Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages/Archive 4

Discussions about the MediaWiki namespace should take place mainly on this page to avoid confusion

Post a new question if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. But consider skimming to see if your concern is already being discussed. Also, do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded but it will usually respond eventually and add your question to the page multiple times!

Summary of Archives

Numbered items correspond to Sections in the relevant Archive page.

/Archive 1
1. Bug reports changed to Contact us and meta:MediaWiki feature requests and bug reports created (read more)
2. ~~~~ signatures cannot be added to messages. They must be put in manually (read more)
3. {{subst:test}} should be used when a user makes an edit while testing the wikipedia, it should be posted on a user's or anon's talk page, not on the article itself (read more)
4. More MediaWiki custom messages can be added without slowing down the server (read more)

Issues relating to MediaWiki software implementation have been moved to m:Message substitution. This page should be for editorial decisions relating to the use of the software.

Protected page

Considering that the link in the sidebar that says "Edit this page" is replaced with plaintext "Protected page", it must be possible to have "Edit this page" be replaced with a link Protected page. --Ed Cormany 04:38 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As soon as the caches update that won't be plain text. It was changed to a link yesterday, but you don't get to see this until the page is edited. It should work now on the main page, which has been edited since the feature was implemented. Currently, the link points to Wikipedia:Protection policy, but it has been suggested that something more suitable for non-sysops being linked to instead so I am writing something at Wikipedia:This page is protected which will be linked to from all protected pages once the cache updates. Angela . 20:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how does it look to sysops? Noldoaran (Talk) 20:33, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sysops see the normal "Edit this page" link. I've changed it now, so it will point to Wikipedia:This page is protected which is hopefully a bit more useful for non-sysops than just a piece of text saying protected page. Angela . 20:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I dislike the new "Remove page protection" text. Was this discusses? Can we change it back to "unprotect this page"? Martin

This is also being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Unprotectthispage

Protecting/Unprotecting MediWiki messages

Suggestions for which messages do not need to be protected can be made here

I think we need to have a discussion on which, if any, messages should be unprotected. Personally I feel that none of them should be unprotected (not talking about custom here) as they are part of the interface. Although they could quickly be reverted, they are much more visible, and as soon as vandals learn about them, they will look mighty tasty. I don't see why a regular user could not just leave a message on the talk page, which anyone should do anyway before a change, and then an admin could make the actual change. If no admins are around to see tha talk message, then they wouldn't have been around to see any vandalisms either. Dori | Talk 14:52, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Agreement -- Timwi 14:55, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Talk Pages - Backward link request

Is there any chance of adding a backward link from a talk page to the page it is talking about? It's a little annoying to have to step back four or five pages to return to the page after an edit (or more if you've been browsing the talk history, for example!).

I would suggest making the second part of the heading (after Talk:) into a link back to the main page.

HappyDog 17:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By 'main page' I of course meant the article the Talk page refers to. HappyDog 17:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question completely, but there is a link to the article page from that article's talk page: 1. down the bottom "View article", and in the sidepanel "This page">"View article". --snoyes 17:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There already is on the links to the left (i.e. for a Talk: there is a View article, for a User talk, there is a View user page; for a Wikipedia talk: there is a View meta page, etc.). Is that good enough? (through conflict edit) Dori | Talk 17:36, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

I see it now - it's not very clear, and importantly there is no equivalent link at the top of the page. I feel it would be a little more intuitive to make the second part of the page header (after Talk:) into a link back as well. Seriously, I double checked before writing this that there wasn't anything I'd missed, and I still didn't spot it! HappyDog 17:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, can be hard to find quickly, even knowing where it is... Might be better if the link on the left was < View article instead of just [[MediaWiki:Articlepage|Template:Articlepage]]. (And also < View meta page instead of just [[MediaWiki:Wikipediapage|Template:Wikipediapage]].) Κσυπ Cyp 20:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What do people (that means you) prefer, this:

Edit this page

Should custom messages be protected

Is there any reason to protect the ones listed here? As long as people use {{SUBST:...}} rather than {{MSG:...}}, they will be able to check the text as soon as the page is saved and it won't change later if someone does vandalise the message. I suggest that all custom messages be unprotected. Which of the non-custom ones need protecting can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text. Angela . 06:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The important thing is encouraging use of SUBST, which is less mnemonic. At least we should make SUBST the suggested text on the pages these texts are listed on, like Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. --Pakaran 06:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is this page protected, come to that? Unprotecting... Martin 04:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we leave unprotected pages in the mediawiki namespace, can they be used to DoS the pedia by pasting hundreds of megs of text into them, since pages are locked in memory? -- Pakaran 06:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They could use up large amounts of memory whether the pages are protected or not, since they can just create new pages. Memcached has a memory limit in the hundreds of MB and drops least recently used items when it hits it. Single items can be up to 1MB. It probably wouldn't cause DoS, it would probably just slow things down a bit. However, it's important that all of the messages required for reverting a message are protected. -- Tim Starling

Ok thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators says that only sysops may edit in MediaWiki namespace, which I took as meaning that only sysops could create new articles. I'd guess that if someone uploads tens of megs in order to slow the wiki down by HDD seek times (tens of ms at most) they're not a particularly imaginitive vandal. -- Pakaran 03:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A custom message for flat alphabetical index?

Lots of lists grow so large they deserve an alphabetical index. That produces a silly TOC which most such pages switch off in favour of a flat, oneline index using anchor tags. I think that flat index might usefully be made into a custom message. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 06:59, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Here's one but I don't know what to call it so I haven't made it a message yet. Angela .

__NOTOC__ [[#A|A]] [[#B|B]] [[#C|C]] [[#D|D]] [[#E|E]] [[#F|F]] [[#G|G]] [[#H|H]] [[#I|I]] [[#J|J]] [[#K|K]] [[#L| L]] [[#M|M]] [[#N|N]] [[#O|O]] [[#P|P]] [[#Q|Q]] [[#R|R]] [[#S|S]] [[#T|T]] [[#U|U]] [[#V|V]] [[#W|W]] [[#X|X]] [[#Y|Y]] [[#Z|Z]]

MediaWiki:compactTOC? -- User:Docu
MediaWiki:alphatoc? Dysprosia 07:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- MediaWiki:alphatoc gets my vote! Noldoaran 21:47, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed that the the ''__NOTOC__'' in the CompactTOC entry is not revealed on the main article by the <nowiki> tag (it is however revealed here: I assume this is because Talk pages behave differently). I actually got as far as trying to insert it into the explanatory text before realising this. Phil 15:21, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

This is semi off topic, but since the generatin subst message would have to be changed as well, what the heck. Um. At the Finnish Wikipedia I made one of those compact tocs from memory just because I didn't feel like hunting down one here. The alphabet is mostly the same, only a handful of differing letters. Anyway, as I did it from memory, I put the text: Go to letter → (well, obviously the equivalent in Finnish) in front of the toc. I am just wondering, if that might be a good idea here as well? Is the arrow symbol "safe"? If not, maybe -> might serve. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 15:25, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Without objection I shall be implementing the above in a few hours, and then probably spend some time hunting down as many as possible of the compact indexes already created, to standardize. In the summaryline, "→" turns into a number code, which is quite curious, but I don't think applies to the subst tags. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:53, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Cimon, do you have an example? Maybe it's just because it's 6am and I'm not really awake, but I don't really know what you're talking about. Angela . 05:58, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't get it either :) Dori | Talk 06:01, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

The arrow converts to numbers because it's a Unicode glyph, if you were wondering. Perhaps it's not best to use Unicode since not all operating systems support it. Dysprosia 06:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I could see the error, but I just understood it. I think I like it better without the message, but if there should be a message I would prefer Go to letter: instead. Dori | Talk 06:07, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, in plain, which of the following is best?

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Go to → A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Go to -> A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Go to > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Go to: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

This one gets my vote. Phil 09:05, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

And don't tell me the larger than sign is a problem, because I know it can be escaped somehow, that it is not in danger of being interpreted as markup... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:31, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

I prefer the original. The "go to" seems superfluous to me and implies that you are going somewhere off the page, rather than to a point on the same page. Angela . 14:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe jump to: instead of go to:? Zocky 22:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

SUBST vs MSG

Copied from User talk:Eloquence Hi, I wondered why you made this edit suggesting that msg was preferred over subst. I think it is dangerous to be able to add a message which can then change in every article. I was arguing that the MediaWiki messages be unprotected on the basis that if people are using subst, not msg, then they will instantly see what message that have left on a page, and this message will be permanent. If people are encouraged to use msg, there is a huge risk someone will vandalise the MediaWiki message and invoke a change in potentially thousands of other pages. I can see the benefit in that if someone wants to change the disambiguation message it would be reflected on other pages, but I think the disadvantages of vandalism would far outweigh this. I want to know what messages I leave on a page without the risk that these will change later and make it look like I added something to a page which I didn't. Angela . 23:06, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My main concern is easy updating of messages on all pages that use them. Otherwise texts like the disambiguation notice or stub notice effectively become set in stone and very difficult to update without running a script on the database (I don't think MySQL's UPDATE supports this kind of search & replace operation). This might however become necessary quite frequently, for example if we add software support for disambiguation, change our policy on stubs etc. I don't think the MediaWiki: pages should be unprotected -- if changes need to be made on any of the messages, these changes should be suggested on the talk page and then a sysop will make them.—Eloquence 02:42, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

My instinct is to go with the positivist approach of Eloquence. We shouldn't restrict ourselves for fear of vandalism. If someone is sufficiently aquianted with how Wikipedia that they know about substs: and msgs:, but are still have vandalist tendencies then they are going to be a serious problem user and liable for a banning. And besides if someone did change a msg it would be reverted very quickly. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking about this earlier and I came to the same conclusion: that MSG should be used most of the time because all the messages can be changes at once if need be. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:23, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion from the Village pump

Is there general agreement on when one should use {{subst:...}} vs. {{mgsg:...}}? I notice that on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages, it shows {{subst:stub}} but {{msg:disambig}}. Is this an intentional indication of preferred usage? --Anthropos 14:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See the talk page - I prefer msg because it's easy to update messages, others prefer subst because they feel using msg would make it possible to cause lots of damage by editing a single page. In other words, what I see as an advantage, they see as a disadvantage. A vote is probably in order.—Eloquence 14:02, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to know what I'm writing without the danger of this changing automatically as a result of someone vandalising or otherwise changing the message, so I always use subst. In some cases, when I've used subst:test, what I've added to the message afterwards would make no sense now that the wording of "test" has changed. It depends a lot on whether they message is protected or unprotected, but there is still no agreement on whether they should be. Angela . 14:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can see Eloquence's point, but I agree with Angela. If I post something, I'd like to know what it is, and I wouldn't want someone else to change my wording afterwards, especially if I sign the message. Dori | Talk 14:41, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense in some contexts, but I think we should agree to standardize stuff like stub notices, VfD notices, disambiguation notices etc.—Eloquence 14:47, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Angela is right on one thing: It depends heavily on whether the message is protected. There are really two issues here (I guess that's why two methods are provided):

Some standard messages should (stub, dissambig, copyright notice...) are more a part of the user interface than a part of articles themselves - their wording is really a meta subject. These should be used with MSG. They should probably be protected, which shoudn't be such a big issue - anyone can change MSG to SUBST, save and edit at will.
Chunks of text that are commonly used and are good starting points for further work. These should obviously be inserted with SUBST, and probably should not be protected - as long as we trust ourselves to read the message after SUBSTing it, to make sure nobody has vandalised the message in the meantime. Zocky 15:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good points, Zocky. I think maybe we are worrying too much about vandalism... a casual user is not going to vandalize the MSGs.. it would have to be someone more acquainted with how wikipedia works. Maybe we should use MSGs and SUBSTs as Zocky suggests but leave both types unprotected and see how often reversion is required. If it becomes a problem, we protect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another thing which seems to get ignored here around: if the text contains wikilinks, subst correctly create backlinks (what links here?) while msg doesn't. It makes pretty impossible to find stubs or other marked articles if people start using msg instead of subst. Maybe on en: this is already beyond control (too many stubs) but on smaller Wikipedias for example msg:stub should be avoided in my opinion. --grin 20:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Last time I checked, that worked also for MSG. The problem with Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub is that it just displays the first 500 articles. Read Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub for the workaround.

BTW the initial MSG, i.e. Wikipedia:Recentchanges seems to work well. -- User:Docu

Well it's easier to show than to debate, so please see MediaWiki:BackLinkTest, and try to find the article using it. If you do, please share the method. If you don't, please correct yourself. --grin

Found it: User:Grin/touched. :) I cheated. It isn't finadable through the what links here, which seems a very good reason not to use {{msg}} for stubs or accuracy disputes. Angela . 21:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

...which is logical anyway, database-wise, since there is no way to optimally create backlinks to dynamically modified articles. Thanks. This reason should be icluded in the article. --grin

It seems to work. What are you guys talking about. See [1]. I included a {{msg:BackLinkTest}} in my Sandbox and it is clearly linked. We don't know what links to MediaWiki:BackLinkTest, but why should we need to as long as the message contains a link to the stub article. Dori | Talk 21:18, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

It works at least for finding that it's being used on Wikipedia:Sandbox2 and if you edit User:Grin/touched after the msg. -- User:Docu

Thanks for ruining my test. :-( You completely lost my point: if you change the text of the WikiMedia text you have to go and edit every articles containing that msg to update the links! You going to edit every stubd everytime someone changes the message? Got the point? --grin

Dori, the point is that we need to know which pages contain the {{msg:BackLinkTest}} text and there is no way of finding that if you use msg. For example, the Find and fix a stub page lets you find stub by clicking what links here. If people add a stub note using msg, that stub page won't be shown on that list, so no-one will be able to find and fix it. Angela . 21:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can find Grin's test with Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/work or Search: msg+BackLinkTest, isn't this sufficient? -- User:Docu

But Angela, as long as the stub message contains a link to stub, you can find the stub pages by doing a what links here on that page. There is no need to do it on the MediaWiki:Stub page. Dori | Talk 21:34, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

(Note: Grin creates a page User:Grin/tmp with msg:BackLinkTest, then updates MediaWiki:BackLinkTest to link to User:Grin/touched instead of User:Grin/work -- User:Docu)

Yes, it is the same if you include the msg:stub in 65535 article, then change the stub message to link to a (probably different) page. The result is that article will show a link to newlink, but whatlinkshere/newlink won't show the article; whatlinkshere/oldlink will show the article instead even if it's not linked to anymore. This is the effect of changing the msg after it has been included to articles. --grin

Please, Dori, check what happened. Docu actually CHANGED the article containing the msg!! (And thus ruined the test! manually updated the backlink reference.) So, now, people, stay away from changing my userspace.

So... now, go on, Dori, and try to find who references user:grin/touched. Don't CHANGE anything. Just find it. (Yep, I know that it's on grin/tmp, since I have put it there, but you can't find it. Right? --grin

Sorry Grin, I still see grin/tmp listed from Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/work. Dori | Talk 22:12, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Dori, did you read what I told you? try to find who references user:grin/touched! Not tmp or work. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/touched, whether it shows you. (You should see grin/tmp/.) --grin

If the page isn't edited it doesn't work. Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/touched does not list User:Grin/tmp, even though User:Grin/tmp does have a link to the touched article. Angela . 21:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and you probably cannot expect every stub getting edited after every change of msg:stub... --grin

With SUBST, it wouldn't work either .. For most messages, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

For stubs the non-updating could even help. You could change the message once a week to allow the following to add links:

-- User:Docu

Exactly! Using subst:stub does not bring any advantage to using msg:stub. Either you see the stubs in Whatlinkshere with both, or with neither. Dori | Talk 22:12, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

False. --grin

I don't understand the latter. The first part is easy: if you use subs, then it is obvious where the article points to, since it's the same as you see. If you use msg, it "remembers" the point in time when msg was inserted while the text of the article reflects the newest version. So What You See Is Not What You Get. --grin

(Note: this message was moved by Docu from above (Dori's message of 22:12, Dec 14, 2003) to below this message as it had been posted afterwards. --User:Docu)

The limit of 500 stubs being shown with Whatlinkshere can be avoided by using different redirects to the stub page. --User:Docu

I see. Thanks.

I included the summary in the article. It's the general case, not about stubs on en: in particular. Thanks for Angela, Docu and Dori to make me see the light. --grin

Well, you just convinced me that {{msg:opentask}} might not be a good idea. -- User:Docu

I have posted a proposal on the bottom of meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion on a way to get the desired functionality of msg: without the backlink problems, plus get some other useful things, while actually decreasing the load on servers. Please read and comment. Zocky 18:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recommendations

I've developed some recommendations for subst vs. msg -- please let me know if you have any counter suggestions.—Eloquence 09:20, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with what you've written. In light of this, should we be recommending that CompactTOC be a MSG candidate, which is your recommendation for stuff which is going to stick around forever.

I can also see an advantage to using MSG for CompactTOC (and similar) in that if the page is to be copied+translated to another WikiPedia, the equivalent custom message will automagically be included in the new article in the appropriate form. Phil 12:43, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people use these TOCs, but if there's a need to edit them to match the page content (add numbers, remove letters etc.) they would have to use SUBST.—Eloquence 12:50, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

One of us is misunderstanding. I am under the impression that the MediaWiki namespace is not shared between the various languages wikis, but appears within each one. So for each different language wiki there will be a customised MediaWiki:CompactTOC. So if we use MSG the translated article will automagically refer to the CompactTOC in the new language. ISRTBC^TM. Phil 13:29, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking and I might have misunderstood what you were saying. in which case my reply would be: the whole idea of this mechanism is to standardise messages. If we need a CompactTOC with numbers added, someone should produce a MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithNumbers. I am definitely against removing letters from a CompactTOC simply because there isn't an entry there right now. HTH. Phil 14:09, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

There won't be any automagic translations unless someone writes them -- CompactTOC is a custom message, it's not part of the standard MediaWiki distribution. So someone on fr:, for example, would have to manually create a page with the same title, MediaWiki:CompactTOC, to write a translation that could be used transparently. Other than that, you are correct. My argument is that CompactTOCs are more an element of the article than an element about the article, and therefore may need to be edited, for whatever reason, and for that, SUBST would be appropriate.—Eloquence 14:20, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Discussions in general

Bah, I think there are too many places where discussions about MediaWiki messages could go. I propose we pick one place to discuss MediaWiki messages, and point all the other talk pages there (not a redirect, just a link). What do you all think? Dori | Talk 19:58, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text would be the best place. Angela . 20:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another candidate is Wikipedia talk:All messages in the MediaWiki namespace because many users might check that page. Of course we need a shorter alias WPT:AMIMN :) Dori | Talk 20:17, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, no one else seems to have an opinion. I will leave a note on some of the other discussion pages, and then move their contents in here (Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text, or as a shortcut maybe WT:MNT). Dori | Talk 17:50, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Macro, argument functionality

Moved to m:Message substitution

Made this page focal point

OK, I moved some comments, and left the following note on the other pages:

Prior comments were moved to '''[[WT:MNT]]''' which is the focal discussion page for MediaWiki namespace messages. Before commenting on this page consider doing there ''instead'' as it is probably more closely watched. ~~~~

Consider doing the same for any pages that I may have missed. Also we should probably archive some parts of this page as it has gotten rather large. Some refactoring required, and I can't get to it right now :) I will do it later, if no one does it. Dori | Talk 02:51, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I did some summarizing and moved some to archive. Someone figure out how to summarize subst vs msg if the issue is closed (which I am not sure if it is) :) Dori | Talk 07:57, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Content of the stub text

I would like to suggest that we change the text that is associated with the stub message. Currently, it reads:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it.

My suggestion is:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

It (rightly) states in Wikipedia:Perfect stub article: "...try not to call someone else's work 'wrong'". Yet we affix a message to a stub article that clearly says that it's in need of "fixing."

Believe me, I am in favor of eliminating stubs -- by adding content. But I'm also in favor of encouraging first-time contributors to become regular contributors. It seems to me that very often a "newbie" will create an article that someone else will call a stub. Fine, but let's not tell the newbie that he/she did something that needs "fixing".

-Anthropos 05:03, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. The only problem is that the first message has been used a lot, and consistency is good. Dori | Talk 05:44, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this usage of "fixing" is a hacker term - "the program was fixed by adding 34 new options" :-) Perhaps a script to change all the existing notes to

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

? Stan 09:15, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I'm guessing you meant to suggest changing all existing notes to {{msg:stub}}? If so, I heartily agree! -Anthropos 15:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely right! --Ilya 04:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Come to think of it stub is a techie term, isn't it? I think that among the non-techies, stub probably conjurs to mind kicking a table leg in bare feet, or the part that remains after an amputation. Perhaps we should consider rephrasing the who message, or coming up with a different word for stub -- say "seed" maybe? -Anthropos 18:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Disam

I think there should not be an HR above MediaWiki:disam. What do you guys think? Dori | Talk 05:44, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Definitely. HRs are evil.—Eloquence

It's one of the few places were it helps layout, compare Aa to AB -- User:Docu

I don't see it. Maybe someone has changed it already (no HRs in either one) Dori | Talk 07:57, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

It's there again, Eloquence had removed it. -- User:Docu

I don't think HRs that split the title from the content are a good idea. Angela .

I agree, in the meantime, it was removed from the version that goes at the top of the page. As for the HR here, it's more like the one on MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext -- User:Docu

Docu, I still prefer the one without HRs. It looks better to me. Dori | Talk 04:20, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Now that we use mainly msg: instead of subst:, we should probably use everywhere MediaWiki:disambig instead of disam, and eventually delete disam. -- User:Docu

subst:stub vs msg:stub

Why is the stub message {{msg:stub}} instead of {{subst:stub}}? If it's to ensure consistency if the stubnote is changed, then what about the previous countless stubs which do not use

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

in any case? Should it be changed back to {{subst:stub}}? Dysprosia 11:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather change the existing ones to msg. For example, I am somewhat opposed to the "perfect stub article" link (because it's misleadingly placed), but updating this would be a pain without msg. In the long run, I'm sure we can get all the old footers converted.—Eloquence

Yes, can we please settle this question once and for all. Erik makes a good point, but I am not sure whether there is still an issue with What links here (see above discussion if you can make anything out of it). Dori | Talk 14:50, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, rather than try to handle everything under one heading, let's try taking things one item at a time.

I would like to propose that the stub text be inserted using the form {{msg:stub}}, and that the content of the corresponding MediaWiki page be protected and only changed by consensus. As a corollary, efforts should be made to change all existing stub notices to conform to this method. -Anthropos 15:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I would object to that proposal unless we can be sure that the "what links here" option will continue to work. After all, one of the main purposes of the stub message is to be able to track stubs. Dori | Talk 15:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

As best as I can tell the "what links here" will work with the msg form, except that if after you place a msg that includes a link, you then change the MediaWiki namespace definition so that the msg text has a differnt link, those pages with the msg in it will not be updated (WRT what links here) until edited.

Ok, that's about as clear as granite. Let's use an example. Right now, if you use the {{msg:stub}} syntax, there are two links included: one to Wikipedia:The perfect stub article and one to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub. The software is smart enough to actually remember those links, even though the text with the links is not saved with the article. Now, let's say you put {{msg:stub}} into the article Humpaluphagus, then change the text at MediaWiki:stub so that instead of linking to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, it links to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. When a user looks at Humpaluphagus, they will then see and use the updated stub text, and could then link to vfd. However, if you went to "what links here" on vfd, it would not show Humpaluphagus, until someone edited Humpaluphagus. Note that any edit will do, so long as it changes the page in some way. (hmmm...that may be as clear as, say, sandstone)

In summary, {{msg:stub}} will work, and "what links here" will work, until and unless we change the MediaWiki:stub definition in such a way that it links somewhere different, at which point any pages with the {{msg:stub}} syntax will need to be updated in some way in order for "what links here" to properly show those pages.

Note that we can change the MediaWiki:stub any way we want with no ill effect, so long as we don't change the links. If we were to decide to do that (keep the links unchanged), then {{msg:stub}} will work fine.

Personally, I think the advantages of using the msg format far outweigh the disadvantages. And it's likely that, at some point in the future, if it becomes a major issue, a special piece of software could be written to update the recorded links associated with msg's.

-Anthropos 02:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By the way, who protected MediaWiki:stub and other messages? It's not writen neither in Wikipedia:Protected page nor in talk page. And it's not monitored in hostory.

As I think there is no problem with leaving system pages unprotected. But if there will be problems this is some possible solution: create a feature of 'Attention' page, such that the event of change will appear in a special list (or simply displayed bold and colored in Recent Changes) and everybody will notice. Then changes of this pages may have timeout before they are really applied. I think 1 hour is enough. During that period, everybody can veto. Veto means that page will remain in its present form (both, edit and veto, should be traced in history). I think such conservative method is what we need for messages. --Ilya 05:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Improvement: let's simply add possibility to watch message pages. When somebody creates a page with {{msg:stub}} and checks 'Watch' he automatically starts watching MediaWiki:Stub. Then I, for example, track all changes in my watch list. I check it every hour. If there are always about 10 me at the same time, we all check it every 6 minutes :) so we can set timeout 20 minutes. That's all --Ilya 05:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ilya, the MediaWiki messages are protected by default.

Thank you. It is not that i critisize making pages protected. Here I asked for some procedural question -- like judge asking what are the identities of witnesses. --Ilya 15:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think they should be protected because they're part of the interface. As for the custom messages, that's up to those who create them. As for stub, as was mentioned above all it would take is for one vandal to change the link, and everything is messed up. How could we leave it unprotected? If someone wants a change made, they should discuss it anyway. All they have to do is leave a message here, and if it's reasonable, an admin will make the change. It's not a big deal. Regular editors can't edit the main page either because of the same visibility issue, but it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.Dori | Talk 07:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I could go along with using msg if it is decided that the link should not be changed and that the page stays protected. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to use subst. Dori | Talk 07:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

There's no need for a "the link should not be changed" dogma. It should be relatively simple to do a scripted refresh in case it is changed. In any case, please follow whatever is decided to be community policy to avoid edit wars. I do agree that the page, like most MediaWiki pages, should be protected.—Eloquence

Althoiugh I don't think we really need this protection - because of reasons discussed above - let it be so. At least for messages I do not object. Still, I think that for other pages, the mechanism of timeouts is more appropriate. --Ilya 15:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From MediaWiki talk:Opentask

Reverted, messages moved back to MediaWiki talk:Opentask

From MediaWiki talk:Loginprompt

Reverting, messages moved back to MediaWiki talk:Loginprompt

From MediaWiki talk:Unprotectthispage

Reverting, messages moved back to MediaWiki talk:Unprotectthispage

This page

I know this page has gotten rather long. I will archive it tomorrow (time to sleep). I still believe it is better to focus MediaWiki discussions in one place, rather than on the hundreds of possible talk pages. Dori | Talk 08:01, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

No, no, no. Please don't do that. Some consolidation makes sense, primarily that of the MediaWiki-related pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. But not the consolidation of all talk pages of the MediaWiki namespace -- that's just annoying. Why should I have all discussions about which tasks to add to MediaWiki:Opentask here, of all places? There's a reason talk pages are linked to subject pages. Super consolidation will only make things messy and increase the risk of edit conflicts.—Eloquence 08:27, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It'll end up too big like the village pump, which is now having to be archived every day, making it fairly useless. Perhaps a better solution is to hold the discussions on the talk pages of the messages themselves, but annouce discussions here to draw attention to them. Angela . 09:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Does Dori actually mean moving some of the older sections to the /Archive 1 subpage? I would support that since this page is getting a bit long. Phil 11:18, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Let's discuss the messages on the messages talk pages. -- User:Docu

OK, it appears that I am outnumbered :) Should I revert what I did with regard to the MediaWiki_talk:X pages or will that confuse the issue even more? I would agree with Angela's idea, except that I don't think it will work on practice as people are simply not going to bother to post here as well (might not even realise that that is a convention). Dori | Talk 17:11, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I personally would appreciate a revert if it's not too much work. But it's not a big deal.—Eloquence

Thanks!—Eloquence

Done. Hopefully I didn't miss some. Dori | Talk 20:38, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

"What links here" solution

Moved to m:Message substitution

Let's Make A Decision!

Can we try to come to some sort of consensus on whether to use {{subst:stub}} or {{msg:stub}}? The alternate is to have at least three different methods all being used. I'm not a sysop, so I don't know if I can call an official vote, but at least as a staw poll (sign below the option you prefer)

Use {{subst:stub}}, MediaWiki:stub unprotected

Use {{subst:stub}}, mediaWiki:stub protected

Use {{msg:stub}}, MediaWiki:stub unprotected

Use {{msg:stub}}, MediaWiki:stub protected

Anthropos
—Eloquence
Dori (as long as a permanent, innocuous link to MediaWiki:stub is included)
Evil saltine
Zocky, in the current setup, see below for additional comment
Angela
Timwi
Ilya
Phil 14:48, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC) (then use my search suggestion to find them all)

Some other option

Thanks! -Anthropos 21:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any dissent, but this vote should clear that up.—Eloquence

By the way Anthropos, sysops do not have any more say on an issue than a regular editor. They just have some more priviledges listed here. Dori | Talk 22:26, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky's feature proposal/request and associated comments moved to m:Message substitution

unprotecting this page

I'm abstaining from the question of protecting MediaWiki pages, but I see no reason to protect this page itself: IE no reason to protect Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace text. Unless I miss my mark, if someone vandalises this page it will cause no serious problems, certainly not enough to warrant page protection. It's not listed on wikipedia:protected page that I can see (the MediaWiki: pages are, but not this one). Martin 00:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask Tim first. I suspect it is generated automatically and the protection is supposed to prevent changes from being overwritten during the next auto-import.—Eloquence

Reviewing the protection log, it seems that Angela protected it. We don't protect other auto-imported pages, so I don't see that this one needs to be treated any differently. Martin 00:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Martin, vandalism of this page won't cause more damage than normal. Evil saltine 00:32, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Me too. Zocky

It was originally protected because it was once in the MediaWiki namespace. Now it's not, I agree with Martin that there is no need for it to be protected. Angela . 01:19, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"What links here" solution without additional coding

Click on any stub message. It takes you to Wikipedia:Perfect_stub_article through the redirect at Wikipedia:The perfect stub article, which has very many links, because we link to it all along.

So, the solution is pretty simple. We include an inconspicous link (like Angela's dot talk link) to pages used only for that purpose, say [[Wikipedia:vfd_index|.]]. We never link to that page from outside the message, but rather link to a redirect to it:, say Wikipedia:List of vfds.

Use what links here for those pages to find articles that contain the message. Done.

Well, not quite. The caveat is that what links here shows just 500 links. While this is not really a problem for vfd, copyvio and such, it's a big problem for stubs, as there are way too many of those. The caveat of the caveat is that what links here shows 500 direct links plus links to redirect pages, sorted in alphabetical order of direct links. There's many ways of taking advantage of that :)

One is to be more specific about kinds of stubs we're talking about and use msg:stub, msg:substub, msg:copypaste, msg:wikify, etc, which would be helpful anyways. Make these messages link to wikipedia namespace pages and make those redirect to wikipedia:stub index (which is to be never linked directly), and its "what links here" can show very many stubs.

Other ways are changing msgs daily to point to different pages, so we can group stubs by last edit. Yet another is too create and use a different message every day (say, msg:vfd-22-dec-03, msg:vfd-23-dec-03 or msg:vfd-monday, msg:vfd-tuesday...), to keep track of when the page was put on vfd.

How does this sound? Zocky 05:15, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How does this solve VfD? VfD is there for discussions on articles to take place within a certain time frame. Just having a list of articles that link to VfD doesn't seem to fit into the process somehow. Perhaps you should bring that one up at talk:Vfd instead. Angela . 05:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Having a list of articles that link to vfd is pretty useless. Having a list on articles that have a vfd notice (and only articles that have a vfd notice), OTOH, may not fit in the process, but is very useful.

Any other thoughts? Zocky 05:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Changing msg daily is great for vfd. Everybody will know that vfd-15-dec-2003 should be deleted on 20 Dec 2003.And the last 5 could be redirected to Votes for deletion subsection. --ilya 06:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New Stub Message text -- again

Now that there seems to be agreement on the use of {{msg:stub}}, I've started replacing "spelled-out" versions of the message that I find in articles. I think we can hope for some software tools to make this process faster and less labor intensive.

But, now I'd like to suggest again that we change what msg:stub expands into. I am particularly interested in getting rid of the phrase "fixing it", because it implies that the article is "broken" as it is -- and even if you think it is broken, we still want to encourage newbies, and newbies will often create stubs.

I like the phrase "expanding it", but I'm open to suggestions.

Less urgent (in my opinion), but still important, is the use of the word "stub" in the message. Stub is a rather techie term, and in the non-techie world it has meanings of "remaining part" (e.g. ticket stub, check stub, etc.), or of "painful toe encounters."

I like the word "seed" instead, though I'm not as enthusiastic and I hope someone finds something better.

Note that I'm only talking (for now) about the msg:stub text itself. The links would remain unchanged, and other places we can still talk about "stubs" (though we may want to review those pages to which msg:stub links, to see if they're newbie friendly).

-Anthropos 00:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that changing "fixing" to "expanding" is a good idea. So good in fact that I've already done it myself. But I also think that "stub" is by now a well recognized term within the Wikipedia community and shouldn't be changed. It's reasonably intuitive, IMHO. A word like "seed" is just as arbitrary as "stub" and has other connotations (like, we'd be spilling seed all over the place) so I see no real advantages.

One thing that always bothered me is that "stub" links to Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. It should be at least guessable from a link title or the surrounding text where a link leads. IMHO that link should point to Wikipedia:Stub (which links to "the perfect stub article"), and maybe "expanding it" should link to Wikipedia:Editing FAQ, that is:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

What do you think? On a side note, the editing FAQ could really use some reorganization ..—Eloquence 01:32, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change! I think it's a real improvement. The "stub" thing was less important, and I agree that within our community it's fully accepted (at least I've heaard no complaints). I'm most concerned about how a new contributor might react to having such a message slapped onto one of their contributions. Like you, I don't really like "seed" -- I'm hoping someone has a better suggestion.

As far as changing the links -- I agree that where they point now is less than optimal.

Let's see...your new links still include one to wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, though through an redirect. This is actually an advantage, as it increases the number of links that will currently be listed by "what links here". One question is, does anyone rely on the link to wikipedia:Perfect stub article? Or will anyone rely on the (proposed) new link to Wikipedia:Editing FAQ? Also, I've seen some pages that only include the sentence: This article is a stub. There's some link associated with "stub", but I don't know for sure what it is.

Perhaps, if we're going to change the link from wikipedia:Perfect stub article to somewhere else, it should be to a simple overview page that references both "Perfect stub..." and "Editing FAQ'", and perhaps a few others prominently, such as one on copyrights, NPOV, etc.

Thanks again for the change! -Anthropos 13:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As said above, the notice should also have a link to a page like wikipedia:Stubs - index (it has to be something ugly), which is never to be linked directly from anywhere else but the message. This way we can rely on the what links here for that page to find pages with the stub notice.

That page could be linked either through the main link in the notice (which would then redirect to "find or fix a stub") or a non-obvious link, like the dot at the end of the sentence. Zocky 17:30, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

BTW I even now don't understand the meaning of 'stub' - I've firstly encoutered it on Wikipedia (and certainly here I understand it absolutely clear). I support new text with two hands up and I would even more like This article still needs expanding. And it's clear for me that this message should be msg: and in the near future - special mark like category. ilya

I think stubs (very short, not properly formed) and articles that need expansion (short, properly formed) are two separate categories that should be treated and marked differently. But I think this is a wikipedia-wide topic, so it should probably be discussed in the wikipedia:Village pump, where I've also posted a question about it. Zocky 17:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Self-link

Would anyone object to adding a self-link to each message in the form of a period to be used for tracking? Dori | Talk 19:34, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

That's not really necessary. You can just use the search function, which also has the advantage that it is not limited to 500 links.—Eloquence

I don't trust the search function too much. It doesn't seem to work well for me. Besides it is not as user friendly as clicking what links here and getting a list. The 500 link limit may be upped or fixed so I don't think it will be a problem. Dori | Talk 19:42, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

It works for me. You can bookmark the 500 results per page display if you prefer that. But adding hidden links is a workaround that shouldn't really be necessary. The software should just count [[MediaWiki:{{{1}}}]] as links. Besides, the way I understand it, the LINKS table is only updated when the article where the message is included is saved. That would mean that it wouldn't work until all articles are re-saved.—Eloquence

Bookmarking is still not user friendly (it is outside the software and not consistent with other usages of What links here). There shouldn't be a problem with the links table unless we change the name of the msg article itself, right? Dori | Talk 19:52, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that if you add the [[MediaWiki:stub|.]] link to the MediaWiki:stub page, for example, I believe that this will not work with articles that use {{msg:stub}} until they have been saved again (the LINKS table, which contains the page relationships that are queried by the "What links here" function, is updated during each page save). Aside from that, I'd rather have a function that is exclusively useful for editors be somewhat obscure (list of all stubs) than confuse regular users with strange underlined "."s all over the place (which would also increase the likelihood of them discovering the MediaWiki pages by accident, meaning that we will have to protect them, which is currently not certain yet).—Eloquence 19:58, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

[[MediaWiki:stub| ]] isn't visible at all, at least my browser (IE). Not that that addresses having to save pages again. Κσυπ Cyp 01:21, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the whole point was to have that self-link before there were too many articles with msg:stub in them. Dori | Talk 01:28, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)