![]() | 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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
norm
and ccnorm
functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the
TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore.
[2]Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I found the link in the language box by clicking edit links. There, the link under UIPM ID leads correctly to [9]. However, in the article it leads to [10], although the template does not include any id information, just {{UIPM}}.-- User:Tomcat7 ( talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tab
in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift
and Tab
in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row.
[12]Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Following up this discussion, I made this set of edits recently. Is that the sort of thing you meant? I may at some point work manually on some of the ~3000 links for casualties (some will be from outside articles). Is there a way to distinguish between external links not generated by {{ CWGC}} and those generated by that template? At a first pass, those with the name as part of the URL are not being emitted by the template, but I am sure there are ways to get a proper list. Also, the first one I clicked on I got stuck: Samuel Pethebridge. That uses 'citation' and the reference has been archived (for some reason). Once a batch have been done here, is there an easy way to transfer the CWGC id numbers to the corresponding wikidata pages, or should I leave that for a bot run later? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Does adding "|answered=yes" then changing it to "no" make any difference? No. Using "no" makes the template exactly the same as if the parameter were not there. So me reverting your edit achieved exactly the same goal as if I'd changed it to "no". Changing it back again, just so that I'd have to add "no", when you could have left it or added "no" yourself... See: WP:BUREAU. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Or if you're referring to the fact that the template says that it "should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus", I proposed the change before I put the edit request template there. No one responded. I thought it was non-controversial anyway. The first person who replied said, "I'll leave the TER up and see if anyone else wants to take that on". Since then, there has been continued discussion and no one has opposed it. Hence, non-controversial. If I don't use the edit request template, it will never get done because the community on that talk page is too small/inactive. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
User discussed is not welcome to post here.
|
---|
Hello, I just noticed you removed a comment on your talk page requesting assistance with a contest? I presume it was done accidentally, it was about a Midlands contest. It would be great to have a wiki-meet up built into it - I don't know if you remember me from the Queen Street Mill event? It might be a good idea to merge it with edit-a-thons. ツ Stacey ( talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Not here, please
|
---|
I know you think of me as an anti infobox zealot, or a threat. The truth is I generally use infoboxes myself. But I don't see their value in arts biographies where information is minimal. We're not google. I think editors who promoted content should be respected. I don't think it's right for them to attract negativity over something as minor as deciding against an infobox. You seem to repeatedly deny that there are any disputes over infoboxes, or that there is a group of pro infobox supporters who target articles by a small group. Tim, SchroCat and Cassianto seem to have departed now. Do you think it's their fault or do you think actually they've been subject to bullying in recent weeks? Do you think wikipedia is better off without such content producers because it means less articles will be without a box? Or do you think that the featured content they produce is actually worth more than something like an infobox? I have no idea what you stance is on this. Is making infoboxes uniform more important than our best contributors?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
|
We would get along much better if you'd try to focus on the message instead whether I'm conveying it the way you would have. I am not you, I do not write like you, and this will never change. The tension between us is unfortunate, since we so frequently agree on so many things, and could probably work together well if we could back off a little from the tooth-grinding. Let me know what I can do in that regard. I recognize that I've been a little testy with you lately, but it's been mostly reactive to testiness coming from you, and that may in turn stem from the same coming from my direction earlier, etc. I'm not even sure why this started or when (probably some time like 2008), but it seems increasingly silly and pointless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you changed the ncatlab template recently -- it appears to have dropped the word "in", and I can't figure out how to reinstate it. Viz. it now reads, for example, Pointed object at the nLab whereas it used to read, last week, Pointed object in nLab (without the quotes, with the word "in"). On the one hand, it might seem like a really fairly minor difference, but on the other hand, it makes the references look really weird and funky. Can the word "in" be re-inserted? Can the quotes be removed? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
The only valid argument for deletion of UniProt2 was it wasn't transcluded enough. There were hundreds of transclusions that could have been reasonably been made and I was willing to do this. The deletion of this template therefore makes no sense whatsoever. Boghog ( talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
norm
and ccnorm
functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the
TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore.
[2]Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I found the link in the language box by clicking edit links. There, the link under UIPM ID leads correctly to [9]. However, in the article it leads to [10], although the template does not include any id information, just {{UIPM}}.-- User:Tomcat7 ( talk) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tab
in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift
and Tab
in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row.
[12]Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Following up this discussion, I made this set of edits recently. Is that the sort of thing you meant? I may at some point work manually on some of the ~3000 links for casualties (some will be from outside articles). Is there a way to distinguish between external links not generated by {{ CWGC}} and those generated by that template? At a first pass, those with the name as part of the URL are not being emitted by the template, but I am sure there are ways to get a proper list. Also, the first one I clicked on I got stuck: Samuel Pethebridge. That uses 'citation' and the reference has been archived (for some reason). Once a batch have been done here, is there an easy way to transfer the CWGC id numbers to the corresponding wikidata pages, or should I leave that for a bot run later? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Does adding "|answered=yes" then changing it to "no" make any difference? No. Using "no" makes the template exactly the same as if the parameter were not there. So me reverting your edit achieved exactly the same goal as if I'd changed it to "no". Changing it back again, just so that I'd have to add "no", when you could have left it or added "no" yourself... See: WP:BUREAU. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Or if you're referring to the fact that the template says that it "should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus", I proposed the change before I put the edit request template there. No one responded. I thought it was non-controversial anyway. The first person who replied said, "I'll leave the TER up and see if anyone else wants to take that on". Since then, there has been continued discussion and no one has opposed it. Hence, non-controversial. If I don't use the edit request template, it will never get done because the community on that talk page is too small/inactive. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
User discussed is not welcome to post here.
|
---|
Hello, I just noticed you removed a comment on your talk page requesting assistance with a contest? I presume it was done accidentally, it was about a Midlands contest. It would be great to have a wiki-meet up built into it - I don't know if you remember me from the Queen Street Mill event? It might be a good idea to merge it with edit-a-thons. ツ Stacey ( talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Not here, please
|
---|
I know you think of me as an anti infobox zealot, or a threat. The truth is I generally use infoboxes myself. But I don't see their value in arts biographies where information is minimal. We're not google. I think editors who promoted content should be respected. I don't think it's right for them to attract negativity over something as minor as deciding against an infobox. You seem to repeatedly deny that there are any disputes over infoboxes, or that there is a group of pro infobox supporters who target articles by a small group. Tim, SchroCat and Cassianto seem to have departed now. Do you think it's their fault or do you think actually they've been subject to bullying in recent weeks? Do you think wikipedia is better off without such content producers because it means less articles will be without a box? Or do you think that the featured content they produce is actually worth more than something like an infobox? I have no idea what you stance is on this. Is making infoboxes uniform more important than our best contributors?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
|
We would get along much better if you'd try to focus on the message instead whether I'm conveying it the way you would have. I am not you, I do not write like you, and this will never change. The tension between us is unfortunate, since we so frequently agree on so many things, and could probably work together well if we could back off a little from the tooth-grinding. Let me know what I can do in that regard. I recognize that I've been a little testy with you lately, but it's been mostly reactive to testiness coming from you, and that may in turn stem from the same coming from my direction earlier, etc. I'm not even sure why this started or when (probably some time like 2008), but it seems increasingly silly and pointless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you changed the ncatlab template recently -- it appears to have dropped the word "in", and I can't figure out how to reinstate it. Viz. it now reads, for example, Pointed object at the nLab whereas it used to read, last week, Pointed object in nLab (without the quotes, with the word "in"). On the one hand, it might seem like a really fairly minor difference, but on the other hand, it makes the references look really weird and funky. Can the word "in" be re-inserted? Can the quotes be removed? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.
The only valid argument for deletion of UniProt2 was it wasn't transcluded enough. There were hundreds of transclusions that could have been reasonably been made and I was willing to do this. The deletion of this template therefore makes no sense whatsoever. Boghog ( talk) 16:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)