Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Refresh

Archive


dialog-based submit button[edit]


Dialog-information on.svg
This conversation has been marked for the community's attention.

Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.


I'd appreciate feedback from others concerning a replacement I now have working for the current dialog button, using my dialog tools.

  • Demo page: Test 34 — the button at the very top is the new one; there's also a conventional submit button on a {{develop}} template just below.
  • Kinds of feedback I'm hoping for:
  • Does it work on various platforms; I only know from personal experience that it works in Firefox under Linux. Especially, I haven't tested it (in recent times) under Windoze, and I haven't tested it on any mobile device.
  • Does it work acceptably to replace the button now on the {{develop}} template? More broadly, does anyone have any objections to replacing the current button with the new one on {{develop}}?
  • Advantages of the new button:
  • The new button will only allow an IP to submit for review if the article was created by an IP. We've talked about that as a likely upgrade over, iirc, the past several years.
  • The old button is driven by extra code added to our common.js; with the new button, we can remove that clutter from common.js.
  • Disadvantages of the new button:
  • It's slower. That's unsurprising when replacing a one-off customized button with a button implemented through a generic tool.
  • If we end up with all our automation based on the dialog tools, and then they break, we're screwed. In fairness, though, right now afaik all the major stuff depends on User:Bawolff/mwapilib2.js.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Let me test it. But can you please explain The new button will only allow an IP to submit for review if the article was created by an IP. We've talked about that as a likely upgrade over, iirc, the past several years.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • When I clicked Submit for review, I got a message. Error: (edit request declined by Template:Dialog/submit/form): sorry the article was created by a registered user, so this button will only work for a registered user. And that, I guess will not be good.
    NASA announces water on Mars. This article was started by Sethmtraut (t · c · b) and it did not pass while reviewed by Pi zero. Then, Mindhunter77 (t · c · b) made changes and submitted again. But the style was not good. 14.139.242.195 tried to correct some typos, links, credits... It did not pass for the second time as well. Sam.gov (t · c · b) tried to distance from the article and submitted it. It did not pass for the third time. .195 re wrote the article and then with some copyedits by Sam.gov and later by the reviewer, it passed.
    That is not a good idea. Else, the article could not have been submitted for review.
    14.139.242.195 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to disable the IP/creation condition in the button; the idea has been discussed on various occasions, but I don't recall it was ever really more than speculation. The declining-to-submit message produced in that situation could also be changed.

I should point out, though, that you're an experienced Wikinewsie who ought to be using a registered account. It's not really right to be deliberately using an IP instead of a registered account; Wikinews runs on accumulated reputation, and this is undermining the basic means of authenticating identity that the Wikinews community relies on. I've got pretty mixed feelings about having agreed to this "voluntary block" thing; I'm not at all sure I'd agree to do it again. Except for this one peculiar situation with an experienced Wikinewsie systematically not using their account, I don't recall a single case in my years on Wikinews where an article submitted by a registered user was legitimately submitted by an IP. True enough we don't want to come across as unfriendly to newcomers and therefore, perhaps, oughtn't prevent them from using the button, but I don't think this particular case really says anything much about it one way or another. --Pi zero (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Working fine for Mozilla Firefox on Windows. For Chrome, it did. Safari for Windows, yes. But do note that I hat trouble for submitting it from the button not in ambox in Chrome, and did not work in Safari. Same problem with Opera. I don't have Netscape or konqueror. Did not try with Internet Explorer.
    AGastya (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
When you say you "had trouble" in Chrome, what form did that trouble take? What exactly does "not work" mean in Safari, in Opera? --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Did the button appear correctly on the page? (I'm obviously going to have to get myself an installation of one or more of these to tinker with, and there are a slew of questions that might be worth asking depending on accumulated evidence, but whether the button appears correctly must be the first question, because the gadget is written so that the button won't even display until the gadget runs.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero: (proxy settings changed, else IP .195)In Chrome, nothing happened in the first try. In the second try, it was submitted for review, but consumed more time than in Mozilla Firefox. (There are editors who still use Chrome over Firefox, though not me) Yes, the buttons appeared correctly. Does not work in Safari and Opera meant that the button did not complete any task.
185.100.213.211 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Do the scroll up/down buttons on categories, such as at Category:Science and technology, work in those browsers? --Pi zero (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
(Safari for Windows): up/down buttons are working, but I was unable to submit test 34 still.
AGastya (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
And same goes for Chrome. A point to add, this time, nothing triggered when I tried to submit in Chrome. For once, the hourglass cursor came, but it did not work.
AGastya (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Add Opera as well.
AGastya (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It did nothing for Safari on Mac. But yes, {{develop}} worked for submitting it.
AGastya (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It worked when I was logged in on Chrome browser for Mac. It did no mess like that on Windows, but nothing happened when I used IP.
AGastya (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue with an IP submitting an article for review, where the article was started by a registered account, relates to drive-by curiosity/stupidity. Someone wholly unfamiliar with the project stumbles on a page with the {{develop}} template on it, and can't resist the temptation to click the button and see what it does.
With an experienced contributor working through an IP address, there's always the option to edit and manually switch {{develop}} to {{review}}. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I now have Opera installed on my laptop. Sure enough, the submit button doesn't work. Interestingly, not only do category scroll buttons work for me, but also the null-edit button I've got on a diagnostic test page; so, it's not something that happens for all edit operations, rather something that happens for some of them. (I expect to tackle it in a serious debug session when I'm wide-awake, which I'm not atm.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Did some preliminary testing with Opera. All my diagnostic test pages work fine; the only problem I've observed is that the submit button doesn't work. --Pi zero (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Results
  1. Firefox 43.0, running on Linux
    Works for registered user using button
    Fails, with error, as-intended for IP
  2. Chromium 47.0.xxxx running on Linux
    Fails for both tests

I keep Chromium around as it is stripped of much of the Google "Do some evil", and I want a second browser hanging around with Flash support for BBC iPlayer. I mainly use Firefox, but they've not been particularly good at keeping the British English dictionaries available. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One bug down; more?[edit]

Retests, anyone? I've implemented a bug fix that I know works for my Opera 35.0. The same problem seems likely to occur on some other browsers, and the fix seems likely to work for a variety of browsers too, but that's guesswork. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately my laptop is now just a piece of metal. WiFi is not working. And installing drivers just don't help. I want to move to linux, but now Boot manager is not found in it. I can't test at the moment.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016[edit]

The tournament starts on June 10, 137 days later. So, I was thinking to have some templates prepared to have a better coverage for their articles. I have thought of some, and I would like to have an opinion for one of those.
{{UEFA Euro 2016}} infobox is the thing. Currently, it does not exist. So what additional features I wish to have is: matches played, goles scored so far, and the top scorer of the tournament. How is this idea?I realised that I typed the Spanish spelling of goal. Hehe.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)