This is the interface administrator noticeboard, for discussion of
interface administrators and coordination of edits to the interface.
Currently only interface administrators can undelete JS/CSS pages, if you have an uncontroversial undelete or deleted version retrieval request, please list it below.
Any administrator can delete JS/CSS/JSON pages, for speedy deletions just use a
CSD template on the page or its talk page.
Individual requests for edits to interface or user JavaScript/CSS pages should continue to be made on their respective talk pages.
Would it make more sense to console.log the blanking message rather than adding a comment? Would give the end user more of a hint as to what happened and what needs to be upgraded. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess so, but given that anyone who knows enough to look at the javascript console will presumably know to also look at the script source to see what's going on, this feels like it'd be more trouble than it's worth. Since it's not really much of a use case, I think I'd personally prefer to keep using comments instead, for simplicity's sake.
Writ Keeper⚇♔17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Simple" from the perspective of not making an editor's browser do more than it needs to, even if it's just a logging statement. If it's not going to actually help anyone, why do it?
Writ Keeper⚇♔17:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If we had some extremely popular script, it could be part of the deprecation process, but agree with WK - the number of people that even know how to open their jslog is exceptionally low. —
xaosfluxTalk18:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Novem Linquae - it will help some small subset of the population and hurt nobody so there's no reason not to do it. But this is a bridge best crossed when it happens, as Technical 13's script has been blanked long enough that everyone who needs to know has known already.
* Pppery *it has begun...18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the point being made there is that for the overwhelming majority of users, checking the JS console in their browser is not the first port of call; a comment on the page itself is probably much more of a hint since most folks are far more likely/able to do do so. Putting a message in a console log is, for most, more akin to "failing silently" than a comment.
I am almost always going to check the devtools js console before i go reading program code. But there's no support for my idea so i withdraw it. No worries. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to stop someone adding console.log if they're the ones who are blanking a script, but I also don't want to be required to do so myself.
Izno (
talk)
00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Template gadgets
Template gadgets - naming convention
Hi all, we've got the first request coming in to do a
mw:Template gadgets. They are called that, but what these actually are is:
A javascript gadget
That is a default gadget
Normally hidden
That has a trigger such that it only runs when a page is in a certain category
The "templates" would likely implement that
We certainly need to be take due care in adding any such gadget definition, as basically any editor can cause other editors to run the gadget by placing a page in a category and getting someone else to visit the page. (Like all sitescripts, only intadmins can actually change the script). We already have a standard-ish process for having gadget requests made and processed. I think we should have a standard naming convention for these categories, perhaps
Category:Wikipedia pages using gadget %NAME%. Any suggestions as to this? I think it should prob be a hidden category and we should have a master category for these as well (
Category:Wikipedia gadget gategory triggers or something?). Feedback welcome below. —
xaosfluxTalk11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've launched the first template gadget (Vivarium), it should be running at
Template:Conway's Game of Life gadget. This is a "default gadget", but only runs on pages in the gadget category. The upstream suggestion is to make these hidden, but I'm not sure about that. Any harm in allowing logged in users to opt-out? —
xaosfluxTalk15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For template gadgets used on a lot of pages, sure, but this particular one is intended for exactly one page. It's clutter to have it show up on gadget preferences. –
SD0001 (
talk)
12:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply