Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script/Rewrite/Archive_1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

{{resolved}}

Review this submission should not appear if(mw.config.get('wgPageContentModel') !== 'wikitext'). There is no reason for the script to appear on userjscss pages... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks :) Theopolisme (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

If all you care about is template names and their parameters, you could have avoided using Parsoid and use rvgeneratexml instead. See mw:User:Kephir/XML parse tree for the parse tree format. Keφr 06:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Keφr! I'm actually not just getting template names/parameters but also various other pieces of data about the page (more in the future). Yeah, I probably *could* use the API combined with some other query parameters but Parsoid is fast enough already for our needs (especially via parsoid-prod.wmflabs), plus the JSON is very simple to manipulate as well as grab new information from. Theopolisme (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then. I skimmed through the source code and Parsoid was mentioned only in one place, and seemingly only to extract that information. Quite a waste of bandwidth right now, as a Parsoid-parsed page contains human-readable data entangled with with machine-readable data (never mind more HTTP round trips). Not sure how the former might become useful later, but I guess you know what you are doing. Keφr 08:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely not completely sure about ditching the API of course. I'll being doing some more detailed speed comparisons and such in the future -- thanks for brining this to my attention. Theopolisme (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kephir Spent my afternoon doing some serious speed tests. It looks like even with the additional requests in the future (metadata, categories, etc.), using the api itself rather than Parsoid is still faster. So... I've implemented it! Your guide was extremely helpful, and the script is significantly sped up as a result. Just goes to show that shiny new features aren't always better. (The funny thing is, I was working on Special:ExpandTemplates in MediaWiki itself recently...implemented the HTML preview functionality... and still didn't remember that you could get the XML parse tree...*sigh*). Again, thank you. :) Theopolisme (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Accept button returns no action with "NS_ERROR_DOM_QUOTA_REACHED: Persistent storage maximum size reached" as an error message in the console. Decline and Comment do work, but visually need a bottom border as the letters are too hard to read with the bottom of them bleeding into the white space below. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is due to your browser reaching its localStorage limit (we use localStorage to cache persistent data like the WikiProject list). I've added a try/catch block so the script will still continue if unable to cache the data (a message will be logged to the console for debugging purposes). Also reduced the font size of the header text which should help with readability issues. This will be on-wiki soon, keep the feedback coming :) Theopolisme (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

• Hrmm. Not sure why my system would be reaching the localStorage limit... Where do I find the default limit that my browser is set at... I'd like to try and find out how much of a difference there is. If there is a huge difference, maybe what is stored there should be trimmed? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Web storage#Storage_size might be useful. It's still not entirely clear though, and different browsers vary in how they handle storage. You can look at the window.localStorage object to see what is currently stored. Theopolisme (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see... wikEd seems to be filling most of mine... Disabling wikEd clicking the icon on the page doesn't help. I wonder if there is a way we can clear the wikEd data... Cacycle, is there a way that you could have wikEd not store "wikEdFindHistory", "wikEdReplaceHistory", and "wikEdSummaryHistory" if &action !== edit|submit or if "wikEdDisabled" === 1? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• You can manually remove specific items as well if you'd like, localStorage.removeItem( 'key' ). Theopolisme (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can delete wikEd's history fields by clicking the button on its control button bar on the right. But the amount of stored data is extremely small and cannot be the cause of reaching the storage quota, especially comparing to the amount of data stored in MediaWikiModuleStore:enwiki. Cacycle (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• I went to my about:config and searched for "dom.storage.default_quota" and doubled the value from "5120" to "10240" for now. This is just a hack solution however, but I have some ideas for a better one. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Declining hangs with "Use of mediawiki.api callback params is deprecated. Use the Promise instead." It does say that it "Saved Draft:" and "Saved User talk:" which are confirmed in [1] and [2] respectively. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13: Huh, interesting. The mw.api callback warnings aren't related to the rewrite script, unless something really funky is going on (I'm not getting them), so they must be from some other script you're running that calls the API using the old method

var api = new mw.Api();
// the old way to do it, deprecated
api.get( { action: 'query' }, function ( data ) { console.log( data ) } );
// as opposed to the new way using a $.Promise
api.get( { action: 'query' }.done( function ( data ) { console.log( data ) } );

I'm also not able to replicate the hang, although it may be because you're on a slower browser or something. Could you paste in your user agent? Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• alert(navigator.userAgent); returns Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0
• I'm unable to recreate the hanging at this time too... I'm not getting the mw.api callback warning anymore either, so I'm guessing it was an API fluke or something at this point.

Technical 13, just let me know if the problem crops up again and we can reinvestigate. Theopolisme (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Declining posted the template on the user's talk page, but did not give it a header. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thanks :) All of the recent fixes in response to your issues are now live too. Theopolisme (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I am posting this feedback from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Youri Raffi Djorkaeff and I'm entirely unsure of how the script is running on this page (I can't see it in the coding). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks.  Fixed and pushed :) Theopolisme (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The rewrite is not patrolling pages and I'm having to go back and do it manually. This is annoying and wasting time that I could be spending reviewing... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I'm approving Roger's template submission for WP:WikiProject Disability and when I try to enter the WikiProject in the WikiProject line, it rejects it since it is not on the list. There has to be a better way to do this. It should be able to pass whatever is in the input line through as if it was on the list even if it isn't. The "list" should only be for assisting people in finding a specific project or if there is questionable case or spelling. There should also be a log page of all WikiProjects entered on that line that are not on the current list which would allow for addition of those projects to the list if they are used enough. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A log page is quite a bit of work... but, as I've become pretty adept at hacking this jquery.chosen plugin (dynamic categories, oh yeah!), I just coded "custom WikiProject" functionality. Please try it out and let me know your thoughts! :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

See this accepted disambig for details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• More examples

• Kamaljit Singh Garewal
• Chesya Burke
• Template:WP Disability Invite (kind of confusing chain of events with this one, but still shows the [[Category:]] issue)

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should be  fixed, thanks Technical 13 :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Version 0.5 has been released. It includes G13 functionality, custom WikiProject tagging, and a number of other improvements, tweaks, and fixes. Give it a whirl if you're so inclined! :) Theopolisme (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello - trying out the new AFCH interface. It might be nice to have the script do a check, and if the name of the article is "sandbox", not send a message counting how many times that article name has been deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! Done. Theopolisme (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello - first reviewing experience: I want to mark a submission as being reviewed, but the option was hidden. I clicked on the arrow to reveal the option, but my aim was a little off and I ended up clicking on the edge of the "Comment" box. I didn't want to post a comment, but the other options were no longer visible. I tried the back button, but that took me to a previous page. I solved the problem with a reload and started over. On second try I was able to mark the submission as under review. I suppose the big buttons are for people with tiny screens..... —Anne Delong (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a back button in the upper lefthand corner or the review panel; did you use that? Hmm, I wonder if we should consider support the in-browser back button as well... also, the arrow is actually designed to be hovered upon, not clicked -- but you're right, that is definitely unclear. All good stuff! Theopolisme (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hovering is not an option on touch screens (like when I'm reviewing from my mobile phone), it is possible to click and still get it to work, but it is extremely difficult. Probably not the best option. Also, the "back" link in the tool is very unclear and not well separated from the leave feedback link. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  Righto, I wonder if the solution to that is actually moving the leave feedback link rather than the back arrow (which, coincidentally, I've made larger and blockier which should help with it as a click target)... I've replied about the additional options arrow in an above thread. Theopolisme (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• To answer your question, no, I didn't see the back button - it just seemed like part of the "Give feedback". The little separator line is not noticeable even on my large screen. Also, reviewers aren't used to looking for a back button, because in the old script the little row of options was always visible. Maybe instead of a back arrow it should be a little word "Options" or something; I already have two back arrows on my screen - one for browser tabs and one for going back a page, and I regularly press the wrong one. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've attempted to make the back link more noticeable; please let me know your thoughts. (Note that to do this I removed the feedback link, but I'll be looking into how to reinstate it shortly...) Theopolisme (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The back feature is considerably more noticeable. Because the other text is so large, there would be plenty of space right underneath the back option for a feedback link. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I completed a review. I like the way that you have indented the items on the decline reason list - it solves something that I complained about in the old script - difficulty in spotting the reason I wanted in a long list in which I couldn't distinguish the headings from the items. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear, thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello again. This time I am looking at G13 eligible submissions. I didn't see a "Postpone" function, so I tried to use my touch screen to go to the hidden options to see if it was there. I managed to accidentally nominate the page for deletion, since that was the rightmost option (sigh). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch! I haven't implemented this feature yet, but will do shortly. Theopolisme (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, the postpone option will now appear in the regular row of buttons. Theopolisme (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Last evening I added a comment to a new Afc submission, and I noticed that you added a feature to notify the user. This is great, because new users don't always know about watchlists. Without declining the article I was able to get the editor started on changing the external links into references and wikilinks. A useful addition. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Today I was told by a user at a Wikiproject that an old Afc submission had been improved and was ready for mainspace. I used the new script to submit the article in the name of the original submitter, who did most of the work. The script worked fine. My next step was to accept the submission, so I therefore clicked on the options link provided, but the "submit" was not on the list. I reloaded the page and then it worked. This wasn't necessary with the old script, but I'm not sure why. Maybe even if the page wasn't visually reloaded, it would have been saved, so maybe the old script rechecked the submit status each time before displaying the options and the new one doesn't. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne! I've updated the script to handle this. Also, I've added whitelist-checking functionality using the participants list with a link to that page if the user isn't listed...let me know if you spot any errors with that :) Theopolisme (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

The rewrite added two difrent db-templates. See this picture. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed this, and the fix should become live later today. Theopolisme (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Since the db-g12 can have up to 3 url's, then so should the script and AfC-submission template, to make it easier for the admin when deleting the page. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

2 URLs should probably be enough (or at least pretty decent) -- and that's what I've just implemented. Will be live soon! Theopolisme (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} See this. Is it possible for the default text in the "additional comments" box to not appear by default if you do not wish to leave another comment (and forget to clear the box....) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely a bug! Whoopsies -- fixed now and will be live later. :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello again! I used the new script to postpone a db-g13 eligible submission, but it didn't give me an option to leave a comment. Not serious, as I can always leave one separately, but the old script includes this. Since there is a comment option available, maybe this is a design decision; however, postponers are more likely to leave a postponement rational if the comment dialogue box is displayed automatically. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• That was something I had Theo add to the original script and I'm sure he just overlooked adding it to the rewrite or hadn't gotten to it yet. Thanks for mentioning it Anne. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  Yep, on my todo list. Theopolisme (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, now live on enwiki. :) Theopolisme (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I used the script to leave a comment on a page that had been moved from a sandbox. Does a cleaning process happen when a comment is left? And, if so, are sandbox templates supposed to be removed as part of the cleaning? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Does a cleaning process happen when a comment is left?" → It does. "are sandbox templates supposed to be removed as part of the cleaning?" → Not currently, but it is a good idea. I think the tough part is being able to find all of the user sandbox template variations and making sure that the proper submission template has been posted and the article is at the proper title (some templates indicate where the submission should be in a parameter in cases where the draft is at User:.../sandbox) before removing them. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, even if the most common ones were done it would be a help. The old script does clean the sandboxes - why not just copy the code? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This was just an oversight on my part; will be fixed momentarily. Theopolisme (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a "moment" turned into an hour, but this is now live on enwiki ;) Theopolisme (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello once more, script developer guys... I declined an article as a copyright violation. The script gave me a choice of adding a second URL (although actually I needed to add two more, but I just put them together in the same one). It produced both a decline box and a large speedy deletion box. The second box had all of the URLs correctly listed, but the decline box didn't. Either it should list them all, or it should refer the reader to the speedy deletion box. I don't think the original script produced both boxes; I'm not sure if this is a planned design change or not. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, should be fixed; the decline template will now also list the url(s). Theopolisme (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hi.... aren't you glad you asked me to write? I was declining a submission, and after selecting the decline option and writing some comments, I clicked on the button to complete the decline, but received a "bad token" error. Now, I had just switched from a 3G network to internal wireless; maybe there was a loss of session data, but there is no way for me to tell. Usually when that happens I am given a second chance to save, but in this case I had to retype, so maybe it was another problem. Also the network switch happened before I selected decline from the menu, and think, but can't remember for sure, whether I had just marked as reviewing, or if I did that before switching (sorry). —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also tracked on github.com (t) Josve05a (c) 20:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This happens when the page is opened and then there is a loss of session data (e.g. the computer goes to sleep or is inactive for a long time, or like Anne said, a network switch between when you loaded the page -- and we first fetched the edit token, required to save the page -- and when we actually tried to save), which results in the token MediaWiki provides becoming out of date. I'll work on some sort of mechanism for automatically recovering from these errors, probably this weekend (quite busy during the week)... Theopolisme (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Should now be fixed! @Anne Delong: please let me know if you ever encounter this error again. Theopolisme (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Theopolisme. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello again. The script is telling me that this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madison Eagles has unbalanced ref tags. I have checked line by line through the text, and I can't find the problem. Also, I have context colours turned on, so I should get weird colouring if a tag is missing. I apologize in advance if the script is right and I am just going blind. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I'm pretty sure I've fixed this. The script wasn't correctly parsing a ref that used a slash in its name field without surrounding it in quotation marks (which isn't strictly valid according to the original Cite extension specifications, but it apparently doesn't throw errors so we should support it). In any case, resolved! :) Theopolisme (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

The script is giving me an option to submit my own user page. Is this a feature? I may become famous any day now... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• It always has given the option, you just couldn't see it as obviously because it was hidden behind another click. Problem is, new users use their user page as a sandbox, so it's a valid sandbox title. I suppose the script could get rid of the review hook on your own userspace since COI and all shouldn't review it.. I'll propse the code in a bit when not on mobile. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New users wouldn't have the script installed. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Old users really shouldn't review their own drafts either... If they wanted to do that, they would just move the draft to mainspace when done... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What's this? Ageism? (Just kidding, I'm sure you meant "experienced users".) I often fix up drafts and then review them, so I presume that's not what you mean. Are you are referring to the person who first created the draft, or the person who submitted it? While this is mostly true, either way, I can see that there may be circumstances in which either of these may be appropriate, and having the script be a censor in this way would not be appreciated. An example: The script is quite a handy way to add Wikidata, categories, Wikiproject banners, etc., to a draft at the time of publishing (you've made it too good, you see...) —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think y'all have gotten rather off-topic here; yes, this is the intended functionality, and I see no reason for adding unnecessary special-casing. As you were, as you were :) Theopolisme (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Theopolisme. Just checking. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Just one more thing - there may be a small bug in the submit process, but I am not sure. This is the second time this has happened, but the first time I assumed it was my error. Check the two diffs and see that a newline has been removed after the ==References==. It was there in the previous edit, and the only thing I did was select submit, and the last submitter option.

• Before submitting: [3]
• After submitting: [4] —Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be  fixed, thanks! :) Theopolisme (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Moved to dropdown. Theopolisme (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The link "Review submission" got broken up in two lines. It might be because I have zoomed ou to 90% of my screen, but if the title would be longer, this would happen. See this picture. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So you think it should have kept the words together and dropped the whole thing to a new line? I'm not convinced it should be in the header row to begin with. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  We could certainly do that. @Technical 13: the main reason for locating it in the header is to minimize the number of clicks required to start reviewing -- however, I'm certainly interested in hearing any alternatives/counter-proposals you may have thought of. Thanks to both of you for all the great feedback! Theopolisme (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are two alternative locations that occur to me as preferred (number 3 or 4 below), however, I'm thinking the best way to decide is to take a screenshot of each possible location and poll on the main AFC talk page to get a community consensus to the four - six various locations (there is a sixth place it "could" go, but I'm not too keen on that idea. As such I'm just going to call it beans and not mention it.. ;)

1. Where the old script had it. (AKA 'p-cactions')
2. Where the current rewrite has it in the main section header page title.
   • What happens when a draft has multiple main sections?

     Non-issue, it's show in the page title. Theopolisme (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

     Very good, my attempts to break it failed using FireFox, and I'm loading my laptop as we speak so I can test the other browsers (I don't remember all of them honoring that there can only be one of each id on a page). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

     Tested on FireFox 27.0.1, IE 7 (looks horrible as there is no spacing and it is the same size as the heading, not resized smaller, but those people should probably get a real browser anyways), IE 9, O12, O16, S5 on WinVista, Chrome 29. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

3. In the tools section of the sidebar (AKA 'p-tb')
4. As it's own tab on the left side of the tabs (similar to the Twinkle tab AKA 'p-afch' as an "extraMenu" of 'right-navigation')

   Clicking the tab opens the review panel.

   Clicking the down arrow could open a list of quick declines or something.

5. As it's own tab on the right side of the tabs (AKA 'p-namespaces')
6. not saying

Think we should screenshot this and present it as a poll to all reviewers before changing it? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All good thoughts. Screenshots would be great! Thanks for this, Theopolisme (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} @Theopolisme: I like to check the diff after cleaning a submission, so if a button/link to view the latest diff after cleaning could be included, that would be great. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Even better, since the script does a "virtual reload" of the page (which allows the header bar to stay open), perhaps just showing the diff up there would be better as it could be done by default? Maybe even possible (instead of having to code from scratch) to use wikEdDiff to display the changes? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

wikEdDiff? What is that? (Sorry for being stupid...) (t) Josve05a (c) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff ← That. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I've added a "(diff)" link after each "Saved <page>" message...is this helpful? @Technical 13: I feel like wikEdDiff may be overkill in this situation... Theopolisme (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Much better! I really like it...I could be as small as the "reloader automatic" and a grey-ish color, so it is "standing out" from the articles title, but not too much. But that might just be me... (t) Josve05a (c) 00:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I've made the links smaller; I agree, they look better that way. Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Make the 'common' section to be "personalized" or learn which reasons I use most, and not 3 "decided" reasons. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is something I could see being added to a personalization page (which is yet to be created), but in order for it to "log" what the most common responses are, would create an opportunity for a lot of extra errors and issues. Perhaps Theo could write a separate bot that could scan the user contributions of all whitelisted reviewers and compile a page in its own userspace (so it doesn't have to go to BAG for approval) the script could read from for the most common reasons project wide however... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Learn which reasons I use most" is not actually too crazy idea...in fact, I rather like it, if only for the programming adventures it might provide...if I have a chance I'll probably work on this, since an "intelligent" script could be pretty nifty :D Theopolisme (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I was suitably intrigued :D @Josve05a and Technical 13: check out the new "Common / recently used" section in the decline menu, which populates itself automatically after you decline a couple of submissions and keeps automagically updating...kinda cool, if I do say so myself. Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Having the selector beside the title is a nuisance, because I am constantly highlighting titles to paste them into talk pages. Other text on the line slows me down. I didn't say anything about this before, because I assumed it was temporary. Other than that, I don't see why the new script can't be given out now, as long as the old one is not removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not inside the submission-template itself? Like in User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js? (t) Josve05a (c) 18:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Including it in the submission template probably would be troublesome for reviewers, especially because submission templates aren't always at the top of the page...and besides, what if the page hasn't yet been submitted?

Anne/Josve/T13, what do you think about something like [5]? Just an idea...still just trying different things out -- that's what a beta is for, after all :) Theopolisme (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Might just be my personal preferences but I woul to have it on the other side of the star. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would put it in the same place that the current script uses. On my computer this is under the little triangle. Adding another item to the main task bar is problematic; each editor has different gadgets enabled; in my case, each time a page appears the items on the task bar hop around while I vainly try to catch the one I want with my mouse pointer, and if I am using a vertically oriented screen, the bar messes up totally until I zoom out two or three steps. Any new item appearing on the bar would only exacerbate this problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a, Anne Delong, and Technical 13: I've moved the link back to the dropdown where it was before, as well as set it up to automatically add the string " (old)" after the review links which lead to the other helper script, if they are present. Hope this helps, and thanks for the feedback :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hello, guys - I like the new position of the script selector, but for some reason my Twinkle tab has moved to the right of the Page tab. Is this a coincidence, or is it connected? It's annoying because if I'm not careful instead of the page history I get CSD. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's related -- you could try disabling the script and seeing if the problem persists, though...actually, I'm not sure specifically what you're talking about, or else I'd just try it myself... Good luck, and if you find that disabling afch-rewrite solves the problem, please repost here with more details and I'll be happy to take a look! Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing the script didn't fix it. Until now, the tabs were Read, edit, star, triangle, Twinkle and Page (I have this feature: [6] enabled ). Now the Twinkle and Page are reversed. It's been the same for months, and only changed about the time that the script selector moved to the drop-down. However, it could be a coincidence. If no one else notices it, don't bother; it's a minor change anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's weird -- I have the same drop-down menus script installed, and my order is still "Read, edit, star, triangle, Twinkle and Page"...seems like somehow the order in which your scripts are loaded was changed around for some reason... @This, that, and the other: (a Twinkle developer) any thoughts? Theopolisme (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolving as unrelated to AFCH, since I can't replicate this. Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} I am used to press alt+s (on Chrome) to save an edit, not it brings up the review-script instead. (Found on User:Andrea3823/sandbox). I want my option to save using this shortcut back! (t) Josve05a (c) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Should only be temporary... speaking' of which, do you know of any conflicts with the "1" key? Theopolisme (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember any. mabdul and I had a discussion about this awhile ago on GitHub and I went through and found all of the access keys and posted an image showing them all. I don't remember what ticket it was but it should be there somewhere. Maybe mabdul remembers. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: found it → issues 83 — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I cannot answer that fast @Technical 13 ;-) Well I guess we (not me :-p) should disable the script in editing mode? mabdul 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you Mabdul; long time no see! This is the new AFCH that I've been developing for the past few months (:D); have you had a a chance to try it out? Theopolisme (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. /me is still figuring out if I still want to develop on AFCH or not.

Maybe I test the script tomorrow / checking the new code. I was following some time the code changes... mabdul 16:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Dear scripties (or I guess in the tradition of Star Trek, scriptors) : I just used the old script and it came up with a warning that there was an unbalanced ref tag. The new script didn't. There really was an unbalanced ref tag. Is this a feature that is not implemented yet, or did it just miss this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anne, it would be helpful if you could link the draft so we can try and recreate. Otherwise we have no idea of knowing (as it could be page specific in some way). Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leo Schmidt. However, I already fixed it. You can look in the history to see the unneeded named ref tag near the bottom of the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I can't replicate this. I copied the contents of the Leo Schmidt page into WT:AFC/sand and am seeing a "The submission contains unclosed <ref> tags" warning. Am I missing something? Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have deliberately created an unbalanced ref tag on this old submission that I was working on: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Lauri. When I choose the old script, a line of red text warning of the tag problem appears. If I reload the page, and then do the same thing with the new script, no warning that I can see, and I looked carefully in case it was just not prominently displayed. This is all before choosing an option from the menu on either script. I did it several times with the same result each time. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like the script is picking up the malformed references but isn't adding them to the warnings list...some sort of regression we didn't catch...will look into it. Theopolisme (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is an important feature, because missing end ref tags can cause invisible content and may lead to an unfair assessment. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this should be fixed. It was due to a weird edge case not actually related to references checking...but regardless, has been fixed and uploaded. Please let me know if you run into any more problems! Theopolisme (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Theopolisme. The trouble with this type of bug is that there are often no symptoms. It was just a fluke that I happened to use the old and the new script on the same submission, or I wouldn't have noticed it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hello again! While reviewing this draft: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Walls Have Ears, the script said that there were ref tags but no reflist. True, but the references were showing anyway because there is a "listaref" tag. I haven't seen that one before, but it's apparently legit. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Never seen that before :) In any case, fixed. Theopolisme (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When I cleaned up (<<diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oceanhouse Media, Inc. it forgot(?) to remove these. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• If that is one of the comments (I honestly can't remember any more) that was decided should be kept, it should only be keeping one copy of it. However, I don't think it is one of the comments that should be kept and I'm guessing Theo just forgot to include it in the list of comments to clean-up (or the text has slightly changed and the script is missing it -- A single character or case change could make the script miss it). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a and Technical 13: The helper script had the functionality implemented, but someone modified the template without alerting me a few weeks ago, which resulted in the script missing the modified comment (obviously). I've added a warning at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AFC_submission/Substdraft&action=edit which should help. Theopolisme (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Theopolisme, did you notify Epicgenius about the issue their little change caused? Also, the notice should probably link to the developers section of the wp:afch page so they can quickly find a dev. Finally, we should probably get that template  Template editor protected if it's not already and post a note on the talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not notify them, as there would have been no real point -- the deed was done. "Quickly find a dev"? Since no one else has contributed to the rewrite except me, I'm not sure how helpful that is. But sure, change away. A note on the talk page? Which talk page? Theopolisme (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• What I meant was just this... The talk page for Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:AFC submission/Substdraft (Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Template:AFC submission/Substdraft). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It forgot this. I don't know if it hasn't updated yet, or if there is something else...I am tired right now when I write this. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme, Technical 13: again, again and again... (t) Josve05a (c) 12:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the update should be pushed out now. Theopolisme (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: It warns me of the 'Just press the "Save page" button below'-code for being an html-code above 30 characters...this has not happened before. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hello again! I postponed the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adrian Derbyshire, which looked fine before, and left a comment. Something has gone wrong with the formatting after the comment. I didn't fix it so you could take a look. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear... it looks the parser we're using has a problem. This isn't an AFCH issue, it's an issue with MediaWiki itself (it appears). I'll look into it further (note to self: <nowiki> parsing issues). Thanks for noticing this! Theopolisme (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good news! It looks like this isn't a "bug" with the parser per say, just a weird way it has of handling <nowiki>s that I wasn't aware of. Should be fixed shortly. Again, thanks Anne :) Theopolisme (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} While tagging for deletion it gives out this line:

Logged speedy deletion nomination of [[ARTICLENAMEHERE]]

What I think it should do is to say:

Logged speedy deletion nomination in [[User:Josve05a/CSD log]]. (diff)

(t) Josve05a (c) 14:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks :) Theopolisme (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

When reviewing Tritirachiomycetes, the script told me that I might not see all of the references because there were ref tags after the reflist. This is true, but in this case the format appears to work fine. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been fixed. Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} My take on the visual interface: The old helper script had a very compact and easy-on-the eyes design. Screen space is at a premium, so I'm hoping that the new giant words, white lettering on black background, and hidden options on the right which I use a lot are temporary while important functional aspects are worked on. I liked the left-justified options in the old interface because they were always in the same location for selection by mouse pointer. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anne, thanks for looking at this.

Could you perhaps take a screenshot of how the new script appears on your screen and upload it to either Commons or a site like imgur? The reason I ask is because I'd like to ensure your browsing setup isn't causing the interface to appear more different than it's supposed to be. With that said, the interface is still definitely "in progress". I've received positive feedback about the new look as well, which shows it's all about finding a balance... (and/or a "compact theme" or something for those who desire it).

I liked the left-justified options in the old interface because they were always in the same location for selection by mouse pointer.

I assume you're talking about the decline menu. Yeah, that's a good point; I'll look into that in the future. By the way, you can actually click on the text next to the checkboxes to trigger them as well...so the clickable area is fairly large, actually.

Thanks, and keep the feedback coming! Theopolisme (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I hadn't got as far as the decline menu. I was just talking about the main menu. It seems to me that there is an ongoing problem not unique to this script: Those who are editing on tiny screens with vertical orientation, with fingers or rubber-tip pointers, will want big selector boxes; those like me on larger letterbox shaped screens value vertical space and like thin horizontal lines. It's less important than the functionality of course, but perhaps in the future there will be an option. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong, in that case, which "left-aligned options" are you talking about? The "accept"/"decline" buttons? Sorry if I'm being inept here or missing something obvious! Theopolisme (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the small left-aligned pastel-coloured buttons (Accept) (Decline) (Comment), etc., in the old script. They were consistently sized and always at the left as opposed to centred and changing size when other items are added. I appreciate this because it's so soothing compared to the main Wikipedia toolbar where the items keep hopping around as you chase them with your mouse. This isn't a bug, however, just a personal preference, and I realize that others may disagree, so just take it for what it's worth. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• The problem I have with using those types of actual buttons is that they don't render properly on some mobile browsers and as such, are very difficult to click (it is a browser issue and not an afch issue). I do like these new bigger buttons (clickable areas) because they do not have that same issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will note that I'm not keen on the clean this submission and "other" options being hidden by a slider like that... Makes them very difficult to use from my mobile device with nothing more than a touch screen. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  That's≥ a good point; thanks for pointing it out. We should think about other means for offering those options... any ideas, Technical 13? Theopolisme (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The "sliding" feature isn't very consistent with other Wikipedia tools, and others may misinterpret as I did. However, I'm not one to keep up with new trends; maybe its the coming thing... —Anne Delong (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong and Technical 13: I've switched from a hover-based reveal to a click-based reveal. I think we should continue investigating alternative methods for displaying the additional options, but for now hopefully this will be clearer. Theopolisme (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A drop down that fires on select might work well, no? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Yeah, I considered that initially actually. The question is just where to place it and what it looks like... that's the tricky part! Theopolisme (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

This time I really wanted to nominate an article for deletion, so I selected the appropriate box. A large yellow notice came up (the words "requesting deletion" were overlapping the words "give feedback) and then it said "working....", but never presented the "done. [Reload]" message. However, when I manually reloaded, the tagging appears to have been done properly and the appropriate notice is on the user's page, so the lack of a reload options seems to be the only problem. In case it makes a difference, it was a draft that was not in English and had never been submitted (grey draft box). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is an issue with the script itself. I've seen this issue with the current script and with other scripts (like Jackmcbarn's edit protected helper) and I'm guessing it is an issue with parsed rather than the individual scripts. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong and Technical 13: I'm not sure what is going on. T13, it looks like the ajaxStop event sometimes doesn't fire, but it's difficult to reproduce... will keep y'all posted, though. Theopolisme (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been trying to reproduce it for quite some time now on many different script and haven't figured out a surefire way to do it every time either. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} I ran across a problem when accepting a submission. It appears that the title of the draft was blacklisted because it began with "Lol". (??). Neither the old or the new script identified the problem. I don't know if it's possible for the script to detect if the move was successful, and either read the error message from the move process or check the intended title and report its status, but it would be a helpful feature, because it took me a while to find out what was wrong.

Hmm, that's weird. The script should be checking this... will investigate... Theopolisme (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps the script could do all of the cleanup work and whatnot before it attempts the move, and if the move fails, add a category to the draft instead. Such as Category:Accepted AFC drafts that failed to move due to titleblacklist or Category:Accepted AFC drafts that failed to move due to salting and then people with the proper userrights could come along and just perform the move as is appropriate? I'm guessing we'll need to think this through a little more as far as technical details go, but... I think it is a start of a good idea. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just implemented a warning that prevents accepting submissions that are blocked using the TitleBlacklist for the current reviewer. I agree we should discuss better solutions for the future, but for now simply preventing accept seems like a simple intermediate solution. Theopolisme (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} The new release includes "postpone G13" functionality, better edit summaries, click-based toggles instead of hover, title blacklist checking, AfC whitelist support, inline automagical page refreshing after making changes (try it out -- the script now reloads the page content without requiring you to do anything, and without physically "reloading"...look for it during your next review, seriously), and a number of other features and fixes. Bug reports and feature requests encouraged :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Please make the script automatically mark an article as patrolled when reviewing. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• See also #Not patrolling submissions above... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Top priority; currently figuring out the best way to implement this. Theopolisme (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Due to Hasteur's concerns, I suggest that to start with there should be a checkbox on every page that if checked will mark the page as patrolled. The default status of this checkbox should be checked for most users, and I'm guessing it should be set as a mw.user preference. This will allow those that do not wish this functionality to change that preference (which should be made easy to do from a afch configuration page in the near future). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, if anything the script should not auto-patrol. Many eyes make all defects shallow. Having a second editor review the new submission (from New Page Patrol) is a good idea. But since some want and some don't I agree that the user preference/checkbox should be given with the default to not patrol the page that way the user has to actively make the decision to remove the item from NPP's list. I express the decision this way because NPP has a entirely different set of criteria/rubric/tool set that they check as compared to AFC in addition to several AFC users assuming that even if AFC passes it out, the NPP net still will catch them if they made a mistake. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hasteur, are you saying that whitelisted AFC reviewers who have hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of edits and of whom a portion are Autopatrolled can not be trusted to have the script automatically patrol the draft unless they uncheck the box? How about this for a compromise, if the reviewer is autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker, or administrator, then the checkbox is checked by default, otherwise it is not. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a senior reviewer, yet I don't have autopatrolled. Want to rethink your assertion? Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently you didn't read what I wrote because I said whitelisted editors that are allowed to use the script (which requires at least 500 edits last I checked). Also, when I look at Special:ListUsers/Hasteur you are listed as: Hasteur (talk | contribs)‏ (reviewer, rollbacker) (Created on November 12, 2007 at 23:53) which means that you fall into two of the groups which would set the default as "mark as patrolled" per my compromise. If you wish, I have no problem asking on the AFC talk page what the default should be. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reviewer was too widely given out for an entirely different purpose (Pending Changes) that I don't consider it appropriate for determing the check. I also consider Rollbacker a different set of checks (Vandalism) that I don't consider it an appropriate qualififcation either. If the user is autopatrolled, I could see it being appropriate though. Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I see some compromise here... How about we ask on the AFC talk page and see what others think? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Now live on enwiki: When accepting a submission that is not yet patrolled, a checkbox will now appear, unchecked by default, that offers to mark the page as patrolled. This seems quite uncontroversial yet still perfectly functional (@Technical 13 and Hasteur: ?). Theopolisme (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a non-controversial change, and saying it is doesn't make it so. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought the previous debate and kicking and screaming on the AFCH github page indicated that this was very much a controversial change, but I can get behind providing the option defaulted off Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The controversial-ness of the previous debate was, in my reading of it, *patrolling by default*. The new implementation is an unchecked checkbox -- users have the consciously decide to patrol the page. Two folks have asked about it on this page (apparently it was something they used/appreciated previously).

You're right, though, that I was up too late last night and this probably isn't as uncontroversial as I thought it was then -- I'll revert the change if you think that would be the best course of action. Theopolisme (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that github is not part of Wikipedia. Discussing technical implementation issues may be appropriate there, but anything that effects the editors who use the software should be discussed onwiki where all can take part. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hello again (well, you asked for input...) When I select Mark as reviewing or Comment, the script reloads automatically, but doesn't remove the large displayed words which then continue to take up screen space for no reason. If the other options were being displayed, this might make sense, since perhaps the next thing to be done is another reviewing option (although in my case more often it's not; I am more likely to edit the page first). However, since it takes another click to get the options anyway, it's just as easy to get them from the original reviewing link. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to just go back to the options panel, because sometimes the specific links to pages that the script works on will be helpful (also if an edit failed, etc). I also don't want to hide the script for that same reason. You can easily close the review panel and just go about with whatever you were doing, and/or click the edit button directly if you like. Essentially the point of the feature is much faster "reloads to see if the script did what it said it would", which I do believe it accomplishes. Theopolisme (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} I was about to submit an article that I had improved, but the script says it has been previously deleted. There was a link to the deletion discussion - great! Except that it didn't lead to the discussion, but instead to a page about the deletion process. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Do you happen to have a link to the page in question? (I believe what happened is that the edit summary that the script parsed to get the deletion discussion link didn't correctly link to the discussion but rather just to AfD in general...all the same, I'll be happy to check it out.) Theopolisme (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Hey y'all!

Thanks to everyone who has tested the rewrite over the past month. Your feedback has been invaluable, and by all means please keep providing it.

I'd like to begin to make plans for releasing it (or at least publicizing it) on the WT:AFC talk page (without removing the old script at this point in time). Before that happens, though, my question is simple:

What else needs to be done to the rewrite script before releasing it to a larger audience?

For example, I know Technical 13 had some ideas in #Broken row, above, but that discussion stalled a few days ago. @Anne Delong and Josve05a: as our two biggest beta testers, I'm also very interested in hearing from active reviewers as well.

Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Replies have been broken into threads below... Theopolisme (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Hello again - a peripheral topic this time, not a bug. I asked about this on the talk page for the old script, but didn't get a solution.

There has been a lot of talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation about the problem of attracting specialist editors to review submissions. Some of us have been notifying Wikiprojects, but this is a slow, manual process. There should be a way for any editor, whether or not he or she has the script installed, to search the queue for items of interest. The "search link" template allows a search string and prefix, for example:

football -REDIRECT prefix:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation

will show me all of the articles in "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" with the word "football" that are not redirects. There are over 1,000. However, I haven't been able to figure out a way to select only the active submissions. The problem seems to be that the Afc templates are transcluded. I can use CatScan to search the categories, but it doesn't have a field for text in the body of the article.

I tried the "search prefix" template, and it makes a nice search box, but doesn't have an option for a default string, so I couldn't even eliminate the redirects.

Is there some characteristic of only the active submissions that could be picked up by the standard search engine? If not, would it be possible to embed one? (I'd suggest the hidden text "Mxyzptlk", but that would be sure to cause trouble.) And then remove it again when the script is reviewed, of course.

As I said, this is not a bug, so if it's not practical, don't worry about it. If there's a way to do this, though, we could create custom searches for the Wikiprojects to make it easy for them to check the active submissions periodically. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the new CirrusSearch search engine allows searching within templates, so you could do something like including "Review waiting" (in quotes) in the search strings, for example. It's not perfect, but you could further fine tune it obviously (so, say, include more of the template text or whatever)... is that at all helpful? As you can see, I'm not too much of a search expert. Theopolisme (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do yo have an idea when the new search engine will become standard? I don't want this search for myself, but to leave for others to use. I guess I could add a warning notice beside the link that the new search engine should be selected in Preferences first, but I was hoping to avoid this. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was actually already made default a week or so ago. Theopolisme (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Dear script developers: One of the items on this proposal was that the helper script would only function for editors who were on the AfC reviewer's list, it technically feasible, and otherwise would remind users to sign up. Is this practical? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I actually already implemented this a few weeks ago in the rewrite! :) If users aren't listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, they aren't allowed to use the script (and are shown an error message to that effect). Please let me know if anything else needs to be done on this front, though. Thanks, and I'll have some time to work on your other issues soon (sorry for the delay), Theopolisme (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I guess I could have removed myself from the list to find out, but asking was easier. Don't worry about not getting around to things. There always seem to be more things to do than time to do them. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Am I right in assuming that the original helper script doesn't have this feature, so that it will have no effect yet on discouraging inexperienced editors, since they will not encounter the new script when setting their preferences? Or has the old script been changed too? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll need to implement this in the old script... good point (sighs...). Theopolisme (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done :) See announcement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#This_just_implemented:_Whitelist_checking_for_all_versions_of_AFCH. Theopolisme (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone,

Just a heads up that I had a burst of productivity and wrote a preference management system for the new script. Preferences can be accessed by clicking the "preferences" link next to "give feedback" on the main panel -- right now, there's not that much to customize (in fact, next to nothing) -- but now that the system is in place it will be very easy to add more.

@Technical 13, Anne Delong, and Hasteur: and many others, I'm open to any and all suggestions for features which should be made user configurable -- please feel free to brainstorm here! I've got a few listed here as well, scavenged from previous discussions. Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• A way to add (connect to) a Wikidata-item (e.g. Q30) when accepting articles. (This could be turned on in user preferences, since it is not "many" that will use it). (t) Josve05a (c) 23:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  Bad idea... Unless you know the wikidata code prior to do the linking, You're grunteed at least one more edit to get the right linking. Furthermore adding the wikidata link is outside of enWP and is effectively automation on Wikidata, which I think we need to get some cast iron consensus on. Still Further, there's many specialized WikiData scripts for doing the linking so I almost wonder if this is duplicate? Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• An option to make the "rewiev-window" hide/make the page "hard"-update after an action. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think I'll implement this; it's important for editors to be able to see the list of edits made by the script, since after all they are the people being held responsible for them. Theopolisme (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• An option to decide if you want the review-link in the "dropdown-list" or in the "toolbox" on the left side of the screen. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• {{done}} Theopolisme (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Personal (don't have to be personal) shortcuts (e.g. press alt+shift+b to decline as 'blank'). (t) Josve05a (c) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• An option to show all of the options in a row instead of having some hidden on the right, for those of us with short, wide screens. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• An option to have the bar with the options use fewer vertical pixels, for those of us with short, wide screens (and tiny fingers). —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)