![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Could you look at my comment here and tell me if you think it could be easily done on our side or if we'd have to file a bug (if you know)? Specifically, having a redlink from the "talk" tab lead to a "new section" on the talk page instead simply editing the talk page. I've looked around Mediawiki but haven't found anything. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, now I see why you reverted the conversion to WPBM. The thing is, it's often placed inside a banner shell, and unless WPBM is used, it doesn't collapse! So is there any way we can customize the text on the nested version so that it doesn't have the prefix "WikiProject"? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of {{
WPBannerHeader}}
?? I dislike the name intensely, but couldn't think of a better one.
Happy‑
melon
21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Happy-melon/Archive 11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you fix your template so that there is a space before and after the separator? Right now, you get toolbars that look like:
(user| talk| block)
But most of the toolbars I've seen have spaces before and after the separator like so:
(user | talk | block)
The lack of the space before makes the toolbar look funny to me. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen it yet or not, but I left you a reply over at Template talk:WPBiography. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Has been fixed. *\o/* So are we going to use common.css to style tags? It would seem like the sensible thing to do. But I am not sure what the best way to propose this is. Perhaps you can run with it since you created the bug request? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Did you mean to remove the overflows I added when making your last reply here? It results in the page scrolling horizontally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Now after the bug 18092 was fixed, should we enable this feature again? Ruslik_ Zero 08:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This category, which you so wisely created seven months ago, has had a population of ten to twelve pages for the past few months. I have a little extra time this morning so I popped in to see if a page may have been added. Ninety-two pages have been added.
I opened the first one,
Norris J. Lacy, and was immediately struck that the red error message did not appear. I opened the edit mode and could only find a single instance of a sort value, the {{
DEFAULTSORT}}. There is no |sort-value=
in an info box and {{
lifetime}} is not used. There is even a value for the |listas=
on the talk page.
What could have gone wrong in the programming that populates this category for it to have misbehaved this badly? (I am using Firefox 3 on Windows 2000 so it cannot be a problem with IE.)
(See what happens when you take a break? We're going to run out of hand baskets pretty soon.)
I'll bet that was not fun to find. I have added an explanation of the nature of the page to the top of the reference template page with a specific request that no data of any kind be entered on the page.
I still find it upsetting that the template did not generate the error messgae on the pages where it occurred.
I am sorry that I assumed that it was an unforeseen programming contingency.
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs ( talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice you have been busy elsewhere, but if you could comment on the latest specific proposal at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell it would be appreciated. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are handy with templates and I am hoping you can help me with a modification to {{ navd88}}. See {{ Navd 88/sandbox}}. I'm having trouble getting a value to display in a reference note. See template:navd88/testcases. {{{elev}}} is not parsed. I'm hoping you know of someway around the problem or another editor who might be able to help. -- droll [chat] 23:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
<references />
tag at the bottom of the page). So when it comes to parse the contents of the ref tag, it is not within the context of the surrounding template any more, so parameter expansion, as you notice, fails.
Happy‑
melon
14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi
As a master of all known wikimarkup, I'm sure you can tell me why I had to make
this workaround the get the comparison to work? The apostrophe seems to mess up the output of {{FULLPAGENAME}}. From a quick test, both single and double quotes have that problem, other candidates like backslash seem to be OK. Page output always looks OK, and the code {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME:Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard}}|...
would have also worked. Bug. Known bug? You're keeping an eye on the lists and IRC, I think, and this seems like it should have surfaced somewhere else before, but I can't find anything in bugzilla. Would you happen to know of anything, or should I open a new one?
Cheers,
Amalthea
00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi-need your help with above problem. Thanks -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You edited the WPFLorida banner about two weeks ago, and the changes you made broke the template; all of our B-class articles (except one) are showing up as C-class, although when one edits the template, it shows up as B-class. Could you undo or fix whatever it is you broke? (I see several edits, and I am not a template guru; I'd prefer not to just blindly revert.) This is an issue for over 150 pages; we had very few C-class articles a few weeks ago, and now we have 163, almost all of which show up as B class in the edit pane. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just checking; I sent you a rather long-winded email, I just want to make sure that you got it, and that my insightful prose isn't adorning some junk filter as we speak. A trash can I can tolerate, but never a junk filter. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
From Template talk liste: ...this template to the Spanish one, and tell me what we can do to make it look smaller, like yours? Particularly the text size and the line spacing of the description, and also the help text is placed in yours starting from the very left. The other stuff is the same. I don't understand about template so please try to make changes there without asking! Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Actually, the year of birth is on her bio at the website for the movie "the color of magic" (go to "Behind the Scenes - Cast bio's). The convention "Name (Place of birth, year)" is commonly used in the introduction of bio's on Wikipedia but I'm sorry if that bothered you. Best regards, Spraakverwarring ( talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Happy-melon. Regarding the conversion of WPTN to WPBannerMeta, the reason it was reverted previously is that, no offence, WPBannerMeta is so friggin' convoluted that if I need to make changes for whatever reason, I can't begin to make heads or tails of the meta template to do so. Same for the various Cite XXX templates. To be honest, I utterly loath meta templates because of this. They are entirely editor-unfriendly. For the time being, I'll leave as is, but don't be surprised if I revert. I suppose I'll leave the categories intact, though I have to ask, why in the world is the term "article" used in the category names for categories, template, images, etc? I know that's become the standard, mostly because of WPBM implementation, but it makes absolutely no logical sense? Anyway, cheers :/ — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
mbox}}
, {{
navbox}}
, etc. If you spent some time looking at WPBM I'm sure you would come to understand it, but of course, there's no reason to require you to do so :D. The less said about {{
citation/core}}
the better; that template is an embarrassment to meta-templates everywhere.Hi, I saw you redirected the Template:Sys rating tonight, and I referted it for now, because I am afraid otherwise the whole Wikiproject Systems assessment will crash.
I have been trying to replace the {{ WikiProject Systems}} with the {{ Sys rating}} for over a year now, see also here.
I guess I changed about 1500 templates, but didn't change the last 650 Template:WikiProject Systems.
I guess this redirect would put me back 1.5 years back, with a template with no fields. I guess this can't be your intention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
sys rating}}
, I added appropriate code to {{
WikiProject Systems}}
to display the 'field' assessment in that banner. I think it's a very good idea to do a high-level categorisation like that, but it is unnecessary to change the templates in the process, especially from the one that is at the 'standard' template title for WikiProject banners, to one that is extremely unintuitive and confusing. The articles that still need to be assigned a field are collected in
Category:Unassessed field Systems articles, so you can easily see how many you still need to work on (about 600, as you said). Merging the two banners allows you to consolidate all the functionality in one place, take advantage of the latest features and bugfixes from {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, avoid using a confusing title for the banner, and still complete the field categorisation that I agree is a good idea. Am I missing the issue?
Happy‑
melon
21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC){{
maths rating}}
(an equally unintuitive title) than most other banners; did you base it on that template? My strong feeling is that WPSystems' project banner should be located at {{
WikiProject Systems}}
. If you are determined to keep the 'horizontal' display, then copying (or history merging) {{
sys rating}}
over would be the way forward.|field=chaos
must result in the page being categorised into
Category:Systems articles in Chaos theory. That is the most important thing to ensure the scheme remains intact, and that is indeed the case with the extra note I added to {{
WikiProject Systems}}
. As long as that's the case, you can quite safely redirect one template to the other (as I did), and the pages will start to display the new template, where the |field=
parameters will have a slightly different, but still effective, result.{{
WikiProject Systems}}
, and you avoid the duplication and the unintuitive title. Hope this helps,
Happy‑
melon
09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC){{Sys rating|...}}
instead of {{WikiProject Systems|...}}
?? They're absolutely fine: because
Template:Sys rating redirects to
Template:WikiProject Systems, all the pages display the same template no matter which one they call.
Happy‑
melon
21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, I just took a look a the [1] to check if things are fine, and it doesn't seems like it. Could you check. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
One other question. On the Template:WikiProject Systems in the yellow template on top the term "Quality unassessed" links to Category:Unassessed quality Systems articles with the message that "This category is located at Category:Unassessed Systems articles". And the term "importance unassessed" links to the non-existing Category:Unassessed importance Systems articles. Is there a way to fix it? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys. The situation doesn't seem stable yet, see here. Could you take a look -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on a template to go with the {{ Assessment Class Summary}} and I cannot get it to work quite right. The last section of the first pat will not display the {{ -importance}} (???) template and I cannot see what is missing. Would you mind taking a look see to see what I am doing wrong? -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
He fixed it, thanks for the help offer. Again. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To be sure what people are supporting, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to move your comment if you were supporting the expansion of uploader as well as the ability for admins to grant it. – xeno talk 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For your diligent efforts performing the thankless (well, until now) grunt work on changing over "Abuse" filter to "Edit" filter. – xeno talk 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed you did a lot of work with the transclude and navbox templates. After trying to mimic the template all my templates went CRAZY and now instead of vde i'm getting [[Template:FULLPAGENAME:Page]] everywhere. Any idea what caused this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinpedia ( talk • contribs)
{{FULLPAGENAME}}
etc, to take parameters (this was fairly recently-added functionality). You need to persuade whoever runs your wiki to upgrade to version 1.15.
Happy‑
melon
22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Hi, I just remembered this thread Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem. With David on wikibreak, I was wondering if you'd like to volunteer (either yourself or another admin) to take over these tasks? (There seem to be a few things in the thread that need to be investigated or just fixed). Sorry and thanks ;) -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
sister}}
to not link the images at all, and change the text of each instance to put the link to the actual content first, and to include a link to the project description here somewhere in the text? Sister doesn't AFAIR use {{
click}}
; that's a horrible hack as the Usability essay you linked to notes. Are the
remaining templates really all fully-protected?
Happy‑
melon
09:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I found your entry at the Governance Review talk page offensive; but perhaps I should try to assume good faith. Tony (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The proposal was very carefully crafted and I believe the community will eventually arrive at it, even if the numbers 17 and 2 are different. The codification of these matters has to be put in place if Mr Wales's role is changed. Tony (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you modified the template to use template:top icon. I tried fixing some of the functionality which was lost, but I'm uncertain as to the exact formatting. I also purged the "cat=" variable from the documentation page, as I can't see how to retain that functionality with the standardized template. Can you review? Did I miss a way to get the "cat=" function to still work? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
topicon}}
, you specify extra spacing, not total spacing. I've restored the category functionality; sorry for breaking that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
Happy‑
melon
22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
FYI,
WP:VPT#Monobook.js not working?.
Cheers,
Amalthea
22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not change this without proper consensus ever again. There was no proper consensus on the page you have linked in your edit summary. Also, I cannot see a consensus for this change anywhere else. Finally, your change did cause errors. I respectfully ask you to be much more careful when modifying such an important page in the future. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with
sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of
disruptive edits, which earn
warnings and
blocks.
Per your request... =D 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You reported T19865. After stumbling across Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace, I noted "Caution: Some messages must have HTML links, and others must have wikilinks. To find out which is which, you must know where the message is used in the interface." I'm not sure what the last part means. I have now fixed messages like MediaWiki:Cite error references no text by using an external link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Good day to you, There is a new tool for checking to see if images have alt text and I would like to request it be added to the toolbox for featured content reviews. I would have done it myself but the template is restricted to administrators. I will post the link here in a moment. Here is the link to the new tool. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have any thoughts on my last comment here? Regards. PC78 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished cleaning up Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters. There's one archive that I didn't want to touch because it's an archive, and one spreadsheet (or whatever it's called) that I could not touch. Now what is the next step? Will these "accessmonthday" and "accessdaymonth" parameters be deprecated? Debresser ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
What do you think about removing this? (the comment says "REMOVE THIS LINE AFTER 22/01/2009"...)
Have a nice week! ;-) Helder ( talk) 12:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed that you moved Lady Rose Gilman to Rose Gilman, saying that honourifics are not used in titles. For some reason, titles of all the articles about the children of British peers contain "Lord" or "Lady" and there is no opposition. The article about Lady Rose Gilman now stands out for no reason. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Somehow the assessment material for Vanuatu seems to be nonfunctional. With the new updates, what are the specific codes to provide subproject assessments with this template? John Carter ( talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you gotten around to doing sth about the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth parameters in Template:Cite web? Debresser ( talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You may may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you edited Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. Perhaps you can have another look at it, because I was trying to make spaces appear in the right place on Template:Grading scheme but it's still not working. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, long time no speak. I was interested to see that you were going for oversight, and a bit baffled to see all the opposes. It's a fairly unhelpful process when editors are not encouraged to justify their votes. It's also interesting to see the imbalance between the numbers going for oversight and checkuser ... with your focus on the technical side I was curious about your choice, as checkuser must surely be the more technically difficult tool to use. I note that you've done some related work with the software, but I would imagine that the oversight interface is pretty straightforward. Anyway good luck with it, and don't worry if it's not successful; they're a fickle bunch. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your success. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a working version of an idea about a way to write templates that involve tables. The code is at User:Droll/sandbox/code. It uses a substitution method. To work the code needs to be copied into a template or sandbox and saved. A substituted version is at User:Droll/sandbox. It's kind of like compiling or linking code when using C or something. The code needs to formatted a little differently if template code readability is an issue although it is probably easier to read the original the way it is. You can find test cases at User:Droll/sandbox/testcases and a local copy of the documentation page at User:Droll/sandbox/doc. The advantage of the resulting template is that it uses much less overhead when transcluded than a template created using a meta template like {{ infobox}}. I found a version Martin created using original template code for {{ Infobox Protected area}} before it was modified by substitution. It is at Template:Infobox Protected area/sandbox. I copied it to User:Droll/sandbox 1 and then compared the overhead of my version with that of the meta template version using the documentation page as a testbed.
My strange version reported:
compared to the infobox meta template version:
The doc page transcludes four instances of the template. There is a known bug somewhere that shows up in the documentation for sandbox 1. It has something to do with {{ convert}}, {{ infobox}} and only shows when the {{ documentation}} template is used. I don't think its relevant here. I know that overhead is not supposed to be an issue but it still costs especially when a template is transcluded thousands of times. I would be thankful if you could look things over. It would be helpful if you could comment on my talk page. I realize my idea might involve more complexity for the template coder although I find it easy to write if the substitution issue is just ignored. I also realize that the meta template encourages conformity which might be seen as beneficial. – droll [chat] 06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_L'Achim
I think this article (especially the 'Work' section) is a bit controversial. I'd appreciate it if you could look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.149.127 ( talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I need some help. Will you adopt me? I'm really confused. Thankies :) Assyria hightower ( talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As one of the people who contributed to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_44#Double_redirects, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good. — Sebastian 00:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am suppose to be able to edit after 4 days and have more than 10 edits. Why is my account not able to edit semi-protect pages now? I seem to see something in the filter log, is this why? Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I able to edit semi-protect pages now? I just tried a semi-protect page didnt work still ? Can you make sure I can edit semi-protect pages now? Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok nevermnind, it works now thanks. Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you still want to help, I have some editprotected requests in waiting. Only 2 haven't been implemented yet. Debresser ( talk) 10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Rationale for my edits to Saxophone: 1- I removed the "major sixth lower" part from the range diagram because that's only true for alto - the sounding pitch depends on which type of sax is being played (an alto is pictured, but it's a general article). 2- I've never seen a horn with thumb keys (except for low-A baris), which leads me to suspect that they're extremely rare, so perhaps don't merit mention in a general article. I'll leave it to you to decide if any of that stuff should be changed/removed. Thanks! - Special-T ( talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a thumb key is standard for low-A instruments, but it doesn't duplicate or replace the pinky keys (as it says in the article). - Special-T ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll change it - the thumb key for low-A horns (I've only seen baris and a few altos with low A; so it's not a low-horn thing) is standard. - Special-T ( talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, left thumb, underneath the little "button" the thumb rests on. The octave key is above/beside that button, and the low A key is below it. The right thumb holds up the instrument with the thumb hook, but there aren't any keys there. - Special-T ( talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. See Talk:Names of China. -- TS 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If this talkback template doesn't work the way I think it should (i.e., treat Project talk space as though it is a User page) the link to where the questions are is at this location Please answer the questions related to a list category that was once used by the Chicago Project. Pknkly ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Pknkly ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Talk Back did fine. I'm "watching" the talk page for the project so you don't need to let me know you have answered on my talk page. ----
Hi. I found a couple of other places in the Doctor Steel Talk Page where all or part of the name(s) in question were still there, and removed them with an edit. Please see my last edit on that page, if you need to do something extra to remove them from the history. Much thanks. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you have any spare time, could you look at Template talk:WPBannerMeta/class/sandbox and tell me if there is any way to get that working? Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
class mask{{!}}FQS=yes
, which of course is a completely invalid name, so it escapes that particular template call and moves on. Then in the next parse the {{
!}}
template is expanded which obscures the situation somewhat.{{
class mask}}
which has |FQS=yes
hardcoded, and call that where you're currently using the ! template.
Happy‑
melon
10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've left some comments on the talk page. As you created the template, you may like to offer your input. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It turns out there are still a few articles that use the accessmonthday
and/or accessdaymonth
parameters. And the reason we didn't find them before, is because the parameters are being used not in {{
Cite web}} but in {{
LondonGazette}}. I added a detection there, and will fix any new findings.
Debresser (
talk)
00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Same in {{ Cite map}}. Debresser ( talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I added another two templates. See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Accessdate for updates, if you are interested.
I can't think of a way to catch all of them together in one place. Do you have any ideas? Debresser ( talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have a request for you. Could you please have a look at Category_talk:Cite_web_templates_using_unusual_accessdate_parameters#Rename? Debresser ( talk) 08:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Today I added detection and updated templates and documentation pages for another few templates. Detail on my userpgae (link above). Would you mind checking one of htem, to see if the technical side is correct? BTW, note that I have not removed the parameters from the templates in all cases. There is time enough to do that later for all templates together. At the moment I am concentrating on detection and fixing the articles. I did some 160 today, mostly from {{ LondonGazette}}. Debresser ( talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Finished checking all citation templates for usage of parameters. I liked what I did to Template:Retrieved. Debresser ( talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you have another look at Template_talk:Cite_web#Discussion_of_second_problem? We need opinions. Debresser ( talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We have a tentative, ananymous consensus of 3 editors here. While that is not so much, I think it is almost enough for such highly technical issues. I would like to propose the following course of action. 1. Wait untill AWB becomes functional again. 2. Let me fix the remaining 300 accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters. 3. Then let's do two things at once a. remove (deprecate) the accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters from the templates that still have them (using my list in User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Other_citation_templates), and b. add detection for the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters to the detection already present in those templates. BTW, I would like to add detection for the day parameter (a derivate of the date parameter) as well, as I wrote in the discussion. This won't do any harm. 4. Update all documentation pages. 5. Start fixing the deprecated parameters that will be found. 6. Only after that should we remove (deprecate) the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters the templates that still have them. Debresser ( talk) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I fixed the articles. I removed |accessdaymonth=
and |accessmonthday=
from four citation templates that still used them, but couldn't do so for the editprotected {{
Cite news}}. Could you do that, please?
Debresser (
talk)
19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Today I have added detection of the other parameters that are about to be deprecated to 13 of the 21 citation templates I am following. I'll ask you to do the other 8 protected ones later, after I had a change to clean out the category. Which undoubtably will get crowded soon enough. The accessyear parameter was very popular. Of course, I have not forgotten to update documentation pages, where necessary. Debresser ( talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hah! All 13 templates found precisely 1 page. Tomorrow we shall do the rest, if that is fine with you. Debresser ( talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the documentation files for those editprotected templates now. Could you please add {{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}{{{accessday|}}}{{{accessmonth|}}}{{{accessyear|}}}{{{day|}}}|[[Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}
to
Template:Cite web,
Template:Cite map,
Template:Cite news,
Template:Cite journal,
Template:Citation,
Template:Cite book,
Template:Cite video, and
Template:Cite encyclopedia. Apart from that, I saw a dot on {{
Cite book}}, probably from this line |PS = {{#if:{{{quote|}}}||{{{postscript|.}}}}}
, so while you're at it, could you add <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags to this template?
Debresser (
talk)
10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags on all four of them would solve this.
Debresser (
talk)
17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Now what are we going to do with 18.000+ pages? Debresser ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
|accessyear=
. Guess we'll have to see how many that leaves.
Happy‑
melon
19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)|accessyear=
is by far the most common of these parameters we have newly added.
Debresser (
talk)
20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)I have nominated Parodies of Harry Potter, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Happy-melon, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Con is On has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(Merge would be better,or even redirect.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
After making edits to Template:Catfd3 for over an hour, I came to the conclusion that this edit had ruined a feature of that template. I fixed it. Debresser ( talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I like it :-) (of course Mizabot would do the usual duty-- Caspian blue 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you're one of the primary contributors to Template:Icon and Template:Classicon, please have a look at Template_talk:Icon#Merge_Template:Classicon_into_this_template.3F if you can, thanks! Gary King ( talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what's going on with this category? I noticed that my user page was being added to it, tried a few null edits and the category seemed to appear and disappear at random (very odd). Did a search for the category name and the only result was a comment from yourself here, though it may or may not be related. PC78 ( talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:LOCEinuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please move to Persian Socialist Soviet Republic to Republic of Gilan due to its talk page. sicaspi 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi ( talk • contribs)
Hi. You left a note on my page about where I got the information from. Both of them have confirmed the dances they are doing via their Twitter pages. Hope that helps. David T Tokyo ( talk) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated T:WPBM ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, PC and I think there is a missing /td in Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist. Could you have a look please? It might explain the problems we've been having with this subtemplate. Cheers — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
</td>
somewhere to balance things, and the programmer needs to be shot if it was adding it anywhere other than after that </ol>
tag. We live in hope, however :D
Happy‑
melon
22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Happy-melon. I'm mid-way through a maintenance sweep of our featured lists and this one was tagged as needing more references. Interestingly within the last week or so it's been heavily edited and may not bear much resemblence to the list that you saw through to promotion on New Year's Day 2008. Would you be interested in giving the list a refresh? It appears, on the face of it, to need some serious work on the lead (links, grammar, spelling), and in the main body there's far too much bolding of text. The referencing could be improved as well. Let me know how you feel about it - if you're too busy then I'll list it up at WP:FLRC so others can join in to help keep it as part of Wikipedia's finest work. All the best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you active again? I mean, active enough to start fixing Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters? Debresser ( talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Could you look at my comment here and tell me if you think it could be easily done on our side or if we'd have to file a bug (if you know)? Specifically, having a redlink from the "talk" tab lead to a "new section" on the talk page instead simply editing the talk page. I've looked around Mediawiki but haven't found anything. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, now I see why you reverted the conversion to WPBM. The thing is, it's often placed inside a banner shell, and unless WPBM is used, it doesn't collapse! So is there any way we can customize the text on the nested version so that it doesn't have the prefix "WikiProject"? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of {{
WPBannerHeader}}
?? I dislike the name intensely, but couldn't think of a better one.
Happy‑
melon
21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Happy-melon/Archive 11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you fix your template so that there is a space before and after the separator? Right now, you get toolbars that look like:
(user| talk| block)
But most of the toolbars I've seen have spaces before and after the separator like so:
(user | talk | block)
The lack of the space before makes the toolbar look funny to me. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen it yet or not, but I left you a reply over at Template talk:WPBiography. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Has been fixed. *\o/* So are we going to use common.css to style tags? It would seem like the sensible thing to do. But I am not sure what the best way to propose this is. Perhaps you can run with it since you created the bug request? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Did you mean to remove the overflows I added when making your last reply here? It results in the page scrolling horizontally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Now after the bug 18092 was fixed, should we enable this feature again? Ruslik_ Zero 08:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This category, which you so wisely created seven months ago, has had a population of ten to twelve pages for the past few months. I have a little extra time this morning so I popped in to see if a page may have been added. Ninety-two pages have been added.
I opened the first one,
Norris J. Lacy, and was immediately struck that the red error message did not appear. I opened the edit mode and could only find a single instance of a sort value, the {{
DEFAULTSORT}}. There is no |sort-value=
in an info box and {{
lifetime}} is not used. There is even a value for the |listas=
on the talk page.
What could have gone wrong in the programming that populates this category for it to have misbehaved this badly? (I am using Firefox 3 on Windows 2000 so it cannot be a problem with IE.)
(See what happens when you take a break? We're going to run out of hand baskets pretty soon.)
I'll bet that was not fun to find. I have added an explanation of the nature of the page to the top of the reference template page with a specific request that no data of any kind be entered on the page.
I still find it upsetting that the template did not generate the error messgae on the pages where it occurred.
I am sorry that I assumed that it was an unforeseen programming contingency.
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs ( talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice you have been busy elsewhere, but if you could comment on the latest specific proposal at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell it would be appreciated. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are handy with templates and I am hoping you can help me with a modification to {{ navd88}}. See {{ Navd 88/sandbox}}. I'm having trouble getting a value to display in a reference note. See template:navd88/testcases. {{{elev}}} is not parsed. I'm hoping you know of someway around the problem or another editor who might be able to help. -- droll [chat] 23:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
<references />
tag at the bottom of the page). So when it comes to parse the contents of the ref tag, it is not within the context of the surrounding template any more, so parameter expansion, as you notice, fails.
Happy‑
melon
14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi
As a master of all known wikimarkup, I'm sure you can tell me why I had to make
this workaround the get the comparison to work? The apostrophe seems to mess up the output of {{FULLPAGENAME}}. From a quick test, both single and double quotes have that problem, other candidates like backslash seem to be OK. Page output always looks OK, and the code {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME:Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard}}|...
would have also worked. Bug. Known bug? You're keeping an eye on the lists and IRC, I think, and this seems like it should have surfaced somewhere else before, but I can't find anything in bugzilla. Would you happen to know of anything, or should I open a new one?
Cheers,
Amalthea
00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi-need your help with above problem. Thanks -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You edited the WPFLorida banner about two weeks ago, and the changes you made broke the template; all of our B-class articles (except one) are showing up as C-class, although when one edits the template, it shows up as B-class. Could you undo or fix whatever it is you broke? (I see several edits, and I am not a template guru; I'd prefer not to just blindly revert.) This is an issue for over 150 pages; we had very few C-class articles a few weeks ago, and now we have 163, almost all of which show up as B class in the edit pane. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just checking; I sent you a rather long-winded email, I just want to make sure that you got it, and that my insightful prose isn't adorning some junk filter as we speak. A trash can I can tolerate, but never a junk filter. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
From Template talk liste: ...this template to the Spanish one, and tell me what we can do to make it look smaller, like yours? Particularly the text size and the line spacing of the description, and also the help text is placed in yours starting from the very left. The other stuff is the same. I don't understand about template so please try to make changes there without asking! Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Actually, the year of birth is on her bio at the website for the movie "the color of magic" (go to "Behind the Scenes - Cast bio's). The convention "Name (Place of birth, year)" is commonly used in the introduction of bio's on Wikipedia but I'm sorry if that bothered you. Best regards, Spraakverwarring ( talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Happy-melon. Regarding the conversion of WPTN to WPBannerMeta, the reason it was reverted previously is that, no offence, WPBannerMeta is so friggin' convoluted that if I need to make changes for whatever reason, I can't begin to make heads or tails of the meta template to do so. Same for the various Cite XXX templates. To be honest, I utterly loath meta templates because of this. They are entirely editor-unfriendly. For the time being, I'll leave as is, but don't be surprised if I revert. I suppose I'll leave the categories intact, though I have to ask, why in the world is the term "article" used in the category names for categories, template, images, etc? I know that's become the standard, mostly because of WPBM implementation, but it makes absolutely no logical sense? Anyway, cheers :/ — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 22:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
mbox}}
, {{
navbox}}
, etc. If you spent some time looking at WPBM I'm sure you would come to understand it, but of course, there's no reason to require you to do so :D. The less said about {{
citation/core}}
the better; that template is an embarrassment to meta-templates everywhere.Hi, I saw you redirected the Template:Sys rating tonight, and I referted it for now, because I am afraid otherwise the whole Wikiproject Systems assessment will crash.
I have been trying to replace the {{ WikiProject Systems}} with the {{ Sys rating}} for over a year now, see also here.
I guess I changed about 1500 templates, but didn't change the last 650 Template:WikiProject Systems.
I guess this redirect would put me back 1.5 years back, with a template with no fields. I guess this can't be your intention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
sys rating}}
, I added appropriate code to {{
WikiProject Systems}}
to display the 'field' assessment in that banner. I think it's a very good idea to do a high-level categorisation like that, but it is unnecessary to change the templates in the process, especially from the one that is at the 'standard' template title for WikiProject banners, to one that is extremely unintuitive and confusing. The articles that still need to be assigned a field are collected in
Category:Unassessed field Systems articles, so you can easily see how many you still need to work on (about 600, as you said). Merging the two banners allows you to consolidate all the functionality in one place, take advantage of the latest features and bugfixes from {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, avoid using a confusing title for the banner, and still complete the field categorisation that I agree is a good idea. Am I missing the issue?
Happy‑
melon
21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC){{
maths rating}}
(an equally unintuitive title) than most other banners; did you base it on that template? My strong feeling is that WPSystems' project banner should be located at {{
WikiProject Systems}}
. If you are determined to keep the 'horizontal' display, then copying (or history merging) {{
sys rating}}
over would be the way forward.|field=chaos
must result in the page being categorised into
Category:Systems articles in Chaos theory. That is the most important thing to ensure the scheme remains intact, and that is indeed the case with the extra note I added to {{
WikiProject Systems}}
. As long as that's the case, you can quite safely redirect one template to the other (as I did), and the pages will start to display the new template, where the |field=
parameters will have a slightly different, but still effective, result.{{
WikiProject Systems}}
, and you avoid the duplication and the unintuitive title. Hope this helps,
Happy‑
melon
09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC){{Sys rating|...}}
instead of {{WikiProject Systems|...}}
?? They're absolutely fine: because
Template:Sys rating redirects to
Template:WikiProject Systems, all the pages display the same template no matter which one they call.
Happy‑
melon
21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, I just took a look a the [1] to check if things are fine, and it doesn't seems like it. Could you check. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
One other question. On the Template:WikiProject Systems in the yellow template on top the term "Quality unassessed" links to Category:Unassessed quality Systems articles with the message that "This category is located at Category:Unassessed Systems articles". And the term "importance unassessed" links to the non-existing Category:Unassessed importance Systems articles. Is there a way to fix it? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys. The situation doesn't seem stable yet, see here. Could you take a look -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on a template to go with the {{ Assessment Class Summary}} and I cannot get it to work quite right. The last section of the first pat will not display the {{ -importance}} (???) template and I cannot see what is missing. Would you mind taking a look see to see what I am doing wrong? -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
He fixed it, thanks for the help offer. Again. -- Jeremy ( blah blah) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
To be sure what people are supporting, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to move your comment if you were supporting the expansion of uploader as well as the ability for admins to grant it. – xeno talk 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For your diligent efforts performing the thankless (well, until now) grunt work on changing over "Abuse" filter to "Edit" filter. – xeno talk 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed you did a lot of work with the transclude and navbox templates. After trying to mimic the template all my templates went CRAZY and now instead of vde i'm getting [[Template:FULLPAGENAME:Page]] everywhere. Any idea what caused this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinpedia ( talk • contribs)
{{FULLPAGENAME}}
etc, to take parameters (this was fairly recently-added functionality). You need to persuade whoever runs your wiki to upgrade to version 1.15.
Happy‑
melon
22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Hi, I just remembered this thread Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem. With David on wikibreak, I was wondering if you'd like to volunteer (either yourself or another admin) to take over these tasks? (There seem to be a few things in the thread that need to be investigated or just fixed). Sorry and thanks ;) -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
sister}}
to not link the images at all, and change the text of each instance to put the link to the actual content first, and to include a link to the project description here somewhere in the text? Sister doesn't AFAIR use {{
click}}
; that's a horrible hack as the Usability essay you linked to notes. Are the
remaining templates really all fully-protected?
Happy‑
melon
09:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I found your entry at the Governance Review talk page offensive; but perhaps I should try to assume good faith. Tony (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The proposal was very carefully crafted and I believe the community will eventually arrive at it, even if the numbers 17 and 2 are different. The codification of these matters has to be put in place if Mr Wales's role is changed. Tony (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you modified the template to use template:top icon. I tried fixing some of the functionality which was lost, but I'm uncertain as to the exact formatting. I also purged the "cat=" variable from the documentation page, as I can't see how to retain that functionality with the standardized template. Can you review? Did I miss a way to get the "cat=" function to still work? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
topicon}}
, you specify extra spacing, not total spacing. I've restored the category functionality; sorry for breaking that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
Happy‑
melon
22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
FYI,
WP:VPT#Monobook.js not working?.
Cheers,
Amalthea
22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not change this without proper consensus ever again. There was no proper consensus on the page you have linked in your edit summary. Also, I cannot see a consensus for this change anywhere else. Finally, your change did cause errors. I respectfully ask you to be much more careful when modifying such an important page in the future. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with
sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of
disruptive edits, which earn
warnings and
blocks.
Per your request... =D 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You reported T19865. After stumbling across Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace, I noted "Caution: Some messages must have HTML links, and others must have wikilinks. To find out which is which, you must know where the message is used in the interface." I'm not sure what the last part means. I have now fixed messages like MediaWiki:Cite error references no text by using an external link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Good day to you, There is a new tool for checking to see if images have alt text and I would like to request it be added to the toolbox for featured content reviews. I would have done it myself but the template is restricted to administrators. I will post the link here in a moment. Here is the link to the new tool. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have any thoughts on my last comment here? Regards. PC78 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished cleaning up Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters. There's one archive that I didn't want to touch because it's an archive, and one spreadsheet (or whatever it's called) that I could not touch. Now what is the next step? Will these "accessmonthday" and "accessdaymonth" parameters be deprecated? Debresser ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
What do you think about removing this? (the comment says "REMOVE THIS LINE AFTER 22/01/2009"...)
Have a nice week! ;-) Helder ( talk) 12:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed that you moved Lady Rose Gilman to Rose Gilman, saying that honourifics are not used in titles. For some reason, titles of all the articles about the children of British peers contain "Lord" or "Lady" and there is no opposition. The article about Lady Rose Gilman now stands out for no reason. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Somehow the assessment material for Vanuatu seems to be nonfunctional. With the new updates, what are the specific codes to provide subproject assessments with this template? John Carter ( talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you gotten around to doing sth about the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth parameters in Template:Cite web? Debresser ( talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You may may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you edited Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. Perhaps you can have another look at it, because I was trying to make spaces appear in the right place on Template:Grading scheme but it's still not working. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, long time no speak. I was interested to see that you were going for oversight, and a bit baffled to see all the opposes. It's a fairly unhelpful process when editors are not encouraged to justify their votes. It's also interesting to see the imbalance between the numbers going for oversight and checkuser ... with your focus on the technical side I was curious about your choice, as checkuser must surely be the more technically difficult tool to use. I note that you've done some related work with the software, but I would imagine that the oversight interface is pretty straightforward. Anyway good luck with it, and don't worry if it's not successful; they're a fickle bunch. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your success. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a working version of an idea about a way to write templates that involve tables. The code is at User:Droll/sandbox/code. It uses a substitution method. To work the code needs to be copied into a template or sandbox and saved. A substituted version is at User:Droll/sandbox. It's kind of like compiling or linking code when using C or something. The code needs to formatted a little differently if template code readability is an issue although it is probably easier to read the original the way it is. You can find test cases at User:Droll/sandbox/testcases and a local copy of the documentation page at User:Droll/sandbox/doc. The advantage of the resulting template is that it uses much less overhead when transcluded than a template created using a meta template like {{ infobox}}. I found a version Martin created using original template code for {{ Infobox Protected area}} before it was modified by substitution. It is at Template:Infobox Protected area/sandbox. I copied it to User:Droll/sandbox 1 and then compared the overhead of my version with that of the meta template version using the documentation page as a testbed.
My strange version reported:
compared to the infobox meta template version:
The doc page transcludes four instances of the template. There is a known bug somewhere that shows up in the documentation for sandbox 1. It has something to do with {{ convert}}, {{ infobox}} and only shows when the {{ documentation}} template is used. I don't think its relevant here. I know that overhead is not supposed to be an issue but it still costs especially when a template is transcluded thousands of times. I would be thankful if you could look things over. It would be helpful if you could comment on my talk page. I realize my idea might involve more complexity for the template coder although I find it easy to write if the substitution issue is just ignored. I also realize that the meta template encourages conformity which might be seen as beneficial. – droll [chat] 06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_L'Achim
I think this article (especially the 'Work' section) is a bit controversial. I'd appreciate it if you could look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.149.127 ( talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I need some help. Will you adopt me? I'm really confused. Thankies :) Assyria hightower ( talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As one of the people who contributed to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_44#Double_redirects, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good. — Sebastian 00:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am suppose to be able to edit after 4 days and have more than 10 edits. Why is my account not able to edit semi-protect pages now? I seem to see something in the filter log, is this why? Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I able to edit semi-protect pages now? I just tried a semi-protect page didnt work still ? Can you make sure I can edit semi-protect pages now? Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok nevermnind, it works now thanks. Vazgen4 ( talk) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you still want to help, I have some editprotected requests in waiting. Only 2 haven't been implemented yet. Debresser ( talk) 10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Rationale for my edits to Saxophone: 1- I removed the "major sixth lower" part from the range diagram because that's only true for alto - the sounding pitch depends on which type of sax is being played (an alto is pictured, but it's a general article). 2- I've never seen a horn with thumb keys (except for low-A baris), which leads me to suspect that they're extremely rare, so perhaps don't merit mention in a general article. I'll leave it to you to decide if any of that stuff should be changed/removed. Thanks! - Special-T ( talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a thumb key is standard for low-A instruments, but it doesn't duplicate or replace the pinky keys (as it says in the article). - Special-T ( talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll change it - the thumb key for low-A horns (I've only seen baris and a few altos with low A; so it's not a low-horn thing) is standard. - Special-T ( talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, left thumb, underneath the little "button" the thumb rests on. The octave key is above/beside that button, and the low A key is below it. The right thumb holds up the instrument with the thumb hook, but there aren't any keys there. - Special-T ( talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. See Talk:Names of China. -- TS 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If this talkback template doesn't work the way I think it should (i.e., treat Project talk space as though it is a User page) the link to where the questions are is at this location Please answer the questions related to a list category that was once used by the Chicago Project. Pknkly ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Pknkly ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Talk Back did fine. I'm "watching" the talk page for the project so you don't need to let me know you have answered on my talk page. ----
Hi. I found a couple of other places in the Doctor Steel Talk Page where all or part of the name(s) in question were still there, and removed them with an edit. Please see my last edit on that page, if you need to do something extra to remove them from the history. Much thanks. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you have any spare time, could you look at Template talk:WPBannerMeta/class/sandbox and tell me if there is any way to get that working? Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
class mask{{!}}FQS=yes
, which of course is a completely invalid name, so it escapes that particular template call and moves on. Then in the next parse the {{
!}}
template is expanded which obscures the situation somewhat.{{
class mask}}
which has |FQS=yes
hardcoded, and call that where you're currently using the ! template.
Happy‑
melon
10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've left some comments on the talk page. As you created the template, you may like to offer your input. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It turns out there are still a few articles that use the accessmonthday
and/or accessdaymonth
parameters. And the reason we didn't find them before, is because the parameters are being used not in {{
Cite web}} but in {{
LondonGazette}}. I added a detection there, and will fix any new findings.
Debresser (
talk)
00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Same in {{ Cite map}}. Debresser ( talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I added another two templates. See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Accessdate for updates, if you are interested.
I can't think of a way to catch all of them together in one place. Do you have any ideas? Debresser ( talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have a request for you. Could you please have a look at Category_talk:Cite_web_templates_using_unusual_accessdate_parameters#Rename? Debresser ( talk) 08:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Today I added detection and updated templates and documentation pages for another few templates. Detail on my userpgae (link above). Would you mind checking one of htem, to see if the technical side is correct? BTW, note that I have not removed the parameters from the templates in all cases. There is time enough to do that later for all templates together. At the moment I am concentrating on detection and fixing the articles. I did some 160 today, mostly from {{ LondonGazette}}. Debresser ( talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Finished checking all citation templates for usage of parameters. I liked what I did to Template:Retrieved. Debresser ( talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you have another look at Template_talk:Cite_web#Discussion_of_second_problem? We need opinions. Debresser ( talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We have a tentative, ananymous consensus of 3 editors here. While that is not so much, I think it is almost enough for such highly technical issues. I would like to propose the following course of action. 1. Wait untill AWB becomes functional again. 2. Let me fix the remaining 300 accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters. 3. Then let's do two things at once a. remove (deprecate) the accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters from the templates that still have them (using my list in User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Other_citation_templates), and b. add detection for the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters to the detection already present in those templates. BTW, I would like to add detection for the day parameter (a derivate of the date parameter) as well, as I wrote in the discussion. This won't do any harm. 4. Update all documentation pages. 5. Start fixing the deprecated parameters that will be found. 6. Only after that should we remove (deprecate) the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters the templates that still have them. Debresser ( talk) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I fixed the articles. I removed |accessdaymonth=
and |accessmonthday=
from four citation templates that still used them, but couldn't do so for the editprotected {{
Cite news}}. Could you do that, please?
Debresser (
talk)
19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Today I have added detection of the other parameters that are about to be deprecated to 13 of the 21 citation templates I am following. I'll ask you to do the other 8 protected ones later, after I had a change to clean out the category. Which undoubtably will get crowded soon enough. The accessyear parameter was very popular. Of course, I have not forgotten to update documentation pages, where necessary. Debresser ( talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hah! All 13 templates found precisely 1 page. Tomorrow we shall do the rest, if that is fine with you. Debresser ( talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the documentation files for those editprotected templates now. Could you please add {{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}{{{accessday|}}}{{{accessmonth|}}}{{{accessyear|}}}{{{day|}}}|[[Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}
to
Template:Cite web,
Template:Cite map,
Template:Cite news,
Template:Cite journal,
Template:Citation,
Template:Cite book,
Template:Cite video, and
Template:Cite encyclopedia. Apart from that, I saw a dot on {{
Cite book}}, probably from this line |PS = {{#if:{{{quote|}}}||{{{postscript|.}}}}}
, so while you're at it, could you add <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags to this template?
Debresser (
talk)
10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
<includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags on all four of them would solve this.
Debresser (
talk)
17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Now what are we going to do with 18.000+ pages? Debresser ( talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
|accessyear=
. Guess we'll have to see how many that leaves.
Happy‑
melon
19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)|accessyear=
is by far the most common of these parameters we have newly added.
Debresser (
talk)
20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)I have nominated Parodies of Harry Potter, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Happy-melon, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Con is On has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(Merge would be better,or even redirect.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
After making edits to Template:Catfd3 for over an hour, I came to the conclusion that this edit had ruined a feature of that template. I fixed it. Debresser ( talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I like it :-) (of course Mizabot would do the usual duty-- Caspian blue 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you're one of the primary contributors to Template:Icon and Template:Classicon, please have a look at Template_talk:Icon#Merge_Template:Classicon_into_this_template.3F if you can, thanks! Gary King ( talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what's going on with this category? I noticed that my user page was being added to it, tried a few null edits and the category seemed to appear and disappear at random (very odd). Did a search for the category name and the only result was a comment from yourself here, though it may or may not be related. PC78 ( talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:LOCEinuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. –
Drilnoth (
T •
C •
L)
21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please move to Persian Socialist Soviet Republic to Republic of Gilan due to its talk page. sicaspi 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi ( talk • contribs)
Hi. You left a note on my page about where I got the information from. Both of them have confirmed the dances they are doing via their Twitter pages. Hope that helps. David T Tokyo ( talk) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated T:WPBM ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, PC and I think there is a missing /td in Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist. Could you have a look please? It might explain the problems we've been having with this subtemplate. Cheers — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
</td>
somewhere to balance things, and the programmer needs to be shot if it was adding it anywhere other than after that </ol>
tag. We live in hope, however :D
Happy‑
melon
22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Happy-melon. I'm mid-way through a maintenance sweep of our featured lists and this one was tagged as needing more references. Interestingly within the last week or so it's been heavily edited and may not bear much resemblence to the list that you saw through to promotion on New Year's Day 2008. Would you be interested in giving the list a refresh? It appears, on the face of it, to need some serious work on the lead (links, grammar, spelling), and in the main body there's far too much bolding of text. The referencing could be improved as well. Let me know how you feel about it - if you're too busy then I'll list it up at WP:FLRC so others can join in to help keep it as part of Wikipedia's finest work. All the best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you active again? I mean, active enough to start fixing Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters? Debresser ( talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)