This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Before posting a message here please consider if this is the correct venue. If you wish to discuss me (SSSB), my edits (read the second paragragh if you have an issue with an edit request I implemented) or you wish to bring my attention to a certain matter, this is the correct venue (there are other cases where this is the correct venue).
However, this is not the correct venue to make edit requests. These requests should be made on the talk page of the page which you would like to be edited, if you request an edit on a page in which I have an interest it will appear on my watchlist, I will see it. If you have a problem with an edit request I implemented, please consider if it might not be better to respond where the edit request was made (you may use {{ping}} or {{u}} to attract my attention). Thank you, SSSB (talk)
Hey man I wanted to thank you for being a good editor, I was somewhat worried we'd enter a editwar (I don't engage anymore, but it doesn't any less frustrating) as I've encountered other... well maybe not so good editors (albeit it was long ago lol). Cheers m8 Remi1771 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
I fixed it. There is no reason for the article to be using a listas parameter different to the article title. So I have changed this for all the San Marino Grand Prix where this is an issue (we don't do it for any other F1 race report, it is a pointless endevour SSSB (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I'm curious and come in good faith. Could you explain to me how consensus and precedent work on Wikipedia? My understanding was that once the RB-Racing Bulls discussion was closed, it's done, but your and @Tvx1's statements today suggest that you're going to keep fighting until the bitter end. If so, I'd like to learn about two areas:
1) How much does a close stick? Do you have to specifically request an RfC closure review or can you simply open a new discussion on the same topic on the same talk page? If the latter, are there specific policies guiding when that should happen? Does it make a difference that a non-admin closed the RB discussion?
2) Are closes ever precedential? Or do we just have to repeat the same argument on every page until one side gets tired and gives up?
A discussion is not a fight. Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's not about winning or losing for us. The only thing we care about is to accurately representant facts. What the sources tell us always has precedence. A Wikipedia consensus can never allow to state things that contradict actual facts as supported by reliable sources. Such a close as this one typically sticks as long as no facts develop that make it untenable. That it wasn't closed by an administrator doesn't matter. Consensus can change, so a new discussion always can simply be started on the article's talk page. Closure review is generally only asked for it the closure does not accurately reflect the discussion's consensus. Tvx1 01:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Namelessposter: as you've posted on my talk page, it seems only fair that I respond, although I will be echoing a lot of what Tvx1 has said.
I am not "fighting" anything "to the bitter end". If I were, I would have raised something at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or I would have challeneged the close (that's not too say that anyone doing these things is "fighting to the bitter end". There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use these processes, otherwise they wouldn't exist) and/or I might be doing something else. I was merely pointing out that I did not agree with the consensus that was estalished. And I was only pointing that out because it was directly relevant. It was not an attempt to argue for a reversal, nor reignite the debate.
A close "sticks" until a new consensus is established (through discussion) or something happens that makes the original discussion obviously invalid. This would usually be because something has come to light that means the consensus established obviously violates one of wikipedia's other policies (WP:V or WP:NPOV, for example). Any uninvolved editor in good standing can close any discussion. I could go to any move discussion where I have not offered an opinion and close it, for example.
Discussions could be seen as precedential if the outcome is obvious. Either because only one potential outcome follows WP:V or WP:NPOV etc. Or because it is a case of Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Or because a consensus was recently determined and nothing has changed (for example if I reopened the RB -> Racing Bulls discussion) which would be a specific type of Wikipedia:Snowball clause closure (it would obsured to think that the consensus would have changed in such a short time).
But of course, consensus can change. In eight weeks time (when we are two races into the season) it may be obvious that RB and Racing Bulls are considered seperate organisations by the FIA, in which the consensus could be that RB and Racing Bulls should be covered in two seperate articles. We will probably know before then.
Simply put, if I tried to argue consistently and continually against a fairly clear consensus I would not only be Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse, I would also be being very WP:DISRUPTIVE and asking for a block. But I wasn't doing that, I was merely re-expressing an opinion where it was directly relevant. And I think it is a perfectly valid opinion as we have no clear informaton either way.
Thanks to both you and @Tvx1 for your insightful comments. I appreciate your efforts to show me the ropes. This was quite helpful. I should note that "fighting to the bitter end" isn't a pejorative term to me, but I'm guessing it is on Wikipedia? If so, I'll try to be more judicious about using that phrase around here. (I specifically pinged you on talk because I didn't want to start unnecessary drama on the project page, and I certainly apologize if my statement caused any distress.) Namelessposter (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Miscellaneous
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
New scripts
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous