Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/archives/2009/August


Has there even been a discussion about enabling the rollback feature for non-sysops? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, but I think this is a very good idea. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a low bar for sysop and a very high sysop/regular contributor ratio. The additional administrative efforts in determining which users should have rollback seem to outweigh the benefits. --SVTCobra 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not hard; I give rollback to anybody with a couple hundred edits on enwiki and Commons. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda what we do for Wikinews:Editor status, perhaps the two should go hand-in-hand. That way there will be zero additional burden administratively. --SVTCobra 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'd support that. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, support that.   Tris   07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. hmwithτ 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If rollback can be tied into Editor, I'd fully support that. It seems like a sensible approach. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who should we ask to find out if it is technically possible? --SVTCobra 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a couple more people chip in on this we just bugzilla it into "technically possible" ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't non admins already get an 'undo' feature? Not that it makes any difference to me. I thought everyone had rollback or did at one point. If we enable it for non admins, I suggest we do it so that accounts are at least active for a week or so after creation. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we have undo, but rollback is far more efficient (and if I recall correctly, it puts less strain on the server). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we trust you enough for editor, we should trust you enough for rollback, and vice versa. I like the sound of this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we have pretty solid consensus now. Anybody feel like filing a bugzilla? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I think Rollback is fairly harmless compared to the fact that we allow the Editor group to PUBLISH articles, why not. Bug 19815 filled. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Wikipedia has it [I have permissions for it], I fell all Wikimedia Wikies should have one too.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see i'm a bit late to the discussion, but I would also like to endorse the idea of enabling rollback here (especially if it's possible to combine it with editor status). Tempodivalse [talk] 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed {{flag}} from above. I think this is   Done. :) Cirt (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is   Done --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revisions on Portal namespace

Spotted some edits to Portal:North America today and wondered why they don't need sighted.

I think the Portal: namespace should use FlaggedRevs too. If there's some general agreement I'll submit a bug to have that done. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted to bugzilla. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geonotice improvements that could make Wikinews great

I just wanted to point you to a great idea/proposal of User:Ragesoss, see "Geonotice improvements that could make Wikinews great (among other benefits)"! It is about getting people that are near to an upcoming event to take photos, reports, interviews etc. --- Kind regards, Melancholie (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised on the strategy wiki too. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, see there (talk). --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

The flood flag feature has been enabled; sysops have the ability to grant the flag to themselves and others. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know that existed;). Next time. Gopher65talk 04:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript bugs

I recently discovered that the comments namespace js magic did not work in internet explorer. Looking through the history of mediawiki:Comments.js, it was apparently discovered long ago, but at that time we couldn't think of a fix at the time and forgot about it. Anyways its fixed now, but I think it proves we need a page to list outstanding bugs in the javascript. To that end: Wikinews:Javascript#Bugs - please report any outstanding issues - especially issues present only in specific browsers on that page, so they do not get lost in the sands of time. Bawolff 03:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles appearing under wrong dates on main page

I just noticed that some articles, published on August 11, are showing up on the list for articles published on August 13 (today). Not sure why or how to fix it. This has happened a few times before. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the following DPL embedded in the main page: <DynamicPageList> category=published notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived stablepages=only count=20 addfirstcategorydate=true ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true showcurid=true </DynamicPageList>

The talk for the main page misleadingly still lists {{Latest news}} which correctly lists the articles. This seems to be some unreliability with addfirstcategory not recognising when an article was really first added to the publish category. Is it perhaps something like renames that causes problems? I know there have been other oddities with old articles popping up in the OR section when someone has done a sweep of categorisation or other things. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I am not a technical type person so what you just said doesn't make sense to me :P I just noticed the issue as I was updating main page leads. Beyond that, I am at a loss. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renames do cause articles to show up at the top. IIRC the basic way the database handles renames makes it impossible to determine if the article was renamed or created as far as categories are concerned. There probably is a bug about it somewhere. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who runs feedburner? Maybe something to do with that? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What? No, and I have no idea how you come up with that suggestion other than desperately flailing about and clutching at straws. feedburn reads from Wikinews, it does not write to it. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it was caused by an IP anon-user vandalizing the page. He removed the {{publish}} tag from the page. This vandalism was later reverted. Unfortunately the published articles are sorted based on the last edit to add {{publish}} to the page:P. The edits don't even have to make it through flagged revisions, so even an IP can seriously mess us up using this method.
Someone remind me, why did we stop using the "use the date at the top of the page" method of sorting? Surely that still works, and using that method would get rid of the constant headache this new system is causing. Gopher65talk 04:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is actually a buggish issue with DPL. Someone might consider looking into it a bit and filing a bug. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless, I blocked the IP address for one month, until September 14. If I had my way i would block it forever. Traced back to the The Corporation for Financing & Promoting Technology in Vietnam. So someone over there is bored. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SGN is right, it's a DPL bug. I'm out all day, I'll file one if nobody has by the time I'm back in. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bug added, please go, comment, and vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this is the IP, However a lot of these issues are caused by people adding {{DEFAULTSORTKEY:}} which unfortunatly screws everything up. See bugzilla:16287. I filed a bug to add some method of manually changing the timestamp, so we can at least fix the issues as they appear. see bugzilla:20378. Also note that the page move issue was fixed a while ago (by Zach i think, can't quite remember). Cheers. Bawolff 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy peer review

I noticed, though I might have missed something, that the easy peer review does not flag the review it does. At the moment you have to manually flag the revision in the history, by clicking 'prev' DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too hard to just click the sight thingy at the bottom of the page right after doing the review. :P However, I agree that if this step could also be automated, it'd be yet another helpful part of the tool. :) Cirt (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I was not aware you still had to do that. I assumed that it was all automated and yes it should be automated, at least in this gadget. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that should be automated. Bawolff 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should sight the correct revision now. You may have to do a hard refresh to get the changes. Cheers Bawolff 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]