Wikipedia talk:Software updates

message: ==Login broken?==
Did someone change the login code?  I can't seem to login.  When I try I get spit back to this page 
Is there something wrong with my account?  Mbecker
:Also, I wasn't able to edit this page until I canhed the url from http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=edit to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=submit.  There was an error preventing me from submitting before I did that.  
:Mbecker
::Nevermind, everything seems to work fine now.  MB 21:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Everything was seriously whacked for about half an hour. Think (from IRC) that Eloquence has fixed it up now. Evercat 21:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Login's still broken for me.  I get invalid password.  I even had it mail me a new password, and the new password mailed to me doesn't work either. --Delirium 00:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone changed the MD5 code. I changed it back, it should work now.—Eloquence 00:31, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can log in now, though oddly it's my old password that works, not the random one that was just mailed to me.  Is the reset-your-password code broken? --Delirium 00:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, the old password must always continue to work so random users cannot reset your password. The new password does not work because it was generated with the new code, and I just changed the code back.—Eloquence 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Can you login now? The new message should be the one from Camembert.—Eloquence 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Yup. Am back (yippee!) [trying desparately to avoid edit conflicts] and got the message from the "Arch-communist". FearÉIREANN 00:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Try logging in a few times, then try the wrong password a few times, and then the right one again. (No idea if that would help, can't hurt, anyway.) I kept getting a wrong password message, don't know why, managed to log in... כסיף Cyp 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: I for one can't log in, tried everything I thought of for the last 15 minutes. -- Gutza 217.156.116.130 00:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: In any case, it took a while for me to log in, don't know if it was just because of trying a lot, or if I actually did something... Worked, after typing my password in Notepad, and copy/pasting it into the password box. Can imagine how the server would know that I did that, though... כסיף Cyp 00:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Oh well, that seems to have done it after all, I've logged in successfully using the twisted method above. Thanks! -- Gutza 00:49, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: May be a problem with the auto-fill-in function of your browser. Try to delete the auto-fill-in information for this page. - WeißNix 14:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I don't know if my browser has such a function, but I'll look.  I tried using a PC in a different location (same OS, Win2k, & browser, IE6) and the problem didn't occur, so it's not Wikipedia's fault.  One difference is that the bad PC is behind a firewall. Could this be relevant? -- Heron 17:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: The Login

message: Did someone change the login code?  I can't seem to login.  When I try I get spit back to this page 
Is there something wrong with my account?  Mbecker
:Also, I wasn't able to edit this page until I canhed the url from http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=edit to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=submit.  There was an error preventing me from submitting before I did that.  
:Mbecker
::Nevermind, everything seems to work fine now.  MB 21:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Everything was seriously whacked for about half an hour. Think (from IRC) that Eloquence has fixed it up now. Evercat 21:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Login's still broken for me.  I get invalid password.  I even had it mail me a new password, and the new password mailed to me doesn't work either. --Delirium 00:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone changed the MD5 code. I changed it back, it should work now.—Eloquence 00:31, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can log in now, though oddly it's my old password that works, not the random one that was just mailed to me.  Is the reset-your-password code broken? --Delirium 00:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, the old password must always continue to work so random users cannot reset your password. The new password does not work because it was generated with the new code, and I just changed the code back.—Eloquence 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Login broken?

message: What is going on now? I've just been logged out and can't log in (it won't recognise my password). Another person a while ago on AIM said they couldn't save an article. I got You have new messages sent to me telling me about non-existent messages. (It was hours since the last message and at least half an hour before my next one!) Wiki is doing strange strange things! User:FearÉIREANN
: Can you login now? The new message should be the one from Camembert.—Eloquence 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Am back (yippee!) [trying desparately to avoid edit conflicts] and got the message from the "Arch-communist". FearÉIREANN 00:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Try logging in a few times, then try the wrong password a few times, and then the right one again. (No idea if that would help, can't hurt, anyway.) I kept getting a wrong password message, don't know why, managed to log in... כסיף Cyp 00:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: I for one can't log in, tried everything I thought of for the last 15 minutes. -- Gutza 217.156.116.130 00:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: In any case, it took a while for me to log in, don't know if it was just because of trying a lot, or if I actually did something... Worked, after typing my password in Notepad, and copy/pasting it into the password box. Can imagine how the server would know that I did that, though... כסיף Cyp 00:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Oh well, that seems to have done it after all, I've logged in successfully using the twisted method above. Thanks! -- Gutza 00:49, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: May be a problem with the auto-fill-in function of your browser. Try to delete the auto-fill-in information for this page. - WeißNix 14:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I don't know if my browser has such a function, but I'll look.  I tried using a PC in a different location (same OS, Win2k, & browser, IE6) and the problem didn't occur, so it's not Wikipedia's fault.  One difference is that the bad PC is behind a firewall. Could this be relevant? -- Heron 17:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Login Problems

message: Can we get the new formating on the non-English wikis? I wouldn't want anyone to accuse wikipedia of anglocentrism or cultural imperialism or anything. -- AdamRaizen 01:14, 2003 Jul 29 (UTC)
::See the mailing list. Erik says "I will update the English wiki to that version ASAP, where it will run for a few days. If it works fine, the other wikis will be updated as well.". Angela 01:19, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New formatting on the non-English wikis

message: TOC # system is confusing, as in "27 July 25, 2003" (see Current events). --Menchi 03:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That page shouldn't have a TOC. Disabled.—Eloquence 03:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:   Confusing TOC with Date 

message: I was wondering if it would be possible to have the TOC ignore spaces at the end of headers? ie very many headers are formatted
 == like this ==
instead of
 ==like this==
The result is a space at the end of the link in the TOC, which looks ugly. Evercat 02:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaces in TOC

message: See Books of the Bible for a really oddly formatted heading and table of contents entry. (I'm not really sure where I should report this... but since the TOC feature was being discussed here...) Alpdpedia 22:57, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug with Table of Contents generation 

message: Could TOC placed at the very top of the articles, whether then just before the first section?  If you watch pages with a floating table, like History of Germany and Oxygen, the outcome is awful.  I guess this is just a minor change. wshun 22:07, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC at the top

message: The section editing feature in most cases does not work when the page is displayed with a table of differences between two versions (changes, cur, dif and last). More specifically, in something like 
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&diff=0&oldid=1215566 
(changes from a specified version) it does not work, but in 
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&diff=0&oldid=0 
(last change) it does.
This is somewhat inconsistent and inconvenient, requiring pressing "Current Revision". Is there a reason behind this? - Patrick 02:24, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd limitation of the section editing feature

message: Quite a number of articles have short subsections and it now looks very unappealling to have so many edit links cluttered on the right hand side of the page. I propose that a subsection be a certain length before the edit button appears. In many instances, short subsections and introductions are inevitable.
Personally, I am opposed to having these edit links pop out throughout the article. There seems to be some psychological connotations involved. When one reads the article, s/he is constantly reminded "Anyone can edit this....don't trust this..." But since people have slow modems, and it may be more convenient to read/edit/read/edit in such a sequence, I don't object to the concept. I just think the number of links should be kept at a reasonable number. One sentence intros or section introductions should not have their own edit button. If the point is the break the article into chunks, there needs to be substantial chunks in the first place.
--Jiang 05:59, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree.  Whilst most of the new stuff is good (thanks developers), the section edit links are a net loss.  --Robert Merkel 06:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The right solution in these cases is to reduce the number of sections, or to add text. The [edit] links merely make this problem, which existed before the feature was added, more visible. Headings are not a way to structure text if there is no text to be structured. Furthermore, the [edit] links are only visible for logged in users, who are likely to be interested in easier editing features, and if you find them visually unappealing, you can 1) turn them off, 2) turn on right click editing instead if you use a modern JavaScript-capable browser such as Mozilla or IE. In general, I really recommend using right click editing if you can -- it's a lot cleaner than those ugly [edit] links, but we can't make it the default because it won't work in many older browsers. That makes it all the more important to tell new users about the feature so they can give it a shot. —Eloquence 07:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In some articles, the intro is inherently a one liner, with the subsections containing the bulk of the texts. How about the UCB article section under History, which contains no text? But since the links are only visible to logged in users, I drop my objections. These links do make the articles easier to edit, just more annoying to read. --Jiang 08:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UCB article was an excellent example for bad use of sections. It is completely wrong to add a section header for each frelling paragraph. That only makes the entire page look messy and difficult to read. Furthermore, section headers should always descend by one level, not by two as this one page did.—Eloquence 11:08, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text:  On this page, there's at least one edit link for a place with no text - and there's really no point in putting any text there either: the header is self-explanatory. For example, in the following situation:
Header 1
{no text}
Header 1.1
Text 1.1
Header 1.2
Text 1.2
We could have a single edit link for the text of header 1, the text of header 1.1, and Text 1.1. That's very much a subtle tweak-type thing, though - the basic concept looks sound. Martin 09:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section edit feature 

message: I was just section-editing Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content and something odd happened. When I hit "Show preview", it did, but the edit box was empty and the text that should have been there was under the box. It did it a couple more times, then I edited the whole article, which worked, and it wouldn't do it again.
I had a section-edit open on the Village Pump at the same time, to copy a link to someone's userpage. I tried doing it that way but I still couldn't reproduce the error.
If I see it again I'll grab a copy of the HTML source. Didn't think of it this time.
Tualha 18:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermittently reproducible bug in section edit 

message: The TOC is neat - but it is numbered by default while the headings are not. IMO headings should be numbered by default using the same criteria as the TOC; headings are numbered if and only if there are more than three of them. It is real silly to have ==External links== labled as 1. --mav 13:23, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an "Auto-number headings" feature in the preferences.  Maybe this will do it?  MB 14:12, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading numbering 

message: Links to stubs (if you've defined a stub length in your prefs) are no longer underlined, and barely stand out from normal text. Please fix. Evercat 14:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub links

message: Anyone want to summarize the new prefs at Wikipedia:User preferences help?—Eloquence 08:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user preferences 

message: Could we please have a "special pages" link (on the page itself, not just in the quickbar, which not everyone uses)? There seems to be plenty of spare space at the top where it could go. --Zundark 07:54, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please not. Martin 09:28, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  There needs to be a simple way for people to get to their watchlist, for example. --Zundark 11:54, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special pages 

message: I just noticed recently that some articles (presumeabbly stubs) have different link colors.  Like this article. When was this introduced?  マイカル (MB) 17:52, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
:And it is not underlined any longer... Fantasy 20:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because they have been marked as a stub, like you said. In your preferences, you can change what the threshold is for stubs (ie how short is must be to be considered a stub) and if you want to mark stubs at all. If you dislike it, just turn it off, but I find it very useful. I think the default threshold is 100 characters. LDan 16:29, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New link color

message: Is there any way to link to specific levels of subsections (e.g. to =A= ==B== ===C===)? If not, it would be a good feature. --Dori 15:54, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can do this by using a hash sign between the page name and section name. eg: Wikipedia talk:Software updates#Linking to subsections would link to this section. Angela 16:23, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant if you have =A= ==A== ===A===, how do you link to the first A, second A, third A, etc? Perhaps all subsections are in the same namespace and you can't, but you should be able to  --Dori 16:32, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I figured it out. Wikipedia appends a _2 to the second instance of a subsection name. And then it continues with _3, etc. So an example would be: Wikipedia:Sandbox#A Wikipedia:Sandbox#A_2 Wikipedia:Sandbox#A_3. --Dori 05:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to subsections

message: I'm having trouble understanding how links to pictures are handled. It could be that I've missed something somewhere. But: If I insert a picture in an article, clicking on the picture takes me to the picture documentation page. If I add a link to the caption in the article (using Image:) I can create a situation where by the reader can view a larger image of that picture (once I have also loaded that onto the wiki). If I click on that larger image (comes up outside the article in its own screen), I get nothing (I cannot get to the picture doc page for that larger image like I can for the thumbnail ~ this should be corrected or added to the software). But here is the odd part to me: In order to get to that larger image (and it's documentation page), I try to include a link on the "thumbnail" documentation page.  If I use Image: here, the page displays the photo (i.e., not a link to it). If I use Media: here, the whole page is replaced by the larger image. I'm unclear how to do a standard link to a picture doc page, if that is the answer. Is there no way (other than the upload log) ever to view or make a link to the larger image's documentation page without displaying that image in an article?  Seems like I'm missing something. Is this a glitch or do I need to learn something more? - Marshman 04:32, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured out my question (how to create a link to an image); answer was there in How to edit, just needed close inspection. My suggestion (clicking on larger image goes to picture docmnent page still stands as a suggestion. - Marshman 00:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment of Links to Pictures

message: The (Difference between revisions) reports should contain the comment that
was added to the revision if the difference is reported against the current revision.   That would assist in corellating the description of t he change with the actual change itself.  Bevo 20:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Difference between revisions) reports enhancement 

message: Hi, I notice that many of the threads on this page ended back in July. The page is rather large and difficult to edit; I think some of it should be moved to an archive page. I'm being un-bold because I'm a newcomer to this discussion.
Tualha 18:46, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There wouldn't seem much point as this page isn't supposed to be used. Bugs should be reported at sourceforge, not here. See Wikipedia:Bug reports for instructions. Angela. 19:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. Didn't see that page. Tualha 19:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive some of this?