Please block HITLHER (talk · contribs): Inappropriate username
Project:Village Pump/Flow
Flow is (sometime soon) going to be archived and undeployed from Wikipedia, which is going to involve a maintenance script moving every Flow page to a subpage and adding wikitext placeholder (phab:T371738). I'm thinking about, before that happens, running a bot to:
- Delete Flow pages that have an empty header and zero topics (like Talk:Wikimedia Release Engineering Team/SSD Sync Up/2019-03-05)
- Delete Flow pages that have no content other than a pointer to a /LQT Archive 1 page, and delete the /LQT Archive 1 page as well (like Extension talk:Vandal Brake and Extension talk:Vandal Brake/LQT Archive 1)
There are several hundred total of each type of page. I deleted a bunch manually earlier today.
Does this seem like a good idea.
and delete the /LQT Archive 1 page as well
...where the LQT archive page is empty as well, right?
Other than that, I agree, there's no reason to keep these empty pages around, especially if the maintenance script isn't going to attempt to delete them itself.
In said cases the /LQT Archive 1 should always be empty since if it had content it would have been copied to the Flow page. But yes I should check explicitly.
I reviewed the LQT archive 1 pages with substantive content. In a few places the Flow page was empty so I deleted the Flow page and moved the LQT archive over the Flow page (and removed the archive template). And there were a lot of other oddities.
Probably a lot of the /LQT Archive 1 pages can be deleted too (even if there is a Flow page with content it was based off of), since the vast majority of them have no content other than someone adding LiquidThreads, and then Flow replacing it.
Most of the ones that don't meet that description either contain only a pointer to old pre-anything archives (which are already in the Flow header). And there's a few cases where the LQT page contains wikitext because people mixed systems I guess ...
I've continued reviewing a bunch of Flow pages. There are several thousands pages to delete per the above criteria. And I manually deleted a ton of old leftover crap of every imaginable kind
What should be done with pages like User_talk:Thennicke that contain nothing other than a pointer to a wikitext archive, in user talk namespace? These differ from the /LQT cases because the user explicitly enabled Flow. I'm inclined to delete the Flow board, move the wikitext archive back to the base title, and remove the {{Archive}} template. The other option would be to do nothing and let the migration script handle it.
It also seems to be worthwhile to batch delete user talk pages that contain only the header and no Flow topics where the user in question has made few other edits. There are several thousand of them.
I manually reviewed the first ~100 cases of user talk pages that contain only the header and except for the above situation (repeated several times) every single one was either spam/out-of-scope/test edits that I deleted on-sight or some kind of useless platitude like "talk to me here", which I didn't bother pressing the delete button on but isn't worth letting the migration script move to a subpage on either.
There are a total of 5031 empty flow boards, 297 boards with nothing other than /LQT placeholders, and 722 user talk pages containing only a header of users with <50 global edits.
Let's get rid of at least the empty stuff. Those 722 can go as well as far as I'm concerned, but we might want a bit more review and consensus on that ?
It should be possible to update the maintenance script so that it automatically deletes Flow pages that have an empty header and zero topics. I see you (Pppery) commented about that at phab:T371738#10286448 already, so I'm just confirming that it is being looked into by the team.
For the completely-empty pages, I wonder if we might want to delete them without-log-entry, so that the empty wikitext page doesn't have the "this page was deleted" banner at the top as a cluttering-distraction? I believe that is technically possible. --- If folks here agree that this is a good idea, then we can ask the team to make it so.
For the "almost empty" pages, I agree those would need to be examined manually. Personally, I agree with both of you that those pages can probably just be deleted, once they've been checked for edge-cases.
Thanks again for all your associated efforts and thoughts on this, Pppery! It's deeply appreciated.
I think deleting things without producing a log entry is downright scary and contrary to the wiki way of every action being logged.
On other issues, I assumed from the fact that my comment on phab:T371738#10215964 wasn't responded to and a maintenance script was merged and run without doing any of those things that the WMF was disclaiming interest in implementing them and thus the task fell to me to do it myself - I was prepared to run Project:Requests for permissions/Flow cleanup bot (and still am).
Even if the WMF does do that, though, I learned quite a bit from this experience, and the code I wrote there I also used to manually clean up a bunch of pages that really did need manual review.
Bump. The Flow maintenance script run is approaching soon. Does the WMF plan to do things for me, or should I run my mass delete bot.
While I technically could grant rights myself since I'm now a crat, I would prefer if a different crat were to handle that request which has now languished for a month.
TLDR: If you would like to do so, please go ahead, with our thanks.
Details: I checked again and our script won't delete empty pages at first, we just move them. But we would then delete the completely-empty pages when we convert the pages to wikitext in the future.
My hesitation about picking between the two options, was about whether it's better to (A) leave a usertalkpage with a temporarily useless link at top (which would become a redlink, once the Flow-subpage is deleted), like at fr:s:Discussion utilisateur:Mattflaschen-WMF, or (B) to leave it with a deletion-log entry at the top, like at User talk:Quiddity_II, which might be confusing/worrying/off-putting for the user or folks who go there. But I'm probably overthinking it.
I'll add a note of support at the bot Request, to see if that helps another 'crat to expedite it (or make you more comfortable doing so yourself). Thanks again.
Hi all. As mentioned in Tech News, starting on December 16, Flow/Structured Discussions pages will be automatically archived and set to read-only on this wiki.
As one of the busiest pages on this wiki using Flow, I plan to move this page earlier than that. I will likely do so on Thursday or Friday this week, or early next week, depending on developer availability (in case anything doesn't go smoothly).
Once moved, this page will become a standard discussion page (using the newer DiscussionTools system instead), but existing Flow-threads will remain active/editable until the 16th. I will also copy across the existing headers from the Flow page to the new page.
For background information on the software-decision, please see Structured Discussions/Deprecation. Please let me know if you have any questions about this upcoming page-move. Thanks.
We really need to find an archive bot for this server. Suggestions anyone ?
I haven't been able to get into an agreement with P858snake (Topic:Y8gnvyzbtx9d9ugw), but I'm concerned with this change. I don't know of another wiki that takes such a punitive approach (i.e, allowing very few users to create a local userpage), and in my opinion, suitably established users (say those with 100 edits at least) should be able to create local pages here. Hence putting this here for discussion.
I support having the filter in its current state. My impression from watching the abuse log is that filter 95 blocks of attempts at creating user pages that are meaningful are rare, and blocks of attempts at creating user pages that specifically meaningful and relevant to this wiki in particular and wouldn't be better off in meta or elsewhere are pretty much non-existent. To back that up somewhat at least I looked at the filter 95 blocks currently showing in the first page of the abuse log:
- 31 were new users, less than a few days old
- 16 spam
- 9 nonsense/gibberish/test
- 6 personal info (name/cv/email)
- 5 were from older accounts, at least a few weeks old (but only 1 had a large number of edits overall)
- 1 blank
- 2 off-topic article
- 1 personal info (street address)
- 1 spam
From that sample it does seem that a weaker filter would still mostly be effective, but it also does not support any particular need to weaken the filter either.
I am strongly opposed to having it for all but new users because I am an example of a user with a valid need for a local user page without being the last of my kind.
I will be reducing it to 20 edits again if User:P858snake does not object here.
I also second what User:Pppery said about how this should be discussed here rather than on IRC. IRC logs are not permanently retained and it is not transparent.
Well, Clump immediately reverted Jasper's change (which was to completely disable the filter, oddly).
Yes, both those events were well prior to Jasper's two posts above.
Restoring these translation units introduces a visual bug at Help:Templates#Passing_parameters_to_other_templates (see the incorrectly formatted 'works properly'). This can be fixed by making the tvar tags into translate tags (in reversed order, i.e. open tvar = closed translate). Is there another solution, or maybe this is a phab: issue?
For the extensions developed by us (HalloWelt), we would like to add a template to the extension talk pages that refers support questions to our external support site.
We want to consolidate our efforts to support the community and since we already have a place where we offer free support, we need a way to redirect questions there. Otherwise, questions tend to get overlooked.
Does anyone see an issue with adding such a template?
This seems like a good idea, sure.
Sounds reasonable to me, as long as support is freely given.
@MLRodrigue: As a starter, I've created Template:External help for this – is that sufficient?
Looks good to me
Perfekt, thanks a lot for creating the template. We will start using it.
Hello everyone,
I'm a product manager for Wikibase Cloud for several months now. When I tried to create a page, it showed me this error:
| Editing the main namespace is limited for new users.
This site is for documenting the MediaWiki software. It is not the wiki that you set up for your class, workplace, or personal use, nor is it Wikipedia. If you want to create a Wikipedia article, please start here. Think this is an error? Ask at Project:Village pump. |
At the same time, I can freely edit the page that my colleagues create.
Could you please grant me permissions to create pages?
Thanks!
This is because an abusefilter is set that prevents new and unregistered users from creating mainspace articles.
I have added an exemption to the AbuseFilter, I think you should be ok now.
Hello everyone,
The next language community meeting is coming up next week, on November 29th, at 16:00 UTC (Zonestamp! For your timezone <https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1732896000>). If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_and_Product_Localization/Community_meetings#29_November_2024>.
This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.
Looking forward to seeing you at the language community meeting! Cheers, Srishti 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
the message should be more detailed like enwiki
Why? This wiki does not have a culture of randomly copying stuff from elsewhere for the sake of doing so.
Moved discussion from Project:Support desk: Topic:Ycnzkboml8e897kr.
Where to put orphaned Manual:File page warnings in Manual:Contents?
Suggestion from @Shirayuki: "Since the only page passing both dev=y and admin=y in {{Hubs}} is Manual:Maintenance scripts, I personally think it would be good to place it near that."
@Shirayuki Could you assist with this implementation? I'm unsure how to do it.