Wikipedia talk:Linter/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Milestone!!

As of 2024-05-05 20:16:47, NO error type per namespace exceeds 1 million. "Missing end tags" in "User Talkspace" just fell below 1 million. Still have a ways to go before we can say No error type exceeds 1 million total, but certainly getting there!

And for a second (smaller) milestone that is soon approaching, "Table tag to be deleted" will be pretty much gone from all of Wikipedia in the next few days. 137 at the moment with their days numbered. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

These two milestones show the power of bots (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 29, a task that eliminated about 60,000 Linter errors in a couple of days) and the power of diligent, plodding human editors (the "Table tag" error was at 5,479 four months ago, and every edit required a manual fix). Keep it up, team! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you already have a next target in mind for the bots? Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a significant number of bot-fixable patterns that appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, listed at User:MalnadachBot/Signature submissions. I think going after some of those, especially the higher priority problems, would make sense. It would be helpful if the bot did not have to return to a page multiple times, since that is something people complained about with the previous most-active bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm already way past the ignore stage for hearing those cries. No one has shown that they can code a bot to fix all errors on a page in one go, so there is really no need to take that unachievable goal into consideration. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Legoktm's lint-fixing bot had a method of checking to ensure that it was fixing all of the errors that it showed up to fix, FWIW. I don't know how that was done in the code. Unfortunately, that bot, which is still needed, is no longer active. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that bot was active that much to begin with, based on the lint decrease at the time. Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Legobot fixed a few hundred thousand Linter errors, as far as I know; here are nearly 5,000 edits performing Lint fixes. I think the operator kept a tally somewhere. I know that I was grateful for its work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I was looking at this earlier, it seems it can be done with Parsoid; see mw:Parsoid/API#Wikitext -> Lint. I've got it working with some python code. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice. If you can figure it out, that would be great. I have come across plenty of user signatures that comprise the only Linter error on a given User talk page. This signature, for example, is often the only error on a page; I have fixed a few hundred of them, but it is tedious. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, from the first page from that search query, User talk:Jim1138, I get:

{'type': 'missing-end-tag', 'dsr': [9646, 9723, 29, 0], 'templateInfo': None, 'params': {'name': 'span', 'inTable': True}}

As far as I can tell dsr[0] and dsr[1] are the start and end indexes, which gives:
e="color:darkblue">Abelmoschus <span style="color:green">Esculentus]] <sup>[[
(There are also around 10 other lint errors on the page that it also returns.) — Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's close but not the whole error.

The signature is:

'''―[[User:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="color:darkblue">Abelmoschus <span style="color:green">Esculentus]] <sup>[[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="color:orange">talk]] / [[Special:Contribs/Abelmoschus Esculentus|<span style="color:red">contribs</span>]]</sup>'''

the fix is several closing span tags there:

'''―[[User:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="color:darkblue">Abelmoschus</span> <span style="color:green">Esculentus</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="color:orange">talk</span>]] / [[Special:Contribs/Abelmoschus Esculentus|<span style="color:red">contribs</span>]]</sup>'''

Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a regex for it in User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

More interesting: I think that the above misidentification should be filed as a bug if it has not been already. I thought that this was a problem with LintHint, but if it an API problem, maybe it can be fixed. The problem was reported to the LintHint maintainer about six months ago, and appears to have something to do with non-ASCII characters causing offsets to be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I filed a bug at T365284. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging the regression. The issue should be resolved now. ABreault (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

ABreault (WMF), thanks for fixing it and coming here to tell us! I love it when bug reports can be addressed quickly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears to be working correctly again. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────┘
Jonesey95, from what I can tell it's the byte offsets. When I account for that properly I get
<span style="color:darkblue">Abelmoschus <span style="color:green">Esculentus — Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 A good number of those 5479 Table tags were also triggering a Fostered content error within the same issue, so early on I'd compiled a list of pages containing both errors and hit those pages first to get through more errors quicker. Was exciting how quickly both dropped. Congrats and thanks to @Gonnym for the last Table tag fix, and thanks to Primefac for assisting. Zero remain, leaving "HTML5-incompatible misnesting" as the sole surviving High Priority error type with 9,625 remaining. Zinnober9 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And now (2024-05-27 11:14:47) no page has more than 49 countable errors... Top 1000 pages are 49-36. Zinnober9 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Linter reports not updating and count issue

There's an issue with the Linter reports today (the Lint counters through a page's Page Info are all fine, and Firefly is all fine, it's just these three reports that are miscounting). I noticed that they were counting high yesterday, and today they timeout (600 sec) when manually updated. I had checked a few of the top pages and compared the counts to their page information lint counts, and they varied wildly, typically 21 or so higher than the actual. I know for a fact that we have the article space errors down to 2 errors max per article (barring any daily flareup), and all 1000 articles displaying in the report were all claiming 21+, which is thankfully not true.

While I see that there's now a lag on server 1, there wasn't any lag this morning when I found the update timeout issue when I clicked "manually update" and "broke" the Article and All reports, and doesn't obviously account for the miscounting.

• Does anyone know why the reports are timing out when told to update?

I've contacted SD0001 whose bot runs the requests, and Galobtter, who set up the report pages, but they don't know [1] [2].

• Does anyone know why they are counting high?

I'm not aware of a new error type, but realize that is a possible answer. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Is_Toolforge_down?. It looks like toolforge is running very slowly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated the Pages by Lint Errors list and it spun and spun for a few minutes, but completed. Seems "mostly" back to working order again. Glad. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Counts are back to normal now, thanks to WOSlinker's adjustment. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling use of <nowiki/>

From time to time I come across a puzzling use of <nowiki/>, for example: '''Bipinbabur Karansudha'<nowiki/>'' here, which of course generates a lint error. I don't understand what the purpose of this is. It breaks the bolding markup and messes up the rendered page. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes people are trying to put an italicized word or phrase in single quotation marks, and this is the way they try to do it. See

'<nowiki/>''Naya Basat'''

in that article, which currently results in 'Naya Basat' due to some quirk of how the rendering engine works. I suppose it is possible that some previous version of the MediaWiki software rendered all of this mismatched/misnested syntax as the editors intended but that subsequent development has changed the rendering so that only some of it displays as intended. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what they were probably trying to do. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It also sometimes happens that later somewhere else in the text, some bolding or italics is added, which now causes the ''' to be matched up differently by the parser. I prefer using {{'}} (or {{`}} or sometimes {{'s}}) instead of nowiki. --rchard2scout (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've also seen that happen, and I also prefer using the templates to put a space between markup and apostrophes. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible bot task?

Just posing a question here at this point to gauge its possibility. I've been seeing a repeating circumstance that probably be defined by an existing bot and run to reduce a sizable number of lint errors in a one time purge. The main issue I'm pausing at is the possible social aspect.

Could it be socially possible to have one time task where one of the bots go through the remaining linty Userspace pages, and replace any sandbox* denoted pages' content with {{Userpage blanked}} IF and only IF the user's last edit on any page was some reasonably long time ago (let's say 4+ years)?

The "IF user's last edit 4+ years" clause is important in this idea, as while {{Userpage blanked}} (via WP:stale), states that any page that hasn't been edited in twelve months or more could be blanked, I think we'd be in hell if we started blanking all forgotten pages of any user, active or not.

* I say "sandbox" to mean any page that isn't a page of the barnstar/userbox/template/stat... or any "profile adjacent" page... those should remain intact and delinted normally. As I'm not sure how intelligent a bot could be determining what a page is, or if it could determine between a profile adjacent page and a draft (eg Username/barnstars vs Username/draft title), I'm currently framing this idea for just pages with sandbox in the title (eg User/sandbox or User/sandbox/draftname) for all the linty sandbox tests and sandbox drafts. If the bot can determine a page is "User/draftname" and not "User/profileAdjacent" then great.

Currently though, I've been manually blanking and adding the {{Userpage blanked}} template to users' draft/test pages that I've found that are completely abandoned, using the typical judgement of "Blank the linty sandbox/draft page if and when the user hasn't edited anything in 4+ years." and then delinting as normal any forgotten pages of any editor with a recent (0-4yo) edit anywhere, or delinting as normal if the page is "profile adjacent".

Is this a bot logically possible task that could be run? Is this a socially possible task to run without any major backlash? Is any bot operator interested in this idea, assuming the social aspect is addressable and permissible? Zinnober9 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Zinnober9, the technical aspect of this is pretty easy (assuming there's some programmatic way to detect draft/sandbox/test pages). Finding consensus will probably be much harder - in general the community doesn't like editing users' pages without their permission. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's mainly why I am suggesting limiting the scope to draft/test pages of accounts that are long inactive and presumed gone, and suggesting an inactivity requirement far greater, and far more restrictive than that of the requirements of {{Userpage blanked}} so that we are a bit conservative and don't ruffle many feathers. If 4 years is too recent for the community, no objections to increasing it. 4 years is just the determining rule of thumb I've been using when I come across these specific pages. Hell, limiting it to a user's inactivity of 10+ years would still give a coverage range of 2001-2013, and would likely still clear plenty of errors on pages that are very unlikely to ever be looked at or returned to again by that user, or any other user.

The main thing that I think would be in our (delinters') favor is it would be a one and done task where no page would need to be revisited by this task, or by anyone else, bot or human. And if the user of the page did return, the template would clearly indicate that the action may be easily reversed by them without issue. I know people aren't too crazy about big tasks or repeating tasks, or edits on pages heavily watched pages, so that's why I thought it was possible that this might satisfy people for a nonrepeat task on forgotten/unwatched pages.

The only way I could see the task being rerun would be if we were permitted a 10+ years ago range to start with, and then later on being permitted to cover a newer like 4+ years ago (in which it would only run for the pages 4-10 years ago, no page revisits).

I think that WP:Lint gives a reliably long precedence for allowing specific edits on other's user pages, and that the {{Userpage blanked}} template, gives clear precedence for allowing the blanking of abandoned User's sandbox/draft pages. Combining these two rules and limiting this task to only the abandoned sandboxes/test pages that no one's looked at in years and almost certainly won't be returning to shouldn't cause any watchlist bombs, or cause any grief that doesn't already exist with Delinting. I do realize there will probably be some hesitation from the community suggesting another task or a new approach for some Lint clearing by this method. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A minor milestone

I don't know if per tag statistics are shown anywhere, so in case they aren't: as of 13:47 (UTC) today, there were no more listed missing end tag errors for <table> or <div> left in article space (a couple have appeared since). There were ~4000 left about a month ago and I've been focusing on these, ~100 per day. I know missing end tags are supposed to be "low priority", but these two tags have plenty of potential for layout disruption when unclosed, so since i had some extra time...

I emphasized "listed" because of course more of these could easily be hidden behind italics/bold errors, just like plenty of <table> errors that weren't in the report were readily shown on the pages with <div> errors (I mean even before fixing the latter). Gamapamani (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's great. Here's some stats on other missing tags on article pages. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tag	LintCount	PageCount
b	8820	8603
big	2	2
blockquote	15	14
caption	3	3
dl	5	5
i	60525	58411
p	561	546
s	1	1
small	31	31
span	111	108
sub	1	1
sup	5	4
u	1	1
ul	41	41

Nice! I knew I'd seen a little rash of those when I looked at the breakdown of the remaining errors in mainspace the other week and had been surprised they weren't triggering the "Table tag to be deleted" error.

Was also pleasantly surprised, (but it seems a majority of this was you efforts!) we got rid of 6000 missing end tags in Main this month, double the typical monthly rate of ~3000. I was just about to add a breakdown table of the current remaining errors in main, but I see WOSlinker just added that... lol. Nice. The one remaining detail that I'll add to that is that we have 65176 Articles with a single error, and 2476 Articles with two errors, so won't be too long before this report starts showing ones, or is all ones. Thank you (and everyone else!) for your great delinting efforts. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That's awesome! Congratulations everyone for your work here! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

surprised they weren't triggering the "Table tag to be deleted" error

Depends on the context, most deletable tag errors I've seen have semantically been missing end tag errors. The last table on a page would never get a deletable tag error when unclosed, but it can still mess with layout by subsuming the content after it (case 3). Which is why IMHO it might even make sense to lift missing end tags for tables to medium priority. And maybe divs too, since stuff like unwanted columnization of following content with unclosed {{div col}}) and scrolling with unclosed style="overflow: auto;" is pretty frequent.

1	2	3	4	5
Missing end tag	Missing end tag Fostered content	Missing end tag (Following content subsumed; the more cols Table 2 has, the "better" the result)	Fostered content Table tag that should be deleted (bogus)	Missing end tag (Following content subsumed, incl. Table 2)
{| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 1 |- | foo |- |} blah blah {| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 2 |- | bar |-	{| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 1 |- | foo |- |} blah blah {| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 2 |- | bar |- blah blah	{| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 1 |- | foo |- |} blah blah {| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 2 |- | bar | blah blah	{| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 1 |- | foo |- blah blah {| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 2 |- | bar |- |}	{| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 1 |- | foo |- | blah blah {| class="wikitable" |- ! Table 2 |- | bar |- |}

Gamapamani (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving "Night-mode-unaware-background-color" out of tracking into high

Dark mode is highly likely to be released on web within the next month and has been on the official apps for some time. I think the tracking category is working exactly as it should be, and should be moved from tracking to high (or at least medium) priority.

In many articles, text will become unreadable in dark mode (or is already unreadable in apps), and we should be considering this a high priority to fix.

What is the process to changing priority here...? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If the population of the list of Template-space pages affected by this Linter tracking is an indication that there are display problems with those pages, I would be reluctant about going live with dark mode. If that long list is mostly showing false positives, then the Linter tracking needs to be adjusted before it will be useful.

To give a concrete example, this Template page is not "unreadable in dark mode", AFAICT, so why is it being flagged? As I said above, I don't think the rule should be promoted until the template space is largely free of tracked pages and pages affected by transcluded templates have been null-edited to remove them from the lists. Good progress has been made on that list, but having affected templates cause Linter error counts to balloon in pages that transclude them will not help anyone.

In any event, I think the first step is to "unhide" this Linter condition, set it to Low or some sort of Tracking-only priority, and list it on the Special:LintErrors page so that tools like LintHint and the links from Page Information can point editors to the specific locations in the page where code needs to be adjusted. We should also get it onto Firefly's tracking table. Simultaneously, and I can't stress this enough, ensure that WMF developer resources are available to troubleshoot false positives and other problems with the Linter detection and with the dark mode itself. If you really want to release dark mode in the next month, a significant amount of programming resources will be needed to ensure that volunteers have adequate tools to clear Template space of dark mode problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The recently added Missing end tag in heading lint error needs adding to Firefly as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see Missing end tag in heading errors added to Firefly too. That said, I was thinking about going after these heading errors (1545 errors on 1027 pages) after I finish off the Fostered content errors next week (well all that I can, I'm skipping some fostered pages right now for various reasons (A-J at the moment)). Zinnober9 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

All Missing end tag in heading errors now corrected. Still would like this type to appear in Firefly's report so that we can more quickly see when they popup again, but it's now at "prune back" levels. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

> To give a concrete example, this Template page is not "unreadable in dark mode", AFAICT, so why is it being flagged?

I've said this a few times now, but I'm not sure it has registered. Vector 2022 is applying a rule

html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output [style*='background'] {color: #202122;}

. This rule is temporary while we roll out dark mode and addresses about 80% of the issues in that lint, but importantly it is temporary. This is what the linter is detecting and why it is important it gets fixed.

If you disable that rule, you will see that the template becomes unreadable in dark mode.

> In any event, I think the first step is to "unhide" this Linter condition, set it to Low or some sort of Tracking-only priority, and list it on the Special:LintErrors page so that tools like LintHint and the links from Page Information can point editors to the specific locations in the page where code needs to be adjusted. We should also get it onto Firefly's tracking table.

Great. What is the process for this?

> Simultaneously, and I can't stress this enough, ensure that WMF developer resources are available to troubleshoot false positives and other problems with the Linter detection and with the dark mode itself. If you really want to release dark mode in the next month, a significant amount of programming resources will be needed to ensure that volunteers have adequate tools to clear Template space of dark mode problems

Yes. Dark mode is going to be released in July as an opt-in feature. Developer resources are available. and I assure you these lints are accurate. If tools or documentation are needed - just ask and we'll prioritize getting you those. 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.
1. What CSS should I add to my vector-2022.css to disable the rule that hides dark mode problems?
2. A Phabricator ticket will probably be needed to unhide the rule and move it to a tracking or low-priority list and onto the Special:LintErrors page.
3. I have asked Firefly to modify their report to add the "missing end tag in heading" and "background color night mode" tracking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. You can add the following to your user CSS:

html.skin-theme-clientpref-night body .mw-parser-output [style*='background'] {color: inherit; }`

2. Thanks! Does there need to be any on wiki consensus? Or will that happen later? I can't seem to find any process for changing priorities of lints on mw:Help:Extension:Linter and there probably should be!

3. Thanks! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Re on-wiki consensus, the changes are to the MediaWiki code, so they affect all Wikipedias. Every change I have seen has been made in Phabricator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I turned off the temporary workaround and this Template page was indeed unreadable in dark mode, with white text on a white background. I believe that I have fixed the underlying template, as it looks visually OK to me now, but without an indication on the Page information page, or a link within LintHint, it is tricky to know if the problem is fixed. I see that there are some JavaScript instructions on one of the help pages, but that stuff won't fly with regular folks like me who want to help fix problems. Some developer resources to help us gnomes with the above would be helpful this week before dark mode is rolled out next week (according to the VPT note just posted). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson so I've set my preference to use Dark mode in the beta options. I'm looking at Template:Martial arts medalists for Iran which has completely unreadable text in the group sections. Does the new lint catch pages like this? If it doesn't, is there a way it can? Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope the lint is checking for the opposite - background without a color.

We would need to create a new lint for this, but the solution is more complex and there are more likely to be false positives so it would need more thought.

For this particular issue, you can fix it with the following change:

<div style="color: black"> 
<!-- =>  -->
<div style="color: var( --color-base );">

Jon (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Explanation of how dark mode is supposed to work?

This is a bit off-topic, but is there an explanation of the design ideas behind the dark mode? I was looking at this template page and trying to determine how to fix the current Linter errors, and I noticed that top and bottom bars above and below the navbox title were being displayed in gray instead of the intended red and blue. Also, the explicitly applied white background color was being forced to show as black, and in every navbox, there are awkward alternating gray and white thin borders on the rows. At that point, I stopped troubleshooting, because that seems broken to me, and even if I try to apply a fix, I don't know how to know if that change will result in the "right" outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I really believe that instead of all these fixes per template that will take forever and might only look "ok", that the dark mode skin should at least at the start disable all colors and use whatever default passes AAA requirements (or at least AA). There is no way that the color contrast will pass AA requirements. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I find myself in a situation that feels familiar. The WMF decides to roll out some big new change or new feature, and I try to help them with it. The documentation about the change is minimal, the set of test cases that the developers are working with is minimal, and it seems like the whole thing is going to blow up because it is not thought through very well. The catch for me is that sometimes the change works just fine, and sometimes it blows up, and my predictions in advance about which way it will go do not correlate well with the actual outcome. I just don't know. This one feels like it is not ready, but maybe nobody will depend on it or the people who use it will have a high tolerance for things not working right, so it won't matter. I don't know. I've tried to help, but ironically, it all feels like trying to make visual art in a room with no lights or windows. I think at this point I'm just going to wait until next week to see if anyone caress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I say let it break, maybe that way stuff actually gets fixed correctly. All those colorful navboxes that aren't accessible in lightmode view will be horrible for everyone in darkmode. That might lead to an actual change. Gonnym (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

And maybe they'd support our delinting efforts more? *Hopeful joy* Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware of mw:Recommendations_for_night_mode_compatibility_on_Wikimedia_wikis ? 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've read through that a couple of times. I was unable to find an explanation of why the red and blue borders in the ice hockey navbox are turned to gray or why navbox rows have alternating white and gray borders. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Does this update help answer that question? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Recommendations_for_night_mode_compatibility_on_Wikimedia_wikis#The_page_looks_fine_to_me,_despite_not_following_these_rules,_why? Jon (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, disabling/updating backgrounds and borders in elements with the class .navbox ... tells me that I am probably seeing something deliberate. As has been true ever since we were asked to help, it is not clear whether any of my troubleshooting is working. I am fine to wait for the deployment to see if this blows up or is no big deal. There is plenty of other stuff to work on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:LintErrors

Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color is now showing up as a low priority item at Special:LintErrors. Only 46,386,919 errors to look at. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Template Action lint

Really wish that "template is up for Merge/delete/some action requiring discussion" messages didn't trigger Lint when displaying along each use of the template. The sudden, large increase in some sections and namespaces tonight are due to this and almost certainly won't need individual addressing. At least they only last a week (or until discussion closed). Zinnober9 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this can be fixed by moving the merge/delete tag in the template, but I don't remember what it was. Pinging Jonesey95. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've done this edit which I think has fixed it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

How to bypass a false result

@Anomalocaris and Bruce1ee: There is a false result, which I have reverted here. The {{limited access}} symbol needs to go next to the URL link that has limited access, in this case the link to the Internet Archive item within the {{Internet Archive}} template. This is the case with {{cite web}} when the |url-access=registration parameter is used. However, by "fixing the lint error", the {{limited access}} template is instead placed outside to the right of the {{Internet Archive}} template, which results in the symbol being place next to the Internet Archive wikilink.

This is clearly fixing a problem that does not exist. How can we bypass this? Peaceray (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Placing {{Limited access}} in the name parameter in {{Internet Archive}} appends File:Lock-gray-alt-2.svg to the name, which generates an internal link inside an external link lint error:

[https://archive.org/details/historyofancient0000unse_y5s7 History of Ancient Egypt [[File:Lock-gray-alt-2.svg]] ] at the [[Internet Archive]]

The problem is that {{Internet Archive}} does not have a |url-access parameter, and because moving {{Limited access}} outside {{Internet Archive}} is not producing the desired result, the only solution I can see is to use {{cite book}} instead. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconding {{cite book}}. Lint issues aside, it looks cleaner and doesn't have the rather clumsy arrow+indicator combo obscuring the indicator:

EDIT: The original comparison containing a lint error can be seen here. Gamapamani (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I used {{cite book}}; sorry if I included too many details and I also omitted |via=Internet Archive, feel free to fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: a |url-access parameter has been added to {{Internet Archive}}. (@Peaceray: FYI). —Bruce1ee^talk 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)