[07:09:48] <pew>	 Hi, I'm using the GeoData extension for the Nearby feature and also the Maps extension to display maps. Both of these extensions define the #coordinates parser function and the Maps extension seems to take priority. Is there any way to remap GeoData's function to something else without rebuild the extension?
[15:33:52] <queip>	 hi is there some mode to have curated pages?
[15:34:23] <queip>	 that is, anyone can propose a change to a page, and maybe it is even viewable to outsiders with a warning on top.  How ever it takes one of privilaged accounts to accept change and to have that version shown in main article
[15:36:40] <Reedy>	 Yeah
[15:36:47] <Reedy>	 FlaggedRevs or ApprovedRevs extensions do this sort of functionality
[15:36:57] <andre__>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ApprovedRevs
[17:15:40] <reda_>	 good evening
[17:16:30] <reda_>	 let's talk about learning issues
[17:16:38] <harmaahylje>	 let's do that
[17:19:21] <harmaahylje>	 reda_: what's on your mind?
[17:22:39] <reda_>	 collect resources
[20:14:06] <Reception123>	 Hi. Does anyone know if it's possible to set a threshold for Special:ActiveUsers?
[20:14:17] <Reception123>	 For example in LocalSettings make 10 actions+ considered "active"
[20:19:15] <biberao>	 hi
[20:19:33] <biberao>	 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AdvancedMeta in conjunction with WikiSEO is a good option?
[20:35:40] <Skizzerz>	 Reception123: $wgActiveUserDays is the best you got
[20:37:14] <Reception123>	 Skizzerz: Okay, I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the help! :)
[20:37:30] <Skizzerz>	 I don't see any hooks around the active users feature
[20:39:12] <Reception123>	 Do you think this could be something doable however? (worth making a Phab task for it?)
[20:45:04] <mutante>	 it almost always is.. worst case it takes a really long time
[20:45:24] <mutante>	 Reception123: i have wondered about the defintion of "active" myself before
[20:45:38] <mutante>	 when doing stats
[20:46:57] <mutante>	 it's similar with "good" vs "total" pages. there is a definition of a "good" page somewhere and it has to do with factors like minimium length , at least 1 link and something else
[20:47:43] <Reception123>	 mutante: yeah, I just look at the Special:ActiveUsers page and see "2 actions in the last 30 days"
[20:47:55] <Reception123>	 Even 1 action
[20:48:00] <Reception123>	 I don't see how that can be counted as "active"
[20:48:35] <Skizzerz>	 Reception123: maybe? There used to be a $wgActiveUserEditCount but it was removed entirely in 1.16. Digging back I don't see any particular reason it was reverted beyond poor implementation
[20:48:53] <mutante>	 Reception123: more like "alive" ..like a dead man switch , heh
[20:49:34] <Reception123>	 mutante: pretty much yeah
[20:49:46] <Reception123>	 Skizzerz: hmm yeah it seems like there really is nothing currently for this 
[20:49:50] <mutante>	 Reception123: do the ticket:)
[20:49:59] <Reception123>	 Yep
[20:50:02] <mutante>	 thanks
[20:50:12] <Skizzerz>	 the active users feature scans recentchanges rather than the page or revision tables so it's at least limited to a smaller number of rows to scan
[20:50:49] <Reception123>	 yeah, that is true...
[20:51:52] <Skizzerz>	 re-adding that config var should probably be pretty straightforward I'd think? just roll up the current query into a COUNT(*) and then check the count is above the threshold
[20:52:03] <Skizzerz>	 doubt that adds much overhead over what it's currently doing
[20:52:48] <Skizzerz>	 but right now "active user" (by default) means "at least 1 action in the past 30 days"
[20:52:59] <Reception123>	 well IMO the special page is pretty much useless in it's current state, since 1 action means nothing on a wiki tbh
[20:53:07] <Skizzerz>	 depends on the wiki for sure
[20:53:11] <Skizzerz>	 wikipedia? hell no
[20:53:25] <Skizzerz>	 a wiki that only gets edited once a week? that probably fits the definition of "active" there
[20:53:49] <Skizzerz>	 this is why we have configuration variables, of course, so individual wikis can tweak to suit their needs :)
[20:54:06] <Reception123>	 Skizzerz: yeah, that's why we need to propose one of course :)
[20:54:13] <Reception123>	 so that the definition of "active" can suit everyone's needs
[20:54:28] <Skizzerz>	 a solid default would probably be something like 10 actions per 30 days
[20:54:37] <Skizzerz>	 at a minimum
[20:55:12] <mutante>	 Ask them during install "How active do you expect your users to be", heh
[20:55:42] <Reception123>	 Skizzerz: yes, I'd agree 10 actions would definitely be a better default value
[20:55:52] <Reception123>	 that is something we could change now 
[20:56:06] <Skizzerz>	 well right now there is no config in # of actions at all
[20:56:12] <Skizzerz>	 so I'd recommend opening that phab task :)
[20:56:55] <Reception123>	 Skizzerz: doing that right now :D. So I don't give Andre more work, what would the appropriate tag for a feature request like this one be?
[20:57:42] <Vulpix>	 There was back in 1.16 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgActiveUserEditCount
[20:58:01] <Reception123>	 Vulpix: yeah, Skizzerz mentioned that. So I think the right thing would be to re-add that
[20:58:48] <Skizzerz>	 yep, reverted in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/rSVN35867 -- there were no discussions in Special:Code on mw.o either so that's pretty much the entire reason I can find for the rv
[20:58:56] <Skizzerz>	 which boils down to "bad implementation" by my reading
[20:59:45] <Reception123>	 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212339 - subscribed both of you (mutante and skizzerz)
[20:59:53] <Reception123>	 hopefully someone looks at this sometime :P
[21:25:48] <Ark74>	 hi!
[21:26:17] <Ark74>	 What is the path to upgrade from 1.29.3 to 1.31.1?
[21:29:23] <Skizzerz>	 Ark74: you can directly upgrade between them, so follow the normal upgrade procedure at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading
[21:29:36] <Ark74>	 Do I need to pass on 1.30.1?
[21:29:39] <Skizzerz>	 no
[21:29:45] <Ark74>	 ohh!
[21:29:50] <Ark74>	 Cool =)
[21:29:51] <Skizzerz>	 you can go straight from 1.29 to 1.31, no need to go to 1.30 in the middle
[21:30:58] <Skizzerz>	 in general, mediawiki lets you upgrade from any old version to the latest version without intermediate steps. There are a couple of really, really, really old releases where this is not the case (10+ years old)
[21:31:16] <Skizzerz>	 but that's mostly due to the underlying system requirements changing than mediawiki itself
[21:32:20] <Ark74>	 Nice,
[21:32:32] <Ark74>	 My release log looks like;
[21:32:34] <Ark74>	 REL1_20
[21:32:34] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.21
[21:32:35] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.22
[21:32:35] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.23
[21:32:36] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.24
[21:32:36] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.25
[21:32:37] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.26
[21:32:39] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.27
[21:32:41] <Ark74>	 RELEASE-NOTES-1.28
[21:32:52] <Skizzerz>	 sigh
[21:34:33] <Skizzerz>	 Ark74: don't copy/paste lots of text here, the anti-spambot bot will snipe you as you just found out :)
[21:34:47] <Ark74>	 I see :(
[21:34:56] <Ark74>	 thanks
[21:35:10] <Skizzerz>	 you can use a pastebin like https://dpaste.de if you need to paste a lot of text (put it there, paste the URL in here)
[21:35:42] <Ark74>	 Yeah, i usually do, but they were "few" lines, according to me.
[21:35:44] <Ark74>	 hehe
[21:35:47] <Ark74>	 anyhow
[21:35:50] <Ark74>	 thanks!
[21:35:55] <Ark74>	 see you around!
[21:35:57] <Skizzerz>	 o/