0 0 71 1,232 1,652 1,736 1,763 1,777 1,804
   Switzerland 0 0 0 373 1,422 1,656 1,683 1,703 1,725 1,782
  Algeria 0 0 0 35 450 653 912 1,210 1,510 1,736
  Japan 0 0 5 57 432 892 974 1,011 1,296 1,571
  Israel 0 0 0 21 223 285 319 493 961 1,543
  Afghanistan 0 0 0 4 64 265 774 1,283 1,406 1,458
  Moldova 0 0 0 3 119 295 547 778 995 1,320
  Ethiopia 0 0 0 0 3 11 103 274 809 1,198
  Nigeria 0 0 0 1 58 287 590 879 1,013 1,112
  Kyrgyzstan 0 0 0 0 8 16 62 1,397 1,060 1,065
  Armenia 0 0 0 3 33 139 453 749 881 963
  Oman 0 0 0 1 11 49 176 421 685 935
  Australia 0 0 0 20 92 103 104 196 652 886
  Costa Rica 0 0 0 2 6 10 15 140 418 880
  Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 12 68 152 185 324 603 849
  El Salvador 0 0 0 0 9 46 174 448 717 843
  Paraguay 0 0 0 3 9 11 17 47 308 841
  Sudan 0 0 0 2 31 286 572 746 823 836
  Belarus 0 0 0 0 89 235 392 559 681 833
  Bulgaria 0 0 0 8 66 140 230 383 629 825
  Austria 0 0 0 128 584 668 705 718 733 799
  Hungary 0 0 0 16 323 526 585 596 615 781
  Serbia 0 0 0 13 179 243 277 573 713 749
  North Macedonia 0 0 0 9 77 133 302 486 603 739
  Kenya 0 0 0 1 17 64 148 341 577 711
  Puerto Rico 0 0 0 8 54 136 153 219 434 661
  Czechia 0 0 0 31 236 320 349 382 424 655
  Denmark 0 0 0 90 452 574 605 615 624 650
  Venezuela 0 0 0 3 10 14 48 158 381 621
  Kosovo 0 0 0 1 22 30 41 217 515 615
  Kuwait 0 0 0 0 26 212 354 447 531 610
  Azerbaijan 0 0 0 5 24 63 213 448 534 591
  Yemen 0 0 0 0 2 81 313 494 567 588
  Libya 0 0 0 0 3 5 24 74 237 551
    Nepal 0 0 0 0 0 8 29 56 228 498
  Uzbekistan 0 0 0 2 9 15 26 143 322 471
  Cameroon 0 0 0 6 61 191 313 391 414 418
  UAE 0 0 0 6 105 264 315 351 384 416
  South Korea 0 0 18 165 248 271 282 301 324 415
  Greece 0 0 0 49 140 175 192 206 266 391
  Albania 0 0 0 13 31 33 65 157 284 387
  Palestine 0 0 0 1 2 5 11 85 173 368
  Lebanon 0 0 0 12 24 27 34 59 167 361
  Finland 0 0 0 17 211 320 328 329 335 344
  Zambia 0 0 0 0 3 7 24 151 288 332
  Senegal 0 0 0 0 9 42 112 205 284 311
  Myanmar 0 0 0 1 6 6 6 6 6 310
  Ghana 0 0 0 5 17 36 112 182 276 301
  Croatia 0 0 0 6 69 103 107 145 186 280
  Norway 0 0 0 28 204 236 250 255 264 274
  DRC 0 0 0 8 31 71 169 214 258 272
  Bahrain 0 0 0 4 8 19 87 148 190 246
  Tunisia 0 0 0 10 41 48 50 50 77 246
  Madagascar 0 0 0 0 0 6 20 106 192 230
  Haiti 0 0 0 0 7 41 105 161 201 229
  Zimbabwe 0 0 0 1 4 4 7 67 202 228
  Qatar 0 0 0 2 10 38 113 174 197 214
  Syria 0 0 0 2 3 5 9 43 112 197
  Angola 0 0 0 2 2 4 13 51 108 183
  Malawi 0 0 0 0 3 4 16 114 175 179
  Montenegro 0 0 0 2 7 9 12 49 100 170
  Mauritania 0 0 0 0 1 23 128 157 159 161
  Nicaragua 0 0 0 1 4 35 74 116 137 151
  Slovenia 0 0 0 13 91 108 111 117 128 138
  Malaysia 0 0 0 43 102 115 121 125 127 136
  Mali 0 0 0 0 26 77 116 124 126 131
  Luxembourg 0 0 0 23 90 110 110 114 124 124
  Cuba 0 0 0 6 61 83 86 87 94 122
  Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 75 121
  Cote d'Ivoire 0 0 0 0 14 33 66 102 115 120
  Gambia 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 9 96 112
  Eswatini 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 40 91 109
  Jamaica 0 0 0 1 7 9 10 10 21 107
  Suriname 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 26 67 104
  Somalia 0 0 0 0 28 78 90 93 98 99
  Bahamas 0 0 0 0 11 11 11 14 43 95
  Lithuania 0 0 0 7 45 70 78 80 86 92
  Congo 0 0 0 0 9 20 41 56 78 89
  Chad 0 0 0 0 3 65 74 75 77 85
  Equatorial Guinea 0 0 0 0 2 12 12 83 83 83
  Liberia 0 0 0 0 16 27 36 75 82 82
  Guyana 0 0 0 2 8 12 12 20 37 78
  Tajikistan 0 0 0 0 0 47 52 60 68 76
  Trinidad and Tobago 0 0 0 3 8 8 8 8 22 75
  Uganda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 32 75
  Sierra Leone 0 0 0 0 7 46 60 67 70 72
  Niger 0 0 0 3 32 64 67 69 69 69
  Guinea 0 0 0 0 7 23 33 46 59 66
  French Guiana 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 43 59 66
  Estonia 0 0 0 4 52 68 69 69 64 64
  Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 59 62 62
  Jordan 0 0 0 5 8 9 9 11 15 61
  Djibouti 0 0 0 0 2 24 54 58 60 61
  Mozambique 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 11 23 61
  Cabo Verde 0 0 0 1 1 4 15 23 40 60
  Thailand 0 0 0 12 54 57 58 58 58 59
  Burkina Faso 0 0 0 14 43 53 53 53 55 57
  Guadeloupe 0 0 0 5 12 14 14 14 16 57
  Gabon 0 0 0 1 3 17 42 49 53 54
  Andorra 0 0 0 12 42 51 52 66 53 53
  Guam 0 0 0 2 5 5 5 5 10 49
  South Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 10 38 46 47 49
  Togo 0 0 0 1 9 13 14 18 27 48
  Uruguay 0 0 0 1 15 22 27 35 44 48
  Slovakia 0 0 0 0 23 28 28 29 33 48
  San Marino 0 0 0 26 41 42 42 42 42 42
  Mayotte 0 0 0 0 4 23 35 39 40 42
  Benin 0 0 0 0 2 3 21 36 40 41
  Georgia 0 0 0 0 6 12 15 17 19 40
  Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 1 8 24 27 33 39
  Latvia 0 0 0 0 15 24 30 32 34 37
  Lesotho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 31 36
  Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 34 35
  Malta 0 0 0 0 4 7 9 9 12 34
  Maldives 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 16 28 34
  Jersey 0 0 0 2 20 29 31 31 32 32
  Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 16 29
  Singapore 0 0 0 3 15 23 26 27 27 27
  Belize 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 13 26
  Aruba 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 10 26
  New Zealand 0 0 0 1 19 22 22 22 22 25
  Isle of Man 0 0 0 0 22 24 24 24 24 24
  Cyprus 0 0 0 8 20 17 19 19 21 22
  Sint Maarten 0 0 0 0 13 15 15 15 17 22
  Martinique 0 0 0 2 14 14 14 15 16 21
  Tanzania 0 0 0 1 17 21 21 21 21 21
  US Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 4 6 6 8 14 20
  Botswana 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6 16
  Reunion 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 5 16
  São Tomé and Príncipe 0 0 0 0 1 10 11 15 15 15
  Other 0 0 6 7 13 13 13 13 13 13
  Sri Lanka 0 0 0 2 7 10 11 11 12 13
  Guernsey 0 0 0 1 13 13 13 13 13 13
  Iceland 0 0 0 2 10 10 10 10 10 10
  Mauritius 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 10 10
  Bermuda 0 0 0 0 6 9 9 9 9 9
  Saint Martin 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 5 8
  Barbados 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7
  Comoros 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 7 7
  Papua New Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7
  French Polynesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
  Turks and Caicos 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 6
  Brunei 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
  Antigua and Barbuda 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3
  Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
  Fiji 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2
  Cayman Islands 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Curaçao 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Liechtenstein 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Monaco 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  British Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Burundi 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Montserrat 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
  Caribbean Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Done just add class="covid-sticky covid-sticky-2" to line 9 in User:Timeshifter/Sandbox125 to achieve the desired effect. Please ping me if there are any issues I should be around again at some point this week.
𝒬𝔔 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(unindent). Thanks Quantocius Quantotius. I tried the new sticky code you discussed. It did not work. I tried adding class="covid-sticky covid-sticky-2" and class=covid-sticky-2 and class=covid-sticky-2. I added them to line 9 and line 11. Various combinations were tried. Only one header row could be made sticky.

I created a sandbox where you could experiment:

Here is the current unaltered wikitext below. I am talking about the 2 lines starting with |-

|- class=covid-sticky
!Date!!Jan&nbsp;11!!Feb&nbsp;1!!Mar&nbsp;1!!Apr&nbsp;1!!May&nbsp;1!!Jun&nbsp;1!!Jul&nbsp;1!!Aug&nbsp;1!!Sep&nbsp;1!!Oct&nbsp;1
|- 
!<br>!!  !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For those who are interested there is related discussion about the "show all" and "collapse" buttons. Currently they work only on the top table when there is more than one partially collapsed table on a page. See:
User talk:Timeshifter#Separate but related questions.
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Some tracking categories that don't exist [ edit ]

Why isn't there a category that contains all archives of all talk pages (there used to be one) or one that contains all templates without documentation (there is a category named Category:Templates with missing or incorrect documentation, but it is only manually populated)? JsfasdF252 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

To automatically put templates into such a category would require changes to the software or a bot to check for missing documentation. I can't think of an effective way to check for incorrect documentation. Given that the biggest bang for the buck is documenting more frequently used templates, relying on manual requests for documentation is probably better than just putting every single template without documentation into a single category.
Is there some task you are interested in doing with the archives for every single talk page? You can find those following a standard naming convention with a database query (not my area of expertise but someone else here will know the details). isaacl (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ombuds vs Ombudsman? [ edit ]

{{Functionaries}} links to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:GlobalUsers&group=ombudsman, which produces no output. It looks like the right group name should be ombuds, not ombudsman. Is this something that got changed at some point in history and the template just never got updated? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was an name change in June of this year from Ombudsman to Ombuds, discussed here.--Snaevar (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Links updated — JJMC89(T·C) 21:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates in search results [ edit ]

When using our search system coordinates show up in the search results:...i.e when searching a country you get.....

Coordinates: 60°N 110°W / 60°N 110°W / 60; -110 Canada is a country in the northern....

Should we be omitting Template:Coord in our search results? Seems to be over data for no reason.--Moxy 🍁 00:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: What was your search term? Alternatively, the URL of the search results page would be helpful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Musical scores are temporarily disabled" appearing on music pages [ edit ]

I don't know if this is a thing that has been happening recently, but I've never seen it before: on some music pages, including the official pages for talking about music notation markup code in Wikipedia itself, instead of the score snippets that usually appear, I'm only seeing a box containing "Musical scores are temporarily disabled". This does not happen for all scores on the page, for instance on the page for Mozart's Symphony No. 40, snippets for movements 2 and 3 appear normally, but movements 1 and 4 have this error message. It's not an issue with my browser or internet connection either, since it happens in Firefox and Chrome on my PC over ethernet, and it also happens in Safari on my phone over cellular data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.100.205 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

See phab:T257066. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a bot that could replace some uncontroversial redirects and pipes? [ edit ]

Throughout the years, I've seen a bunch of redirects to some Polish cities were the only difference is a diacritic. Krakow (and Cracow) to Kraków, Gdansk to Gdańsk, Wroclaw to Wroclaw, Poznan to Poznań and Lodz to Łódż are most common (one could simply use the List of cities and towns in Poland for all major cities/towns). None of those are controversial, as this is not related to historical names like Danzig or Breslau, but simply to Polish names rendered in English without a diacritic. I wonder if there is a bot that start fixing it? For usage without a hyperlink we can't use an automated tool as it could mess up things like book titles or people's names or other rare but expected outlier, but when there is a link present and so the target is clear, there is zero reason to use the diacritc-less version, and zero chance of error (unintended change that would mess up the meaning/context) - this is at the same level as an uncontroversial, not ambigious spelling fix/etc. So how could we get this done? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't there use to be a bot that corrected links to redirects tagged {{R from misspelling}}? Seems it could be easily adapted to {{R to diacritic}}. —Cryptic 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

infobox scientist [ edit ]

What is the problem with Gertrude Nye Dorry's infobox? Her thesis is now shown in the article. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The template {{Infobox scientist}} wasn't showing the thesis section for the |thesis= (only for |thesis1= and/or |thesis2=). The example in Gertrude Nye Dorry could be fixed by using |thesis1=, |thesis1_url= and |thesis1_year=, but I've modificed the infobox template and it now works. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tracking category page without (empty) [ edit ]

Would there be a way to make a category page (that would be linked to by the main tracking category page) that only listed sub-categories that were full? Example: In Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters there are numerous subcategories that are (empty). It makes it a little hard to find subcategories that aren't empty when looking through the wall of text. It would be easier to go through if only non-empty subcategories were listed (on a separate linked-to page). Firestarforever (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There's probably a way to display only the non-0 categories with WP:Petscan and definitely a way with WP:Quarry. Consider a request at WP:RAQ. --Izno (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You could do a find on the page for " P)". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I put together a scraper here, if anyone's interested (excuse the messy code). Problem solved. Firestarforever (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If somebody would be willing to file a phab: request, I think that the devs could modify the mediawiki software in such a way that the subcategory entries on a category page are given one of two different classes - one to denote empty, the other to denote not-empty. Then we could use user CSS to hide one set or the other, as desired. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Flipping the order of a table [ edit ]

Per WP:SALORDER, if a table is ordered chronologically, it should start with the oldest entry at the top and have the newest entry at the bottom. I often discover lists that use the reverse order, as I assume people think readers are more likely to want to see the most recent entries than the oldest. Nevertheless, this is against Wikipedia's guidelines for stand-alone lists. The last one of these that I came across was List of Wales national rugby union team results, which has 731 entries. I would like to flip the order of the table, but due to its size, this would be very labour-intensive. Therefore I would like to ask if there is any way to perform this task quickly and easily? Any tips would be gratefully received. – PeeJay 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I just made the table sortable, which is an instant solution if not actually answering your question. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I think there is an offwiki tool specifically for this, but I don't have it to hand. VisualEditor can do this too with the use of Excel/LibreOffice (copy from VE, paste into Excel, sort the table, copy from Excel, paste back into VE). That will preserve the values, but I do not know about any styles, classes, or other attributes. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-44 [ edit ]

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought subpages were disabled in category namespace [ edit ]

There is a Wikipedia category named Wikipedia naming conventions/Transportation, which is a subpage of Wikipedia naming conventions. This is contrary to WP:SUBPAGE's claim about subpages being disabled in category namespace. Is this a bug or did somebody forget to disable subpages for categories? JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Or is WP:Subpages wrong? :) --Izno (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

'Geo: ...' doesn't link [ edit ]

Compare

What gives? AFAICT 'Geo:' isn't an interwiki thing, and even if it were, it would not render this way. But somehow

links? What's going on here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • It's a URI similar to http:, see geo URI scheme, so it formats the same way as a web link does in WikiCode:
Bare: Geo:blablablah -> Geo:blablablah
With a single set of square brackets: [Geo:blablablah] -> [6]
With a single set of square brackets a space and a word: [Geo:blablablah Blah] -> Blah
With two sets of square brackets (the wrong way!): [[Geo:blablablah]] -> [[7]]
By the way, [[:anything:everything:you:can:think:of]] will display as a wikilink, thanks to the : in the front: anything:everything:you:can:think:of.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think it is part of the data-values/geo library that we have loaded taking that over in the parser. You can open a phab ticket to further explain maybe, because I can't find wiki-specific documentation on it. — xaosflux Talk 00:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

AbuseFilter notice: rmspecials() will no longer remove whitespace when used in filters [ edit ]

Hello,

Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. .

We are making a change to the AbuseFilter extension, which may impact the behavior of some existing filters. The rmspecials() function currently removes spaces in addition to special characters. We will change it such that it will only remove special characters. The existing rmwhitespace() can be used to remove spaces whenever applicable.

As reported on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P12854 we believe at least one filter on your wiki has been identified to use the rmspecials() function. Please consider updating these filters by wrapping rmspecials() inside rmwhitespace() like this: rmwhitespace(rmspecials(....))

We need you to update the relevant filters within 2 weeks of this notice. If one of the community members with proper access is volunteering to take this on, we ask them to please respond below and notify User:Huji in their response or in the edit summary. If we don't hear back from you within 2 weeks, Huji will edit the relevant filters on your wiki per the global abuse filter maintainer policy, to ensure the filters won't break once the change is implemented. Thank you for your consideration!

Best regards,

--User:Huji (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC), sent via MediaWiki message delivery

Huji, message acknowledged, I think everything is taken care of on enwiki (I made the requested changes a week or so ago). Thank you for the notification. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
What is this?