Template talk:ImageNote

Protection

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I missed your discussion at User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Archive_79#Unprotection_request; according to Special:GadgetUsage this would be in use with 25,000+ places, not 8 - due to the gadget loading. @HouseBlaster: is there any special ongoing tasks requiring frequent changes to this page that led you to start this unprotection request? If not we should just update the protection reason to reference the uncounted load in via the interace though MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this gadget transcludes the template into its code (and perusing the code, I do not think it does, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), I do not think that gadget installs should be added to the count. For example, Twinkle has 40,000 users and is deeply interconnected with hundreds of maintenance templates and other templates, but I do not think those templates receive extra protection. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have to review that one a bit, not sure exactly what the gadget is doing with this yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the number of uses shown on GadgetUsage is necessarily an useful metric, anyway - there will be a lot of misclicked checkboxes and inactive or blocked users among that 25000 thousand, which would explain why there are only 8 transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I asked for unprotection was because TPE seemed excessive for eight transclusions. If I am understanding the code correctly, the gadget needs the template to work and vice versa.

On the one hand, no matter what someone does to the local copy, the Commons template will still function. In other words, the worst-case scenario is the gadget stops working for the eight local transclusions. On the other hand, I am guessing that most "improvements" would break the gadget unless MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js were updated at the same time. Thus, maybe full protection is warranted? I would lean towards leaving it unprotected, because it can easily be protected later if the need arises. (If the template is to be protected, I would argue it should be fully protected given the protection rationale.) House Blaster^talk 04:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I installed the gadget

I installed the gadget and explored it a bit so I could talk about this a bit more knowledgably. Unless I am missing something, this gadget seems kind of glitchy.

It's supposed to display an "Add a note" button on every image, but I cannot get this to appear.
If an image has annotations, it gives no hint of this until you hover over the image.
Only some of the 7 transclusions of Template:ImageNote actually cause annotations to appear on the image.
- Working examples if you want to check them out after installing the gadget:
  - File:Hitler and Franco at Hendaye (en.wiki).jpg
  - File:Meeting at Hendaye (en.wiki).jpg
- Couldn't get these to display any annotations:

I missed this above, but it does look like MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js is trancluding this template directly into its code somewhere, at least according to Special:WhatLinksHere. I wonder if this is a bug arising from forgetting to enclose the code in nowiki tags. I experimented just now on testwiki with transcluding the template Novem into my common.js file, and giving the template Novem the wikitext console.log('Test');, and it did not execute the transcluded code, so that's good. Therefore, I'm not sure if template transclusions work as an attack vector.

Anyway, with all that said, I guess I am wondering why this gadget had so many installs on enwiki if practically no files are using it? Does it have other features besides this ImageNote template? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae some people just turn on lots of gadgets, with no clue of what they do. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]