Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Active discussions

Move requests deeply hiddenEdit

The requested move feature is buried under the XfD menu, which has the tooltip "start a deletion discussion". Moves are not deletions, so it'd be nice to change how this is nested. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree - took me (actual) years to find this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Tom (LT), no it didn't! The feature was added less than a year back :) – SD0001 (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
:P Well I'm glad it was added! (thank you devs!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but where would you think it makes more sense? It's a "nomination" or "discussion" like the other XfD options, and I don't think any of the other options are more accurate. I'd be fine with the tooltip just being "Start a discussion" though. ~ Amory (utc) 10:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I would want to make the tooltip verbose and venue-specific:
  • articles: "Start a discussion for deleting or moving this article"
  • redirects: "Start a discussion for deleting or retargeting this redirect"
  • templates: "Start a discussion for deleting or merging this template"
  • categories: "Start a discussion for deleting, merging or renaming this category"
  • files: "Start a deletion discussion for this file"
  • misc: "Start a deletion discussion for this page"
(not meant to be 100% complete or correct) – SD0001 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Opened a PR with both these methods. ~ Amory (utc) 21:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding Template:Uw-summary2Edit

{{Uw-summary2}} has a distinctly different use case than {{Uw-summary}} – it's targeted at experienced editors who know how to use edit summaries but have gotten into a habit of not doing so, rather than new editors who are unaware of them. Could it be added to Twinkle? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Weird to have two... ~ Amory (utc) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Beside the point, but annoying parallelism issue where {{summary}} redirects to {{uw-editsummary}}, while {{uw-editsummary2}} redirects to {{summary2}}. Presumably one should be renamed! ~ Amory (utc) 22:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, boldly done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Condense § Requested move 10 November 2020Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Condense § Requested move 10 November 2020. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done ~ Amory (utc) 11:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Feature request: add nomreason to "old prod"Edit

The PROD feature adds the {{old prod}} template to the talk page but it does not add |nomreason=. Please consider adding it, along with a toggle-switch to revert back to the current behavior if desired. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why? If a page was PRODded and the PROD was removed, I don't really see how knowing the reason for the nomination is important, since it cannot be readded. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@Primefac: Knowing that someone prod'd and article for the same reason I am considering sending it to AFD can make the difference in a borderline case. Likewise, the combination of "nomreason" and a well-though-out "conreason" can make me think "oh, wait, I didn't see things from that point of view, no need to send this to AFD after all."
On the other hand, if I'm the only one who sees any utility to |nomreason=, perhaps it should be deprecated altogether, but that's a discussion for another talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realize |nomreason= was a valid param. In that case, its possible non-use is because TW doesn't fill that in. As I said, it was mainly out of curiosity - if the template itself is designed to handle it, then it might be worth expanding TW's use to more fully utilize it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Though the template supports it, it is unpopular -- there are folks who feel the whole template is clutter. See discussions 1, 2, 3. Adding the nomreason (which most of the time take up more space than the rest of the template) would aggravate those concerns. No other talk header template carries a full rationale text written by a single user that's going to stay there forever!
@Davidwr and Primefac: Would it be better to add a permalink to the template pointing to proded version? I am thinking of a |nomid= containing a revision id (populated by Twinkle), and a |condiff= param pointing to the diff showing the deprod (can be populated by a bot). – SD0001 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@SD0001: I like it in theory, but for consistency I would go with nomdiff, 2nddiff, and condiff as parameter names. I would also run it by Template talk:Old prod for a week to see if there are any objections. Make it clear that these parameters are optional and meant as a back-stop for script- and bot-edits which might not always "know" the reason that belongs in nomreason, 2ndreason, and conreason. Also since Twinkle DOES know the nomreason, there's no reason not to put it in {{old prod}} except perhaps length. Cutting the reason off after a certain length and using a new "nomdiff" parameter would solve this. For example if the real nomreason was "Because blah blah 100 words of more blah blah" the template could use |nomreason=Because blah blah a few words ... and a new |nomdiff= parameter could link to the actual diff so people could see the full reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@SD0001, I was actually thinking that the other day as I was looking at it - a diff would be a lot better than filling it up with unnecessary prose. Of course, removing parameters would just require a template talk page discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Opened Template_talk:Old_prod#Adding_permalinks/diff_links_to_template. – SD0001 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Feature request: SRGEdit

The ability to file a report to globally lock an account for obvious LTA socks. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 14:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Try meta:User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal, it has this functionality. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks for the answer! 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding Template:Uw-notenglisheditEdit

Twinkle contains template:uw-notenglish, which is used for non-English new articles, and template:uw-english, for non-English talk page comments, but not template:uw-notenglishedit, for adding non-English content into an existing article. Could that latter template be included in Twinkle? When I encounter foreign-language edits, I am usually at a loss for what warning template to use. This template would be very useful. Thanks in advance for your comments. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, for now you can add it as a custom template via "Custom warning templates to display" in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. I agree though that it should be added as one of the defaults. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ionmars10 - that's exactly what I needed. Hopefully it will be added as a default eventually. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Support watchlist expiry for XFDEdit

Please? :) See also WP:VPT#New Feature: Watchlist Expiry, currently deployed at MediaWiki wiki. --Izno (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

1090SD0001 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I plan to. Some new stuff going up this weekend, then I'm gonna iron out any kinks in the PR SD linked. Hoping for day one (two?) availability. ~ Amory (utc) 01:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you program it so that it's possible to edit the summary field in Twinkle when welcoming users?Edit

I am using Twinkle to leave customised welcome notes on the talk pages of users who have signed up for an online edit-a-thon on climate change. See for example here: User talk:Rickeyre. Someone has complained on my talk page (see here) that the edit summary field says "Welcome to Wikipedia!" instead of saying "Welcome to online edit-a-thon". Therefore my question: is it possible for you to make a change to Twinkle so that it becomes possible to change the edit summary content when using Twinkle with a customised welcome note? If it's difficult to do then don't worry about it. I thought I'd ask in case it's really easy. EMsmile (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bsr § Requested move 20 November 2020Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bsr § Requested move 20 November 2020. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions rangesEdit

Did a quick search: is there a reason TW doesn't load on Special:Contributions IP range pages? Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5E00:A76:21BE:18A1:807:3E8 sees the functions load but Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5E00:A76:21BE:18A1:807:3E8/64 does not. Same for Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ --Izno (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

775SD0001 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I have quick fix for this (to unblock Twinkle on the second phab:T206954 issue), but review may take time. I have already fixed phab:T211910 and will probably soon be merged. – Ammarpad (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocking users from using TwinkleEdit

See [1].

@Deepfriedokra and SebastianHelm: If this is an issue on other occasions as well, the most realistic way to accomplish this would be by creating a new user group and using an edit filter to disallow edits from users in that user group with the "twinkle" tag. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we get new userrights created at this board. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
This comes up now and again — some links in the archives — but the easiest way is indeed not to do that, but to build something in. There's no perfect solution that way, and indeed it was removed years ago because it was clunky and ineffective. The best answer is, as always, that if someone is misusing or abusing Twinkle, it's no different than misusing or abusing any other part of the project, and should be treated as such. ~ Amory (utc) 00:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
For a small number of users you could integrate something in Twinkle itself indeed, but it'll probably be a bit clunky. A user group may indeed be overkill. Well, nevermind. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: No need for a new user-right. The WP:WikiProject Articles for creation scripts only run if your name is on this list which is fully protected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think a better example would be WP:PERM/AWB for WP:AWB use; AfC is a WikiProject with an actual purpose.
That being said, I would strongly object to adding a PERM page for Twinkle (for many reasons). I'm with Amory on this one; if a user is abusing a tool, and they have been sufficiently warned about it, then block them. To be honest, though, a throwaway comment from DFO about "remove their TW access" doesn't really seem to be based on the case and hand or the issues brought up at that discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Amory. "The best answer is, as always, that if someone is misusing or abusing Twinkle, it's no different than misusing or abusing any other part of the project, and should be treated as such". PERM/TWINKLE is just gonna create more and more backlogs. Numerous users who don't have Rollback rights use this tool to fight vandalism, and when there's a PERM for it, that's gonna make things more difficult. I would also object to it. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020 Twinkle updates (2020-11-21) @4cba4efEdit

Some nice new features this time around! Now, when nominating a protected page for XfD, Twinkle will automatically submit an edit request on the talk page! You'll now also see redirect CSD options on pages tagged for RfD, and new warnings should always find an existing monthly header section (like Huggle). There are a number of other improvements and bug fixes are present as well; a brief summary of some of the more notable items are below. Changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer.

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or if any new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. There were a lot of changes behind the scenes, so feel free to ping me. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. Finally, if you're interested in helping out with Twinkle development, there's a helpful guideline for new contributors — check it out! ~ Amory (utc) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I've been sending warning templates, recently though, new headings are being made for each new warning template I send like @User talk:SneekyBoy which has never happed before. Is this a bug or a new update? Jerm (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that's a bug. Should only have affected talkpages where the warning section was the first section, since I didn't account for 0 being false. Should be fixed now! ~ Amory (utc) 11:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

AIV block warningEdit

When submitting an AIV report on an IPv6, I was informed that it was already blocked in a rangeblock, which it is, however, the block is only a "partial block" against 8 unrelated pages, so I am not sure if Twinkle can have the smarts to notice this, but the warning was unhelpful in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Opened a pull request to tweak the message for partially-blocked users. ~ Amory (utc) 11:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

{{salt}} templateEdit

Team: I was bold and changed the tone of {{salt}}; since tone changes are considered breaking changes, I am notifying users here. Feedback always welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplication glitchEdit

A glitch occurred when nominating a category for discussion (specifically, Category:Lists of fictional events). The first time failed because the user talk for the creator, Cydebot (talk · contribs), is protected, but the CfD was created. Then I tried again, and ended up CfDing it twice. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: You nominated the Category, but the talk page notification failed, so you manually nominated it again? Is that right? If that's the case, Twinkle did what you asked it to, but there should be no need to do that just 'cause the notification failed. Was the error message confusing? ~ Amory (utc) 11:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, apparently. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

IP talk pagesEdit

Can Twinkle be made aware of likely-rapidly-changing-IP-addresses?

An editor in Australia pointed out that his ISP changes IP addresses rapidly and messages posted to those IP addresses are likely stale after a few hours or days.[2]

I can think of two ways to handle this:

  • Use {{Age switch}} so the message "self-closes" or "self-collapses" after a few days or weeks.
  • Keep a list of network blocks that are known to rapidly change, and use different messages on the talk pages of those IP addresses, or use a shorter "delay fuse" on the Age switch template.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd bug?Edit

Hey all, I can't tell if this is a Twinkle bug or something different. I tried issuing a vandalism warning to this guy twice. I'm linking to what was on his talk page when I tried to warn him. The warning didn't go through, twice, and just sort of hung there as if it was waiting to process. When I deleted the non-existent template from his talk page, I was then able to process the warning. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Cyphoidbomb, just saw this, but same issue as below and should be fixed! ~ Amory (utc) 11:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fails to issue warningEdit

I have tried several times to issue a warning on the Sandbox for user warnings page, but failed to do so. A message box containing the text "User talk page modification: Retrieving page..." appears and forever hangs it there with no subsequent results. Mosesheron (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bug! Fixed! Thanks for the report. ~ Amory (utc) 11:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist expiry default optionsEdit

I've just pushed some code that should enable the new watchlist expiry coming next week. What I wanted to ask, however, was whether or not some of the defaults should change. Here are the current unchanged defaults:

  • ARV: Add sockpuppet report pages to watchlist (indefinitely)
  • Image: Add image page to watchlist when tagging (follow site preferences)
  • Image: Add user talk page of initial uploader to watchlist when notifying (follow site preferences)
  • PROD: Add article to watchlist when tagging (indefinitely)
  • Rollback/revert: When reverting a page, how long to watch it for (indefinitely)
  • CSD: When tagging a page, how long to watch it for (indefinitely)
  • Tag: Add page to watchlist when tagging (indefinitely)
  • Tag: Add talk pages to watchlist when starting merge discussions (indefinitely)
  • Warn: Add user talk page to watchlist when notifying (indefinitely)
  • Welcome: Add user talk pages to watchlist when welcoming (indefinitely)
  • XFD: Add the nominated page to watchlist (follow site preferences)
  • XFD: Add the deletion discussion page to watchlist (follow site preferences)
  • XFD: Add the daily log/list page to the watchlist (where applicable) (no)
  • XFD: Add user talk page of initial contributor to watchlist (when notifying) (follow site preferences)
  • XFD: Add the redirect's target page to watchlist (when notifying) (follow site preferences)

At the moment, Twinkle will use expiry options of 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Should any of these be changed to one of those values? In particular I can see PROD, XfD, and CSD making liberal use of them, but what do people think? ~ Amory (utc) 19:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There's also a suggestion I've made to add options to the rpp/pp module to watch requested pages, watch tagged pages, and (for sysops) watch protected pages. What would folks think those should be set to? ~ Amory (utc) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I would probably favor 1 month for XFDs, maybe 1 month for PROD and delayed CSDs, and 1 week for immediate CSDs. I think these maximize the likelihood someone will see a relisting or recreation. I'm not sure if the split on CSDs is practical.
For page protections, it would be cool for the default watch time to be protection length + a week or something.
These thoughts might be generalized to: "watch until a week or so after when follow-up activity is most-likely to occur". --Izno (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The CSD split is, indeed, not practical, but 1 month for all ain't gonna hurt much. 1 month/1 month/1 week was roughly what I figured, but you've a good point on the delayed ones. I'm intrigued by your idea for protections, maybe I'll mull that down the line. Of course, indefinite protections are least likely to need indefinite watching... ~ Amory (utc) 20:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I've suggested that editors be allowed to change their default expiry periods in general. (We currently have only "add forever" and "don't add".) Any solution for Twinkle might bear in mind the possibility of something like this being implemented. Certes (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
As a user, I'd expect "follow site preferences" to do just that. Might require work down the line, but will cross that bridge if/when we get there. ~ Amory (utc) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So would I. The problem is that the site preference can only be set to "don't watch" or "forever", and there are no plans to change that (it was omitted from the implementation that's about to be rolled out). Certes (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't decide whether vandal reverters would prefer a shorter default watch period for rollback/revert... ~ Amory (utc) 20:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Twinkle".