This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

At Special:Diff/1163774587 by @ Star Mississippi, I noticed that the closing rationale is not printed at the AfD page; despite it simultaneously being added to its edit summary, and the concerned article's talk page ( Special:Diff/1163774589). — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary seems a bit screwy too, what with the inclusion of a broken [www.foo.com/nowiki link], which usually means someone handwrote the edit summary and forgot how links work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

THanks for flagging @ CX Zoom. @ Rosguill I am 100% guilty of forgetting how links ( and formatting!) work, but I closed it with the script. Do links not work within that? I don't typically include them but in this case where I wasn't the nom who had withdrawn, I thought it helpful. Let me know if you need me to troubleshoot anything else. Star Mississippi 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean technically it should not have disappeared completely from the AfD page while it appeared just fine at the article's talk page, despite both the actions being handled by a single click of script. — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 23:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that putting either a hyperlink or a wikilink into the close rationale is what broke this. Given that the withdrawal is clearly on the page I'm not quire sure why it would be necessary to link to the diff itself on the word withdrawn anyway... I guess it's not quite GIGO but it's "unexpected behaviour leads to things breaking". Primefac ( talk) 10:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Trying to find the note where someone asked me to make nom withdrawn closes more clear, but can't now. Happy to do those with a post close edit. Thanks both! Star Mississippi 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to add the explanatory note in the Rationale section (which allows for a boatload of exposition if necessary). Ideally the word in the custom close box should be 1-2 words only. Primefac ( talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh that makes total sense and I'll happily take the "duh trout" for not doing that in the first place. I'm not sure why I linked it in the outcome to begin with. Star Mississippi 14:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Not yet 7 days" warning is currently after you go through a couple screens and try to finalize the closing of the XFD. (In my case for RFD.) I suggest moving this check and notification to the very beginning, when you first open XFDCloser, so as to reduce wasted time. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with your proposal (it's a good idea), but the close buttons are colour-coded to indicate whether enough time has passed... Primefac ( talk) 11:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Pastel yellow for too early, pastel green for ready to close. Neat. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a setting in the preferences screen called "Add edited pages to your watchlist". The choices are "always", "never", and something else. I propose adding some limited durations to this, such as "1 week", "1 month", etc. I would personally want to watchlist these pages for about a week or a month, and after that I'd like them to drop off my watchlist to avoid clutter. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

​ Okay, this might be me being dumb, but... what preferences screen? Primefac ( talk) 11:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can pull it up by clicking "[Close]", then clicking "Preferences" in the bottom left. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, right. Duh. Thanks. For some reason I thought it was stored somewhere else. The third option, by the way, is "default" (which is set in the generic Special:Preferences). Now that I think about it, that option should have some granularity as well, given that it's either "always" or "never", but that's a phab issue not an XFDC issue. Primefac ( talk) 13:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree largely that this would be a nice thing to have; I've definitely taken to short-watch-listing things like this just to make sure there isn't any weird fallout. Primefac ( talk) 13:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Some recent CfD relistings appear to be linking to the wrong page ( example). Could you check if this is an error with XFDcloser or something else? — Paul_012 ( talk) 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Paul 012, I'd says that's a bug with XFDCloser. The relisting link is correct, but the discussion is moved to the wrong date (the 18th) and the summary also links to the 18th. I suspect the relsit link is only correct (the 19th) because it substitutes a template, instead of using what it thinks is the current day. —  Qwerfjkl talk 08:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The above was copied from User talk:Qwerfjkl#Relisted CfDs linking to wrong date.

This appears to have since been resolved, but someone might want to look into the causes. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have disappeared from my screen completely. Any ideas why? Skin compatibility, withdrawn, affected by other scripts, perhaps? Unfortunately, DannyS127 hasn't been around for a bit. Hope he's well. SN54129 17:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Serial Number 54129, what skin are you using and what page(s) does the issue occur? —  Qwerfjkl talk 20:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Qwerfjkl for looking in... wierdly, it seems to have appeared again since last night. I spent a lot of time messing around un/reinstalling stuff, and refreshing, and using different versions, and logging in and out, so among all those things I guess I must've clear something! Don't ask me how though  :) SN54129 11:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Category_talk:Physical_systems#Did_a_maintenance_process_just_stop,_or_has_a_process_hung_up?

It appears that the xfd for Cat Conceptual system got logged, but Cat Physical system got lost. I did it manually. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions gets an entry. I believe it would be moot because the Cats should have been processed. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The TfM tag at {{ pagelinks}} seems to be messing with XFDc, making it think the page nominated was Template. See Special:Diff/1174719924. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 07:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. Primefac ( talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, two sections are wrongly being interpreted as nominations. They are #Notifying related WikiProjects and #Notifying substantial contributors to the template. SWinxy ( talk) 18:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It's also doing it at CfD. SWinxy ( talk) 05:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

When closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_25#Category:Jewish_athletes_(track_and_field) as no consensus, XfDcloser failed to remove the CfD tags from the nominated categories. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I started seeing the problem on Sep 9 or 10 (see WT:Redirects for discussion#XFDcloser is broken), but it may have been there from earlier. Typing into the Result Summary or Rationale fields of the XFDcloser is not possible. It treats characters as keyboard shortcuts and does other stuff. Apparently it happens for Multiple results only. Jay 💬 06:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Also typing in something in the RCAT page of the wizard messes up the earlier result selections. I typed R and all my results went back to Retarget . Jay 💬 06:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Evad37: Can a bug be filed for this, or maybe revert the September 9-10 change that caused this regression? Jay 💬 11:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This happens on Firefox which I use. This doesn't happen with Chrome. But today, I see that the Multiple results option is fully broken. The "Next" button is not getting enabled. Jay 💬 08:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

So any time I have to close a RfD with multiple results, I log out of Firefox, log in to Chrome, and do the close.Whatever change was made to this tool in Sep 2022 should be reverted. Jay 💬 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I had this same problem – I had to copy/paste my rationale, etc. from a separate page. When I typed "S", everything went to "Soft redirect". Can someone please fix this? It was quite annoying Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ran into this bug again today on Firefox after seemingly not having seen it for a while. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

When closing a CfD, the disambiguation page Reply sometimes appears as one of the pages, and Talk:Reply receives a spurious old CfD notice. This happened at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_30#Category:French_Polynesian_musicians and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_7#Category:Latin-language_writers. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Steps to reproduce:

• Android, Firefox
• Tick "view in desktop mode"
• Log in
• Install XFDcloser
• Visit an MFD page
• Click "close"
• Click on a textbox to start typing

What happens?

• Modal becomes very short, is unreadable and unusable until the keyboard is closed

What should happen instead?

• Modal should be usable. CSS min-height could solve the issue.

– Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's an easier way to implement a "draftify" closure at AfD than what I'm currently doing. Ideally, this would involve a) moving the page and associated talk page to draftspace, b) removing AfD templates and logging the old AfD on the talk, and c) the option of unlinking backlinks, for topics deemed temporarily not notable. If it's not currently a feature, it would be an extremely useful one.

Also, given that this page is likely to be a long list of requests and/or complaints, I wanted to express my appreciation for this tool, and the enormous time savings it has created. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, I'd also suggest it removes any project quality ratings (can leave the importance ones) as part of this process. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Steps to replicate the issue: Try closing a batch nomination at RfD using XFDcloser and select the option for "multiple results". For one of the pages, select "retarget" and try to type the name of the new target page.

What happens?: When prompted for a new target, the field freezes and does not allow typing words. Typing certain letters causes the result to be altered (e.g., 'k' for keep), while others have no effect. Attempting to abort the "multiple results" closure keeps all fields frozen, i.e., a blanket "retarget" closure is not possible, and it is impossible to add an additional rationale following one of the default results. It is necessary to refresh the browser page to unfreeze XFDcloser.

What should have happened instead?: It should be possible to specify independent pages to which each nominated page will be retargeted, and proceed with the close. Any issues at this step also should not affect alternate closure options when backtracking.

^Complex/ _Rational 00:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser-core.js is minified, making debugging harder. I suggest turning off minifying. mw:ResourceLoader has its own minifier, so I don't see much of a performance benefit here, and the tradeoff is harder debugging and a barrier to entry for other devs that want to read this code. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the original source code is a bunch of different js files that have to be packed together into this one file and transpiled to work here. I don't think turning off minifying would help much when the code isn't meant to be read in this compiled form. Galobtter ( talk) 02:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there even a way to configure a module bundler like webpack or rollup to pack multiple JS files into a single unminified file? Back when I was working on a similar project in 2020-21, the only way was through debug modes in which webpack would still inject lots of boilerplate code which aren't optimal for production, and can make a large gadget like this approach the 2 MB size limit.

I doubt if things would have changed since then. Although the JS ecosystem is fast-moving, there is little demand for tools that generate unminified production builds, as the wider web doesn't use ResourceLoaders. – SD0001 ( talk) 13:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In webpack, that's optimization: { minimize: false }. Example at User:Suffusion of Yellow/fdb-worker.js; that's fairly readable, though a few clashing variables might have been renamed. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)