Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

Spambots

Some of you have noticed the nuisance spambots floating about - they don't seem to be anything but a nuisance right now, but they do rather clog up the recent edits list...

I've been modifying the Captcha questions to try and find what works best, and the number at least seems to be reduced.

As an additional measure, I've also enabled blacklisting of known spam sources, as per this section, and have turned on the requirement for email addresses to be verified (I noted that none of the bots had emails registered). I note there's a couple of people who haven't got confirmed email addresses, but most people should be fine - if you need to confirm your address, you can find the option under "Preferences" in the top right corner, then by scrolling down to almost the bottom of the page of options.

--Danny252 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've enabled a similar blacklist as well. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We changed the Capcha question to a dynamic one which should have been harder for spambots to crack.
It wasn't working as well as hoped, so I have now reworded the question to see if that's any better.
I believe it's possible to create different user groups with different posting rights, so we could, for example move all the proven genuine contributors to a "trusted" group so that they don't have the inconvenience of having to solve a little puzzle every time they want to make an edit. I'll look in to that later.
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Within an hour of making the above changes, we had a load more spam.
It seems to follow a set pattern of creating a new account and then a User Page, so I have disabled the ability for the default user group, "User", to create pages and manually added all the genuine contributors to a new User Group "Trustworthy".
If I have missed you out, or if you have any other problems, you should still be able to edit this page, so either reply here, email me, or post on the forum or Facebook page and I'll sort it out.
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've moved all the known genuine contributors to a "Trustworthy" user group and removed page creation rights from all others.
They're still getting through though somehow, so I have just disabled the ability to write directly to the API.
I'm not too sure what this means myself, but I think it's a way to bypass the normal page creation method and, as I can't see any legitimate reason to use it, and there was an option to disable it, that's what I've done.
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that that is how they were getting through without page creation rights - basically it means sending the command to create a page directly without loading up the "Creating page..." form first.--WillSalt (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I note that the bots seem to be registering, but not actually making any edits currently - am I right to think that? The last time that I can see a spam page *created* is the 27th of Feb. I've also fiddled with the settings a bit more, and it definitely should be only allowing users with confirmed emails to edit/create/whatever now (plus the Trustworthy group, of course).

--Danny252 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The pattern has changed slightly. The spammers no longer create their own user page, they create a separate page complete with spam title.
I've asked for advice on the Mediawiki support desk and got some interest, but not a solution yet.
It looks like my next step is to work out how to access the access log. I had a quick look earlier, but it's not as simple as I hoped. I'll put a bit more time in to it later.
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems the bots may be smart enough to confirm emails as well, so I've removed that change I did, so it should be back to how it is. Regarding the comment on the helpdesk query about alternate access to the database, I've made sure that the old versions of wikis we had installed are now unable to be used at all. They shouldn't have been at all accessible, but now they won't work even if they are. --Danny252 (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to remove the mediawiki files that aren't being used from the server? There seems to be 3 installations of the wiki, 2 of which are from the early days and no longer needed(?) - and it is still possible to view those pages if you know the url to use. Sharpo (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just found a way to access logs, could be useful info - once I understand it more!! Sharpo (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing I did earlier today was to update some of the spam blacklists we've got setup. In some discussion with Sharpo over the access logs just now, I can see that a number of the IP addresses weren't being caught before, but should be with the new settings. --Danny252 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As a further update, Sharpo has been keeping an eye on the access log, and has noted that a number of bots were using a security hole which we patched up yesterday (a page which shouldn't have been accessible was). They still seem to be trying quite hard to use it, but no spam has appeared today. --Danny252 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say, if you need help interpreting the logs then feel free to ask, seeing as it's the sort of thing I'm supposed to know about profesionally! --WillSalt (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've manually removed a lot of the spam accounts, which whilst blocked and unable to be used, were still in existence and cluttering up various pages (e.g. the user list, which has gone from 300 to 30). This means that their "contributions" will likely have reverted to show just their IP addresses - don't worry, this doesn't mean that unregistered users have been editing the site! --Danny252 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting 'feature' is that the Recent Changes now shows your own IP address as the source of the former spam accounts! Gave me a minor heart attack at first! --Robin (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

After my last comment on this page, Danny252 and Grahamgave me FTP and CPanel access to the site, and I had a bit of a chat with Danny about what I found and what I thought could do with tidying up (hang on whilst I pop my Sensible Professional IT Consultant hat on...). The end result is: I have just finished doing a big cleanup and deleted just about everything that wasn't needed to run the current install of MediaWiki (I did leave a huge debug log that was hanging about in case anybody wanted it). I did take a backup before I did it, so if you're worried that anything has gone missing, don't be. Please let me know if anything now appears to be weirdly broken, but it shouldn't be. The point of the cleanup is: although everyone else has already done sterling work at disabling the configuration of the old installs, making sure that they're not linked anywhere, and so on, getting rid of extraneous stuff altogether is the best way of reducing the "attack surface" - the number of places people could get in, possibly using hacks we're not ourselves aware of. --WillSalt (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Stourport and Tenbury branches

Would it be more correct to refer to these as the Stourport Line and Wyre Forest Line on the map and alter the links, page titles and redirects to suit?

My inclination would be not to bother (to the casual SVRSevern Valley Railway visitor, both are branches off the line they are on). The former was simply a continuation of the old SVRSevern Valley Railway rather than a line in itself. The latter seems interchangeable between Wyre Forest Line, Tenbury Line and Tenbury Branch; Google favours the former but I'd be interested to dig out some original sources to see what the commonest usage was at the time. I don't think anyone browsing the wiki will get too confused as it stands.--Robin (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the link on the map to point to Wyre Forest Line, while keeping "Tenbury Branch" on the map itself. As the Wyre Forest Line article says, most Kidderminster to Bewdley trains continued towards Tenbury, so if anything, the Bridgnorth line was the branch. However, going by the fact that the disused line branches away at 90 degrees from the currently used line, it seems more intuitive to refer to it as the branch in a modern context.

Logo

Would it be a good idea to have a suitable SVRSevern Valley Railway image or logo on the main page. For a visitor seeing the page for the first time, it would give them some idea what it was all about. Yes, I know it should be obvious, but......

Sharpo (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same (I just mentioned it in one of the forum threads). I guess the main question is whether the SVRSevern Valley Railway would be happy with us using its logo - it's starting to sound like we'll need to get in contact with the office at some point on a few of these things. If they decide not, does someone feel suitably arty?

--Danny252 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in the meanwhile we should've adopted the SVRSevern Valley Railway Online logo. Also; starting to add headings here to separate topics. I hope you're all OK with this. Boldford (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I emailed marketing@svrlive.com on 16th January to ask permission to use the official SVRSevern Valley Railway logo. I haven't heard back yet, so I've gone and used it anyway. If I get a threatening letter from their solicitors, I'll change it back again. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That logo looks much better! Sharpo (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Location

We'll probably spend a lot of time providing info about the SVRSevern Valley Railway, but we also need to show where it is for people who come across this wiki & decide the railway might be worth a visit. So, for those arty people amongst us, how about finding a suitable size image of the UK that can be used, with a highlighted area showing exactly where the Railway is, then showing an enlargement of the area alongside the UK image with the main stations highlighted and the course of the railway.

Sharpo (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of maps, I've adapted the map at [1] to only show as much of the SVRSevern Valley Railway as is currently in use. It works OK on my sandbox, but not here http://www.svrwiki.com/Map.
I gather I need to import the template that the map is based on, but I can't find instructions on how to do that.
I was going to duplicate the full GWRGreat Western Railway/SVRSevern Valley Railway map and create a more detailed map, showing more features as well.
Is it worth persevering, or would it just be easier to create the maps some other way? --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was looking on the internet yesterday for suitable maps & saw that very same page, then thought I would do a tracing from a map & then create my own simple map from that - then scan & upload it. It was then I realised I was spending time on this instead of doing other things!! In answer to your question, I don't know how to edit that template to how you want it. May be better to draw a new version? Sharpo (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that the map requires a standard set of images (about 3000!) that exist on Wikipedia, which you can tile together to show the layout (e.g. plain track, station, disused station, and so on), as well as all the templates it pulls in. It might be possible to copy it over, but I don't know if it would be a good idea to pick and choose the bits we want, or alternatively to copy the whole lot over with a lot of redundant bits, but with the flexibility to make more in future.

--Danny252 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping it would be possible to import the template and just those icons used as it's a handy way of linking directly to stations on the line directly from the map. I was then going to create a more detailed map showing all the bridges etc. with a link to each. Maybe I'm asking too much and it would be best to stick to a normal image file of a map. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember years ago using some free software that allowed me to add links from a word or words pasted into an image on my site. There may be something similar for a wiki if you have time to try & search for it. This was the sort of thing I just found after a search, but not within a wiki - http://www.onextrapixel.com/examples/image-map/

Back again, just found an example on a wiki, there is an image where you can click on the different people you can see. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMapSharpo (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, took me a few hours to understand it, but I have learnt how to create more than one link from within an image within a wiki. My own wiki test included 2 locos in a photo & moving the cursor to either of the locos would give a link for that loco. Sharpo (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been spending far too long on this as well, but I've finally got there.
Click on the town names on the Map .
It takes a bit of trial and error to get the box coordinates in the right place, but I think this is a better than the standard route map as it allows linking of nearby features of interest, such as the Engine House. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some good work there. The main thing now is to get a suitable map - the OSOrdnance Survey maps will presumably somewhat awkward, given that the "Kidderminster" label is nearer to Bewdley Station than Kidder! --Danny252 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the map on the front page. Would it be worth putting on each of the station pages to show their positioning on the SVRSevern Valley Railway? --Brick60000 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Making changes

UpIn reference to the direction of travel means towards the major terminus (i.e. towards Kidderminster on the present day SVR) to now, everyone's been making changes without consulting anyone else. There haven't been any disputes yet, but should we be putting things to a vote first?
Minor edits of text should be OK, but what about more conspicuous changes like adding the maps and logo? I just went ahead and did it. Should we have discussed it first? I can easily undo it.
Should we have a picture on the front page? How do we pick one?
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you decide to have a picture on the front page, keep it interesting by changing it every week. Otherwise, once this wiki nears completion (if that is ever likely to happen) people aren't likely to look at it very often. Sharpo (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My 10p worth is so long as you think it is an improvement, carry on and add/edit as necessary which is the idea of a Wiki; stopping for votes just delays things. Worth adding a note in the summary if comment is required, eg if I had a better logo (which I don’t!) I would upload it and say “shall we try this instead?”.--Robin (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've "protected" the front page, logo and maps to prevent any malicious edits. We haven't had much spam yet, but there was the possibility that someone could alter the front page to something unwanted. If anyone wants to make a genuine edit, they can put it here on the Talk page and one of the administrators can do it.
I created the logo in Paint on my PC and thought I'd got a reasonably good match for the chocolate & cream. The cream looks a bit beige now on my chromebook. If anyone's got the correct colour codes, I'll do a new one.
I don't know if a picture as well as the two maps would be too much though?
There's a random image extension for wikimedia which can be installed.
One idea I had was a long thin picture of a full train in profile, taking up the full width of the page, but only a couple of lines worth of depth. The picture could be selected at random from one of each carriage set. Worth a try?
--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Image of the month

A couple of thoughts on pictures, following a revisit to Festipedia.

They have a picture of the month on the front page. Would that be a reasonable frequency to adopt, especially as the mods would presumably have to change it?

They also have a lot of historical photos 'from the collection', especially on the loco pages. Does the SVRSevern Valley Railway have a similar collection (Kidderminster Railway Museum?) and if so, is anyone on speaking terms with the owner(s) who could broach the subject of adding some here? Particularly the SVRSevern Valley Railway in GWRGreat Western Railway days and SVRSevern Valley Railway locos in original service (did any of our current locos definitely work on the original SVRSevern Valley Railway?), and also early days of the SVRSevern Valley Railway in preservation.

--Robin (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm planning to go down to the KRM this weekend for their signalling exhibition, and I'll have a go at mentioning this. I don't know whether they've got any plan to digitise their collection, but if so it would likely be a good source of images. --Danny252 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Using images with unknown copyright

I've avoided doing so until now, but uncredited photos keep turning up on Facebook and it seems a shame it miss out on them, so I've added two to the Dowles Bridge page with what I hope is a suitable "Get out of jail free" disclaimer. Even with an 1868 photo, there's no guarantee that the copyright has expired under the 70 year rule. Any thoughts on the legality of this ?--Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What I've not yet worked out is whether the copyright is (or at least can be) "extended" if the work is sold to someone else - if I buy a collection of old photos, do I get any rights, or is it still all linked to the original author (unless they specifically give some permission/waiver)? Equally, I'm not sure if digitising a piece of work is ever able to extend copyright (e.g. if I scan an old photo, do I get rights over the scan of somebody else's work?). If neither of those apply, then it's 70 years from the production of the work if the author is not known, or 70 years after their death if it is (so for an 1868 photo, the author would have had to survive until 1946). --Danny252 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding whether you can extend copyright by digitising a piece of work, the Ordnance Survey relinquishes crown copyright after 50 years as per the link I posted here. However the National Library of Scotland claims copyright over their scans of OSOrdnance Survey maps which are older than that, hence it appears you can do so (and I have updated all the OSOrdnance Survey extracts accordingly).--Robin (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes needed please

A section to note any amendments needed on this page for the attention of the administrators. Suggest we delete items when done to keep the list current.

Article/page count

I've removed the line in the introduction that gave the current number of articles/images on the wiki. I had recently noticed the main page was taking much longer to access than any other page, and that other pages would not load until the main page was loaded, implying it was somehow locking up a large number of resources. Removing the page/image counts, which were probably re-counted each time the page was opened, appears to have significantly improved the speed! I suspect this is a combination of the actual article counting process being slow for some reason, as well as the main page having to be generated from scratch each time it was viewed (in case the counts had changed) which is quite a slow process... --Danny252 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Does seem quicker - no great loss not having the information. --Robin (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki content license

It was realised earlier today that it was never made clear what license was applied to content on the Wiki, with the exception of uploaded files (where a license is picked on uploading).

I've applied the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, the same as is used on Wikipedia - this license does not apply if a different license is specified (e.g. uploaded images).

If you have any complaints, speak now, or forever hold your peace! --Danny252 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)