Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Possible bug when processing named references
Hallo, I think there is a potential bug with AfC helper script, when processing the named references. Specifically this script removes line breaks in the list of the named references, this in turn renders the list of named references unreadable for human in Wiki mark-up language. One can see what I mean, if one checks the between 2 versions of my article, before and after clean up.
I did not try to reproduce the problem myself, but the feedback, which I got from Sintaku is that such changes were introduced by AfC helper script. Ev2geny (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Error message?
I got this error message. What does it mean? When I checked my contributions it appears that I compleated the edit anyways. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cleanup...rather a mess-up!
In this edit the script cleaned up the page, bu broke a ref. It converted: |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groovey.TV%27s_Twin_Galaxies_Award.jpg|accessdate=March 25th, 2014 to |url=[[File:Groovey.TV%27s Twin Galaxies Award.jpg|accessdate=March]] 25th, 2014. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. :) This has been fixed in the rewrite script. Theopolisme (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for feature for AFC Helper Script
To assist in using the "ping" function in AFC comments or custom-decline messages, please list the first editor of the page plus all editors who have submitted the page in the past. I view this as a "low-risk-of-breaking-things" request.
Alternatively, modify the "decline" message template to include the name and date of the submission that is being declined. To avoid having a an editor feel "ashamed" at seeing his name in the pink box, this probably should be hidden behind a "show/hide" template of some type. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Blank the Submission
Am I the only one who finds when checking Blank the Submission on an article, the script freezes up and never goes all the way through the steps to actually blank the page and put up the speedy deletion tag? LionMans Account (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Request custom decline reason change
When using a custom decline reason, provide a way to pre-fill it with one or more of the canned reasons.
The simplest way to do it would be for the helper script (NOT the decline template!) to link to a single static page (or perhaps even the actual code) that had the wiki-markup for all of the custom-decline reasons listed in a single ___location, so reviewers could copy-and-paste them from that ___location into our custom decline reason ourselves.
The idea is that if I want to provide a "customized" version of one or more of the canned decline reasons but keep it looking "nearly identical" to the boilerplate reasons, it should be easy for me to do so.
There are of course other ways to do this, but since a simple, low-risk-of-breaking-things way exists, I'll ask you to get at least something this simple in the next alpha release and hopefully have it in the production code whenever the upcoming alpha release makes its way into production. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Technical input needed on categorization discussion
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Re-categorizing_the_queue Gigs (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion has continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#A_different_kind_of_.22Drive.22 Gigs (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Bug?
I started using AFCH a few days ago, without adding myself to the participants list. Then today a message appeared in the top right corner saying that I couldn't use the tool because I wasn't on the list. I've joined now, but is this a bug letting non-participants use AFCH? --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- The whitelist feature was only turned on in the last few days. Before then, anyone could use the tool without adding themselves to the participants list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Review tab on userpages and other pages not pending submission
Recently, I've been seeing the review tab on user pages and other pages outside of the article namespace that are not pending AfC submission, or are eligible for G13 deletion. What's going on? hmssolentlambast patrol records 05:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"Accept" is not working
I just tried to accept a new article into mainspace but the script failed. Is there a problem with it or the server? User:Timtrent also tried to accept the same draft with the same result. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Dodger67: Hi, do you have a link to the page in question? Also, let me invite you to take a look at WP:AFCHRW if/when you have a chance -- it's a rewritten and redesigned from the ground up version of the helper script, and as an active reviewer your feedback would be invaluable. Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#Help accepting article please. Anne may be onto the source of the snag - if so, the lack of an error message explaining the isssue is a problem. I will test the new script tomrrow, I should have been in bed already, it's almost pumpkin time here! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Bot archiving
ResolvedThe bot just archived some content to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Archive %%0. That seems wrong to me... (t) Josve05a (c) 09:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Mergeto decline edit summary
I was recently the second reviewer to decline Draft:Paid-Crowdsourcing on the basis that the topic was not sufficiently distinct from an existing article to warrant an independent entry. For this I used the "mergeto" option of AFCH. All well and good, but the edit summary left was "Declining submission: submission is too short but can be merged". This is inaccurate, the draft was actually quite lengthy. --LukeSurl t c 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
CSD logging
Hi there, When tagging some copyvios for deletion using the script I've noticed that the link to the G12 criterion in the log entry it generates is broken and I have to fix it. example This seems to be because it and similar redirects were deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1 a few months ago. If someone could tweak the code I'd be grateful. Nevertheless, thanks for the great script! BethNaught (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline templates directing "Draft:" authors to incorrect redlink "Articles for creation/" pages
Is this a current hiccup in the AFCH? Take a look at User talk:Austincameron26 (as well as hundreds of others); though the section heading properly directs him to work on his draft at Draft:Oconomowoc 84 Wisconsin Lutheran 82 , the decline box itself tells him it's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oconomowoc 84 Wisconsin Lutheran 82. This looks like it might confuse and frustrate novices; any easy fix? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just put in place a fix for this issue a few hours ago, and you may have found a flaw. Wish I had known sooner. Looking into it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to have been a short term intermitent issue while I was tweaking the template to work correctly for all use cases (I hope). This diff shows how they are coming out now, and other than the word "Draft:" isn't prefixing the visible link in the header (it still links there), everything seems to be in working order. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- There seem to still be issues. example Here the draft: prefix was totally dropped. BethNaught (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Came here to post same, just two minutes ago got a confused email from a submitter who was given a prefix-less redlink (leading him to believe his draft had been deleted: User_talk:Canticle#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Draft:Primous_Fountain_.28June_6.29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Beth and Matt: which version of the script are you both using? Considered trying the latest version? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The old version. I held off trying the new one because I'm generally averse to betas, but I guess I can give it a go. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- There seem to still be issues. example Here the draft: prefix was totally dropped. BethNaught (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Add WikiProject Physiology to the list of projects?
I wasn't able to get it to come up. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 05:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Same for WP:WikiProject Military History, doesn't appear to be on the automated list. IIRC, same for WP:Wikiproject Philippines. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can request projects added to the list on its talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Blank lines
ResolvedWhen leaving a talk page message, the script should make sure there is a blank line inbetween the last talk page message and the new one or else things run together like so:
==Message 1==
...
* You can also get [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help real-time chat help from experienced editors].
--[[User:...]] (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...]] (June 6) ==
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<br />Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the
...
which makes it hard to see where one message ends and another starts when editing the user's talk page. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thaddeus, which version of the script are you using? May I suggest trying the rewrite version? I have looked at the template code, and based on what I'm seeing, I'm guessing the script is using §ion=new&preloadtitle= which means that there should be a space there. Otherwise, we may have to wait a couple weeks because Theopolisme who has been doing most of the developing as of late is without a computer/internet until the 19th. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm using the version available from gadgets. I didn't know there was a new version in development, so I'll switch to that and let you know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- This does indeed seem to have been fixed in the new script. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Point at which script decides to add tags, and whitespace issues
When accepting an article I've had an issue a couple of times when the script executes its cleanup edit. The script seems to be fond of leaving large gaps at the top of accepted articles and removing blank lines before a section header, but insisting on inserting a blank line after a section header. If anything, it should surely be the opposite? See [1] also the script added a linkrot tag based on the presence of a single bare URL ref. Can this be watered-down so that it only adds tags to articles with multiple bare URLs -- at least two perhaps? Bellerophon talk to me 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Theopolisme, the space below instead of above the header thing has been an annoyance to me as well. That should certainly be reversed. The large gaps at the top of the article, I'm assuming, has to do with incomplete cleaning of the submission template space (yet another reason this stuff should be moved to the separate /editnotice page and included via a guided tour (JavaScript)), which I'm sure is usually caused by malformed submission templates, comments, or some other intervening factor which would be very difficult for the script's cleanup code to detect and fix. I personally like the adding of linkrot tags even if only one bare URL exists, although I wouldn't be opposed if it ran the citation expander and reflinks in seperate tabs to try and fix the issues before doing so, if that is possible. I'd think it is, although it would slow processing down some, not sure if that is worth the trade-off. Perhaps there needs to be a community discussion about whether or not this should be done? Actually, if it adds the tags and then runs those tools in separate tabs, those tools should remove the tags if it fixes the issue I think, so it wouldn't slow anything down... Hrmmm.. Sorry about the thinking out loud... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
URLs to wikilinks not working properly
A problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Archive 1#URLs to wikilinks not working properly appears to still be present. For example, [2] by User:Timtrent changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awards Awards] to [[Awards Awards]] instead of to [[Awards]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- PH, that is because Timtrent isn't using the rewrite script, where this issue has been fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I admit to only using fully released tools here.
I imagine the rewrite script will replace the released script at some point soon? Please ping me if replying. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I admit to only using fully released tools here.
Frozen
Using the beta script, on WP:AfC/R, when I click More▼ then Review (old), the page freezes, as if it's stuck in a loop or something similar. Ollieinc (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13 do you know why? Ollieinc (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- This has happened again. Ollieinc (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
External links to Wikipedia
Apparently the script attempts to clean up external links to Wikipedia and to use wikilinks instead. That mechanism, however, is less than perfect: See for example the "Kharkiv Conservatory" link in the draft's second paragraph here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Conservatory About Kharkov Music Conservatory] is turned into [[[Kharkiv Conservatory]] About Kharkov Music Conservatory]. If such a mechanism is considered desirable, it should be able to create piped links when necessary. Huon (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation stuff
The script allows us to add two source locations. The template it uses seems only to list one. An example is Draft:IMerit Technology Services where I wanted to flag three, flagged two because that was the limit and added a third in the comment, and one, only, is displayed in the decline box. There ought to be a pair there Fiddle Faddle 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'd rather scrap the whole listing multiple pages and just use the comprehensive Copyvios report. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Timtrent, would that solve your concern about listing multiple pages? Maybe I'd even go so far as to have the comprehensive Copyvios report be there by default and still offer one additional URL in case it wasn't something on the page or something a Google search found? If I hear no objections from anyone, I'll start working on this change in about a week. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I use Earwig's tool anyway, and transfer the matches, once I've inspected them, to the AFCH tool. I'll be interested to see what you have in mind. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Technical 13: I'd oppose using this tool to do this; It's generally easier to present the links, and allow the reviewer to decide; I've seen a lot of false positives getting overly-high ratings, and if the reviewing admin comes across one of these high-up, they may just decline the speedy. Earwig's tool is useful for information, but it should be up to a human to double check themselves before tagging. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wasn't what I said Mdann. I said having a link to the tool by default (which gives a breakdown of a compassion of the page to all the linked URLs on the page and a Google search then gives an overall rating based on a calculation of all of those scores) AND still having an option to have the one URL, exactly like it is now. What I'm planning on doing is adding a default link to the comprehensive Copyvios report using The Earwig's tool instead of completely redoing the whole template to try and add the ability to add multiple URLs (which is a slippery slope as currently there is one a change would make it so there are two, then someone will want three, then someone will want five, then someone will want ten...). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Technical 13: I'd oppose using this tool to do this; It's generally easier to present the links, and allow the reviewer to decide; I've seen a lot of false positives getting overly-high ratings, and if the reviewing admin comes across one of these high-up, they may just decline the speedy. Earwig's tool is useful for information, but it should be up to a human to double check themselves before tagging. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I use Earwig's tool anyway, and transfer the matches, once I've inspected them, to the AFCH tool. I'll be interested to see what you have in mind. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Timtrent, would that solve your concern about listing multiple pages? Maybe I'd even go so far as to have the comprehensive Copyvios report be there by default and still offer one additional URL in case it wasn't something on the page or something a Google search found? If I hear no objections from anyone, I'll start working on this change in about a week. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Github issue link updated
I updated the Github issue link ("creating a new ticket" above). Fortunately it looks like the last new issue in the old site is from April. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Stubs
Please will the script add {{Stub}} to accepted drafts classified as stubs? Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Milkshake?
When proposing a merge, the merge-to page defaults to "Milkshake". Is there an inside joke that I'm missing, or wouldn't it be better for this field to default to blank? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was kind of an inside joke. As I said on WT:AFCHRW, nobody told me that the rewrite was becoming the default script for review... so the whole "now-everyone-is-using-afchrw" sort of took me by surprise! We can certainly scrap this default, although it's not really doing any harm at this point. Theopolisme (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Including the decline reason in the talk page is buggy and should be reverted for now
The new feature to include the decline reason, while a great idea, completely fails in implementation. In the best case it ends up including the entire switch statement from Template:AFC submission/comments in the source of the talk page, and it completely fails if there is a custom reason such as here, where the decline reason just shows up as {{{2}}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- This was meant to go at WT:AFCHRW instead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)- @Ahecht: Is this still an issue? (I didn't see it moved to AFCHRW.) Sounds like it may be a problem with the
{{Afc decline}}template... (Although, to be fair, the code for including the decline reason in the decline template is pretty much the only code in the repo not written by me, so it may very well be a bug there – pinging APerson, who I believe implemented that.) Theopolisme (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)- @Theopolisme: As I was moving it, I noticed that my requested changes were implemented to the
{{AFC submission/comments}}template which fixed the major issue of translcluding the entire switch statement, which was the main issue. Custom reasons just show up as blank now, which I did bring up on WT:AFCHRW. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Theopolisme: As I was moving it, I noticed that my requested changes were implemented to the
- @Ahecht: Is this still an issue? (I didn't see it moved to AFCHRW.) Sounds like it may be a problem with the
Proposal to not blank submissions that are copyright violations
Sorry if this has been brought up before... looks like this is different than the "Copyright violation stuff" section above. Anyway we (generally) don't blank copyright violations in the mainspace, and the real reason that it's a problem is I need to go back a revision in the page history to verify it is in fact a copyright violation. That then means I can't use the duplicate detector or copyvios report tools. Or if I understand correctly the tools simply take two different full URLs, so we could alter the script to use URL of the previous revision. Then the report would match the source url against the correct version of the draft. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 04:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MusikAnimal! While I can't speak for the rest of the project, what you've stated here certainly sounds reasonable. However, the idea of blanking copyvios is not specific to the helper script... it's rather an WP:AFC-wide policy, and as such I think it would be useful for you to bring this up at WT:AFC, first... if the consensus there is to not blank copyvios, then I'll be happy to implement that in the script. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Theopolisme: Thanks for the reply. What if we instead changed the script to use the URL of non-blanked revision (which would be the current one when the user declines the submission) in the copyvios report tool? I don't know how difficult that would be to implement, but that would address any concerns others have in wanting to keep the submission blanked. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I added support to
{{Db-g12}}to support anoldidparameter, which should allow Theopolisme to call out an oldid with the tool if he decides to. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I added support to
- @Theopolisme: Thanks for the reply. What if we instead changed the script to use the URL of non-blanked revision (which would be the current one when the user declines the submission) in the copyvios report tool? I don't know how difficult that would be to implement, but that would address any concerns others have in wanting to keep the submission blanked. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
[0.7] Feedback about logs
We all know of Twinkles CSD-log,could it be possible to make a "AfC-review-log? for three reasons:
- To help in backlog drives, it makes it easier to collect revies, without te need of the magnificent program that [I can't remember the users name] has made.
- I want a log to see the outcome of the articles later, if they were denied cop copyvio, then I can see if they have been recreated.
- It is fun! (t) Josve05a (c) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hiya, thanks for the thoughts. I've added this to my "To Contemplate" list. Theopolisme (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[0.8] Feedback about create-protection
Good start with the warning the page is SALTed. But... Where the "accept" button should be, there needs to be a "recheck" button, and it wouldn't hurt if there was a button or link to allow the user to request unprotection directly from the form. I'll expand a little later on my ideas of how this would all come together, need more coffee... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Technical 13: Yeah, we have talked before about a button that auto-posts a message to WT:AFC -- or at least, it's in trello :) If you can firm out a spec for how it should work (i.e., create a template it should amend to the page), I'll be happy to implement this -- seems like a very useful feature. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it make more sense to submit the request directly to WP:RFPP like Twinkle does to request the page be unprotected or the move be made? When I have a little free time, I can pull the code for this out of MediaWiki:Gadget-twinkleprotect.js and reflow it a little for our use. The major part of this request is to have it be a clickable "recheck" button so that the reviewer can get everything ready and keep rechecking to see if the page is protected (once they make their request for unprotection) and submit their accept once the protection is removed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Notification of a change to the preload template comment that AFCH(RW) removes
Moved from user talk:Theopolisme. Theopolisme (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Theo, I know you won't be back for a couple more weeks, and it "shouldn't" be too big an issue, but I'm notifying you per the editnotice nonetheless that I have edited Template:AFC_submission/Substdraft to wrap the comment in a {{subst:Void}} so that the comment should disappear on its own when they click save and I changed the case of a couple key words like "new template will appear on the BOTTOM of the page" and "the draft template will still be on the top but IT IS OKAY TO IGNORE IT" (not exactly the words, but conveys the jist of the changes) so that we won't get so many "I'm confused by the two templates contradicting each other" type reports. Anyways, hope to see you back soon and figure you should know of the changes (which I expect the RW removes the comment /i anyways). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
[0.8] Feedback about talk page
The tool should warn if a talk page exists. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Heads up
Now that the Rewrite has become the default script, I've marked the talk page for the rewrite script as historical. All discussion for the helper script should now happen here. Hopefully this makes things a bit more centralized! Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
"Under review"
Is there a functionality to mark a page as "under review" while it is being processed similar to the old AFCH? I'm having to just use the generic tags for now. Deadbeef 04:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Deadbeef click on the « to the right side of the review box and you will find the rest of the options that were in the other version. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! Deadbeef 17:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Category field acting up - text obscuring, picky about capital letters
Hello, I really enjoy the recent improvements made to AFCH, but I've been finding the Category field to be getting quirkier and quirkier.
In the past, it wasn't picky about capital letters, but now it won't recognize cats if I don't get the capitalization exactly right. Also, very recently I'm having this trouble where as I'm typing in letters into the Category field, when the dropbox appears for options, it blanks out my cat field after a second, so I need to add or subtract a typed letter to be able to see what I'm typing, which is kinda hinky. I'm using Mozilla Firefox 33.1.1 right now, never had this problem until (IIRC) a few weeks ago.
Great work overall, just pointing out a hangup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MatthewVanitas! In re to the temporary blanking-out of the input... sorry, that's completely my fault. I accidentally removed a line of code that I thought was not longer necessary but, as is now apparent, absolutely is! I've reverted my changes, and the fix should be live onwiki in a minute.
- In response to the your first issue, though, about capitalization... that's going to be a harder problem to fix, since it sounds like a potential change in the categories API. I will investigate further in the coming days, and get back to you.
- Thanks for all the feedback! Keep it coming, Theopolisme (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
[0.9] Feedback about moving pages
Hi-- I don't know if this is feasible, but when moving a userspace draft to the Draft namespace, could it also remove a {{User sandbox}} template if it's present? The red error message at the top of the page post-move is annoying to see. Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings, Origamite! I could have sworn this feature was already in the script. Do you have an example for when the
{{User sandbox}}template was not removed, so that I can figure out what exactly went wrong with the removal? Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)- Hi--this one and this one, although the others in my last 500 edits seem to work like they should. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Origamite: In these cases, you weren't actually using the helper script – you just clicked the link in the submission template. Using the move link does *not* modify the page content, just the title. Hopefully this explanation is satisfactory! Theopolisme (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Thank you for the explanation! Origamiteⓣⓒ 02:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Origamite: In these cases, you weren't actually using the helper script – you just clicked the link in the submission template. Using the move link does *not* modify the page content, just the title. Hopefully this explanation is satisfactory! Theopolisme (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi--this one and this one, although the others in my last 500 edits seem to work like they should. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Removing categories
Hello! Love the script, just wanted to report a bug (or maybe feature?) I ran into earlier today: the script deleted a couple of my categories. Diff. Thanks so much for all your hard work on this! --Cerebellum (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Cerebellum! First, thanks! I tried to make something useful :) That's... weird. Is it possible that you accidentally removed the categories from the Categories input field on the "Accept" screen of the helper script? Given the limited details about the scenario, I'm unable to really hypothesize about other potential flaws in the code – if you encounter this issue again, please do let me know, and hopefully we can narrow it down! Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Notification
I keep getting the notification that AFCH can't be loaded...I don't find it in my subpages. CTF83! 21:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
[0.9] Feedback about Chrome
Clean the submission causes the browser to hang with high CPU usage in Chrome Linux Gigs (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Gigs. I'd love to fix this for you. Do you have a link to the specific page that's causing problems? Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- It was happening on multiple pages, but I can't reproduce it now. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
[0.9] Articles for Creation/Redirect
This script is not working correctly on Articles for Creation/Redirects. I'm using the latest version of Google Chrome and the tool consistently loads the individual article script rather than a special AFC/R script. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Despite multiple requests to fix this, the only version that supports WP:AFC/R, WP:AFC/C, and WP:FFU is the unmaintained beta version of the script. I will fix this myself once I get settled into my Spring semester of classes, but that will be a month or two from now. Just too busy to get into much ATM. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Problems with AfC cleanups?
Hello, while checking some maintenance categories, I came across this diff of an AfC cleanup: [3]. I know little (nothing) about the helper script, but it seems that it introduced several problems:
- Several existing categories were duplicated.
- A second (incomplete) persondata tag was created, but a better more complete one already existed.
- defaultsort tag was duplicated (that's what I was checking initially)
- A wrong category "Category:Year of birth missing (living people)" was included, despite existing birth date data.
- One AfC comment "Comment: added contemporary authors and reviews from Gale" was not cleaned up (assuming, this should be done for all "old" comments).
The same problem can be seen with a second diff: [4], where persondata, categories and defaultsort tag have been unnecessarily duplicated. Could someone please check those changes? GermanJoe (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I might recognize some of the issues with that diff. So far as I know, the script does not check for existing categories as the reviewer enters new ones to add to the page; so, it looks like DGG just typed in those two categories and the script added them. Also, (although I may be wrong), I don't think the script checks for existing Persondata tags. Finally, it doesn't look like the method we use to detect AfC comments picked up on that particular comment due to the weird capitalization and spacing (AFC comment versus afc comment - probably a regex failure). APerson (talk!) 00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information APerson. I wasn't aware, that the cleanup is a mix of automatic and manual changes. Both articles' tags have been corrected meanwhile. GermanJoe (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Following redirects on Talk pages
Often we'll see an article created by a new editor where the username doesn't meet the Wikipedia username policy (such as User:ExampleCompany). That user is often warned and changes there username before the article is reviewed (to something like User:Bob at ExampleCompany) creating a redirect User:ExampleCompany→User:Bob at ExampleCompany. However, when the article is reviewed, the accept/decline notice gets left at User:ExampleCompany and User:Bob at ExampleCompany never gets notified. Should AFCH try to detect redirects so that it can leave messages on the right page? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
[0.9] Categories not properly maintained
When a draft article is accepted with categories in the form [[:Category:Something]] they are sometimes maintained and sometimes deleted, seemingly at random. See for example: [5] [6] (some added by me) [7] (some added by me). Ideally, it should remove duplicates and maintain the rest. Secondary option is just to retain all. The current behavior is surely due to a bug in the code.
While on the subject, the ordering is wrong. Persondata should go above all the categories, but for some reason is placed above the directly related ones (living, birth, death) and below the rest. Ideally, categories should be alphabetized too, minus perhaps "living people" going first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It seems someone made changes to this code recently, as today I saw the pre-existing categories populated into the categories box - somethign I'd never seen before. That's a nice improvement, but the weird removal problem still exists, only now instead of deleting some (when it shouldn't) it fails to remove some that it should. Most likely it is the same as before but the populate the category box function changed the net result. See [8] - I didn't touch the pre-populated box & as you can see this caused many cats to be duplicated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another example of this here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
[0.9] Feedback about [AFCH V0.9]
It still does not not support reviewing cats and redirects at WP:AFC/R. And I hate the interface; or should I say 'in-your-face'. Bellerophon talk to me 13:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bellerophon, could you be a little more specific about the interface? What part of it do you hate? APerson (talk!) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted back to Beta now, but from memory when you review an article the whole of the top of the page was dominated by green, yellow and red buttons (for accept, comment, decline) that spanned the entire page width and were colour coded more or less like a traffic light. It was a big jump from the much more subtle interface found in beta and previous versions and I just found it a bit overbearing. I just prefer the more twinklesque appearance of previous versions. Also, the absence of support for AFC/R struck me as a loss of function rather than progress, that remains unresolved for more than a year. Which probably accounts, in part, for the backlogs developing there. Bellerophon talk to me 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiProjects
I'm not entirely sure where to go with this, and it might not be a helperscript function, but sometimes it won't let me add a valid WikiProject. For instance, I want to add WP:WikiProject Classical music, which I know to be a valid Project, but helperscript is not recognizing it. Not a big deal, I can add it manually later, but I am curious as to where the disconnect is. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just came here to post the exact same thing about WP:WikiProject Military history; I run across articles that need this all the time, but it doesn't pop up into the box. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- 78.26 and MatthewVanitas: The script looks at User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js for its list of wikiprojects, so you'll need to get that updated if you need a new WikiProject. It looks like Theopolisme last ran the bot to update the list on 27 August 2013, so it might be a bit out of date. We can move the list to project space, in which case we would have to make a new page, copy and paste everything on the existing list over, add your suggestions, and PADLOCK it. So long as we put TE or higher on it, I don't see any potential objections; just the same, we might want to poll WT:WPAFC first. APerson (talk!) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Minor bug
Sometimes the "do not remove this line" comment is not removed. Example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, that comment doesn't show up in the list of comments to remove (located in the cleanUp function). For whatever reason, it appears instead in the function for removing templates. (speculation to other AFCH devs) Perhaps that function didn't get called? APerson (talk!) 20:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
AFCH for redirect and file submissions?
This has been nagging me for some time, so I'm finally going to ask: How do you use AFCH to review submissions at WP:AFC/R and WP:FFU? I see other people doing this, but I can't seem to figure out how to access it.
I'm using the AFC helper gadget on Firefox 31-36. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Recently created articles
Several times in the last couple of days I have accepted a draft, and the script has reported an error in adding the article to the list of recently created articles. I'm not sure if this is a script error, and it's not so important, since the article seems otherwise to be correctly created, but I am reporting it in case anyone is interested.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
AFCH should follow redirect on User Talk: pages
Often a new user will create an inappropriate username and then submit a draft. By the time the draft gets reviewed that user has changed to a new username and redirected their User: and User talk: page, but AFCH leaves a message on the redirect page instead of the user's new page. Twinkle successfully handles such cases, and if you use Twinkle to, for example, nominate a page for deletion, it will follow the redirect and leave a notification on the user's new talk page. Is it possible for AFCH to follow redirects as well when leaving notifications? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- This permalink illustrates the problem.IT happened just now. Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Script removed template in error
I commented on an unsubmitted userspace draft. See this diff where I then had to reinstate the {{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=April 2015}} which had been removed. I know it's not usual to comment on unsibmitted drafts, but I think we need the script to understand this and not removed that (or similar) templates. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- This may not be related to the draft being unsubmitted. HERE's an example where it happened during an acceptance.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate information being added on acceptance by the script
Hello! It was brought to my attention that the script occasionally adds extra stuff when accepting a draft. An example is Joseph Brent, where an extra persondata template was added. A clue as to why that happened may be in the fact that the original default sort template had the wrong name in it.
This was brought up once before here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script/Archive_2#Problems_with_AfC_cleanups? I guess it's still happening. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse invitations
I am sure the script used to check whether a teahouse invitation had been given before? Now, not. I'd prefer it to be intelligent about it, check the target page and not invite if they have been invited already. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tracked in GitHub with this issue. APerson (talk!) 00:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Script no longer adding notice to talk pages?
Hi all, I've been away for a few days and just reviewed an article. However, my submission seems to be hanging at "Declining submission"; it won't proceed to editing the user's talk page with the review notice, and it won't refresh. I tried manually refreshing the page, which gets the review to stick but doesn't alert the user. Is anyone else experiencing this? wia (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind. I just uninstalled and reinstalled the script, and it works fine. Should have been the first thing I tried. wia (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting the same hanging, and uninstalling and reinstalling didn't help. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems important and common now to several users. Me, too, now. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is happening to me again. I have found that sometimes unchecking the "Teahouse" option helps occasionally, but not always. wia (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am stopping reviewing until a solution is found. Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, noticed a new tab, a picture of a smartphone. That was ticked in Gadgets. Unticked that and the problem has gone away. Back to reviewing Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Biozarre. Worked, then stopped. Stopping reviewing. We must give feedback to our editors Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: You can always click on the "Inform Author" link in the decline template on the page to notify the author. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: You can always click on the "Inform Author" link in the decline template on the page to notify the author. --Ahecht (TALK
- That "works" but is imperfect. It fails to link, and slows things down. We need someone who can work out what is going on to work out how to provide a complete fix, or I do. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
josve05a has filed a radar on GitHub. Hopefully it is an easy fix. wia (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Still happening to me. Going back to not reviewing. Too much like a job without the script working Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: It looks like our friends at GitHub have fixed the issue. I just reviewed a submission and it worked fine! wia (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am back. Good news. Thanks Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Broken" italicised redirects and the script
Please refer to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_4#Some_redirects_containing_wiki_markup where there is a discussion that includes some redirects "of ours" initiated by the script amongst the redirects nominated for deletion. A nice technical person needs to consider, please, whether the script or the move function or something else has created what the nominator has assessed as a problem. If it is a script problem it needs a fix, please. If it is a MediaWiki problem, please will a competent person report it. In either case please would they let us know here (and, presumably there) what has taken place? Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fiddle Faddle, In December 2014, the creation of titles that contain at least two consecutive apostrophes was added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist with me asking it to be added to the blacklist after a successful nomination of 357 similar redirects in November 2014. Also, immediately deleting a redirect left over from a page is a function only available to administrators, so if there is an issue with any leftover redirect created due to a page move that may require it be deleted, it would have to go through the proper redirect-deleting options (WP:RFD or WP:CSD). Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse invite wording
Any reason why "Teahouse" was inserted into the invite instead of the user's name? [9] --NeilN talk to me 22:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- And at User talk:Angellrl as well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be happening to the Teahouse invites I'm automatically appending to my reviews as well. Wonder what's going on. wia (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just checked both of the templates responsible - no changes there, so it must be the script's fault. Going through recent changes made to the script right now. APerson (talk!) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- To the other AFCH devs: either there's an issue with the AFCH.msg list, or there's a problem around here. Maybe we're passing the parameters in the wrong order? APerson (talk!) 13:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN, Arthur goes shopping, and Wikiisawesome,
fixed with this edit to the template responsible. Ironically, mea culpa, as I screwed it up with this edit, in which I subst:'ed the template itself, thinking that wouldn't do anything. Sorry! APerson (talk!) 20:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just checked both of the templates responsible - no changes there, so it must be the script's fault. Going through recent changes made to the script right now. APerson (talk!) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be happening to the Teahouse invites I'm automatically appending to my reviews as well. Wonder what's going on. wia (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
[0.9] Feedback about [your topic here]
I like the ability to have it open automatically, but this needs to happen un user sandboxes as well, please
"Nominate the submission for speedy deletion" not included in hoax criterion
While I was declining Draft:Eggs Touché as a potential joke or hoax article, I noticed it lacked "Nominate the submission for speedy deletion", even though it would meet G3 as a hoax as I couldn't get any hits for the "recipe" nor the person who "made" it. The following other criteria for declination should also have this action:
- blank - Submission is blank (A3)
- exists - Submission is duplicated by another article already in mainspace and
- dup - Submission is a duplicate of another existing submission (both A10)
Is it possible to include this action in these criteria? The Snowager-is awake 06:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- A10 is not valid for drafts, its scope is limited to mainspace. In any case an "exists" decline should not be followed by deletion as that denies the author or any other editor the opportunity to merge the draft content into the existing article. If a draft is actually an exact copy of an existing article (duplicate) it should be speedied as a copyvio (I've never seen such a copy to include proper atribution as required by the licensing conditions). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Declining a submission for multiple reasons
Hi, I recently joined AFC project and reviewed some submissions. I found that AFC helper script is very easy to use and has all features we expect. I think it can be helpful for submitters if we can reject a submission for multiple reasons. If a submission is non notable and as well as copyright violation or advertisement, we can reject it for multiple reasons but now we can only reject for one reason. We can save lot of time with this feature. I will give you one example: A user submits a draft about a company which is not notable and is also written like an advertisement, then a reviewer reviews the draft and declines it as advertising. The user removes the advertising material and submits it again but it gets rejected as non notable. This wastes lot of time and effort for the submitter. This is good live example, where this feature could have been useful.
This problem can also be solved by adding some more options for declining like "This submission is about a company which is non notable and reads like an advertisement" , "This submission is about a company which is not notable and is a copyright violation" and "This submission is about a person who is not notable and not written in NPOV", but I think choosing our own reasons from existing list is more easy.
I don't know if this has been discussed before. I read archives but I didn't find anything related to this. Wikiisawesome said that this is not a bad idea and told me to post this idea on script's talk page to get more opinions. What do you think? Is this feature helpful enough? Thanks - Supdiop talk 06:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- It comes up fairly often, but apparently the technical difficulty of doing it in the script is considerable (I'm not a coder so please don't hold me to this). In any case you can easily mention other issues in a review comment. Btw, if a draft is a copyvio none of the other issues matter, as it must be blanked immediately and speedily deleted. Please take a look at the Workflow chart in the Reviewing instructions, the decline reasons appear in order of precedence there, you decline for the first applicable reason in the flow and may mention/explain the others in the review comment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we can mention other issues in comment but some users don't take comment seriously, see this for example. If a draft is copyvio and non notable then we blank the page and speedy delete it, then user only gets a message on talk page that draft is copyright violation not about notability issue, then they write the draft with their own words and resubmit it but it gets rejected again for notability issues. Here comment wouldn't help. If the user had been notified about other issues at the same time then it would save lot of time.
- If we mention the other issues in comment then user may see them as low priority or small issues while infact they are equally important.
- Yes, maybe writing it in script is difficult but adding more options(two in one) to decline will be relatively easy, I think. Supdiop talk 03:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Input needed from script writers
Please see WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#AFCH Script adaptation and participate in the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Annoying pop-up
Every time I open a user page or user sub page I get a pop-up message in the top right corner saying: "AFCH error: user not listed etc." It's really annoying. How do I get rid of it? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Go to your Preferences > Gadgets > Editing, and disable the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Or if you actually want to use it then list your name in this project's Participants list. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong user
An edtitor using AFCH appears to have inadvertently notified the wrong user.[10] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: There's no big mystery here. When User:Depakmuniraj manually declined the article in 2012, they copied and pasted the decline template without changing the username parameter from
u=Example. The script then did as it was told and posted the notice to User:Example's talk page. That user only had about 20 edits under their belt when they started reviewing articles, and that wasn't the only review that they messed up. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
According to Template:AfC postpone G13, the template should be included as {{AfC postpone G13|1}} so that it shows up at Category:AfC postponed G13 with the number of post-postponements and not just {. The default however doesn't include the number. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Small little bit that'd be nice to add to the script
Preface, I'm not a coder, so if this would even be remotely hard to do, I'd say it's not worth it. But in the same way that the date and month pops up when you put a year in for the biography field, it'd also be nice if you put in a certain year of birth and it automatically marks the one dropdown menu as Dead. I mean, we could play it safe. Say if you enter 1870 or earlier it automatically marks the dropdown menu as dead. Like I said, this would maybe save five seconds per instance, but if it's something that will only take a couple minutes to code, that'd be nice. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- See this discussion. I think it's all gonna be useless anyway. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments lost when changing reason dropdown
Hi there! I recently declined an article, but I initially clicked on the wrong reason in the dropdown. I didn't notice, and wrote up a fairly long paragraph for my decline comment. When I realized the dropdown was wrong, I changed it -- and my comment disappeared.
From a usability standpoint, there's no reason to clear an existing text area when changing the dropdown. From a technical standpoint, I haven't looked yet to see what the script does if you change dropdown reasons. If it re-creates the text area, that would be the problem. It should check first to see if the text area for the comment exists, and if it does, do not re-create or overwrite it. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Darkwind, I just located the offending function. The script will reset the HTML of the decline form every time the dropdown is changed. I suspect the reason it does this is that some HTMl manipulations are done on the form every time, and it's easier to just start with a blank state and add elements. I suppose we could add some sort of confirmation dialog when the user changes the dropdown while they have entered text, but I'm not sure if that would interrupt the workflow too much. APerson (talk!) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Given that most web forms don't clear when changing one element, I personally would rather have a pop-up "copy your text first" alert than sudden loss of something I may have spent several minutes typing. Alternatively, can the contents be assigned to a variable and then re-inserted into the box after the reset? –Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @APerson: Forgot to ping. –Darkwind (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)