MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver

Protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Responding to the request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Technical 13 has been indeffed by ArbCom, and it isn't clear whether he would be willing to continue work or whether it would be permitted if he was, so it doesn't look like this proposal will proceed. It's possible that there was enough support to allow creation of a tag for OneClickArchiver, but that would probably be best addressed if T13 returns or someone else shows interest in using tags for this purpose. Sunrise (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since allowing gadgets and userscripts to use tags is a new thing, what should be the protocol for creating new tags? Do we need to hold an RfC for every tag? Is there anything controversial about creating a tag for a script to use (such as Twinkle or OneClickArchiver or wikiLove) to be able to find edits made with those tools more quickly and to save space in the edit summary for things important for the edit summary?

I propose that the protocol for creating new tags be a simple process. These tags improve the quality of the encyclopedia by making it easier to identify semi-automated edits and taking script identifiers "tags" out of the edit summary and making them actual tags. I proposed that established scripts that get used and make edits (such as the ones listed above and many others) shouldn't need any special RfC to build consensus to create the tag if a script maintainer has requested the tag (such as in this case below for Technical 13's (Original by Equazcion) OneClickArchiver (Original) script). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please create the following pages with the associate content to facilitate a new tag being created:

  1. MediaWiki:Tag-OneClickArchiver
  2. MediaWiki:Tag-OneClickArchiver-beta
    • Content: 
      [[User:Technical 13/1CA|OneClickArchiver]] ([[User:Technical 13/SandBox/OneClickArchiver.js|β]])
    • Result: OneClickArchiver (β)
  3. MediaWiki:Tag-OneClickArchiver-description
  4. MediaWiki:Tag-OneClickArchiver-beta-description
    • Content: 
      Semi-automatic archival process using [[User:Technical 13/SandBox/OneClickArchiver.js|βeta version]] of {{subst:1CA}}.
    • Result: Semi-automatic archival process using βeta version of Technical 13's[†] OneClickArchiver[†] script.

Once these pages are completed, please create these new tags on Special:Tags:

  • Tag name: OneClickArchiver
  • Reason: [[MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015|Per request]] of [[User:Technical 13]] for {{subst:1CA}} script.
  • Tag name: OneClickArchiver-beta
  • Reason: [[MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015|Per request]] of [[User:Technical 13]] for beta version of {{subst:1CA}} script.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the request to include a tag for the beta version as well. I'll direct people here for the consensus for this uncontroversial change. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Why are we being summoned here to "Build consensus"? Why can't we use the tool in peace? Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read the foregoing discussion and I see it's that consensus is needed for some technical somethings which are complete gibberish to me. Could the request to come here and "Build consensus" be removed from the tool? Otherwise, it comes up every single time the tool is used, and then one has to manually reload the page (or click "Reload") in order to continue. I think if you want to get consensus, it should be left to the people who visit or watch this page; or a notice should be posted on wherever such things are more publicly discussed, or an RfC should be created for this. I'd rather not have the request to come here and opine clogging up the use of the tool, especially after I have already posted here once and I still get that message. Softlavender (talk)
  • The purpose of this discussion, EEng and Softlavender, is to create a tag for OneClickArchiver so that I can take the label and linkback to the tool out of the edit summary reducing the chances of edit summaries looking like:
(OneClickArchiver archived Expedited review request for May 10 Main Page appearance to [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 114#Expedited review request for May 10 Main Page appearance|Wikipedia talk...)
and instead they would look like:
(Expedited review request for May 10 Main Page appearance archived to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 114)
— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're saying you want to take out the first part of the edit summary, so that where article#section names are long they won't get truncated...? Since there are faint hints of bugs still present in One-Click, and to help spread the word about this miraculous tool, I think it's useful to have it in the edit summary somehow. Why not move it to the end so it gets truncated, if truncation's gonna happen:
(Archive Expedited review request for May 10 Main Page appearance->Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 114 via OneClickArchiver)
You're also removing the repetition of the #section name, and that's a great idea. EEng (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What benefit would be made from keeping the OneClickArchiver link inside the edit summary if it's going to get truncated off instead of moving it to a tag so the edit summary can be not truncated at all and the tag will always be there? Tags are always displayed next to edit summaries when they exist, so bugs or no (and it has less bugs than the MediaWiki software itself) there is no less of spreading the word (it actually improves the ability to find edits with the tool because you can search by tag and list all edits with the tag on Special:Tags. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand about the tag. In that case your idea seems like a good one. EEng (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose anything that doesn't require consensus per tag this soon. Using RfCs for each script's tag(s) for a bit will give the community a better chance to determine the usefulness of tags (in general and for particular types of scripts) and which scripts should be allowed them. Allowing tags to be made so easily this soon might not turn out well, especially with how vague "established scripts" is. If I have a script no one uses but that I've maintained for the last 5 years, is it established? What if I'm the only user but I make 100s of edits per month with the script? What if I fork an established script, is my fork considered established? To summarize: since tags are new, and I don't think they'll be requested very frequently, I think it would be best to keep consensus per tag for now and have more specific criteria (than proposed) if that changes in the future. As a side note, it's not a good idea to advertise RfCs related to a script in the script as it attracts a biased group, (people don't use a script if they don't like it) and that's not a good thing for consensus building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomTech (talk • contribs)
Are tags a scarce resource? EEng (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't scarce, but having a bunch of unnecessary tags will just cause unnecessary clutter in change lists like page histories or recent changes. Tagging an edit with, for example, the time zone it was made from would not be helpful because it would just cause clutter. Though I doubt any script would attempt to tag edits with time zones, there are certain scripts that would only cause clutter by having tags, like Syntax highlighter, which, while useful and widely used, does not benefit from tags. While I doubt that anyone would try to add tags to edits made with syntax highlighter, there are likely some scripts where the lack of usefulness of tags may not be so obvious, especially before the community is used to noticing them. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to wiser heads to sort out whether a tag is appropriate. But if there's no tag, then the edit summary should include a mention of OneClick at the end (where it will be the victim of any truncation), as I outlined above. EEng (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I haven't commented on the tags T13 proposed, just the method he proposed for getting tags approved. Also, I agree with you about the edit summary tag location, if there isn't a proper tag the edit summary tag should be truncated before the other information. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense would still apply, but things like Twinkle, OCA, EPH, etc are obviously things that should have tags and be trackable. New? Tags have been around since at least 2006, so, I think nearly a decade is plenty of time to determine usefulness of tags. (Emergency, will finish this post later) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are scripts like Twinkle that may unarguably benefit from tags, with other scripts though, sometimes people will not notice problems and not get a chance to apply their common sense. Using tags for user scripts is new, or at least very uncommon. When you come back to finish you post, please add it as a reply to this one instead of a modification to the original for organizational purposes. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you raise an interesting point here. The only time I have seen Tags used for something similar to a script would be VisualEditor which has its own tag(s) to allow for what exactly? They do provide an easy way to see which edits used visual editor but then you realise that no one cares whether you did anymore (except statistical analysis). What I'm getting at is there should be a big RfC to determine the true use for tags. I can see them being useful for tagging script edits, as all scripts put it in their edit summaries anyway, but at the same time I could see people wanting to restrict it to use for Debugging, stats and graphs, and/or a way to monitor changes like they currently are. But I really don't think that this is the place to discuss something like that. Wow that ran on and accomplished nothing. Sorry if you read it all :) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent explanation: Tagging edits is a newly added software feature that I've read about. It's so new that we don't have an established consensus yet on how we want to use it. A tag is like when you see (Visual Editor) attached to an edit summary. A tag is a note/link attached to the edit summary, without taking up space inside the summary. A tag could identify what tool was used to make the edit, or perhaps a bot could actively tag edits identified as possible vandalism, or tag edits that create clear formatting errors, or tag any edit that adds or removes a REF. We could assign a bot to look for anything we want, and tag those edits. We might allow editors to manually add or remove tags, but it is unclear if and when to permit manual tag changes.
I SUPPORT easy creation of new tags for any reasonable definition of "well established scripts". OneClickArchiver certainly qualifies. This is a clearly high value, non-indiscriminate category of new tags. More discussion will be needed to sort out whether to allow indiscriminate creation of tags for new scripts, or other use cases. Alsee (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.