Upon requesting a template/module on enwiki, I realized my wish could be simplified to the following:

Ahhh, so it's my long-term memory that's shot. That makes sense. :)

Further, I see where I said it worked. I must not have had my coffee yet. It worked, but it didn't give me what I was seeking in the OP of the ticket. Knowing me, I probably gave up and just accepted what was done because it was in the neighborhood of what I wanted. But what was done requires a lot of eyeball hockey to piece together a true All list.

Yes, that works, as I've already been seeing results like that.

I was looking through some old tickets I opened. Is this not in production yet? I have never seen this in the generally available Top Edits tool.

To follow up, I haven't seen any Wikipedia ads in The Verge newsletters I've received, so I am unable to technically investigate them.

I'd rather there be 3 options in this scenario.

Works for me - thanks!

I believe the more familiar term is 'pagination' but I guess non-techies could have confusion about that as well. Might be best to describe it.

I'm not seeing Special:EditWatchlist pagination on enwiki unless I add ?paginate=1, but even then, the namespace filter doesn't work. And the namespace TOC is gone - I assume this was replaced by the filter, but now I have nothing for looking at specific namespaces except scrolling down the page.

It is for developers to decide how they would like to implement this. As long as it returns the value I'm seeking, I'm good. I merely offered a suggestion as to how to do it.

As I noted at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js on Commons, I have just done a test on enwiki and HotCat now respects my expiry setting when either adding or replacing a category. Thanks for your work on this!

I have modified my previous comment to clarify

That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for the number of links that are linked on a page, not the incoming links.

I'm looking for the number of links on a page that go to articles (mainspace), but I would be fine with something that can return the value for any desired namespace. I need the number for issues backlogs and comparisons between them (to help project participants better decide what to work on), and to determine when a type of issue no longer has a backlog. I already have the lists in the reports themselves.

In T366554#11057697, @Ottomata wrote:

Well you are in luck! IIUC ^, is in WMF's annual plan for FY2025-2026. T396562: WE 5.4 FY 25/26: Improve automata detection at the edge and pass it to the refinery pipeline

See SDS1.1 and WE5.4.

In T366554#11059827, @Cixtpide wrote:

In T366554#11056356, @Stevietheman wrote:

@Cixtpide Are you subscribed to any particular newsletter of TheVerge? I'd like to subscribe to it and investigate more directly. I can already see they do asynchronous loading of ads on their website, and I'd be interested to see how they do it in their newsletters.

It is the free "Installer" newsletter.

More human beings visiting an article was never the issue.

I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself, but I don't care that the visits are occurring as much as that we are misclassifying them as human visits. I want to tell whoever (perhaps connected to TheVerge) is enabling the avalanche of non-human visits to knock it off, but in the long run, we need to be smarter about human vs. non-human visit tabulation. Any internal project that makes decisions on what gets priority to work on based on views is working with somewhat faulty data unless we get ahold of this.

@Cixtpide Are you subscribed to any particular newsletter of TheVerge? I'd like to subscribe to it and investigate more directly. I can already see they do asynchronous loading of ads on their website, and I'd be interested to see how they do it in their newsletters.

Do we know who is doing the advertising?

The main harm from this issue is WP 1.0 assessment logs showing an incomplete move in the form of showing ratings/class categories for the page that were not intended from the move, and then taking days, weeks, who knows how long, until the log later reflects the final results of the move. Inaccuracies in other reports/processes that depend on the correctness of ratings/class settings follow from this lag.

Since March 2024, I've been using the "Database report" template to automate the building of pages of in-project links for change patrol. So, I guess I no longer need this resolved as much as before. I still however think a system solution as indicated in the description is optimal.

And add {{Afd-merge from}}. This should be the last one I add as I'm done with the talk page cleanup I was doing.

Add {{Old merge}} to this. I just had AWB try to move this to below the WikiProjects.

See also the Database report template in the English Wikipedia. It's a brilliant way of using queries developed in Quarry.

Playing with this, I noticed I have to do inproject:"United States" for that project to handle the space, and if I want to do a subproject of it, I have to do something like this: inproject:"United States/WikiProject Louisville"

With all the back and forth and some misunderstandings, I decided to write a TL;DR summary of the Village Pump discussion:

Btw, I'm fine with admins no longer considering this task security-related, if they genuinely believe it is not. I believe some other editors want to put in their two cents.

Some editors responding in the Village Pump discussion have suggested this is only a problem with how we interpret views. I disagree with that position, but nevertheless, it might be a useful band-aid if the views from odd hits like this were treated as bots or put into a new category that either way would not cause issues in views reports. Might doing that belong in its own Phab task?

Note that Kepler's Supernova has been added to the Village pump discussion for also having received a huge number of views in recent times.

Well, it's not a bug and not a feature request. The instructions led me here as a security issue in the link you provide: "When the integrity of data hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation or affiliated entities is at risk of being corrupted, tampered with, or otherwise modified in an unauthorized manner."

Note that I had removed the empty archive from the affected ref in an earlier edit before running IABot to discover this issue. I assume this issue crops up with many Courier-Journal articles as they have likely banned the Internet Archive from scanning them.

Yes, enwiki is down to 10 hours.

Just wanted to note we're past the previous estimate and the lag is past 25 hours and seemingly getting longer. This is affecting a Quarry query I've been needing to run for literal days and database reports I have aren't keeping current. Any new estimates?

After looking at the option of manipulating CSS to display the image on mobile, and reviewing the source of output on desktop vs. mobile, there's the appearance that the image is asynchronously loaded, thereby making CSS manipulation via TemplateStyles not workable. Or am I missing something? I've fiddled with visibility and display settings, and nothing works.

In T124168#9470724, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

Anything that’s hidden using CSS (rather than removing it from the HTML) can be unhidden using CSS. However, it’s your responsibility to make it readable on small screens if you do so.

@Izno - thanks for the explanation. One of the navboxes I'm concerned with was created mostly by me, so I suppose I could rewrite it to not rely on navbox underpinnings, but I sure don't like reinventing the wheel if I can avoid it. And it's probably not worth it just to get an image to display and remove useless padding.

In T124168#9470292, @Shushugah wrote:

@Stevietheman are you using Desktop mode or Mobile mode on phone? I confirmed with my iPhone SE and iPhone 13 on Safari and Chrome browsers; that navigation template doesn't render. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_and_unions, on the other hand, if you call desktop url (without "m") like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_and_unions that does render on both mobile phones.

I've noticed that navboxes do display in the Wikipedia: namespace of English Wikipedia when I look at the page in a wide view (phone turned sideways). It's just that they have extra padding on the top and bottom, and don't display the embedded image (image=). This is my experience using Chrome and Firefox on Android.

Will the changes cover calls by apps like AutoWikiBrowser, like when I set it to "Use MW preferences" for determining if a page I change is watched?

I had asked for the Thanks link to be added to RC pages. I'm wondering if the study maybe doesn't take into account whether most of the user base even knows this feature is now available, as it was conducted right after implementation.

Thank you especially NRodriguez!
(I'd award a token to you but I don't know how)

Looks like I was on hiatus when this feature was implemented, so I didn't have the opportunity to say "thanks!".

Any recent progress on this? I recently came back from a hiatus, and I'm still having to manually regenerate a list of all a project's pages for project change patrol purposes. It would be nice to no longer have to do that.

At the very least, it would be useful if a few more time period options were added. I'd like to see a (3 day / 72 hour) option as a default for articles I edit.

As a former software developer, I take great umbrage at the phrase "computer freak" to describe folks who develop software.

In T123866#3291673, @MGChecker wrote:

Yes, but Notifications are private as well.

In T123866#3283219, @MGChecker wrote:

I think notifying watchers instead of creators is much more effective and useful.

In T164178#3245629, @Niharika wrote:

@Stevietheman I can't find a reference for it now, but the pageviews API does do caching on their end so caching on our end might not be as big a speed boost as it looks.

#4 sounds like it could be done in a fairly straightforward manner, using a temporary indexed database table.

@Samwilson I ran 'All' for my own account, and all the entries looked familiar and highly likely to be correct. Thank you for your work!

I might be the person who said it should work like a watchlist (private), and this is indeed to prevent negative responses as discussed above. I'm willing to wait for it being done this way.

On second thought, I guess it would be a little tricky as some entries' number of edits would be tied with others.

I was just taking a look at this again, and wondered why the entries don't have counting numbers (1-100). Is there any particular reason why this can't be there as well? I would think it would communicate that there are 100 total entries and a user can better mentally picture a slice of the list (say, Top 10 or Top 40).

Thanks. The secret stops here. heh

Is this available for user review (beta) anywhere?

OK, so I'll open a ticket wherever these API developers are. Have a link?

So, let's open a ticket and they will set it as low priority. As long as it's documented in the system would be fine with me.

This was discussed above. You had said that the APIs you use to fix a dead link using an archive didn't return the title from the archive page. Would it be prudent to request that they do?

Would it be reasonable to open a request to have a particular API that is used return the page's title?

It can be argued that way, but with "Archived copy" sticking out like a sore thumb, it calls for addressing, and therefore, additional time is spent, when the bot could have in theory inserted this.

Is editors' time manually correcting titles taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis? The idea of a bot creating new work doesn't seem quite right.

Although I'm in no position to mentor, I'd like to help with brainstorming ideas too. I personally like the simplicity of the dashboard on Discogs.com (seen if you have an account).

There are still popular pages listings going empty, with examples Anarchism, Louisville, and Kentucky. When is the bot scheduled to fill these (and presumably others) in?

Please close this ticket as a duplicate of T160721. I had meant to create this as a subtask.

In T156857#3107265, @Niharika wrote:

This ticket was only to build a basic bot from my understanding (3 story points). It's covered way more than that. If there are any other things the older bot did and you don't see them in the current bot, please file new tickets for them. It'll make our job easier. If you don't want to do that, I can file them, just list them here. Thanks.

In T156857#3107624, @kaldari wrote:

New ticket for leaving headers and categories alone when updating the report: T160683.

In T156857#3107444, @kaldari wrote:

Do you have any idea why geography WikiProjects have adopted this practice? In other words, why do folks not want to either define the Louisville group as an actual task force or give it it's own banner? Having it as both simultaneously is confusing and doesn't work well with PageAssessments.

I know there was a push a few years ago to standardize the names of WikiProject banner templates, but apparently this didn't take into account WikiProjects that were piggybacking as task forces. Perhaps there could be another clean-up drive to fix these. Any thoughts on that? This isn't strictly necessary to get Popular Pages bot to work for them, but it's going to be a recurrent problem for any software we build for WikiProjects (which I would like to do more of).

If I have a suggestion for improvement, should I open a separate phab ticket? I would like to see a "Top edited pages" list that shows the top 100 pages from all namespaces together.

Note that I now see the ticket for handling the redirects.

Also, I'm unsure why this is marked as "resolved" as the bot doesn't yet do all the things the previous version did.

Issues I see:

Kudpung, I don't see how comments like yours are constructive, much less advance this along. There are big ideas I'd like to see happen too, but I would not use a strategy like yours. Unless you chill, I have nothing else to say here.

This proposal didn't make the top 10, thus it's not a core Foundation priority, but I think being at #14 makes it appealing for developers to take on. Also, I don't think we should ever assume that something could have been done in a certain time period because many other things have been developed in that time frame, and there's only so many active developers to go around. If one thinks this should be prioritized higher, one should make that case.

I'm thinking this should apply to major editors of a page as well. I regularly run into articles tagged for deletion where the creator is long gone, but editors who touched it quite a bit along the way are still around. The current approach of maybe sometimes the creator being notified (like if Twinkle is used) has led to charges of our delete processes being sneaky. See https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-threat-from-deletionists/95250

I was thinking of Muhammad Ali as a good example as well. Thank you for your quick response. I do agree this should be incorporated into results, for sake of fairness in comparative results.

Something related to this just occurred to me. The previous bot was stated to "aggregate the views for all redirects to each page." I assume this meant that views to each page would be counted whether directly viewed or arrived at by a redirect. Is this applicable in any way to what is being worked on right now?

I'll just chime in to say that I'm comfortable with where this part is heading. Thanks everyone.

I haven't looked at this ticket for a week, and it looks like a lot of discussion has flown past me. Anyway, as a former programmer, JSON is simple for me to update, but most Wikipedians aren't programmers.

In T156856#3024025, @Niharika wrote:

Ah, I mistook that to mean that we use the bot to display the Top 10 viewed pages of a wikiproject on the project main page.

I don't see how a different list entry affected another one, but oh well. Thanks.