anyone else notice how the site notice is all javascript? Its okay for some non-important things to be js (like the comment tab, or even the go away button) but the site notice serves a very important function and should be visible to all, even thoose who have javascript turned off/are using lynx or some other brower with no js/whatever. Bawolff:-)(-:07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
like the long edit warning for pages over 32 kib? (which doesn't affect MSIE 6 to my knowladge unless you have some older versions of google toolbar) Can you be more specific? Bawolff:-)(-:23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me, O' Lord computer-gifted Wikinewsies. I was removing the deleted firefox image off User:RossKoepke's user page but I got a notice saying:
Spam protection filter
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ross.servebeer.com
You can't reinsert it linked (without somehow getting it off the meta:spam blacklist), however you can replace it with ross__dot__servebeer__dot__com or something (if you omit the http:// it might work). Bawolff☺☻04:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to learn as much as possible about contributing to wikinews. Any suggestions how to begin? I just joined. Is there a tutorial set up for first timers? -- Esl coach - (talk)
Where do I find the archived copy of an article that was deleted before I had a chance to make a copy and research it further? Obituary18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you mean the unsourced hoax you created, then the response is it stays deleted unless u can come up with a reliable source to substantiate its contents. — Doldrums(talk) 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have it. If you want it released to you though, you need a good reason. (Or at least ex[plain more) Happy editing Bawolff☺☻23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is in the wrong category, but the Latest News RSS Feed seems to be broken. The news on there hasn't been updated in 5 days now, which seems a bit strange for that feed. Has it been discontinued or something??
The news feed is the strongest thing Wikinews has going for it. I hope subscribers understand that some "really too raw and wrong" stuff will appear there, but that stuff gets taken down by community interaction. I don't think it necessitates that the presentation of content on the feed is dependent on anything other than what becomes published on the site. In other words, it's "auto-magic"? -Edbrown0508:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The feed is indeed down. I look after the Feedburner account and there's no problem with it, the issue is with the scraper script that feeds the xml into Feedburner. I believe CSpurrier looks after that now and I've mailed him. If there's any sort of back-up feed I can switch the Feedburner feed to that. We have over 13,000 readers on the RSS feed so we do need to get this sorted :-). PS in the event of a problem with the RSS feed do mail me via the link on my user page. Dan100 (Talk) 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million for all your help!! I've made myself some notes on what to do should this ever happen again and bookmarked that reset script as an absolute last-ditch emergency fix. I really appreciate the fast response!! -Scotty
The problem is the bot has to login or click the purge button (logged out users get a form when the try to purge). I use the auto refresh feature in Opera and just leave the tab open all the time. Sometimes something happens to prevent it from working (down times of more then ~15mins, me getting logged out, connection problems) and I have to restart it. --Cspurrier01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Craig, any chance you can open this page in Opera and have it reload at the same rate, perhaps a minute behind the purge page? That way, Feedburner will pick up new items quicker, instead of checking every 30mins (the default). Dan100 (Talk) 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, there is a big ugly notice at the top of this page. Well, I added it because we keep on getting messages about how the rss feed stops updating. I hope this works. —FellowWikiNews(W)(sign here!)00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When stories get renamed often redirects aren't updated, and it's a PITA to do anyway. Anyone have the skills to produce a bot that could fix double redirects, preferably in real-time? Dan100 (Talk) 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for this to happen, it would need to pass the dev's super duper security test. (I can not program, therefor i don't know if this would pass or not) I believe Ilya knows more about that (or proablly jimbojw, being the maker of this extention). Personally I think an rss version of DPL2, would be ideal. Bawolff☺☻01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the dev's super-duper security testing, I'll be happy to make any changes required to fix any issues found. Equally important to security is performance - feeds are notorious for adding greatly to the bandwidth output of any system. I've done some work to leverage the objectcache table, but I haven't messed with memcache or other caching mechanisms. There's also native support for offloading feeds to FeedBurner - though I doubt that's a solution for an org like wikinews which seems to be in line with what WikiNews does already. --Jimbojw16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason today I was editing and all of a sudden I got redirected to "Wiki does not exist" [can't find linky]. I tried to get on wikinews but it kept on redirecting me to the same page. After wikinews started working again. Why was this happening? —FellowWikiNewsie(W)(sign here!)23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of messiness with the current implementation of user comments. The feature is seeing use and I think it is time we had a new namespace - say Opinion. Just like on IP user pages it could have an automatic footer/warning, and if it were tied to the article/talk then we wouldn't have rename headaches.
At the moment there's so many little annoying things with the implementation. You can't get back to the article from the comments. If you go to the comments page and use the add opinion link you're going to create "{{Articlename}}/Comments/Comments", and the use of a category as a "poor man's namespace" is too easily broken.
i'm not fond of these comments pages, but if we're determined to proceed with them, then a Help:Custom_namespaces seems to be the way to go. the automatic header/footer makes managing this a little easier. I'm more inclined towards a name such as Reader comments or just Comments than Opinion, which sounds much more like a formal op-ed piece. –Doldrums(talk) 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In returning today I noticed these new buttons. I love the idea. I think a custom namespace would be the perfect way of doing this - and it's literally a config file edit (well, it is for MediaWiki, not sure about MW on WM but we'll see). I'm all in favor of establishing a custom namespace for these pages. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to renovate the baseball portal, but I'm having problems getting the <DynamicPageList> stuff to work the way I want it to. I tried looking at the manual, but it's only making me more confused wondering why this isn't working.
I would expect a list of all articles in the Baseball category that contain the words "NCAA" or "College", but instead it seems to ignore the "titlematch" parameter, listing articles from Baseball regardless of the title.
I guess that if I can't get this to work, then I might have to bug a sysop to add categories to a number of archived articles, though I was hoping to avoid this. Any ideas? —Zacharytalk08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Titlematch isn't a parameter I've seen used here before, so I'll leave that aspect to someone else to dig into. However, if you need categories applied to archived articles just give me a list and I'll get on it later today. --Brian McNeil / talk09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that answers my question. Brian, will you use AWB for this? If so, I'll make separate lists so they won't mix together when you create the lists (there's just a few different ones for the baseball articles). —Zacharytalk10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to use AWB for this. Either mail me article lists or set them up on sub-pages that I can work from. (I'm sure there's an option for all links on a page in AWB). --Brian McNeil / talk12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is very fine, but seems to be added, in some pages, on a bad way, with a space before {{archive}}, which creates an empty <pre>...</pre> zone before the template.
Should it be possible that a sysop (or a bot with temporary sysop rights) makes edits to all archived articles including this 'bug' to change it (through deletion of that space)? Hégésippe | ±Θ±11:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware our calendars - such as Wikinews:2007/April and the days within them, Wikinews:2007/April/1 have to be created manually. Also Categories, eg Category:April 1, 2007.
If you wanted to be really clever you'd include interwiki links - but bear in mind that some of the other language wikinews use different schemes. The calendar pages should also be automatically protected when they're about a month old, right down to the days level. --Brian McNeil / talk11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've completed some tests for this on my test wiki, and it seems to work well in both cases (works if briefs exist, works if briefs don't exist). Protection of these categories is implemented and working too, but that functionality can be removed or disabled if it is unnecessary (though I did notice that some older categories are protected). As is, this could be run daily, probably at 11:59pm GMT, to modify the category for the previous day.
A one-time run through of all older categories could be done too, if that's what you meant by doing this retroactively. It will standardize categories and sorting. A lot of the older categories have abnormal categorization. For example:
Category:March 2005 -- Sub categories not present at all (they exist, just not in the category)
I'm importing a db dump to my test wiki right now so I can do a full test run based on an actual set of data; after that is done, I'll post the results here when that is finished. —Zacharytalk09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the bot yesterday for a short time with minimal problems. The only problems I encountered were likely due to a server problem rather than a coding problem, as running the exact same test again on the failed category succeeded the second time around. I experimented with starting at random places, and it corrects the irregular categorization as well as changing the template depending on if news briefs exist.
The test was successfully run, and the results can be found here. To summarize the results, all five category changes (well, 4 technically) were successful. The tested categories have no red links and are correctly sorted in their parent categories. Two of these tests required the categories to be unprotected, which was done by BrianNZ (thanks by the way!), and to do the full run without skipping any of the categories, these would either have to all be unprotected before (and then protected after), or it would have to be run using an account that has the sysop flag. I'll leave that up for someone else to decide.
Is it appropriate to have a link to YouTube at the top of every Wikinews page? The fact that it is a link to a proposed intro to the proposed Wikinews Video seems subordinate. (and if I were to comment on that video, I'd probably say that it is blatantly Western centric, but I am not going to comment). --SVTCobra02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the link to commons instead of youtube. I don't think the sitenotice is too much, its important to generate intreast. once you read it you can dissmiss it. Bawolff☺☻19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is has come to my attention that the background of wikinews is blank, and does not contain the usual "grey-gradient" (see [2] or [3]). Can this be fixed, as soon as possible, as at current there is no easy distinction for the eye, for where there is a background or a news article. Also, all other wiki sites use the "grey-gradient" as default. Thanks. Stickeylabel08:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dislike that grey, but before we any admin goes to add it, please talk about it. (As I would suggest we change to Datrio+MrM, if we need a background change...) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal09:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion, the "grey-gradient" background adds consistancy and credibility to the site. All other major Wiki ventures use the "grey-gradient" background, and it is common practise to do so. Also, the white reduces the ability to distinguish what is the news article, what is the menu, and what is the background. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation uses otherwise, I suggest Wikinews should get in line with the rest, and start using the "grey-gradient" background. When I originally came to this site, I thought the white background was just a coding error with Internet Explorer, and never realised it was actually used. The "grey-gradient" background is used across all languages and all sections of the wikimedia foundation, so I therefore believe Wikinews should convert thusly. Stickeylabel09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Brian, and the usage of Datrio+MrM. Users have the ability to use any skin they personally wish to use, I am not stating otherwise. I am stating that Wikinews should officially use a consistant background that is in line with the rest of the sites that are part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Stickeylabel10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standard "grey-gradient" background is located here: m:Image:Wfm headbg.jpg; and the background colour is #F9F9F9. It would be appreciated if an Administrator would be able to make the necessary changes. Thanks. Stickeylabel13:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed on purpose (The book image) because it was considered too encyclopedic[4], so there would need to be a wider discussion before reinstating it. Personally I think the normal monobook likes like crap for a news site with or without the background, so I use a different skin (Datrio+MrM). If anyone wants the background back just for themselves, please tell me, and I can do that for you. Bawolff☺☻17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Bawolff. Stickeylabel, DF. We don't have that background cos it makes us look encyclopaedic. We are not encyclopaedic. Just because we are a WMF wiki does not mean "we have to get into line" we can chose things like that ourselves. If you really want it, you would need community support. (and if you want, it can be but into your display, for you) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the link at the top of the template shld go to the Wikinews portal, i think, rather than Wikipedie as they do now. we can put a 'pedia link further down, with something like "country background" as text. –Doldrums(talk) 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Doldrums. We don't want to lead readers away from Wikinews. Those WP links, are a hangover from the days when we use to wikilink everything to 'pedia, and did not do any local links Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal06:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But only the country name at the top links to the Wikipedia article and the country flag goes to the Wikinews portal. It doesn't bother me. —FellowWikiNewsie13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews sucks from an asethic point of view. I think we should change the site theme. To anythign, doesn't really matter what. With the exception of bumblebook, i doubt it could get any worse.Our options:
Monobook variants — wikinews:Skins (all browsers) or view→page style→you choose (opera firefox, and any browser supporting alt stylesheets)
Datrio+MrM - my favourite. some people find the background hard on the eyes
Datrio,its quite nice. looks fun, but not serious imo(don't know if that's good or bad). Anyone whos been here a while will remember journowiki, it was used on that site
Stw — looks very warm (especially depending what version you have)
Clean and blue. to me has a newsie look. (note before this one actualy happening theres a couple things we have to do first though)
wikinews:custom skin — never completed, lost the css, current version doesn't work last time i tried, but does look kind of promissing
Any major changes to the theme of Wikinews should be discussed in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation. The standard monobook theme was chosen for numerous reasons, and it should always be the default. Wikinews caters to numerous sections of the community, including the disabled and the vision impared. The use of select colours, and simple contrasting shapes and colours ensures that everyone is able to freely and easily access Wikinews. Wikinews needs to remain neutral in its design, to reduce bias towards any media outlet that may occur. Wikinews should be traditional to retain its credibility and reputation. Wikinews is part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its design should reflect that fact. Stickeylabel11:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stickeylabel, the WMF is not, and has never been "god" local communities do have say in the running, and design of their wiki. Can you point to any' ruling of the WMF, that says every wiki must have exactly the same? I am 100* sure no such thing has ever been issued.
I would like to point out that many (especially non-english) projects make some change to their skin. However usually they're fairly minor. I have no idea if the wmf is intreasted in keeping the sites similar to prmote some sort of coperate identity. Bawolff☺☻20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Datrio+MrM skin looks cool but it can be straining on the eyes. I wouldn't recommend it for the default skin..only for people that want it. —FellowWikiNewsie17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper thing would be cool. problem is we don't have an image like that that works well. (I've tried a couple at commons before - editcss, makes for great fun that way, they were all distracting because my eyes were drawn to the headline, which was blocked out by real content. Bawolff☺☻18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at cologne blue, I think that one might be our best choice. It looks very newsie and professional. Only problem is the new message dialog isn't as noticeable as monobook. [can easily be changed though] Bawolff☺☻21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. If you do a hard refresh, you can now select newsprint background from view→page style to get a preview. (If you use another skin, specificlly datrio+MrM, you may have to disable it, or log out to see). As for the background, Would it be possible for you to tell me what colour background the image uses (in sRGB, or some system which says how much of red green and blue makes up the couolor? I don't have any image editing programs installed on this computer, so i have no idea myself), also, personally i think it'd might be better (or might not, not really sure) if it faded a little less drastically at the end horizontally. Looks very nice. Bawolff☺☻01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could have some minor changes (like the newspaper background) but the basic thing should still look a lot like Wikipedia, indeed to promote a common Wikimedia feeling.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider like wikipedia? Is anything remotely based on monobook okay. (Like all the alt styles in view → page style) or should it still be very much the same as monobook from a shape point of view, with different colours? Bawolff☺☻01:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed it (Do a hard refresh and the alt skin should use the new version). Last thing, should it be fixed or scrolled (Currently its fixed, wikipedia's is scrolled I think for comparison)? Bawolff☺☻03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, it might be best if the image was not gfdl, simply because that'd make the licensing situation on wikinews confusing. (just from sheer number of licenses). Bawolff☺☻03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welll, I use the Datrio skin anyway, so any changes won't necessarily affect me. I would suggest NOT making the background fixed as that can cause scrolling issues. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bawolff, the skin is functioning very well, and it looks far better than before. I have also changed the licensing to CC-BY-2.5 as per your suggestions. Thanks. Stickeylabel04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the newspaper columns background is a little too dark, i think. i find it makes the userpage, talk and preferences links at the top difficult to read. –Doldrums(talk) 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I thought about having a newspaper as a background versus WP's open book, I was expecting a photo of a folded newspaper turned to greyscale. Eg, this turned to greyscale. --Brian McNeil / talk07:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was also my original intention, however I found it difficult to find a copyright free image of a folded newspaper that would be suitable for Wikinews. If anyone is able to find a suitable image, please contact me using the contact details at w:User:Stickeylabel. Also in response to Doldrums, I am currently fine tuning the image to fix the issue. Thanks. Stickeylabel09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue of legibility with the text on the top menu, and I have also extended the text area on the image to support all screen resolutions. Here is the updated background: commons:Image:Wikin header5.jpg. May I please ask for an administrator to change the "4" to a "5" in the main monobook css file, which will update the image for all. Thanks. Stickeylabel10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example of main page with newspaper stack background This is a sample of what it looks like on Firefox. I put this in the main monobook.css last night, but FellowWikiNews took it out before anyone else likely had a chance to see it. --Brian McNeil / talk09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reverted it was because I didn't like it. When it was on the monobook.css it didn't look like a stack of newpaper, it looked like a bunch of lines. Feel free to revert my edit :) —FellowWikiNewsie14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll put it back and have a go at creating something else tomorrow - I can probably do a better edit if I have a few more goes at it. Incidentally, the Wikipedia book image also looks like a bunch of lines until you see it separate from the rest of the site. I like the pile of newspapers behind our content, it is - after all - what we hope to make obsolete. --Brian McNeil / talk19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the opinion of people now on the background I've implemented? I've had favourable feedback from a couple of people in IRC, but I've also had criticism that the colour doesn't go with the rest of the scheme. I've left a message on Jimbo's WP talk asking him to take a look as well, but what is likely more important is what people here regularly think. --Brian McNeil / talk08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to this page to complain about the new background. It makes some of the links difficult for me to read. I have normal eyesight, and I can only assume that visually impaired people are affected to a greater extent.
The image's coloring also doesn't match the site's scheme, and I didn't even recognize it as a photograph of newspapers until I saw this discussion.
An area of solid grey (like the sidebar) would be far more practical and professional (and better than the solid white, which did look a bit odd). —David Levy22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I don't understand is how anyone can have a problem seeing the links at the top. I have zero problems with the contrast levels on them, and I'd like to see a screenshot that actually shows them as difficult to make out. For an alternative, get yourself a good photo of a single newspaper on a white background and upload as hi-res a version as possible. For the time being I'll leave the current one (unless someone else removes it). At least it isn't the same as Wikipedia, and there have been a few people said they like it. I can just hope it grows on Ed and others or we get another photo to work from. --Brian McNeil / talk15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand how the site could end up looking different to other people than it does to you? I've uploaded a screenshot, but I don't know what good that will do. (You probably won't see it at my resolution and screen size, and your monitor's overall display qualities might significantly differ as well.)
On my end, when viewing the site at full-width (1400px), the only right-hand link that shows up well (in its entirety) is "log out." This is because the background image abruptly ends before it reaches that point (which looks quite bad, of course). If I reduce the window size to accommodate a vertical taskbar (as I often do), the background makes it completely across (but the "log out" link becomes equally difficult to read). I'm using Firefox 2 for Windows with the "normal" text size.
I'm disappointed that you would dismiss accessibility concerns for the sake of retaining a purely aesthetic addition that "a few people said they like" (and others clearly don't).
You performed a major change that affected the default appearance of every page on the site. This sort of thing should be discussed and tested (and actual consensus should be established) beforehand. —David Levy19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your screen print, and while I see your issue with the width of the image I cannot see why you have difficulty making out the links along the top. They are perfectly clear to me and I have no problem with the contrast between grey and blue.
I have suggested what material we would need to make an alternative logo/background and I have more people saying they like the background than not. If you really object find an admin to revert the change, but I really would prefer effort to work towards something better instead of taking a step back. --Brian McNeil / talk19:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I already pointed out that you aren't seeing the same thing that I see (unless you have the same size and type of display running at the same settings). At 1400x1050 (my resolution) everything is much smaller than it is at lower resolutions. If you tell me what your resolution and screen size are, I can create a version that approximates the size of what I see, but this still won't factor any other differences in our monitors. (The image isn't even grey for me; it's beige.) "It looks fine to me" (scare quotes) is not a valid argument.
2. Majority ≠ consensus (and I'm surprised by your apparent implication to the contrary).
3. Removing a purely decorative graphic that reduces the site's accessibility is not a "step back." The proper course of action is to work toward a design backed by clear consensus (and then implement it). —David Levy22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, if you find the text size to small at your resolution, why don't you hit the increase text size button. That is what its there for. (For reference though, I think it is best to do something like Datrio+MrM skin for clarity of that part.)Bawolff☺☻18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the text size too small. I never experienced any difficulty reading those links (or any other text) until the new background image was implemented. It was the poor contrast that caused this problem, but I'm speculating that this might have been less of an issue at lower resolutions (though this likely was only one of several significant variables).
It's never safe for someone to assume that if something displays properly on his/her screen, it will look the same on everyone's screen. These things need to be widely tested before they're added to the actual default interface. —David Levy18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least a couple of articles in the 'disputed' section of the WN:Newsroom that are not showing up on WN:DR even though they are tagged 'copy-vio'. Is this a technical problem? --SVTCobra 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, they are tagged 'press release' not 'copy-vio'. --SVTCobra14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way that we can have a link at the bottom of a page that takes you back to the top? I mean on every page as part of the standard layout, not some wikicode that gets added to pages.
This would be useful on long discussion pages, or when reading a long diff and wanting to go back to the top to look at the next set of changes. --Brian McNeil / talk09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not without modifying the skin file (the php part, not the js, or css part. well you could use the js part, but it'd only work in js enabled browers). However, try pressing the home button on your keyboard. Bawolff☺☻17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it :) Just look at the top of your article and you will see the "Rename" botton, click it, type in your new title, and click "Move Page". Best, —FellowWikiNewsie17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY IMPORTANT! Do not ban IP 66.230.200.145 (talk · contribs) if he does vandalism. On Wikipedia it says it doing so will lock out every editor for a brief period of time until the developers fix whatever bug is causing the squid problems. Just giving a heads up that something is buggy with Wikipedia and be careful.
I talked to the people on wikimedia-tech, they said the issue is fixed. Apperently the IP is a wikimedia proxy, and its IP instead of the user who edited IP was showing up in the logs. Problem is now solved according to the devs. Bawolff☺☻03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFire has since then added this expression to the spam whitelist and so fixed the problem. but am curious to know what happened in the first place. –Doldrums(talk) 08:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone: Please let us know of this issue if it happens in the future. RE: As am I. It happened to an Israeli news source as well. Strange it is. DragonFire102408:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When one renames an article, the associated talk page is moved also. However, it seems that the comments page gets left behind. Can the same code (or whatever moves the talk pages) be applied to the comments pages? I fear that there are many orphan comments pages out there. --SVTCobra22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm yes, but you have to convince a dev to do it. Also we could theoretically use javascript to auto move it (however that is beyond my skills) or make a bot that looks for moves and autofixes them (that is also beyond my skills to.). Bawolff☺☻22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was published for a brief period. If its not publ;ished now, then the next time the RSS updates, it should be gone...Let us know. DragonFire102402:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been published since 00:44 UTC. However, I do wish someone (other than me) would take a look at this article. It doesn't sit right with me. --SVTCobra02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have the "view opinions" tab show as red when there is no content, such as the case with the "discussion" (talk) page tab? Jcart153402:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I think i have a basic idea of how to do it (seeing multiple ways, they're just inefficient). We could add a line to publish tag that detects if it exists, and then add an invisible code to tell the js (I don't know the efficiency of that), or we can have the js auto load the comment page by itself to see if it exists, and then do whats appropriate (ver bad idea from an efficency standpoint, I think anyways). Best way would to get it really in the php instead of relying on js hacks. Bawolff☺☻23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Headline about Irish general election is WRONG!edit
With respect to the Wiki news headline about the recent Irish general election - no-one has "won". The government will be elected on the 14th June, by the candidates who were elected at the general election on May 24th.
Your headline is *very* misleading and is false. The main opposition party, for example, gained 20 new seats, and the current government party, who you claim "won" the election, lost 2 seats.
It is not yet certain who will be in power in June, so Wiki's main page is not giving the full picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.1.234 (talk • contribs) May 27, 2007
I am having trouble finding the article about which you speak. Can you identify it by its headline, please? --SVTCobra22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think you will find that this is a comment about the wikipedia news section which since has been changed and is not about an article here. --MarkTalk22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably put some info somewhere if we are going to have it. (aka, where and who gets the data collected, and is there any conflicts with the privacy policy) Bawolff☺☻22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly confident that using Google Analytics to generate user statistics is a flagrant violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy. --+Deprifry+22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now an external company beyond our control and with a known interest in data mining will be able to collect personally identifiable data (i.e. IP addresses) and tie them to visits to specific articles at a specific time. --+Deprifry+09:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting. I can see the POV that it violates privacy (even though I have *very* strong views on it, this is not the place for it.) It wasn't a single decision, I beleive a few admins in IRC (in which I beleive all admins should be visible) agreed that it would be "useful". The code itself was not working anyway, thus no information has been collected or stored. The wiki interface appears to not like google's javascript (or vice versa), however it was left in as it can sometimes take up to 24 hours for it to work. Please leave the code removed until we reach some sort of agreement on this :) --Skenmy(t•c•w•i)18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm thats werid (that it didn't work), it should of worked, as that page doesn't seem to filter html tags. Anyways if we did add it, it should go into mediawiki:common.js (keep the js together). Bawolff☺☻22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have outdated stats (meta:Wikinews), (If you're thinking of the same one's i am, about how many pages etc). We have a local version at special:statistics which is more up to date. I've been trying to contact LeonWP on irc, who I think is supposed to be the person to contact about the wikicharts thing, but he has not responded yet. Bawolff☺☻22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of modifying mediawiki:talk (I think that is the right page now, I remember it used to be nstab-something) to collaboration to prevent confusion with comments (comments vs discussion is confusing)? Bawolff☺☻00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This causes a problem with User talk pages being labelled "Collaboration". If user talk can be retained I think the rename is a good idea. --Brian McNeil / talk10:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it does say up in Wikinews news that the opinions tab now shows up red if there isn't anything there. But I'm still getting the annoying ambiguous blue link. Anyone care to explain? Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs)06:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would It be possible to see the code related to getting the opinions tab on the wiki? I am trying to do something similar and cannot for the life of me figure out a good way to do it. Thanks much in advance! --Andrew.in.snow09:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does have errors. On some setting it does work, others it does not. Also, I have found that the link back to the article on the comments page is shown as red, for no reason. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have JS enabled for it to work. some security settings might interfere (I assume), but you'd need to be specific which ones, for me to tell you more. Really this should all be in the php, and then all our problems would disappear. Bawolff☺☻01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not work in MSIE, and it doesn't work in older browsers. Note if you're making tabs for some other wiki, there is a new js function that is much easier to use then the code in common.js. - see the instructions labeled Add a link to one of the portlet menus on the page on http://en.wikinews.org//skins-1.5/common/wikibits.js about half way down. (note you need to know a bit of javascript for that to make sense, if you don't just adapt the script in common.js.) Bawolff☺☻01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have a problem. I used the "create article box" in the Romanian Wikipedia, and I was wondering why there is a problem with it there and here not. If you register to ro.wiki and go to http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:Danutz/Cutie you will see that at the bottom of the page there is a problem with it, the page is not displayed properly. I hope you see what I mean, but I repeat, that only happens when registered (logged in). The same problem appears with the box on ro.wikinews.org . If you understood what I mean, please write here about how this problem, please tell me how this was fixed on the english wikinews. Thank you! --Danutz21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikinews not have "wikitable" CSS class, used in nearly every Wikimedia Project? I have just seen a case when an user had a problem with tables in their article, because "wikitable" was not working. "Prettytable", which Wikinews only provides now, is outdated. I think that Wikinews should offer minimal compatibility with other Wikimedia projects. --Derbeth16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're absolutely right, and if you'll point me to the right code and how to fix this, I'll be glad to screw up the monobook or whatever for you -or perhaps someone else might solve it.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need lines from styl dla "ikonki" RSS to .rss:hover { border-style:inset; } – they are for Polish Wikinews RSS not for wikitables. --Derbeth19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
