Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Please add the new Template:Db-t5. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just bumping this so it doesn't get lost. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Novem Linguae can the various pull requests (including this) be merged? Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time right now to review all 20 of them, but can try to take a look at the Db-t5 one. The delay with PRs is that they require manual testing, which is laborious. But breaking Twinkle for 50,000 people and then fixing it is even more laborious, so we're stuck with manual testing for each PR :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to test this here (is there a beta version of Twinkle that can be imported?), but looking plainly at the code and the discussion seems correct. There is no need for notifications. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any updates on this? Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gonnym, @LaundryPizza03. I'm happy to report I finally got around to this one. Sorry for the delay. Should be all set to start using CSD T5 in Twinkle now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I ran into a case where I needed db-t5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been using Twinkle for years and recently became a New Pages Patroller which required me to make a few changes to my Twinkle preferences. Ever since then, I've lost my Twinkle rollback functions (AGF rollback / Normal rollback / Vandalism rollback) and cannot for the life of me work out how to get those links back. Does anyone know how these are switched on/off via my Twinkle preferences? Now I'm only seeing the standard "undo" revert option (on the diff page) that everyone sees. Rodney Baggins .talk. 12:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rodney Baggins: In your Twinkle settings (TW > Config), search for "Show rollback links on these pages" and tick "Diff" there. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@John of Reading: That's brilliant, thank you so much! I guess I'd have found it myself eventually but got a bit blinded by the massive sea of options and didn't have time. No idea how it got unchecked in the first place. Cheers, Rodney Baggins .talk. 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@John of Reading The rollback links is kind of confusing of how they are different. pressing any one just gives the same "reverted" tag, whether its vandalism or agf. im not quite sure how they work and pressing them feels inconsistent. sometimes it redirects me to the user page, other times it talks me to the article, sometimes it writes stuff in the source editing, other times it doesn't.it very much confuses me.

sorry for not creating a subject, I just didn't think it was that important to JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also for some reason I cant rollback a rollback with it, it just talks me to the wikipedia :rollback page

it does say :

1. rollback (AGF) - Performs rollback, then provides an edit summary box, pre-filled with an AGF label. AGF stands for Assume Good Faith, meaning the label is written in a friendly encouraging tone as opposed to a stern warning tone. (preview)
2. rollback - Performs rollback, then provides an empty edit summary box.
3. vandalism - Performs rollback and opens vandal's talk page so you can easily add an appropriate warning template (does NOT allow edit summary; edit summary will be automatically filled).

However it always asks for edit summary and it always only adds "reverted tag" if none filled out in any rollback feature then the edits summary will be blank, but with "twinkle" and "revert" tags JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JamesEMonroe: I can't give definitive answers! I mostly use the middle option, filling in the edit summary with my reason for doing it. I try to comment on the edit itself, not on whether I think the edit was made in "good faith". One technical difference in the three buttons is what happens if the editor has made another edit by the time you ask for the revert. The first and second buttons will abort your action, so that you can have a look at the new situation. The third button will continue with your revert, wiping out the new edit as well, since you have told Twinkle that the other editor is vandalising.

I reliably end up on the other editor's talk page. There are some options controlling that in the Twinkle preferences.

Your Twinkle edits all seem to be tagged "Twinkle", and those that are reverts are tagged "Tagged, Undo". This edit was tagged "Twinkle, reverted" because you changed your mind a minute later and undid your edit.

Does that help? I suggest you start a new thread for any new questions. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Uw-controversial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just an update here for anyone watching this page -- the nomination discussion resulted in the template being deleted, and the template should probably be removed from Twinkle. —tony^{st (talk)} 13:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

FYI. The recently created Template:Uw-editwar1 through 4 have been nominated for deletion. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's quite disruptive when it happens, e.g. when I change the rationale for a block and the times, set earlier, are the default again... ~Lofty abyss 12:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Special:Diff/1291007252 as an example. Twinkle was able to find the "essay-like" tag when assessing which tags were already on the article, but failed to find it when trying to add the previous tags into a "multiple issues" template. -- asilvering (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The recently added ability to bulk-nominate multiple articles for XfD at once is fantastic and long-awaited, but it is causing problems with automatic XfD logs. Rather than inserting a paragraph break via {{pb}} or <br />, the system instead treats each article as a separate entry before listing the reason under the last article, which messes up the numbering and looks confusing.

1. Article #1: nominated at RM; New name: Article #1
2. Article #2: nominated at RM; New name: Article #2
   • Reason: Lorem ipsum

Can this be fixed? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, as a heads up I've opened an issue here requesting the addition of some of the more frequently used user talk page notification templates (alert, alert/first, Gs/alert, Gs/sanction, AE sanction, AE sanction/topicban) to the list of single-issue notices, as well as adding General Sanctions to the list of block presets as a clone of Arbitration Enforcement (but with the appropriate text references and list of sanctions to select from). We use these so frequently and it's annoying that I can use Twinkle to handle all sorts of common "normal" administrative actions like blockings and warnings, but cannot currently use it for warnings in CTOPS or blockings for GS-covered issues like WP:GSRUSUKR, for instance. This seems backwards as those remedies are supposed to make it *easier* for admins to deal with disruption in these areas, but the tools haven't quite caught up so ironically it's slower. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing this! It would also be helpful to add general sanctions to the list of page protection presets. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added to ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello all,

I recently made the Uw-gaming series of user warnings for gaming the system and would like them to be added to Twinkle. How would I ask for them to be included in the next patch? » Gommeh (he/him) 14:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same goes for the Uw-civil series. I know we can add these ourselves as custom warnings in the Twinkle config, but I feel it may be better for every Twinkle user to have them. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there documentation somewhere on how to add custom warnings? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is I think, I can't find it though. It's towards the bottom of the Twinkle config under "Custom warning templates to display". » Gommeh (he/him) 16:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you think these user warnings are used often enough to be useful for all Twinkle users, feel free to create a ticket at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/new –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that there is no level 4 warning gor introducing incorrect pronouns, Uw-pronouns. I've used level 4 vandalism to substitute. I wondered if there was a reason for only level 1,2 and 3? Knitsey (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you might have better luck asking this question at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:Uw-pronouns4 redirects to Template:Uw-generic4. Doesn't appear to be a Twinkle issue yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thabk you for the reply. The option for Template:Uw-pronouns4 doesn't appear as drop down selection option though, even though it is a redirect? Knitsey (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe that's normal for Twinkle. If a template doesn't exist then it doesn't appear. Twinkle won't create "redirects" for templates that don't exist. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I find an article with two cleanup tags, and add a third, Twinkle gives me the option to wrap the tags in {{Multiple issues}}.

But if I don't select a new tag, it warns me "you must select at least one option", and will not wrap the two existing tags,

It would be convenient if it would do the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My CSD menu items does not include any 'R' options (R1, R2, R3 etc). I cannot see how to fix this via the Twinkle prefs... Am I missing something or perhaps this is a bug? Any help much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unable to reproduce. My steps to reproduce were 1) copy User:Cabrils/twinkleoptions.js to User:Novem Linguae/twinkleoptions.js, 2) visit the redirect CIA, 3) TW -> CSD -> R2. It is the first radio button. Can you try visiting the CIA redirect linked above and confirm that you still don't see R2? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Novem Linguae, thanks very much for the help. I visited the CIA redirect as requested and YES I see R2. Perhaps I've misunderstood the problem: when I visit for example my user page] i do NOT see R2, but maybe R2 should not be appearing there and should only occur on pages that have a redirect on them (like CIA)? Cabrils (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Exactly. The "R" series of CSDs is only for redirects. "G" is for all namespaces. "A" is only for mainspace. "C" is only for categories. etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great, that has resolved the issue. Thanks very much for your help, much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome.   Closing without action –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can {{uw-staleuserpageblanked}} be added to the warnings included in Twinkle? Legend of 14 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Legend of 14: You can always add it to your Twinkle preferences as a custom warning template at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences § warn. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 16:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know you could do that. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now that rollback options are available in the mobile interface, it would be helpful to add the Twinkle warning menu as well. This would allow users to issue warnings without having to switch to desktop view. Currently, if the "warn after rollback" option is enabled in Twinkle preferences, the feature works. However, if that option is disabled, there is no way to warn disruptive users from the mobile interface. - ArćRèv • talk 13:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if Twinkle could, when you click to XfD something, warn you if the previous XfD was within, lets say, 3 months. Here is a quick example made by Claude: User:Polygnotus/Scripts/PreviousAfDs.js Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. If someone codes it up (submits it as a pull request on GitHub) I'd be happy to test and approve the patch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Twinkle repair people,

I'm finding that batch deletion feature is no longer working correctly all of the time. I use it for broken redirects and G13s and when you select it from the drop-down menu, it works as usual with the CSD G13s but not for the broken redirects. The pop-up box appears but it doesn't list the pages to be deleted in the pop-up box. Any ideas why it works with some pages but not with others? I can list the particular pages if that would help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, example pages would be great. Please provide when you get a chance. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you add Template:Prod-nn to the PROD option for pages? It only has Template:Prod and Template:Prod-blp. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@1isall, just a quick note: you can add it for yourself as a custom template to your Twinkle preferences under the PROD section. This doesn't make it appear for other users, though. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't know I could do that. I will do that now. Thanks for telling me! 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wait, I don't know how to add the template to my preferences specifically. Could I have help with that? 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@1isall:: Oh, I'm very sorry, I got it mixed up. There are no custom templates for PROD, only for welcoming and warning, I think. Sorry again, I should be more careful next time. In that case, someone else should help with your request. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, and thanks anyway. I will wait for a response to this from someone else. 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 00:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I wanted is for someone to go into the gadget's code and adjust it so that Prod-nn appears on the PROD option in the TW menu that is on pages. 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, I think you (or someone else) would have to make a request here for a change at GitHub or something. There's some information in the header at the top of this page. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll go and look at the top for that info, and then go over to the GitHub page linked. 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wait, the request is supposed to be made here, on the Twinkle talk page. GitHub is where the changes are made, I think. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right. I already made the request somewhere in this discussion, didn't I? 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I suppose you did. We'll just wait until someone who knows what they're doing comes along (which shouldn't be too long; this page has over a thousand watchers). 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should you or I contact one of those watchers? 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I think someone will see this soon enough. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, then. I guess we'll just wait. 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. The process is something like create GitHub issue -> volunteer writes a patch (GitHub pull request) -> I test and merge the patch -> I deploy the patch. So feel free to create a GitHub issue, saving me a step since then I don't have to transcribe it from here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm going to do that. Thanks! 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I recently opened the issue at the GitHub page. 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, when tagging an article to be expanded by translating another language version of the article there appears to be no way to select a suitable topic except by manually adding it to the template afterwards. Having a drop down menu to allow us to select a topic would streamline this process and would avoid having a large backlog of uncategorized articles for translation. Giuliotf (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Twinkle crew,

Did you disable the batch delete feature? Because I just tried it a few times and it didn't work. What shows up is the pop-up box, but it has no pages listed as existing. It's just blank in the lower part of the box as if there were no pages eligible for deletion. I manually deleted the pages instead but it's a handy feature to have when you are deleting a lot of pages so I hope it can be fixed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see I already posted a message about this last month. So, an example would be User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace. I don't have a screen shot of the pop-up box. I also use it with the Dreamrimmer Bot II page for expired drafts (User:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts) but so far, I haven't had this problem there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have this vague recollection that it only works on certain types of pages and/or with certain types of links. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

New CSD WP:G15 can be added. {{db-g15}}. Thanks, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've created a ticket. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bumping this. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

They're working on it per the tickets. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was going to finish https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2199 first. But I agree that this and the other new CSD are kind of urgent, so will pause my work on 2199 and refocus on these two new CSDs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The list of possible AE blocks needs updating. It still has the old IPA instead of the new SA. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Asilvering The list is stored at Template:Ds/topics.json. You can update it there. – SD0001 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tried to use the tag feature to add the {{obituary}} tag to an article but I don't think it is one of the options. Does anyone know why this is or think it is worth adding. For context, the tag is:

Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can add it just for you on the Twinkle config page. If you'd like it added to Twinkle for everyone, please create a ticket on GitHub to get the process started. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Uw-legal has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Interstellarity (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why {{split}} is not among the tags that can be applied with Twinkle? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Uw-colorblock has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I nominated two pages (Aafreen Dabestani and Shivani Sopori) via the TW > XFD tool. Each page was open on a tab of the same browser (Firefox). I switched tabs back and forth while nominating the pages. The timestamps at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 12 also show a minute difference between the additions, but one nomination was over-written by the other. Expected: either one of the XFD actions should have failed with an edit conflict, or both nominations should have gone in. Jay 💬 08:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Announcing new, single-level notice {{uw-citevar}}. I have added a commented out link to Twinkle banner in the template. If you decide to include it in the installation, please uncomment the link, or if you wish, ping me and I'll do it. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Currently, Twinkle has this red text that appears when trying to use either {{uw-coi-username}} or {{uw-username}}—it tells people that they should skip warning and go straight to WP:UAA for "blatant" username policy violations. For {{uw-coi-username}}, I think we should get rid of this text. The culture on-wiki these days is shifting towards "warn more, block less" for WP:PROMONAME violations—see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive373#Unblocks backlog and Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Promotional usernames where the user has not made promotional edits. For PROMONAME in particular, we generally require not only a promotional username, but also promotional editing in order to give a block (see the text of WP:PROMONAME)—if a user has not engaged in promotional editing and just has a username that may represent a company, then warning is an entirely appropriate first step before UAA. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would also be open to refactoring the text to read something like: If this user has a promotional username and has made promotional edits related to their username, then the account should be reported directly to UAA (via Twinkle's ARV tab). If the user has not made any promotional edits or is otherwise borderline, use {{uw-coi-username}}. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

A template in use in {{Please see}} is currently up for TDF and it has broken the template, FYI. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this yesterday when doing subst:Please see by hand (not in Twinkle). A fix for this would need to happen in template wikicode, I think, not in Twinkle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Correct, I'm just providing the belated notification that {{Please see}} says is required (and also in the hope that someone here is an admin and can reverse this and close the TFD until we've determined what will break if this is allowed to happen). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have wrapped the TFD notice with noinclude tags. Does that fix the problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I dunno, let's test. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, still broke. I honestly think the TFD notice just needs to be removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that code is sneaky. It adds an "r" to "Format link" via an #if statement, so {{Format linkr}} is called by default. I have noincluded the TFD notice at both Format link[r] templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That got it. =) So now the question (which should be addressed at the TFD) is, is this going to break other templates that rely on these two? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per the WP:LINKBOXES guideline, only the most common and easily remembered redirects should be listed. The least used shortcuts should be removed, this page doesn't need more than 2 similar shortcuts.

The ones above are the most common and easily remembered ones for this page. FaviFake (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the data (go to each shortcut and click "What links here" in the toolbox), WP:TW/PREF has 631, WP:TWPREFS has 49, WP:TW/P has 20, and WP:TWPREF has 15. So you're basically proposing to remove the most popular shortcut.   Not done for now.

I may still not support this even if you change your edit request. Tinkering with shortcut boxes can be controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did look at the link count. My logic was, following the guideline ("only most common and easily remembered")

• most common: WP:TWPREF or WP:TW/PREF or WP:TWPREFS, i don't mind which one, but there definitely shouldn't be three of them, differing only by 1 char. I'd prefer if it didn't have a slash, because the one below does, but I don't mind.
• most easily remembered; it'd say it's WP:TW/P for how short it is.

My point is, there definitely shouldn't be 4 near-identical shortcuts for this page. It even forces the actual preferences down, hindering the usability of the page in favour of... more choiches for shortcuts? as long as you remove one or two I'm happy :) FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Must understand that many of the shortcuts that you're changing are part of the Wikipedia gestalt even if not used as a link often.... below can give you a clue to the ones we use the most.

Moxy🍁 15:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, of course, I didn't mean I wanted to change these shortcuts. I meant removing them from the shortcut box, per the WP:LINKBOXES guideline. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not done. This edit request proposes deleting the most popular shortcut, WP:TW/PREF. Also, even if you change the edit request to propose different shortcuts, I may still object. Is this the best use of our wiki time and wiki brainpower? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Concur with the above. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of going through every single shortcut box on Wikipedia and removing the least used ones? Because that's basically what FaviFake is doing. Is there any harm in having less common shortcuts in a shortcut box? Guidelines do not always have to be followed. It ain't broke, so why fix it? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

SuperPianoMan9167 That's obviously a misrepresentation of what I'm doing, as I explained elsewhere. I only edit shortcuts boxes, to add or remove shortcuts, when I'm already reading a page and I notice the number seems too large. I never go hunting for long shortcut boxes.

Is there any harm in having less common shortcuts in a shortcut box?

Yes, yes there is. As I have explained many times above.

Can I ask you then: what, in your opinion, is the benefit of keeping the least used shortcut in this specific page, given that it pushes down the actual content of the page that every single visitor is coming to the page to see?

Nobody seems to address this issue directly. Do you need a screenshot of the page? How else can I make it more clear?

I'll try to post a screenshot when I come back from my trip, but you can try viewing the page yourself to see the wasted space. FaviFake (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@FaviFake: At the time I made the above comment, I was unaware that you only edit shortcut boxes on pages that you are already reading. I did not know that detail until you pointed it out on your talk page; your contributions suggested to me that you were specifically editing shortcut boxes due to the number of edits you have made in that topic area. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Right, I've got my timing a bit messed up and I thought you were aware.

I should start to only reply to talk pages comments in chronological order. My bad.

Still, could you address the question? The language came out harsher than I intended, but I'm still interested in the answer. FaviFake (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Removing two shortcuts from a box that has four only seems to save a minimal amount of space. To answer your question, yes, a screenshot of the page with the proposed changes would be helpful. In my opinion, the tiny bit of space lost by including redundant redirects in the box is made up for by the benefits to navigation. I and many other editors usually learn shortcuts from these boxes and not "What links here". Besides, this particular page probably has more than four redirects that aren't listed.

I support what you did at Wikipedia:Be bold, where there were so many shortcuts in the box that not all of them were even visible, but I am inclined to oppose removing shortcuts when the page has less than five for the sake of clarity. Redundancy can be good sometimes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I changed my proposal to only remove one, not two, but I understand this might be hard to find given the mess that this discussion has become.

I've actually decided I don't about this so much that I should take a screenshot and upload it.

I'll just say: I think it would be odd to intentinally come to the page and learn 4 different shortcuts instead of just one, two, or even three, and that I think we should focus more on the WP:READER, which i realise in this case is also an editor, and on the actual page content.

Would you support my change if it only involved removing 1 shortcut? You said you're inclined to "oppose removing shortcuts", not " a shortcut". FaviFake (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would support removing WP:TWPREF from the box because it is basically the same as WP:TW/PREF (the most popular shortcut) but without a slash. That shortcut would still redirect here, of course, but I've thought about your proposal a bit more and I tend to agree with you that near-identical shortcuts may not be the best idea. So, TL;DR, yes, I would probably support your change if it involved removing WP:TWPREF only, since it is basically the exact same shortcut as WP:TW/PREF. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes! We can do it.

Do you think this consensus is enough to reinstate the modified request? If im not mistaken, the opposing editors only point out that they're worried about removing the most popular, which is not the case. FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, I did change the request to a different one; I said I don't mind whichever you remove, as long as the layout of the page isn't pushed down due to the high number of shortcuts. That's all I'm asking. This is supported by WP:LINKBOXES.

You said about the link counts that WP:TW/PREF has 631, WP:TWPREFS has 49, WP:TW/P has 20, and WP:TWPREF has 15. Do you mind removing the least popular one then? Again:

My point is, there definitely shouldn't be 4 near-identical shortcuts for this page. It even forces the actual preferences down, hindering the usability of the page in favour of... more choiches for shortcuts? as long as you remove one or two I'm happy :)

I'm not sure what's so controversial about a change that's both supported by a guideline and improves the page layout. FaviFake (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's controversial because sometimes the most minor changes are the ones people debate the most. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused regarding the claim that having four shortcuts is impacting usability. I just viewed the prefs page and saw minimal impact from having a fourth option provided. Perhaps those who feel this would be a significant benefit could provide more context and/or screenshots so that it's more clear how there's a significant impact to usability? DonIago (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll post screenshots here, if that is what it takes for this minor edit to be implemented. I'll take them once I'm back from my trip, but I really hope this will have been been sorted out by then... FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

When people tell you to stop, you probably should. WP:CIR applies regardless of the guidelines and policies. This shows how paramount your disruptive editing has been. It doesn't matter if you're right, you're still being disruptive and ignoring feedback. – The Grid (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you kindly stop following me wherever i comment on talk pages to point me to policies that aren't even relevant, please?

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by inserting yourself into every discussion I'm involved in and adding nothing to the actual discussion other than unrelated links and vague (and often slightly incorrect) comment about my editing.

If you want to talk with me, you know this isn't the way to do it. FaviFake (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's a history on your talk page that states otherwise and you keep ignoring it. Removing it doesn't make it go away. – The Grid (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's also a history on my talk where I've explained why I do it, it seems you've missed that one!!! I'm distraught. You should really go look for it and send me the permalink like you always do, it's really going to help with this discussion about the length of shortcuts boxes. FaviFake (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

They should not cause any breaking changes, however I would appreciate it if you could review the changes in case. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply