Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Twinkle Rollback" includes error with articles with "Map" feature[edit]


On this certain article, Interstate 90 in New York, when I revert multiple vandalism by someone with the "Rollback" button in Twinkle by "comparing selected revisions", it gives me a dialogue to confirm that they have made 3 edits and I would like to revert them all. However, Twinkle keeps a "map" button that is most likely unintended.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notice: Stopping revert. Map

After map shows [1].

Does this occur to every article that has a "map" in it?

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The [1] with the external site logo just represents the logo in the link given. Right after the word "Map" shows the logo. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Myrealnamm. I assume this is in regards to this revision. Can you provide a screenshot to help me visualize what is going on? Is Twinkle rollback broken or does Twinkle rollback still revert the edits? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't get a screenshot anymore, but when I clicked "Rollback" (the blue button), all the content of the article disappears (which is normal) and shows the progress of the revert. Because there were 3 edits by the same user, Twinkle will ask "This user has made 3 edits in a row. Are you sure you want to revert them all" or something similar. However, in the "progress" of the revert, it shows:
Map (logo)
Replace (logo) with the link provided I said earlier. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD speedy deletion tool notification bug?[edit]

Regarding the speedy deletion nomination tool, I WP:G4'd a redirect and NOT an article. Twinkle then left a notification on the creator's page whilst simultaneously welcoming the user. Is this an intended feature for when an article gets CSD nominated if the user's talk page also needs to be created? I'm not sure if this is intended for when a redirect gets speedy delete nominated though. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thinking about it, I think the intent to welcome makes sense, just I think that the wording is a bit off with the "problem user welcome template" as it mainly talks about article policy. Fork99 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99. You can visit Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#speedy, scroll to "Welcome page creator when notifying with these criteria", and untick G4 if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlink and disambiguation pages[edit]

I am wondering what the Unlink tool should do on disambiguation pages. Edits like this aren't really helpful: manual removal of the entire entry is the correct action, not just unlinking of the term. Perhaps it would be best to just skip disambiguation pages and tell Twinkle users to deal with disambiguation pages by hand? Ping @Liz whose edits made me notice this issue. —Kusma (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, Liz doesn't answer pings, so if you want her to know about this discussion you'll need to drop a talk page note. Second, there's a checklist given when unlinking, so anything with (surname) or (disambiguation) should be unchecked by the user doing the unlinking.
That said, making it uncheck those pages automatically would prevent things like this from happening as often, so I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. I don't know a ton about the backend of Twinkle so I don't know if it would be able to detect if a page is a dab, though. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A third possible option would be to have an option like with WP:XFDC in which the user could specify "delink or remove entirely", but I somehow think the devs are going to throw forks at me for even suggesting it. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing entirely is often the right action for dabs, even if they don't have (disambiguation) in the title. Theoretically there might be a WP:DABMENTION elsewhere, but I would hope AfDs for such cases replaced the article by a redirect rather than deleting. There may also be rare cases where the deleted link is not the main topic (*[[Joe Redlink]], a singer with [[Deleted Band]]) but we probably want to delete those entries too. (And if the devs throw forks at us, we can use choose either version!) Certes (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have not done any deletions of widely linked pages for a while, so I am not too familiar with the current interface. Unchecking dabs and dab-like pages by default seems a good first step. I will let Liz know of this discussion. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. Since many admins tend to "specialize" in different areas, it would help to know where this problem is arising, is it with CSD-tagged articles, PRODS or pages deleted through the XFD processes. If we could specify when the behavior you find problematic is occurring, and there is some kind of consensus that this problem exists, if it's not a change with Twinkle, then it could be a matter of advising a half dozen admins to process deletions differently. For example, I only know of 5 or 6 admins who regularly handle PRODS so this might be a matter of retraining.
My only hesitation when this issue has come up before is we have to find a way of dealing this that can scale. We're not talking about checking links on a dozen articles a day but on hundreds of pages that are deleted daily. The current system is probably too blunt but I deleted an article the other day that had 94 links to other articles. While it's not much effort to scan a list of links, checking each link individually is not feasible with each page deletion. I'm not saying the current system is perfect (it obviously isn't) we are doing what we can with a decreasing number of admins. An admin I work with took a week off and the drafts that needed to be reviewed immediately piled up and we didn't "catch up" for days. I'll check back and see what y'all have to say about this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example specifically used above was the PROD of Clint Morris. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the technical side, Twinkle uses the API query ?action=query&list=backlinks to generate the list. This does not support filtering out or indicating disambiguation pages. To write a patch that filters out or indicates disambiguation pages, at least one additional API query would be needed.
To write a patch that detects (disambiguation) at the end of a title would be much easier, but would miss a lot of disambiguation pages.
I think XFDCloser is the most common source of backlink removal, since that would handle backlink removal for AFD.
In the case above, Twinkle's backlink remover is being used to help with PROD.
I'm not entirely sure what to patch here or if it's worth it since it is probably used infrequently, but am open to further ideas if someone wants to propose something specific, such as adding an "untick disambiguation pages" link to the backlink list page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In my honest opinion {{Uw-multiple-accts}} should also be accessible through Twinkle warning menu, right? I was astonished it wasn't added yet. Best, A09|(talk) 14:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You use it that often? Genuinely curious, given that I didn't even know it existed until just now. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A09. Looks like it's been used 60 times in 15 years. Not very common, but I suppose we can add it. By the way, you can also add it to your Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#warn -> custom warning templates to display -> edit items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Oh didn't even know this was an option, will set this up. A09|(talk) 08:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing tags showing up twice[edit]

The Tag portlet shows existing tags at the top. Sometimes these are listed twice, even though they're only present once in the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example? Nardog (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feature suggestion for XfD nominations[edit]

Twinkle's XfD nomination toolset should have a feature where it checks if the page creator is blocked from editing, and if so, skip placing an XfD notice on the user's talk page. This is an issue that I've been seeing a lot on many blocked/banned users' talk pages, where other editors have to constantly come and clean up the notices that were placed there, a good majority of them from Twinkle. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all blocks are permanent, though. Maybe Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery or similar would be more appropriate? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has come up before, and consensus was to err on the side of over-notification. I agree with an over-notification strategy. Blocked users may get unblocked, or may be indeffed and may still want to know what is happening to their articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything I don't see the reason why other editors have to constantly come and clean up the notices - they do no harm. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the latest example, User talk:BrownHairedGirl, the history is quite messy on that one! — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to allow user-level optouts by placing a configurable template on the talk page. By default, blocked and and even deceased users want notifications when their articles are being considered for deletion. (Not the deceased user themself, but their talk page watchers.) – SD0001 (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags for user-generated and BLP reference issues[edit]

Could {{user-generated}}, {{BLP one source}}, and {{BLP no footnotes}} be added to the Tag portlet? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa. Ticket created. You can also add it in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#tag -> Custom article/draft maintenance tags to display -> Edit items. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow adding deletion sorting categories to all XFD venues[edit]

As I've also mentioned in WT:Deletion process#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues, deletion sorting is meant to be used with all XfDs, not just AfD. This can be seen in {{Deletionlist}} which explicitly allows linking to any XfD page or even to PRODs from a deletion sorting page. I think this is an underutilised feature of deletion sorting that would become more widely used (and known) if Twinkle supported it. Nickps (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Custom tags can't be put in multiple issues[edit]

The Tag portlet will collect compatible tags into {{multiple issues}}, but custom tags (added in user preferences) can't be marked as compatible. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback: add reported users to watchlist[edit]

Hi, I am grateful to have Twinkle aid my anti-vandalism and anti-spam efforts. I would like a new feature: I should be able to automatically watchlist the userpages of whoever I report to AIV, UAA, etc. to stay aware of further vandalism developments. Thank you for considering this feature. Air on White (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Admins_and_patrollers/Reminders_or_edit_notifications_after_block_expiration EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it already do this? I feel like every time I file an SPI they end up on my watchlist. Or is it just for blocking? Primefac (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Twinkle settings, SPI is the only user-reporting page for which it adds the userpage to your watchlist. Air on White (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Figures. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issue when protecting AfDs[edit]

I thought I'd mentioned this, but don't see it in the archives. @Novem Linguae and others, is there any way to fix the issue where the protection has a format error with AfD because of the lack of line break. I usually catch it, but sometimes others (courtesy ping of thanks to @Bearcat) have to. With the AfD troll active there's a lot of semi'ing happening. Thanks either way and of course let me know if you need more info. Star Mississippi 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look into it. My first thought for a fix is to keep it on the first line and add a line break. Do you think that would work @Bearcat, or does it have to go on the second line? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the problem was that the template was before the page header at all, but I just did a test edit and indeed it was actually the lack of a line break — if I add a line break, the page works properly. So no, it's not that the template has to go on the second line, I just didn't realize that just inserting a line break would have worked the same way to fix the issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! I don't think it always happened, but seems to happen with every protected AfD now. Star Mississippi 13:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

@Meters, I agree with @AutisticAndrew and would support removal of the statement. Twinkle has a "revert good faith edits" feature on diff pages called "rollback (AGF)" that makes the above statement seem untrue to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say unless a reasonable attempt is made to improve the content rather than revert it (when the contribution has value), and an appropriate edit summary is used but that was lost in the shuffle years back. Maybe just restore that part? Certainly, that's how I've always interpreted it. As I've already said in a similar discussion at WT:ROLLBACK, it makes no difference to the "victim" what tool is used to make a revert. Either the reverter 'splained themselves, or they didn't, and that's what matters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that the page saying Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith., conflicts at least with Twinkle, Rollback for example is only for obvious vandalism as I'm fully aware, I just feel that with Twinkle having a revert (AGF) option that it causes conflict by saying Twinkle shouldn't be used for edits made in good faith as it has that option. - AutisticAndrew (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is misleading, yes. But we don't want to encourage people to click "rollback (AGF)" and leave the summary blank, either. That's still 90% as BITEy as using one of the other buttons. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any kind of undo/rollback with no edit summary, manual or with any tool, should be reserved for obvious vandalism; and if you use undo/rollback with an explanatory edit summary, it doesn't matter whether you are making the edit with a helper tool or script. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current state is a bit of a problem. I think the confusion arises with two different features of Twinkle; providing an easy Rollback/Undo option to any user (regardless of confirmed status) and providing canned warning templates. The 2021 diff above (listed by Suffusion of Yellow, edit by user:DKEdwards) separated the qualified "shouldn't be done unless" statement, into a definitive "shouldn't be done" statement, followed by qualifications in separate sentences. That wording still does a pretty good job of covering a difficult situation, and I don't think simply removing the definitive "don't" statement is the solution. AutisticAndrew thinks it is contradictory to have the statement "should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith" when Twinkle has an AGF option, but there's an and in that statement that he seems to have missed, and where is this supposed "AGF" option in Twinkle? I'm not aware of any "AGF" option when using Twinkle to undo an edit, and I very frequently use Twinkle to leave that user page messages about edits I have undone that may well have been originally made in good faith, but that were still a problem: POV edits; attempting to link to external images; unsourced claims; promotional additions; etc. There isn't much other than blatant vandalism that isn't possibly a good faith edit.
And why do we mention Huggle and Rollback at all? This is an article about using Twinkle, not a general article about undoing or revertng edits. Meters (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae:Where does the Twinkle "rollback (AGF)" show up? I don't believe I have ever seen this. Could this be a Huggle prompt instead? Meters (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle is a Windows application so is unable to affect links in the browser. The HTML link class is named tw-rollback-link-agf, with tw- probably meaning Twinkle, so all evidence points to it being Twinkle. Maybe visit your Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and make sure "Show rollback links on these pages" -> "Diff pages" is ticked and saved? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda not sure why "constructive" is there. Why would anyone even want to revert an edit that's constructive? Alpha3031 (tc) 12:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is too minor for all the talking this is generating. Let's just take a stab at fixing it. How's this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred wording (changes in bold): "Please take particular care with the rollback links provided by Twinkle. Only obvious vandalism qualifies for rollback without an edit summary. If you believe an editor's contribution was made in good faith, you should include an edit summary." DonIago (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit my edit :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either NL's or DI's version. Both are major improvements over the old language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead with my tweaks. Other editors are welcome to revert if they feel NL's version is preferable; I promise I won't get mad. :) DonIago (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback AGF's description[edit]

When using Twinkle's AGF option, the following popup appears: "An optional comment for the edit summary..." If this should not be optional, please change that wording.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TW doesn't leave Template:sharedipadvice if warned in Contribution page[edit]

Hi there,

I noticed that Twinkle stopped or doesn't leave warnings if warnings are made on the contributions page of an IP user. To reproduce:

  1. Go to an IP's contributions page, like this one.
  2. Hit the TW button.
  3. Click on Warn
  4. Give any warning, such as Uw-Vandalism1
  5. There is no {{sharedipadvice}} given.

Thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Could you take a look at this? Is this something I can change in Twinkle Preferences? Thx. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users abusing this tool to add {{One source}} template to stub pages[edit]

There are users abusing this tool to add the {{One source}} template to a lot of various stub pages even though the template advises against doing this. Please add documentation to the tool so that users stop doing this. Ergzay (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for the {{More citations needed}} template which people abuse using twinkle in the same way. Ergzay (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a user is abusing Twinkle, then that user should be dealt with at the usual locations (usually by talking to them first and then WP:ANI if that doesn't work). We shouldn't be gutting the tool unless everyone is misusing it. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac I didn't propose gutting it. I proposed documenting it. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it already documented on the /doc pages for the various templates? Twinkle has a disclaimer that the end user is responsible for all edits they make; we do not need to give template-specific warnings in the Twinkle documentation. Users misusing warning or maintenance templates should be notified of such behaviours. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwinkleStarter/enwiki's tag module misidentifying ptwiki tags[edit]

Hi! I've been working on TwinkleStarter to localize it to the Portuguese Wikipedia. I've been adapting the enwiki tag module, since it's "already setup", having only changed the tags themselves, nothing else, but I've encountered issues with tags being misidentified when they're already present in the page, more specifically, {{Sem notas|data=março de 2016}} and {{Corrigir}} (pt:Predefinição:Sem notas and pt:Predefinição:Corrigir) have been misidentified as {{Contextualizar}} (pt:Predefinição:Contextualizar), with Twinkle listing it under "Tags already present". I'm running the gadget in a webserver, so all I can give as reference is my repo. Any help would be immensely appreciated. BraunOBruno (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of existing tags is based on the box-{NAME} class that appears on the ambox element in the html, which on ptwiki appears to be controlled by ambox's |nome=. pt:Predefinição:Sem notas and pt:Predefinição:Corrigir both contain |nome=Contextualizar, which is the problem. – SD0001 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sillier issue than I thought it would be. Thank you so very much, @SD0001! BraunOBruno (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @SD0001, sorry to bother you, I'm a little in over my head here. The tagging seems to be working quite well, but when there is a (equivalent of) multiple issues tag and then I only leave one tag active (unchecking the others), Twinkle removes even the one that was supposed to stay ([2]), any clues on that? Again sorry and thank you. BraunOBruno (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Could potentially be due to a bug in twinkle-core. The intended behaviour is that the one tag should be removed as well as the multiple issues wrapper (assuming groupMinSize is 2), leaving the other tag. Try running the debugger if you're able to see the code which is causing the other tag to be removed. – SD0001 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD - Edit window colors[edit]

Hi, I am on Monobook skin, so there is a "Prod" tab that I click on to begin delete proposal. At Reason for proposed deletion the edit window appears as Black. When I type, it's also black, so I am typing blind. Question: any way to change colors? For regular Wikipedia edits, I have colors set like the old IBM green screen, i.e., black background with green text. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You appear to be using custom code at User:JoeNMLC/monobook.css. You might be the only person with this problem. It is likely you need to get someone technical to adjust your monobook.css code a bit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - @Novem Linguae, I ran several tests & changed both bg and text colors for the Edit window.Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new month section when unneeded[edit]

Theres a bug where if a talk page already has a warning section for the current, but the month isn't capitalized, twinkle will create a new month section if you use it to warn somebody (instead of just adding the new warning to the already existing month section). You can view this bug on my user talk page, where I tested it (check the june 2024 and June 2024 sections). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff or two of this bug in the wild? How often does a month warning heading get created that isn't capitalized? This is the first time I've ever heard of it. Anyway, I wonder if a different tool has a bug. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not common since most people remember to capitalize, but I could probably find an example, it will take a bit though Gaismagorm (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk: theres an example of it occurring. There is two sections for September 2023 since I added a section and didn't capitalize september, then somebody else used twinkle to warn and it created a new section Gaismagorm (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also It's not that it creates an uncapitalized month section, it's that it doesn't recognize an already existing section as existing if the existing section isn't capitalized, and it then creates a new one. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bug, the names of months are capitalized even in the middle of a sentence in English. Twinkle has no obligation to account for misspelled section names. Nardog (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok, my bad. sorry bout that! Gaismagorm (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]