If you want to report aJavaScript error, please followthis guideline. Questions aboutMediaWiki in general should be posted at theMediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 5 days.
This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown.
No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box.
This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. Seetask 3864. There is anaccesskey property on it (default toaccesskey="f" in English). Logged-in users can enable the "Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page" gadgetin their preferences.
No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checkingbot.
You can use a web browser such asFirefox, which has a spell checker.
If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, usethis link.
Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem.
If an image thumbnail is not showing, trypurging its image description page.
If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls blockURLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear.
I’m Eliza Blackorby from the WMF’sReader Growth team. A few weeks ago, WMFposted here about declining pageviews to Wikipedia – that’s what our team is working to address. We want both new and existing readers to return to Wikipedia because they find it a compelling place to learn. Over and over, a top request from readers is that they wish for “more images/photos” on Wikipedia, as demonstrated insurveys of global internet users. As a result, we want to show readers more images and display images in a more enriching way. Our hypothesis is that by making it easier to explore images already in articles, readers may find Wikipedia more engaging and return more frequently, with some of them eventually becoming editors.
Our initial discussions with you constitutedphase 0 of our reader experiment phases. We now want to enterphase 1: launching a small test with an early version of these ideas. It’s not yet clear whether this feature will be an improvement for readers, so we want to test it to determine whether to proceed intoPhase 2: building a feature.
What is the timeline?
We will A/B test this version with 0.05% of mobile readers on English Wikipedia starting the week of November 17 and ending four weeks later on December 17.
What does the experiment include?
This test will include a gallery at the top of an article that shows all the article’s images. The feature will be available for any article that has three or more images. Tapping on any image will open a browsing experience with the image enlarged, its caption, and options to view it on Commons (if available). Readers will see images and paragraph-excerpts from the article itself in the gallery and will be able to switch back to where the image appears within the article. At the bottom of this experience, readers will be able to view images selected by editors for the same article in other Wikipedias.
Screenshots:
Below are three separate screenshots of the test's different aspects to demonstrate the experience when a user clicks through and scrolls.
What input are we looking for from you?
While this round of the experiment is focused on simply testing if readers are interested in image browsing, there are still issues that would need to be resolved before developing this into a feature, including those around bad images and cross-wiki images as it relates to conflicting policies or cultural sensitivities. We invite you to help us continue to identify concerns like this. In the collapsed box you'll find a summary of thefeedback and risks we heard from you in September, along with how we're thinking through them.
Feedback from Phase 0
Mixed feelings on showing images from other projects
Commons: Some editors liked the idea of pulling more images from Commons, while others felt there was too much risk to showing Commons images without editor oversight. For this test, we have decided to only use images that have been added to at least one Wikipedia.
Images from other wikis: Some editors felt that allowing readers to click to see images from other wikis for the same article could pose a risk to editor oversight. For the purposes of gathering information in this test, we are including the ability to view images from other wikis, and will carefully observe and share the results with you for future conversations.
Risk of showing inappropriate images
We’ve set up this first A/B test so that you can exclude page images by adding thetag for exclusion, but we agree there’s still some risk. If we decide to proceed with this idea after the test, we’ll review ways we can expand this list to include further editorial oversight.
Risk of showing irrelevant images
Here, we’ll be using the same classes as MediaViewer. Instructions on how to add these classes are availableon this page. Images already excluded from Media Viewer will not appear in the experience.
We agree this is a risk when displaying images from across wikis since not all wikis have the same level of moderation. We’ll be reviewing this piece with ourlegal team and current policy to make sure everything is aligned.
The guidelines in the Manual of Style for images focus on how images are presented within article content. Since this experience is more like a navigation or browsing experience outside the main content space, similar to how images appear in Media Viewer, we’re not sure how or whether to apply the MOS here, so let’s keep talking about that.
Since this work is still experimental, we expect to refine and adjust this idea based on your feedback. We’d love for you to try the feature on a few articles using the url parameter above. Your input will help us decide how to improve it if we move forward after the test. Also, stay tuned for the test results. We’ll share them with you and discuss together whether it makes sense to continue with this idea into Phase 2, and if so, what additional changes we will need to make before proceeding. Please share your thoughts and questions here, and for more info, see ourproject page.
When I go to the hummingbird page and click on the article image that has the caption "Adult male bee hummingbird, Cuba", I am taken to a page that contains the image, along with credit and a link to the license information. It is my understanding that CC licenses require that information to be linked to and displayed when the image is clicked. When I click on the same image in the slide show, I do not see any licensing information. This may be a problem.
The other obvious issue, of course, is that the images are displayed without their captions until you click them individually. As User:DarthVader might have said, I find your lack of context disturbing. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jonesey95, thanks so much for flagging. You raise some important points. We've taken them into conversation with colleagues in theLegal department, and agree that we would need to address them if we end up building a future feature out of this experiment. I'll follow up more here if/when that happens.EBlackorby-WMF (talk)22:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really OK with the legal department to knowingly violate the terms of CC-BY-SA, even on an experimental basis? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it really is a violation, but it doesn't seem like something that would normally be allowed here at en.WP. If someone tried to roll out a template that behaved in this way, I think it might get some license-related pushback. –Jonesey95 (talk)00:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 I disagree that there is any semblance of a violation here. There is a prominently displayed link to commons off to the side, which imo counts as attribution. I also disagree that if a editor made a similar choice, they would get any license related pushback. The practice of using images as background and then overlaying attribtuion text is pretty common across userpages (a example of this would beSigma's userpage)Sohom (talk)13:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Creative Commons licences do not require a specific method for providing attribution. The licence states that it may be reasonable to meet the attribution requirement by providing a link to a page that has all the required information. Since clicking on a gallery image displays an expanded image with an overlaid link to the attribution information, personally I feel this is a reasonable approach to provide attribution.isaacl (talk)06:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the workflow to jump to the section where the image is located to be awkward. After swiping through the gallery at the top of the article, I select an image, and see an expanded image at the top of the page, but there's no link to the section. I have to scroll down through the list of images (with the little summaries) until I reach the image I originally selected, and then I can select "View in article". I think it would be better if the little summary and "View in article" link appeared directly below the expanded image, so the context and jump link would be immediately available. (I think it should still appear within the comprehensive list as well.)isaacl (talk)06:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Isaacl, thanks for this feedback! It's helpful to hear your thoughts and ideas around page navigation. We're still figuring out the best way for anchor links to behave on the page in a way that more seamlessly connects images with context via their summary and their place in the article. Our design team will take a closer look with this in mind. Do you think the summary and "view in article" link would work best overlaid on top of the expanded image, underneath where the caption currently is? Or do you have something different in mind?EBlackorby-WMF (talk)20:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the length of the blurb (I guess it's an excerpt, not a summary), I think it would be better to appear below the image, as I suggested. From a UI perspective, since the "view in article" link will bring you to the text in the excerpt, I think it would be better for the link to appear floated to the right at the top of the excerpt. I suggest leaving a bit of extra space at the bottom so the top of the excerpt and the link is visible without scrolling. I think it is better for the text to appear distinct from the caption, so prefer the text not to appear as though it is floating over the image.isaacl (talk)22:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general idea here is good. If we can increase the visibility of media in a way that enhances the usefulness of Wikipedia to readers, then I'm all for it. The current implementation also seems to be decent, although some kinks may have to be worked out as pointed out above.
Even if directly pulling images from Commons is ruled out, what about simply providing a link to the Commons category? We already have{{Commonscat}}, so I don't see how this would be controversial. The link could look something like this:
Hi @~2025-32228-23, thanks for the note, glad you like the idea so far. Potential connections with Commons is something we are thinking about a lot, and this idea you've posed is a good one for future investigation. How do you feel about offering a link to view media from other projects besides Commons (like other language wikis)?EBlackorby-WMF (talk)21:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EBlackorby-WMF: I think the way this feature currently works in the demo is mostly reasonable.If editors on another language edition have decided to include a photo, then it is probably at least somewhat illustrative and useful. On the other hand, Commons categories sometimes include low-quality / low-relevance media, which makes including photos from Commons more problematic.
I do see some risk of cross-wiki vandalism. For example, if a troll wants to deface a protected English Wikipedia article on a popular or contentious topic, then they could instead add an inappropriate image to the equivalent article on a different language edition that has barely any eyes on it (e.g.,Udmurt Wikipedia). It might take a while for editors to catch this kind of thing.
what about simply providing a link to the Commons category?Support. I think there should be someload more button on the right of the images panel to load more images from the Commons category (e.g. first files that in adeepcategory: scan of the category have most uses in mainspaces) and/or a button there to go to the category. The best may be to have both but usually subcategorization of the Commons category is important where one can't just show random files only directly in the category and when using subcategories too some less-related or less-useful files may show up and it would be difficult to sort them. Thus, ideally the user navigates to the category page by opening it in a new tab or via some integrated Commons category browser that could be added into the Image browsing panel.
Moreover, I like that proposed button design – however not for the Image browsing panel but what would best be added to the See also section (not buried underneath the long References section) and labeled "More media on Wikimedia Commons". Most Wikipedia users aren't really aware of Commons and don't see the Commons category link at the bottom. It needs a modern and well visible button like this and I'm sure readers would find it useful.Prototyperspective (talk)00:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent run ofSpecial:WantedCategories featured a redlinkedCategory:Taxon listed on CITES Appendix II that was being autogenerated and transcluded by the{{Population taxobox}} template onScottish wildcat. I can't findany other "Taxon listed on X" categories at all (nothing exists at the plural "taxons" either), so I suspect this is most likely a misgeneration of a category that's supposed to exist at a completely different naming format, or possibly even a straight-up error that isn't supposed to existat all underany naming format — but the template itself doesn't actually contain any code that would generate that category organically, and is instead calling out other modules that are smuggling the category in.
But that meant that I don't know how to find and fix where that category is coming from, and had no choice but to create it as a hidden category to get it out of the reds — and even worse, with no clues as to what parent category to file that category under due to the lack of any locatable siblings, I had to create it as anuncategorized hidden category.
So could somebody with more knowledge of this stuff find where the category is coming from, and either fix the naming format if it's being named incorrectly or just make it go away if it's not supposed to exist at all? Thanks.Bearcat (talk)15:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it uses the colour to determine the kingdom. This is determined from the taxonomy template hierarchy and using the colour for the conservation status avoids traversing the taxonomy template hierarchy more than once. I'd overlooked some of the front end taxonomy templates which weren't passing colour correctly. It should all be fine now. — Jts1882 | talk16:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well,regardless of what the expected plural form is, why's the template even passing through a singular instead of plural form here in the first place? But also, there's still no category forCategory:Taxa listed on CITES Appendix II, so this still isn't a thing that should be getting passed through at that form either.Bearcat (talk)16:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft template, asUser:Pigsonthewing/sandbox4, that will render{{User:Pigsonthewing/sandbox4|ca|Viquipèdia}}, for example, asUser:Pigsonthewing/sandbox4, including{{Lang}} to mark up the language of the displayed text.
@Pigsonthewing That's because the parameter format should be{{ill|Viquipèdia|ca}}, which renders asViquipèdia [ca]. The formatting is different, but that's because the intent is that in mainspace we should always be linking to a local article wherever possible.--Ahecht (TALK PAGE)19:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template's documentation, such as it is, does not say anything about namespace limitations. If not for mainspace use, you might want to emit an error message when the template does get used in mainspace:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0|{{error|<error message>}}|<make interwiki link here>}}
I'm assuming this is your own personal css, that you want appliedto you on all projects? That would go tometa:Special:MyPage/global.css (where the mention PrimeHunter above sent you). Be warry, this will go to all projects, so you should then remove duplicate entries on local css projects. Also, you may have unexpected behavior on projects types you don't usually use (such as wikisources) that use other kinds of customization. —xaosfluxTalk19:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I paste a ct alert on an editor's talk page it adds several nowiki templates which I have to delete
I uploaded a new version of this fair-use file to matchModerna Tider - Album by Gyllene Tider | Spotify but the image looks exactly the same on description page. However, I previewed it on another page and in preview it shows the new image. On the article, it also shows the new image. I tried purging the description page but it didn't do anything. Is this a normal delay or is something not working?Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk ·📜My work)00:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A recent Reddit thread has informed me that if you type "Obama" intothe search box, theMonkey article is listed among the dropdown results, even though the wordObama appears nowhere in it. Looking for a quick explanation, I asked on the Wikipedia Discord server, but to no avail. Apparently, the exact algorithm by which these dropdown results are selected is shrouded in mystery. It seems to me that vandals have found a way to artificially game this algorithm, akin toGoogle bombing. I am concerned that we apparently have no way to detect, understand, and revert this kind of vandalism, so I'm posting here to seek further insight. Please let me know if there is a better suited venue for this discussion.–CopperyMarrow15(talk⋅edits)06:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a defaultsort directive is removed, the overridden value is still stored inside the CirrusSearch metadata. See[4], where you can still see World, Hello as the defaultsort even after I removed it. I wouldn't call this a serious vulnerability, but definitely something that should be fixed.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)07:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the algorithm that chooses what search results show up is delayed, and the day banana did the vandalism just so happened to be near when the algorithm updates? Perhaps every month? No matter what happened though, that must have been quite the shock for anyone searching up Obama at that time.
@Oak lod: What happened is that if you override thedefaultsort parameter and later remove the override, the CirrusSearch (Wikipedia search engine) metadata still persists the old value. In April, a vandal pasted the contents of Barack Obama into Monkey, including the defaultsort override, which got persisted even after that edit was reverted. Normally, this doesn't pose any issues, but the WMF recently enabled an experimental feature which fetches search completions based on the defaultsort value stored by CirrusSearch. To their credit, they tried to implement a failsafe function (isRelevantDefaultSort) to prevent such vandalism, but it was broken so that wasn't of much help. One of the bugshas been fixed a few hours ago and the patchwill be deployed to prod next Thursday, and since I overrode the defaultsort forMonkey back to "Monkey", it no longer appears in the search results when you look up Obama.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Guess I didn't read the message thread as well as I thought, as I got next to none of that info when I first read it.
Hi all — Peter from the Wikimedia Foundation Search team here.
Thanks to everyone who investigated and surfaced the underlying cause. Here's a concise summary from the Search side, with the full technical breakdown available inthe Phabricator task.
What happened technically
In April, a vandal copied the entireBarack Obama article intoMonkey, including itsDEFAULTSORT.
Even after the vandalism was reverted, CirrusSearch kept the old defaultsort value in its page-level metadata. That persistence is how CirrusSearch currently works and is typically harmless.
Recently, we enabled an experimental search-completion feature that uses this metadata to improve suggestions.
A safeguard function (isRelevantDefaultSort) was supposed to prevent irrelevant or abusive defaultsort values from influencing completions — but that check wasn't working correctly.
The combination of stale metadata + broken safeguard causedMonkey to appear when searching for "Obama".
Fix status
The bug in the safeguard has been fixed andbackported; it is already live in production.
As a result, stale defaultsort metadata should no longer influence search completions in this way.
The underlying issue — CirrusSearch retaining old defaultsort values after an override is removed — still exists, but without the safeguard bug, it is no longer a practical vector for this type of search result corruption. We’re tracking that separately.
On the broader concern
This wasn’t a new form of vandalism or someone “gaming” an opaque algorithm. It was an interaction between cached metadata and a newly enabled feature, amplified by a broken relevance check. The community debugging here was spot-on, and your reports helped us fix this quickly.
I know it's late in the day, but I have a watchlist backlog. If something like this happens again, the thing to do is to set an explicit{{DEFAULTSORT:Monkey}}, let that work its way through caches, and then remove it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)12:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering It looks like itwas that recent edit, you just needed to wait a bit for the category to clear (there was a recent Tech News item about some backend changes that result in delayed category updates).{{User x}} checks if the category exists before placing the template there, so ifCategory:User en-gb-3 were deleted it wouldn't be a problem. That being said, the real solution would be to not have different capitalization between the template and the category, and I would suggest doing a mass-move on the en- templates to capitalize them.--Ahecht (TALK PAGE)14:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's still there; I don't know if this is because of another user making a needless edit about whitespace. These language categories are a total pain in the backside with a lot of inconsistency (only en-GB and en-CA seem to be capitalised) and some off site stuff that isn't maintained well. Is there a simple way to zap the problems once and for all?Timrollpickering (talk)22:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I was sent here by someone on the wikipedia help channel on IRC to try to get help -
My account (User:Alohawolf) seems to be stuck in a login loop that I cant seem to break out of my account is alohawolf - I've been an active editor since 2005, however I cant seem to login, it redirects me to verify my account, and its either sending that to an email I no longer have access to, or the email never comes.
To be clear, if I log in with an intentional bad password, I do get a bad password message - so I know the password is correct, I've also never enabled any kind of 2fa/mfa on my account.~2025-34613-54 (talk)15:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a long shot and you've probably already done this, but have you checked your spam/junk folders of whatever email accounts you have access to? --DB1729talk15:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been struggling to understand how one creates a link to a specific paragraph or block of text within a Talk page thread (e.g., this is what I'm trying to do:"blunt-force objectivity is the defining feature of TIMEOUT"). I'm well versed at using{{oldid}} to accomplish something similar, but the above example is clearer, more direct, and a much more elegant solution for what I'm trying to do. I can't figure out how the specific#c-AirshipJungleman29-20251117224500-Cl3phact0-20251117215400 part is derived/generated. Any hints or steers welcome. Cheers,Cl3phact0 (talk)16:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's linking to a specific reply on a talk page, rather than a completely arbitrary block-of-text. You can pick up the link from the timestamp on a comment -- either copy its link or just click on it and it'll be copied to your clipboard for you.
Technically you could also investigate the generated HTML on the page and find thespan with adata-mw-comment-start for that reply and grab itsid attribute, but that's overkill unless you're doing this in some sort of automated fashion.DLynch (WMF) (talk)17:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I am specifically trying to achieve is exactly what was done in the example above (i.e., easily direct the reader to a specific comment within a thread so that they can read context without distractions or having to search through other passages). I think I understand now. The20251117 part is obviously the date, but I hadn't connected the dots that224500 and215400 was just a timestamp interval. This should work. Thanks! --Cl3phact0 (talk)17:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note if you click on the timestamp of the post to get the link, you don't have to know about any of the details regarding what the numbers mean. Before the timestamp link feature was enabled, I wrote my own script to copy the appropriate link (seeUser:Isaacl/script/copy-comment-link-to-clipboard). I changed it so now it generates a link with a "Special:GoToComment/" prefix. If the comment was moved to another page, as is done when a discussion thread is archived, the usual link you get from the timestamp will bring to the original page and display a popup showing to where the comment was moved. With the Special:GoToComment prefix, you'll be taken directly to the current location of the comment. (My script also copies links for headings, and you can choose if you want it in the format used by table of contents listings, or the permalink format.)isaacl (talk)17:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over on ang:, the Main Page has an issue: it has daily features like en:, using {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, but does not tick over to the next day: it can be stuck on one date for ages. It updates if we amend the page, or actively purge the cache: the main page is called 'Heafodtramet', so the clicking a 'Special:Purge/Heafodtramet' brings it to the current date. I did that again this evening.
Is there another way to write it so that {{CURRENTDAY}} etc reflects the current date without intervention?
The NewPP limit report in the HTML of the main page atang: says "Cache expiry: 2592000". That's in seconds and equals 30 days which is indeed far too much for a main page using{{CURRENTDAY}}.phab:T119366#6407916 byKrinkle in 2020 sounds like it should have been set to an hour. I don't know whether that still applies and I don't know a way to control it.PrimeHunter (talk)21:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I recall in the past Parsoid did not yet support reduced cache expiries (e.g.T329067), but that was fixed two years ago and these days Parsoid isenabled by default on several Wikivoyage and Wiktionary wikis. Searching on Phabricator, I don't see any known issues that would explain this. Ping @Cscott.Krinkle (talk)15:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, yes, this is a bug in Parsoid we discovered recently. The same issue as tracked inT408741 which we've been working through and looks like there is something in Parsoid's metadata collection itself we may need to address to fix this.SSastry (WMF) (talk)15:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogweard it's not an ideal term solution, but I have an old script to trigger page purging which I wrote for Wikidata - I could set it up to run on the ang mainpage once a day at midnight as a stopgap, if that would help?Andrew Gray (talk)12:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogweard okay, set up - it will run at one minute past midnight UK time (so 1.01 UTC in the summer, if it's still going) and purgeang:Heafodtramet. (It will also purgeang:user:AGbot which uses CURRENTTIME, so I have a test to make sure it's working - I guess we find out in half an hour.) The bot won't actually edit anything on the site. Happy to leave it running as long as is needed.Andrew Gray (talk)23:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spur (the company from which we source IP Proxy information used by various tools) gave a webinar yesterday. Therecording is available on-line It's a little bit promotional, but I found lots of good information about how the residential proxy ecosystem works that I didn't know before, so if you do anything with blocking of IPs, it's probably worth watching.RoySmith(talk)15:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came across theOtago article atthis version and noticed that the extended footnote after the first word of the lead, which addresses pronunciation and the name of the area in Maori, wasn't appearing at the bottom of the article. I noticed that there wasn't a{{notelist}} tag at the bottom, so I added one but, when I previewed the result, the list still didn't appear. Investigating, I found that there was a{{notelist}} tag at the end of the first table of the Population section, evidently meant for displaying an extended footnote for the first data row, Dunedin, so both notes were being displayed there. I tried to solve the problem by setting distinct|group= parameters for each of the{{efn}}s, and setting the corresponding|group= parameters for the{{notelist}}s. But that didn't work: the two notes still both appear under the table, and the{{notelist}} in the Notes section I created at the bottom, above the References section, is empty. I saved my work underthis diff. Can someone see what's preventing the breakdown by group from occurring?Largoplazo (talk)18:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{efn}} only recognizes the following values for|group=: note, upper-alpha, upper-roman, lower-alpha, lower-greek, and lower-roman. Anything else defaults to lower-alpha. You tried to use "main" and "pop".Anomie⚔22:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh. I hadn't grasped that the distinction had to be based on the numbering scheme. That's a little bizarre, actually, seems to me they should be independent dimensions, say, if you have 15 tables and want each to list its own set of notes at the bottom—and have them styled consistently, each starting from the beginning. But that's beside the point here. Thanks.Largoplazo (talk)03:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: You can have multiple notelists, each using the same style and each with its own sequence, provided that where there are two in parallel, they use different styles. Consider this:
Text in article lead.{{efn|Note relevant to text in the lead}}==Section one==Table row 1{{efn|group=lower-roman|Note for section one, table row 1}}Table row 2{{efn|group=lower-roman|Note for section one, table row 2}}{{notelist|group=lower-roman}}==Section two==Table row 1{{efn|group=lower-roman|Note for section two, table row 1}}Table row 2{{efn|group=lower-roman|Note for section two, table row 2}}{{notelist|group=lower-roman}}==Notes=={{notelist}}
Now I see—in my version, both were consumed by the first notelist because everything was being treated as lower-alpha, so both footnotes got captured there. Cool, thanks!Largoplazo (talk)01:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Old talk page discussions left behind during multiple page moves
Hi all, the articleAl-Marwani (current title at time of writing) was created in September, initially as a draft. The draft was then moved to mainspace by its creator and has been moved again over a dozen times since. Along the way, at least two different talk page discussions have been left behind with former page titles instead of following the article's moves to the most recent titles; specifically,here at the draft talk andhere at one of the former titles. I'm not sure how this happened, but in any case I'm wondering if there's a way to move/restore those talk page discussions to the article's current talk page? Is there a better way to do this now other than just copy-pasting the discussions? Thanks,R Prazeres (talk)07:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: Done in an administrator-only way which preserves the page history on the same talk page. There were 25 redirects to the article. I checked that only the two mentioned had other talk page content than redirects.PrimeHunter (talk)11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of recent undiscussed changes toTemplate:Merge,Template:Merge from andTemplate:Merge to, mostly byFaviFake (talk·contribs), who made insufficient prototyping in the template sandboxes, and didnot use the testcases pages at all. I've reverted the template changes, and raised the protection to Template-protected. Honestly, I could have blocked FaviFake outright for breaching a final warning not to mess about in highly-visible pages without discussion. I might still do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)10:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{{case: ~ }}} would mean the value of the template parameter namedcase: ~.{{{case: {{{1|}}}}}} would mean the value of a template parameter whose name is based on the value of parameter1.That very old template was intended to be used something like{{switch|value | case: a = something | case: b = something else | case: c = etc | default = a default value }}, and the{{{case: {{{1|}}}|{{{default|}}}}}} handled selecting the appropriate named parameter based on the passed invalue. These days we havemw:Extension:ParserFunctions that lets the same thing be done more efficiently (and with slightly different syntax) using#switch.Anomie⚔16:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minerva not showing edit count and user groups for certain users (?)
I didn't know this mobile feature which was poorly described. CompareSpecial:Diff/1323787535 by Izno andSpecial:Diff/1323780893 by Theknoledgeableperson in the mobile version in a narrow window. The bottom of the Izno diff has an up-arrow which displays "148,425 edits | 3 user groups" and a circled "i" icon to show the groups. The Theknoledgeableperson doesn't show any of this. Tests with other users show that you only get the info if the user has at least one user group (which may be extended confirmed). It makes some sense to not write "0 user groups". I don't know why the edit count is omitted in that case but it may be deliberate.PrimeHunter (talk)20:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the BLP noticeboard, people are sometimes directed to the FAQs at the top of talk pages. However, on mobile view, this is all hidden behind a non-obvious sign saying "more about this page". Is there anyway of making that clearer?Red Fiona (talk)21:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{MusicBrainz meta}} (should that really be used in the article? – meta templates generally aren't suitable for mainspace) doesn't support|ref=. You might rewrite that reference as:
