This page is for general discussion and questions related to Twinkle. It is also one possible venue for reporting bugs and requesting new features; although see Bugs and feature requests below.

Consider also checking Twinkle's documentation, which may answer your question.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Other archives Friendly talk archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Old Bugs page; archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Old RFA page; archive 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bugs and feature requests

Bugs and feature requests can be reported at https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle (you will need to have a GitHub account). This will probably result in the issue being noticed sooner, as an e-mail is sent to all Twinkle developers. Alternatively, start a new discussion on this page. Possibly slower service, but you will be able to gain consensus, etc., if you need to.

When a page is reverted with the pending changes "Revert changes" button, Twinkle should give a nice link to go to the user's talk page with the page name pre-filled, like it does when "real" rollback is used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this. I only have reviewer rights on testwiki, so I hope our setup is not too different. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know that's kind of strange, but after the revert is made, there's nowhere to put the talk page link. The other alternative is to make the user's talk page pop open in a new window after the revert, the way that it does when you use Twinkle's own rollback to revert someone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Sorry Jack, I missed your reply. Yes, a popup wouldn't be a bad idea, although I'm hesitant to add another one. I'll see what is possible here and think about the best way to implement it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threadcromancy, but I would suggest using popups to direct you quickly to their user talk page. You'll have to copy the page name manually, but it's nonetheless faster than clicking and clicking repeatedly. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see the vandal's talk page, but I would like this bot to automatically create a talk page for the vandal, if necessary, and post a notice on the vandal's talk page that they did something offensive. In my recent use of this bot, no notice was posted on the vandal's talk page; apparently because there was no existing talk page for the vandal. - Ac44ck (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...for lack of a better heading.

• The preferences panel at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences nowhere states that twinkle preferences are actually stored on a wiki page, and are hence public (unlike the mediawiki preferences). A js-savvy user could easily understand what they mean (and even a not-so-savvy user could copy-paste someone else's preferences and then go to the twinkle preferences panel). Also, the page doesn't mention that the prefs will be released under the default wikipedia license. (Not sure if there's a copyright/privacy violation in there anywhere, but you might want to look into this.)
• Someone might want to take a look at this commit I did downstream back in 2012. It includes a function to softcode namespace names in regex creation for the unlink tool in morebits.js. Devs may want to properly implement that upstream. The benefit would be that the regex would work on any wikipedia without problem.
• There's a script at hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js which loads for me a personal version of twinkle from various user subpages. The only difference from the gadget version is that the header and footer have been kept separate. Devs might want to consider separating them again since using this script, changes in one module can be tested easily with the other live modules (i.e copy one module to your userspace, make some changes, use hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js to load the default gadget, only replacing the changed module with the userspace subpage instead of the mediawiki page) and you can test the changes live!
• Over the past 1.5 months I've done a lot of updates to the gadget at hi.wp (stuff dating from May 2012 to October 2013). I'm just giving a heads up since I may have to take a long wikibreak and if the gadget breaks there, someone might complain here. Anything that was implemented after mid-October hasn't been implemented there (including the mediawiki js deprecations removal)
• Oh, and it seems that Jimbo uses Twinkle too, in case any of the devs ever want to do an April Fool's prank for users in the founder group ;) --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even Jimbo Wales uses Twinkle? Man, this is just reason enough to get all autoconfirmed users in good standing to get Twinkle, even if they're not planning on using it often. It's just an awesome tool. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering adding a line to the top of the preferences panel saying "Note that your preferences will be released publicly as JavaScript code in a subpage of your user page." Thoughts? Eman235/talk 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to do it, perhaps something less technical would be better: "Note that your preferences are stored in (a subpage of your user page). Only you (and Wikipedia administrators) can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible to everyone." — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now the {{-}} is boggling me. If this note is going to be put in I don't think I can do it. Eman235/talk 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*slaps self* never mind, figured it out. I made a slight change to the wording mention that it is JavaScript, not blatant text -- dunno what you think of that -- but yes, item one in this list is amended, kind of. Eman235/talk 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Twinkle posted the unprotection request in the "edit request" section. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this is a strange one. I just tried it myself and it seemed to go into the right section. The structure of the RFPP page doesn't appear to have been altered at any point. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the "requests for reduction" section was empty before your request, but was not empty when I made my test request? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also just experienced the same bug with this edit. Both the increase protection and protection reduction sections were empty at the time, so that almost certainly has something to do with it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could a warning be added to the protection process when selecting for unprotection asking the user to ask the protecting admin first about unprotection? Currently, it means having to ask the requesting user if they asked about it first but having something to explain that (possibly with a link to the talkpage of the admin) before getting that far would be helpful. tutterMouse (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tutterMouse, see User_talk:MusikAnimal/Archive_20#AIV_weirdness. Courtesy pinging @MusikAnimal: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that protections can be moved and the script would have to backtrack those makes this a little tricky. It of course can be done, but maybe as a first step we can have it say "Please check with protecting admin first (protection log) (move log)" and let the user figure it out? — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping NeilN, good to know I wasn't the only one considering this. MusikAnimal, the warning is there merely as a front line reminder that RFPP should be the second place you goto, not the first (and definitely not for WP:OTHERPARENT if you got declined by the protecting admin). Letting the user figure it out isn't bad but personally I think having the path of least resistance (in this case, simply telling the user whose protection is the one currently standing and pointing them to their talkpage) would be best but if it's not technically feasible or simply a bigger order than needed then a simple link to the log for the page is good enough. tutterMouse (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that I've almost got this done — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets implemented, I have one request: could this warning not appear when requesting a page have its protection downgraded from full protection to template protection? Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @NeilN and TutterMouse: I doubt either of you have GitHub accounts, but even if you don't I invite you to give any input you might have based on what I'm come up with: [1] (you can comment here). In short, this change is pretty cool as it will allow you to see who originally applied protection to a page after there were page moves, a common headache we have to deal with. The protecting admin will be shown next to each entry of the "Current protections" that you see when you open up the Protection module, and that links to their talk page. When you attempt to request unprotection it will prompt you if you've contacted them. The only issue is if NeilN move-protects a page, then I semi-protect the same page, the API says that I was the one who move-protected it. That's essentially beyond our control, but not a huge issue in my opinion.

@Steel1943: Is there consensus to bypass this practice for that scenario? I would think the same rules apply. Anyway it's just a warning, you can still hit OK and continue with the RFPP report — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MusikAnimal: My only concern is that the "warning" you are about to implement is an additional confirmation screen, similar to what was recently done with the Rollback function. If this is not the case, if anything, if it is possible for the warning to be less noticeable on my above-mentioned scenario, that would be preferred. If neither of these are the case, I would then have no concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal:, yes there is. Per the WP:RFPP page: "Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) MusikAnimal, but if you are looking for actual consensus, I would say that was formed a while back when the Template Editor right was created, and the RFPP stipulations regarding how to request protection downgrades were established. So, I'd say the consensus is the fact that the Template Editor permission and Template Protection exist. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, what NeilN said. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it should be easy to implement this exception — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, take that back completely. For admins it's clear what you're unprotecting, for the requesters it's just a big "Reason" text box where you say what you want to be unprotected. For instance, you might want to remove the move protection and not the full protection, or remove the full protection entirely. I guess it's safe to assume 90 something percent of the time if you are requesting unprotection of a fully-protected template, you are referring to the full protection down to template? Otherwise we might need to either sidestep this request or implement a new way to request unprotection (won't happen anytime soon) — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are discussing changing the format of the reports to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is there any easy way to modify the output produced by Twinkle? One example: I removed the result from the heading but Twinkle is still including it. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Changing headings. This should be easy provided we have consensus for the change. My only concern is if other wikis using Twinkle are relying on the current format, or in Twinkle's case, the {{AN3 report}} template. @This, that and the other: thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about other wikis, they will have to sort it out themselves. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else frequently use "Disruptive editing" or "Adding unsourced content" as reasons for pending protection? If so, can we get them added to the PC preset list? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Both of these are very common rationale for protection, and the same can certainly be applied to pending changes given it's just less frequent. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, works great, thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section on appropriate use should be changed, expanded.

Right now, it only has 3 sentences. The first 2 are generic about reverting on WP and not specific to twinkle, so no help as a reference for those interested in Twinkle per se. The latter sentence is specific to twinkle: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes, unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

However, it is clearly contradictory, which is why I marked it:

1. twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes.
2. twinkle can be used to undo good faith changes with an edit summary.

Since an edit summary should always be used nowadays, twinkle can be used to undo good-faith changes, which contradicts 1)

Does the word "unless" hint at a "rare exception"? Or is Twinkle regularly used to undo good faith changes?

In my editing experience Twinkle is regularly used to undo good faith changes. there is even a post by Bob K31416 from 14 October 2015 in the section "appropriate use" above. Are there objective data about TW use? Can they be collected by looking at reverts and the choice of vandalism vs other and determining the percentage? that would help.

Conclusion: Twinkle is not an antivandalism tool in the majority of edits in my experience. it is installed by people who like to save time and facilitates reverts of any kind.

Proposal:

• Twinkle reverts should be restricted to antivandalism, clear-cut function.

Otherwise, I feel

• Twinkle shouldnt be "advertised" as antivandalism tool and doesnt deserve the policeman logo.

Everyone can revert anything anyway without Twinkle, without the appearance of somehow a "special" authority of a vandalism fighter. how many editors get intimidated by it, not knowing that any autoconfirmed user can install twinkle?

Please note that I do not blame people for installing Twinkle. I have considered installing it myself, but always resisted, because of this dubious setup. I am for this tool, but it needs to be brought back into line with what -I think- was its original purpose. After 8 years of this gadget, a history section would also be helpful. --Wuerzele (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wording could use some adjusting but Twinkle is clearly not only used for vandalism. Installed you have the following options: [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)].--TMCk (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --TMCk. re "Tw clearly not only used for vandalism": exactly my point, so why not change the description in the lede/ the page ?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your conundrum is that Twinkle is both an anti-vandalism tool and a more general method to revert changes. The thing is that there are 3 different ways to revert with Twinkle: normal, AGF, and vandalism. Choosing the normal or AGF option in Twinkle will prompt you to provide an edit summary that gets attached to your revert (the AGF option also attaches a specific comment that the edits were in good faith). In contrast, the "vandalism" option does not prompt you for an edit summary; rather, it reverts the edits with only the canned "reverted vandalism by x" edit summary attached. It's this distinction that we're talking about here. Twinkle as a whole can be used to undo good faith changes, precisely because it can allow you to leave a more detailed edit summary. But the anti-vandalism functions of Twinkle must not be used on good faith edits, because they don't allow it. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper yes, I see what you are saying by anti-vandalism functions of Twinkle don't allow use on good faith edits.

but do you understand the conundrum how this change of use or mixed use should be reflected in a) its description and b) its logo ? ( i am saying the conundrum, not your conundrum, as you said. i dont think it's personal, but maybe you dont want to own up to the issue.)--Wuerzele (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's certainly not personal; I'm not a Twinkle dev, nor did I write any of this page, so I'm not planning on taking responsibility. :) All I meant by "your" conundrum is "the conundrum you posed". I had actually originally phrased it as "your question", but then I saw that you didn't really frame it as a question, so I changed the word before posting.

Anyhoo, yeah I kinda see what you're getting at, but I don't really think it's an issue. I'd say that your first point (twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes) is just incorrect. That's not what the text says: the text says that Twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used (emphasis mine). You can't just leave off the "unless an appropriate edit summary is used" part, because that's the key to the whole thing. Functions of anti-vandalism tools can be used to revert good-faith edits if and only if they allow you to leave an appropriate edit summary that explains why you're reverting a good faith edit. Twinkle has some functions that allow that, so those functions of Twinkle can be used to revert good-faith edits. Other functions of Twinkle--the rollback(vandal) button--do not allow one to leave an appropriate edit summary, so those functions cannot be used to revert good faith edits. Rollback has no functions that allow one to write an edit summary, so rollback as a whole cannot be used on good faith edits. The point is that Twinkle does a lot of different things, some of which are geared towards anti-vandalism and some of which aren't, so a single blanket statement like "Twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes, ever" is just not correct. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper I split the quoted sentence in two semantic units- did you fail to see that ? and then I made a comment about the conjunction, that connects the two "unless" and asked for data to back up/ confirm or refute the "unless". So my point is more nuanced.

you didnt respond to it. Nobody actually. you chose to reiterate that Twinkle isnt JUST an antivandalism tool.. yadiyadiya, I have acknowledged this from the beginning plus above instead of talking past the point, maybe you could stick the info in your comment into the main page, where this info is lacking?

the point is the twinkle page is not reflecting Twinkle well. I've asked questions if data exist.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: Then I don't understand your point. What is contradictory about "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used"? Are you objecting to the labeling of Twinkle as an "anti-vandalism tool"? That's not an incorrect label; Twinkle *is* an anti-vandalism tool, and it's the anti-vandalism parts of it that are of particular relevance to the "abuse" section. It's not *just* an anti-vandalism tool, but nowhere on the page does it say that Twinkle is *just* an anti-vandalism tool. The very first sentence talks about many extra options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks. It can be an antivandalism tool at the same time as being all the other stuff that it is.

And also, it's not just having an edit summary that makes using Twinkle or rollback or whatever okay. It's having an appropriate edit summary; you left out the word "appropriate" from your breakdown above, and it's pretty important. Things like rollback or the rollback(vandal) function of twinkle all leave *some* kind of edit summary. But the distinction is that those edit summaries are canned, and don't explain why the edit was reverted. For reverting vandalism, that's okay; it's assumed that the edit was reverted because it was vandalism. But a reversion of a good-faith edit should have an actual explanation of why the revert happened. So that's the difference; not all edit summaries are created equal.

As for your request for data...I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to why that would matter. Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool (among other things); whether it's used *more* for other things or not doesn't change that fact. What does it matter? Why would we want to constrain Twinkle to being only for anti-vandalism? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment about the logo... it's quite fitting in my opinion. Twinkle offers powerful patrolling functionality beyond the different types of reverts. For instance, the new page patroller, delinking, blocking/page protection for admins, etc. Not to mention Mr. Twinkly is iconic :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re "Twinkle offers powerful patrolling functionality beyond the different types of reverts." wow, very musically sounding, amazing ! Do you work in the advertising business maybe ? -:) User:MusikAnimal, could you reply to my q in my initial post, objective description, objective data, plse, whenever you so feel moved? no urgency whatsoever.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele:, perhaps you could suggest the particular changes you are looking for when you stated, I think the section on appropriate use should be changed, expanded. Meanwhile, think of Twinkle like a Swiss Army knife -- one tool, many functions. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etamni Re "particular changes you are looking for": have been above. I underlined them for you.

As far as the exact phrasing to expand the section: twinkle users should describe the "appropriate use" (I don't use twinkle), particularly since my observations and suggestions seem not to have registered.

I do like your swiss army knife MUCH better than this policeman logo, more neutral and more informative. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, to the extent that there is a proposal above, I'll say oppose to restricting Twinkle to anti-vandalism as this is only one of the purposes of this tool, and I use it for more than just anti-vandalism. To changing the Twinkle "logo" I'll say neutral as I don't really care one way or another, but I would remind the OP and others that police officers, like Swiss Army knives, serve multiple functions. One of those functions is law enforcement, but there are others. To the extent that Twinkle is advertised as anything, I agree that such material should extol all the virtues of this great tool, not just the anti-vandalism aspects (but this does not mean that all of its features need be mentioned every time someone mentions that Twinkle can help with a particular task). Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Etamni|Etamni]], excellent. so now edits to reflect this are needed.( i didnt see your reply because no ping)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that when using Twinkle to flag an article for WP:G10 speedy deletion (the criterion for attack pages) the script automatically posts a scary red-hand warning on the creator's talk page, like this one. This is problematic for a few reasons:

1. when it's clear vandalism, this practice violates WP:DENY;
2. occasionally these pages are created in good faith, and the tag violates WP:DTTR and WP:AGF;
3. the warning does not say which page was nominated (although that's probably good in the first case);
4. it's scary; and
5. the warning cannot be turned off.

I would like especially to see point #5 change. It is not mandatory to post the warning message, neither should it be mandatory when using Twinkle. Alternatively (or in addition) I would like the option to use a warning with less strong language which links to the page in question, such as simply posting the generic {{CSDNotice}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to linking to the page, I believe that was deliberately removed because the title of the page often contains attacks and/or BLP violations, in addition to whatever may be in the text of the page. The page can't be linked, not even piped, without including a potentially BLP-violating and RevisionDeletable title in the wikitext of the talk page. I would imagine that some of these titles already have to be redacted from the deletion log with not-insignificant frequency; best not to intentionally add it to a wiki page if we can help it. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if it's possible to have two different versions? One for AGF and one for Vandals, like we have for rollback. The AGF version would look like a normal CSD message without the scary warning, and the vandal one would look like the current version. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think WP:DTTR applies here; regulars should know better than to create attack pages, so if they do, they really ought to be notified. Similarly for AGF: how many "good faith attack pages" have you ever seen? Re "the warning cannot be turned off", yes it can, you just need to turn off the "Notify page creator if possible" box when nominating the page. If you have concerns with the warning template {{db-attack-notice}}, you can edit it directly or discuss on the talk page, but I would suggest that it is serving its purpose well. — This, that and the other (talk)

Someone creates a stub about some subject, and then another person (or group) later hijacks it and turns it into an attack page. Arguably, the page creator was making a good-faith effort. Not sure how common this scenario is. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etamni In that case, you could revert the "hijacking" edits and restore the article to a non-attack version. There is no need to nominate the page for speedy deletion; at most, the attacking edits could be revision-deleted (a process that Twinkle does not handle). — This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Ivan's example, SimonTrew makes a good faith disambiguation, but it was disparaging to a town and a company. He didn't mean it to be an attack, but you could take it as one. In instances like that, Twinkle's default G10 notice is completely inappropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I seem to be mistaken. I thought that when choosing G10 the "notify page creator" box was not available, thus the notice is automatic. That seems not to be the case. If I have occasion to use G10 again I'll pay better attention. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix: The way I personally think about G10 is, if you don't think the user deserves the severe tone of {{db-attack-notice}}, you should think about using a different criterion. So I most likely wouldn't use G10 in that situation. That is just my view though; of course, you can use G10 and elect not to notify the user if you like. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice is placed here instead of making an immediate change since this change affects multiple bots and gadgets like Twinkle.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Thanks for the notice. Should Twinkle's functionality of posting at NFCR be deprecated, or removed altogether, or left alone for the time being until the merge is complete? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: At the present time, I believe that the current situation should not change until an explanation of WP:NFCR's functionality is added into the documentation of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/heading (as well as any other changes that may need to be made at the top of Wikipedia:Files for deletion), which has not happened yet. When the aforementioned change is made, the NFCR option should probably be removed from Twinkle altogether, but with Twinkle's FFD explanation to be amended to include a bit about NFCR's purpose prior to the merge. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, that and the other (and whoever else this may concern), at this point, per this edit, as well as other edits on WP:NFCR itself to mark it historical, WP:NFCR has been "shut down". At this point, the "Non-free context review" option should be removed from Twinkle to avoid any new discussions being posted there. Also, the description for the "Files for deletion" option would probably best serve Twinkle's users if its description were updated to read something like this:

File may need to be deleted, or file's compliance with non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) is disputed.

. (However, please do not update "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion" yet: the bot that manages FFD has yet to be updated to use the new base page name while creating the daily subpages.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steel. It's on its way, should be here soon. Let me know when FFD is renamed. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: I noticed that WP:NFCR has now been removed from Twinkle. Thanks! I'll try to keep you informed when "files for deletion" should be renamed "files for discussion". Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @This, that and the other: In Twinkle, "Files for deletion" can now be safely renamed "Files for discussion". (This is basically a repeat of what I said on User talk:AnomieBOT, but posted here for the record on Twinkle's talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MusikAnimal: 98f24d8546640ef22b2d4116d11025999c0297f6 — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Synced [2] — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @This, that and the other: It seems that one change in the code may have not been made made: when Twinkle adds the FFD tag edit notice to the file page, it still reads as

  (Nominated for deletion; see ...)

  To fix this, it may be best to mimic how WP:RFD tags' edit notices are generated that appear as

  (Listed for discussion at ...)

  - Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Has there been any progress on this? Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the change just after you posted the request, but I didn't want to trouble MusikAnimal again to sync the repository, since it wasn't urgent. However, he doesn't seem to have noticed the change, so I'll ping him here. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, didn't notice the change, but feel free to ping anytime about syncing :) Should be all set — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other and MusikAnimal: Thanks again. In fact, I think that may have been the final necessary update to Twinkle in regards to the "deletion" to "discussion" change at FFD. Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have rollback rights, can I use Twinkle then?--IllusIon (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Twinkle can be used by any registered account which is autoconfirmed - registered for four days, and with at least ten edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to leave a TB for a named section in the Articles for Creation Helpdesk the links to the named section fail. Repeatable. Fiddle Faddle 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Thanks for the message. It looks like the AFC helpdesk notification is pretty screwed up - instead of linking to the section, it is linking to a nonexistent article. It also seems to leave "undefined" at the top of the user's talk page, which is very strange. I'll try to fix it. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly use batch deletion for group nominations at TfD. Templates frequently have a lot of subpages (sandboxes and testcases and so forth) which are easy to forget about. The D-batch dialog currently offers the option to delete talk pages and redirects to a page; could/should this also contain an additional checkbox to delete subpages of the original page and its corresponding talk page? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for me to see, for example, how many times I have used Twinkle to nominate articles for speedy, prod, or regular deletion? Let me know. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: For now you can do a edit summary search, using the search terms "speedy deletion", "Nominated for deletion", etc. However moving forward you can have Twinkle log speedy and prod nominations for you. Go to WP:TW/PREF and under the section for speedy deletion check "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations". It looks like you already have the PROD log turned on. I don't think Twinkle logs XfD nominations, but not a bad idea for a new feature — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle doesn't log XFDs because you can look them up in your contributions, which regular users cannot do for successful CSDs and PRODs for which the page creator was not notified. Having said that, people have asked for an XFD log in the past. Personally I would prefer to see it implemented as a general tool on Tool Labs that would work for both Twinkle-related and manual XFDs. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite uses twinkle to revert warnings and discussion from their user page without discussion. --82.132.212.162 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's entitled to remove comments from his page, see WP:BLANKING, and it doesn't matter what tool he uses to do so. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(Though it always looks a bit dodgy when someone does it, even if it isn't against any policy, which it isn't.) KDS4444^Talk 06:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with Twinkle's checkbox for old replaceable fair use images, uploaded before 2006 or so? I needed to tag a file uploaded in 2005, and discovered that the checkbox was gone! --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly removed it from Twinkle and the relevant template 8 months ago, because eight years after the notice period was reduced to two days, I think the need to grandfather in an extra five days' notice for old images is completely unnecessary. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deletions need to me made in accordance with policy, and neither Twinkle nor the template are policy. I note that different policies say different things, though: WP:F7 says two days for all replaceable files while WP:NFCCE mentions the seven-day rule for older uploads. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did look up WP:CSD before making the change, and since there was no mention of a seven-day period, I assumed it was something that was informally implemented in the template. Personally I would favour seeking consensus to have the grandfather clause removed from NFCC; I don't think it serves any purpose anymore. I assume the reason it was put there is that people uploading before July 2006 might have uploaded a file without providing a FUR, in the knowledge that they had seven days to do so before the file would be deleted. That is clearly no longer relevant in 2015. If I had time, I would open a discussion at WT:NFCC... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#Template:Di-no source. There are currently a couple of discrepancies between WP:CSD and WP:NFCCE. The templates sometimes follow WP:CSD, sometimes WP:NFCCE. I'd suggest trying to clean up this at some point so that both policies state the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... this has to be overpowered for an (auto)conformed user. You can rollback something without the rollback permissions.