Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation | Helper script | Rewrite
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 18 April 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2

[0.3] Feedback about article review

{{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)

Parsing

{{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)

More notes.

{{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 delete wikEd's history fields by clicking the Clear history 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)

Decline hangs

{{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)

Notice on user talk page has no header

{{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)

Review submission showing up on inappropriate pages

{{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)

Not patrolling submissions

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)

Add WikiProjects

{{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)

Adding an odd category to all approved submissions.

{{resolved}}

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

  • More examples
— {{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)

0.5 released

{{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)

[0.5] Feedback about article review

{{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)

Going back?

{{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)

Indented decline reason list

{{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)

[0.5] Postpone G13

{{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)

Afc comment

{{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)

Submit, then accept

{{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)

Multiple Db-templates

{{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)

db-g12 urls

{{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)

Placeholder text bug

{{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)

Postpone G13 - comments

{{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)

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

Sandbox templates

{{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)

[0.6] Feedback about Bad Token

{{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)

[0.6] Feedback about unbalanced ref tag

{{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)

[0.6] Feedback about my user page

{{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)

[0.6] Feedback about the submit process

{{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.

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

Broken row

{{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.
  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)

A way to see the diff when cleaning

{{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)

@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)

Make the 'common' section to be "personalized"

{{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)

Move the access point onto a menu instead of beside the title

{{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)

[0.6] Feedback about Twinkle

{{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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script/Rewrite/Archive_1&oldid=604686922"