Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Happy-melon. 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Video templates, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Video templates has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Video templates, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
To continue a discussion elsewhere of a week ago and because I am really curious, in what specific ways is WPBS "superior" to WPB?
I feel that WPBS is more difficult to apply and a half-way point to what WPB accomplishes.
Thank you for your time.
I don't want to get you in trouble, but nor do I want to have to sort out every one of the problems created by myself, so at least by going a bit more public we can get volunteers to sort things out.
I am frustrated, and think that's coming out, but I don't bear you ill-will. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, after your change to talkheader the banner is distorted in my browser on most pages. A discussion was started here awhile ago, but didn't end in a resolution. I've left details and a screenshot on the banner Talk: page. Thanks. §hep • Talk 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears you, Wtimrock and Northern Thunder fixed the templates on the filmograghy and TV info I added to Empress Gladys' page. If so, thank you. Comprendo —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
Thought this might make you happy. §hep • Talk 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about using this on a different wiki I edit on - are your contributions multilicensed?--Tznkai (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment, they're not, but I'm certainly happy to consider multi-licensing the WPBM ones. Which wiki are we talking about, and which license does it use? Note also, however, that while I probably have a good 98% of the edits to the WPBM core templates, there are a couple of other editors in there too which may be licensable; the /templatepage section in particular I had relatively little to do with. And of course it depends on a host of other templates and CSS styles that I had little or no involvement with, but you can probably work around those. Happy‑melon 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a template that I use on WikiProject pages that links to the WikiMedia sites. I have an issue where sometimes the field I set to use for the project name does not provide a good search name, so I setup a variable that lets you define a separate name for the box and the project name is just used as a search term.
{{Food wikimedia}}
The problem is that I cannot get them to work right.
If the |name= is absent or undefined, I need the |project= field to be used as the search item. If the name field is defined, I need the heading box to display the term defined in the |name= field.
This is what I mean:
{{Food wikimedia
|project = Beer
|name =
}}
gives you:
| Find more about Beer on other Wikimedia Sites | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
{{Food wikimedia
|project = Beer
|name = Biere (French for beer)
}}
gives you:
| Find more about Biere on other Wikimedia Sites | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
It should be saying Find more about Biere on other Wikimedia Sites but retaining the links to beer.
Thanks for any help, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Done - you were missing a brace which screwed up your #if: clause. Happy‑melon 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed another set of eyes that could see through all of those braces and pipes. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you've use the [bugzilla.wikimedia.org] a bit. Just wondering if you've ever seen any requests in there for {{TEMPLATENAME}} and {{FULLTEMPLATENAME}}. It would make using templates a little simpler if there wasn't any need to set BANNER_NAME if WPBannerMeta or name in Navbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- This has been suggested in various places, but it's fundamentally incompatible with the MediaWiki parser engine. Essentially the way the parser works is to go through the wikitext looking for a template call. When it finds one, it replaces the entire template call with a placeholder, and takes it off to a workshop. Wikilinks and text in nowiki tags are also replaced by placeholders so they don't confuse the process (but wikitables aren't, which is why they screw up parserfunctions). The parser breaks the template up around raw pipe characters into the template name and parameter-value pairs (hence
{{!}}works), and splits each pair up into the parameter name and parameter value (hence{{=}}. On each fragment that's now present (template name, parameter-x-name, parameter-x-value, etc) the parser calls itself recursively to expand any other volatile code. Once it has completely static values for everything, it loads up the wikitext for the template that's being called and substitutes in the parameter values that have been defined. It replaces any undefined parameters with their defaults, if any, restores the placeholdered-out wikilinks etc, and then goes back to the article text and subs in the expanded content. It moves on to do the same for the entire page, then comes back to check that there are no newly-exposed volatile code segments to expand. Once it's happy that the entire page is static, it returns the content. - Within that process, it doesn't really make sense to consider a 'TEMPLATENAME' variable to have one constant value in the same way that PAGENAME does; the 'focus' of the parser moves around constantly as it expands various bits of the wikitext. Also, remember that such a variable is something that would have to be expanded by the parser, and exactly when that expansion occurs is heavily dependent on the architecture of the template (remembering of course that the explanation above is a gross simplification, there are innumerable optimisations that cause deviations from the simplistic method).
- It would be as soon as the text of the template page is read from the database, the occurences of TEMPLATEPAGE would be replaced with the name of the that page before the text is passed over to the parser. So for use in WPBannerMeta, would actually still need to pass through BANNER_NAME (contary to what I mentioned initally) but it would be set in the initial template, so for example in Template:WPCouncil, instead of |BANNER_NAME = Template:WPCouncil, would have |BANNER_NAME = {{TEMPLATEPAGE}}. I think the only real advantage would be for when the page was moved. The rest of the time, it wouldn't matter much as subst:PAGENAME does most of the work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wise and ingenius Template wizard...
Why, oh Why? can't I get Template:WPTennis_Navbar to show properly on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis. I assume that it is supposed to float and NOT force the text down (on the left)?
I grovel in advance -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, on my browser (FF3), it does float to the right. What browser are you using? Happy‑melon 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ok...so you BOTH "ROCK OUT LOUD"... My continued undying gratitude. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats}} hook doesn't seem to be processing the class value first before passing it over to the /qualityscale template. I've put an updated version of the code on Template talk:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats. I would have just put an {{editprotected}} request up but I thought it would be better if you could check that it looks ok first. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize what a wonderful thing this is? When you created it eight weeks ago was it your intention to address the conflict that pupped up in the category it created? I hope not because I have been, although if you want to jump in and take care of the ones under "S" and "T" while I finish "L" and do "M" through "R" I will not complain.
When I stumbled across the category there were 2,777 pages in it. By the end of today there will be fewer than 1,000. My goal is to get all the non-trivial items resolved by the end of next week so I can start on the pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, a project that should keep me out of trouble for the rest of my life.
Because I am resolving the conflicts in the first category I have learned more about how banners work than probably anyone else except the folks, like you, who know why the banners work as they do. I have also leaned what items can set the DEFAULTSORT. As an added bonus I have leaned a couple of keyboard shortcuts I did not know before and I have become almost addicted to Preview.
The absolutely best part about the Dup-DS is that the category it has created, that I will continue to monitor on a daily basis, is a safety net for me when I mess something up on a page in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. The easiest error to make is for me to neglect to put a listas value in a template that uses it, wants it, and will throw a fit if it is not there.
Thank you!
I already put this on the MediaWiki talk:Duplicate-defaultsort page with an "editprotected" but it may be wise to put it here.
Would you put a colon between the two left-brackets and the word "Category" so that Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts does not put the stage into the category.
Thank you.
At the end of one of my comments, I concluded by saying:
-
- I want to get a picture of what goes on. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You responded:
-
- Actually, that's exactly what happens:
So it would appear that what you're saying is "exactly what happens" is that I'm getting a picture of what goes on. Then you when on:
-
- new page creation is logged in the recentchanges table,
So what's that got to do with it? Presumably I'll find out by continuing to read your words:
-
- which is systematically purged after 30 days. The ability to search for new articles is lost, you have to look through articles individually to see if they were created 31 days ago.
The relevance is still unclear. So we continue:
-
- Since there is no enduring log of new page creations at all, the deletion process is actually more transparent.
The only way to make sense of this seems to be that you're trying to remind me that there's a log of deleted pages. This raises a really obvious question: Did you read my comments that you were replying to at all? Or are you totally clueless on purpose? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry, butting in, apologies if it's not welcome.) To Michael: although it is quite possible that Happy-melon was being incoherent at this time, please be aware that your tone of questioning is unlikely to get a helpful response. You would get more achieved if you were more civil around here. To Happy-melon, don't worry about Michael. He's always like this (or perhaps you know this already). Cheers, Martin 11:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on yet another template for a category tree at {{Project categories}}. It seems not to be accepting the {{{project}}} variable in the <categorytree>{{{project}}}</categorytree>.
Is this because of the HTML tags? Or is it something else? Your input would be greatly appreciated.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's because of the (pseudo) HTML tags. You need the well-known and widely-used parserfunction #tag: :D Happy‑melon 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wha? 8-/ Would you be referring to {{#categorytree}}? Thanks for doing that again, you are a big help to template neophytes such as my self. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi HM, i noticed you've done a lot of work on organising the flagged revisions and answered a lot of people's questions, interesting quantitative analysis too. Tom B (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you can help. Inside Category:Unassessed AFC articles is someone's monobook. It's annoying me because I can never clear this category completely! I've asked him/her about it on their talkpage but they don't seem to be active now. Is there any way you can fix this? Thanks, Martin 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
When are they going to be enabled? Do you know something about it? (days, weeks, months?) Ruslik (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please look at this diff. The error, "UNIQ2fc74f9c53a57ed-nowiki-00000000-QINU", appeared after I added the {{project categories}} template to the page. According to the function's talk page this is not the only time it has happened. It also appeared on another page I was working on but went away and is not appearing any where else. What can I do to fix this? it is messing up the whole project page.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi sorry to bother you about this
I thought I saw an article or chat page on the subject of reviewer privileges somewhere but i cannot seem to find it again
I have set myself up on the lab trial for FR as reviewer and uber-reviewer, but wondered what the equivalent is to be in the en.wiki version
Can you point me to the correct place to find out ?
Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- FlaggedRevisions allows the creation of a potentially unlimited set of sighting 'scales', each of which can have an arbitrary number of levels, which can be set by arbitrary groups, and pages can be set to give certain levels 'priority'. So on en.labs, there are two user rights, 'reviewer' and 'uber-reviewer', as you note. Reviewers can rate pages to 'level 1', and uber-reviewers can rate pages to 'level 2', if you like. Administrators can configure pages to either treat all revisions equally (ie the latest version is displayed whether it is sighted or not; or to treat 'level 1' sighting and 'level 2' sighting the same (that is, display any sighted version in preference to an unsighted version); or to only treat versions sighted by an uber-reviewer as sighted and display those by default. Essentially, there is an arbitrarily-long scale of sighting 'levels', with unsighted edits being at the bototm and edits by increasingly trusted users higher up; and administrators can configure where each page draws the line between what it considers 'drafts' and what it can display as the current revision. So if you set the bar on one page between level 0 (unsighted) and 'level 1' (sighted by a reviewer), then all edits by non-reviewers would be drafts, and all edits sighted by any type of reviewer would be incorporated immediately. On some other pages you could set the bar between levels 1 and 2, and reviewers wouldn't be able to make changes visible on those pages; only uber-reviewers can sight revisions to a high enough level to make them visible.
- That's all rather academic, however, because the proposed configuration on en.wiki doesn't have multiple levels: edits are either sighted or unsighted, and we only have one user group, reviewer, who can set those sightings. So having the 'uber-reviewer' permission on en.labs is not really the best way to see how flaggedrevs would work on en.wiki; all you need is the 'reviewer' permission.
- Hope this clarifies. Happy‑melon 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup that says it all !! thanks lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am creating an infobox for the Pubs Taskforce and want to add a #switch function to one of the fields. I think this is a difficult request and you don't have to help if it will take too much time. I have put the requirements in a commented out section in the mock up I created at the sand box (Template:Infobox Pub/Sandbox), and would love you help in getting it to work. I'm sorry, I just thought of some thing way more simple.
Thanks, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
from WP:CENT. You removed it as a "dead" discussion when people had participated in it within 24 hours. Jonathan321 (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I know people aren't supposed to use db-meta directly, but if they do, it doesn't put the page in any speedy deletion category, so the page looks as if it's marked for speedy deletion but no admin gets around to looking at it. (See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Jon Okada.) I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have db-meta add pages to category "Speedy deletion candidates", rather than having this done by the individual db templates. What do you think? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Difficult and somewhat delicate to ensure that all pages (in whatever namespace) tagged with the templates then go into the category, but still ensure the templates themselves don't. It could be done, but it would be somewhat awkward. Perhaps we could instead create a more rigorous "oi I thought we told you not to use db-meta directly" message? Happy‑melon 15:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Happy-melon, for some reason, Category:Importance or significance not asserted pages for speedy deletion is permanently showing up Category:Administrative backlog, no matter how many articles are in it, and I can't figure out why. The way you coded the template, it shouldn't show up unless it has more than 60 articles in it. In fact, the {{adminbacklog}} tag isn't showing up, so that's working like it should, but it's still showing up in CAT:AB more or less permanently, even after I've purged both pages. This has been going on the for the last few days, but I can't find what's changed, or why it's doing that. This is not a crucial problem, but it's perplexing, and I was hoping you could figure it out. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you edited the template for WP:ALM. I'm not sure, but I think it messed with our quality assessment categories a bit. For example, when I click Category:FA-Class alternative music articles, we should have 127 articles, but I checked earlier today and it said there were 118. No articles were untagged, though. I checked again right now and it says there's 115. Our GA category is having the same problem. I don't understand template code at all, so if you could see what the problem is I would be very grateful. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, please accept my apology for the lack of communication. Before I changed the banner, you were using categories like Category:FA-Class alternative music articles, with a lowercase "a", for quality, but catgories like Category:Top-importance Alternative music articles, with a capital "A", for importance. As R'n'B noticed, by updating the banner, I synchronised the categories so they all use an uppercase "A" like your actual project's name. So all your FA-Class articles are now located at Category:FA-Class Alternative music articles, etc. I intended to come back in a few days once all the articles had moved, and delete the old categories. Apologies for any confusion. Happy‑melon 12:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Also, I think I redirected some duplicate categories were the only difference was capitalization incorrectly, so if you can straighten that out, that would be great. Could you also delete the FL categories? They don't work, and we decided a long ago not to use list classifications. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got an issue with {{Film}}; with javascript disabled the banner is showing in it's uncollapsed form. As this is something beyond my expertise, and as it's causing a dispute with another editor, do you think you could perhaps lend a hand in fixing it? Many thanks in advance! :) PC78 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The collapsible function is JavaScript; the code in MediaWiki:Common.js is run in the users' browsers every time a page is loaded, and dynamically locates the collapsible tables on a page, adds identifying tags and the "show/hide" buttons, and the buttons execut more javascript functions when the user clicks on them to add and remove "display:none" tags to actually hide and show the content. Without JavaScript, there are no collapsible tables. I'm surprised he hasn't noticed that yet :D.
- Essentially, my reaction (having found the discussion - it would have been helpful to have made explicit links, but it wasn't exactly hard to find) is to link to WP:LAME. That has to be one of the most ludicrous edit wars I've ever seen. Firstly, note that you are both at the 3RR limit, as I think you're both aware. Secondly, there is no way to hide the content without JavaScript, pretty much by definition. Thirdly, expecting the site to look the same without JavaScript as it does with it, is completely ludicrous. The site must be accessible to users without JavaScript, but it is accepted that it will look inferior. That is absolutely no excuse for his actions. Happy‑melon 12:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the WP:LAMEness of this dispute was not lost on me; I've never seen such a hostile reaction to the mere placement of a project banner. I didn't include links because I didn't want to involve you beyond seeking a bit of technical advice. So in essense the only recourse here is to try and impress upon the user concerned the joys of enabling javascript, and the fact that without it there are just certain things that ain't going to look pretty? Is there some sort of essay or help page that documents this sort of thing? From an admin's perspective, how is this sort of thing best dealt with should it flare up again? PC78 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm always happy to help, and even if I don't get actively involved it is always easiest to diagnose a problem when you can see it first hand. Essentially yes, there is no solution except for him to recognise that the problem basically only affects him, and that he has brought it upon himself by using wikipedia without javascript. The presence and use of WikiProject banners is, while certainly not unanimously accepted, has consensus, and there is no evidence whatsoever that that consensus is changing or has changed. Gimmetrow's position is in my opinion untenable. If there is any continued (or equivalent) dispute, an ANI post would certainly be appropriate. Happy‑melon 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Melon, as is typical with most disputes, there is another side to this. Gimmetrow 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really? Do please tell. Your comments are there for all to see. Your behaviour in this matter leaves much to be desired. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is always the case. I have yet to hear you enunciate it in any comprehensible fashion. And I am following it more closely than you might realise. Your recent reversion of a good-faith edit with the edit summary of "rvv"; the accepted meaning of which is "revert vandalism", is inexcusable. You need to discuss both these issues in a more constructive fashion than you have been doing, talking with other contributors rather than just talking at them. Happy‑melon 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- And perhaps discussing changes to heavily-used templates such as {{Film}} instead of just imposing your opinion of how to deal with them (while in the middle of an edit war)... Melon, can these be reverted for the moment until they've been discussed and agreed to? (Like every other edit to the template.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I agree that the edits are at best controversial, at worst, actively damaging to the project as they could remove functionality that is already in place. Certainly they should be discussed; to press them would be an abuse of administrative privileges. Happy‑melon 20:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Notice: Girolamo invited me to change the template. I consider his accusations now to be a personal attack. Gimmetrow 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is some further discussion that I have missed, Girolamo suggested that "If it is a technical bug, though, feel free to fix it - I hear you have a good eye for that." Your changes do not 'resolve' a "technical bug", they make overt changes to the functionality of the banner to suppress the display of both visible notices
and tracking categorieswhen the|small=yesparameter is set,with the obvious potential consequence of decategorising any articles already in the aforementioned categories where the banner is already set to small. I find your argument that Girolamo in any way encouraged this action unconvincing. Happy‑melon 21:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) - While further investigation reveals that you were at least careful enough to ensure the categories remained, the suppression of so much visible content including the entire B-Class checklist section (leaving editors entirely mystified as to why setting
|class=Bshould result in an output of "C-Class", is far from a 'technical fix'. I stand by my initial judgement. Happy‑melon 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is some further discussion that I have missed, Girolamo suggested that "If it is a technical bug, though, feel free to fix it - I hear you have a good eye for that." Your changes do not 'resolve' a "technical bug", they make overt changes to the functionality of the banner to suppress the display of both visible notices
- Melon, thanks for handling the reversion. You may also wish to be aware that I have opened an ANI thread regarding this whole situation. Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Happy, how you doin today? I checked back at the Village Pump where I had dropped a suggestion a while back, and noticed that you had replied to an entry I made (well, the subject anyway). The thread was Village Pump / Dated Watchlist items. If I understood correctly, having a time/date stamp on the individual would be much more than an "tweak". Does that also include the ability to sort the watchlist (the "View and edit watchlist" link - not the actual watchlist page itself), in a newest added to first added as well. I don't know why I'm finding it so difficult to word this better. The end result that I'd like would be to click a link to sort my individual watchlist items, and see that (either at the top or the bottom of the page) is an item that I watchlisted 100 edits ago.
The reason I came here to ask is; you seem to have a real good handle on how things are set up. I had assumed that the en-wikipedia servers were in Flordia at an individual and centralized location. I see I was wrong about THAT ... lol. Anyway, I do appreciate your input on the subject, Thank You.
One last question - can I steal that yellow info box about the yellow "You've got new messages" and watch this page for replies?. That is the most polite and clearly worded talkback box I've seen to date. Thanks for your time. Ched (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm doing very well, thank you, although I haven't yet met my quota for breaking large numbers of pages through template syntax errors, so I've still got work to do :D.
- Essentially the way watchlist information is stored by MediaWiki is in one massive database table. Every time someone watches a page, a new row is added to the table storing data on which page was watched, which namespace the page is in (to enable efficient filtering by namespace), the user who watched the page (obviously) and the timestamp of the last time the user who watched the page viewed the page (this is disabled on en.wiki as it's obviously a massive performance drain). When a page is unwatched, the corresponding row is deleted. So there is no absolute record of when a page was watched. The question is what happens when rows are deleted: do they leave 'holes' that can be filled by new rows? If so, then there is no way whatsoever to order entries. However, if the holes created by deleted rows can't be filled by new entries out of order, then you know that rows 'higher up' the table are older entries, and rows lower down are newer entries. Now you just need a way to extract the rows for one user that preserves the order of the entries, and ensure that whenever you manipulate that set of data, nothing you do alters the order. If all of those conditions are satisfied by the architectures of the three systems involved (MediaWiki, PHP and MySQL), then it is possible to create such a system. However, it would still definitely count as a 'hack' as it relies totally on data being stored and manipulated in the manner it expects. The way the MediaWiki software is written, it would be very easy to completely redesign the database structure or shift it to a new language altogether: all that would need to be changed are the 'interface' functions that other parts of MediaWiki use to query the database. If you introduce a feature like this, it damages that flexibility, because it's no longer possible to treat the different parts of the program as separate objects. So essentially, it would be possible to implement a feature to sort the watchlist by relative time (but not absolute time) iff a number of conditions about the system architecture are satisfied. Whether such a feature would be considered 'acceptable', however, is another matter.
- Oh and feel free to pinch the message box - I know a number of users already have. Even if I said no, you're perfectly within your rights to do so anyway: it's GFDL like everything else :D Happy‑melon 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see MediaWiki talk:Common.css#.infobox.standard-talk. Thanks! —David Levy 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How would you code that if a field is left blank, do not include it? I am talking about the "read more..." field in this template. Thank you again, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- In the same way the image option is coded: using a parserfunction. Happy‑melon 08:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I had the logic wrong as well as an error in the variable. I needed to place the link as the "then" part of the if/then statement with a brace as part of the "if" condition. I'm sorry to bother you. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Any idea if or when the software was going to be turned on so we could test and develop the templates to be used here? No live pages, just a few test pages, or even only one page along with sub-pages would be all that is needed to get stated. It could even be a subpage section of the project page. It could possibly help reduce the opposition if they could see how it really would affect IP users here, rather than just making assumptions. The lab site only provides a slanted view, and definately does not function as we have been discussing here. Dbiel (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Can the Special page that shows the unflagged revisions be split (or a functional equivalent of this be made) by category? So, for example, could we filter the BLP revisions into a specific list? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not as far as I'm aware, but I'm sure a category intersection of this nature could be cooked up on the toolserver or with JavaScript, and likely would be done if the full list at Special:OldReviewedPages contained a mixture of articles. Filtering anything by category membership is a computationally expensive task for the MediaWiki software. Happy‑melon 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds fine - I'm looking at BLP stuff mixed with flagged protection at User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs, and am only stuck on the script for my proposed implementation. I think I could possibly offer to code up a Huggle-like reviewer tool for the BLPReviewer group in my proposal, but not sure. Any chance you could look over what I've written, if nothing else for technical consistency?! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Melon, if you're online do you think you could take care of an edit request for this template, assuming it hasn't already been done by the time you read this? Hopefully it will help smooth over recent hostilities, so I would like to do it ASAP. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Happy-melon, I made a quick fix on user rights [], can you have a look at it ? thanks Mion (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of these are en.wiki-specific terms and so aren't appropriate in the mediawiki.org version, but it's much easier to take content out than to put content in, so thanks for your input nonetheless. Happy‑melon 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes its better to show a specific set, if they choose to do it different no problem, the main idear is to make a more clear split between sighted and quality versions, many people believe that with the trial all articles are upgraded to quality versions, which is a lot of work, as FP is targeted on obvious vandalism and can be set back in protective mode, FP is fine, for trail 13 and 14 i think the titel should be extended with (sighted version) and make 15 and 16 with (sighted and quality version), the only thing is, you have to define quality and find users to do the work. Mion (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree completely, the thing is that the terminology we're using on en.wiki is not always the FlaggedRevs default terminology - the 'surveyor' user group is a completely new construct, for instance. The site-neutral help content at mediawiki.org will eventually need to use the default terminology, but the way we're doing this is essentially to say "we need help content for en.wiki, so we'll write it however works for us, and then you can have it once we're finished". As I say, the most important thing is to actually get that content on the page, so thanks for your help. Happy‑melon 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- For quality versions, this is a proposal [], and I found on ]] under administrators "Mark revisions as validated (validate)" i guess the surveyor right is ment with it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mion (talk • contribs) 14:24, January 29, 2009
- To Mion, I believe you are missing the point with your recent edits in MediaWiki. MediaWiki is not about Wikipedia. It needs to be written generic for all kinds of Wikis who may be using the variables in a totally different manner, where vandalism may not even be an issue. Dbiel (Talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- For quality versions, this is a proposal [], and I found on ]] under administrators "Mark revisions as validated (validate)" i guess the surveyor right is ment with it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mion (talk • contribs) 14:24, January 29, 2009
- I agree completely, the thing is that the terminology we're using on en.wiki is not always the FlaggedRevs default terminology - the 'surveyor' user group is a completely new construct, for instance. The site-neutral help content at mediawiki.org will eventually need to use the default terminology, but the way we're doing this is essentially to say "we need help content for en.wiki, so we'll write it however works for us, and then you can have it once we're finished". As I say, the most important thing is to actually get that content on the page, so thanks for your help. Happy‑melon 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes its better to show a specific set, if they choose to do it different no problem, the main idear is to make a more clear split between sighted and quality versions, many people believe that with the trial all articles are upgraded to quality versions, which is a lot of work, as FP is targeted on obvious vandalism and can be set back in protective mode, FP is fine, for trail 13 and 14 i think the titel should be extended with (sighted version) and make 15 and 16 with (sighted and quality version), the only thing is, you have to define quality and find users to do the work. Mion (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Many project banners display a shorter text and/or omit any portal links when small=yes. Does {{WPBannerMeta}} support these options? If not, could you add these? Gimmetrow 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the built-in notes and functionality is truncated when
|small=yesis set, as you say. In most cases, templates using WPBM do not specify shortened text etc in the custom notes they define, but there's nothing that can be done centrally about that. But with regards specifically WPBM, the answer is yes. Happy‑melon 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)- How would {{WPBannerMeta}} support this? Gimmetrow 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand your question. All templates which use WPBM are supposed to pass the
|small=parameter through; when WPBM receives|small=yesit changes the size and position of the box, shrinks the images, and truncates the default messages (eg "this article has been rated as X-Class on the quality scale" → "quality: X-Class"). If a banner defines its own custom messages for notes etc, it is up to the banner's coders to decide whether or not to truncate those messages in a similar fashion. Does this answer your question? Happy‑melon 16:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand your question. All templates which use WPBM are supposed to pass the
- How would {{WPBannerMeta}} support this? Gimmetrow 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So was just thinking about editing Template:NAMESPACE to use #switch, only to find that you had already done it! One question though: Why did you add {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the template over and over? If you want the namespace of the current page then there's absolutely no reason to use Template:NAMESPACE; just use the regular {{NAMESPACE}} magic word. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I looked carefully for a way to not repeat it so often, but couldn't find one. Essentially I'm aware that it's redundant, but it allows the template to act as a complete overload for the magic word. So {{NAMESPACE|}} is exactly the same as
{{NAMESPACE}}. It sounds like a lot of work for a trivial gain, but my real hope is that, upon seeing and being disgusted by this hack, the devs will be favourably inclined to either give us some proper string functions, or at least make functionality equivalent to what we've done at{{NAMESPACE}}available internally: that is, allow the magic words to be parsed parameters like {{PAGENAME:User talk:Foo}}. Then you see that if that functionality is ever implemented, we can convert the whole of en.wiki over to use it absolutely silently by replacing Template:NAMESPACE with{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}. And we can all break out the champagne :D Thanks again for having that brainwave: had any thoughts about truncating text from the right yet? Happy‑melon 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- First off, I would love it if {{NAMESPACE:User talk:Foo}} worked. It seemed easier to make this template hack than to try and figure out how to patch MediaWiki to do the same thing. Not a very good reason, I know.
- Second, I'd prefer it if we didn't do things solely for the sake of disgusting the developers.
{{NAMESPACE}}is fine, there's no reason to introduce another way to do the same thing. It would be confusing, for one thing. - And yes, I know how to take a substring out of the middle, but to do it properly would require a template 7 MB in size. Also, I'm not really seeing the reason why we need a general-purpose string slicer. Where would it be useful? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more thinking of the 'amateur' template coders who don't have the foggiest idea why adding
{{NAMESPACE}}works on a page at the moment, and who think it's already some kind of magic template voodoo. They don't necessarily know that calling it without parameters it's interpreted as a magic word, and with parameters as a template. It's not really introducing a new way of doing an existing thing so much as trying to allow the most flexibility possible when doing a new thing. I'm mainly noting that, if this functionality is ever implemented in MediaWiki, the default value will become FULLPAGENAME, so it will be easiest and most painless for everyone if it's been like that all along. - Where wouldn't it be useful? I have several places I'd use it:
{{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/qualheader}}for one. Currently I can nastily hack it so it detects which category page it's trying to create as far as FA/GA/Image/etc-Class is concerned, but only as long as the other parameters are set perfectly, and it fails messily when they're not. I'm already thinking of using my new{{trunc}}template to rationalise that part, but if I were able to dig the other part out of the middle, it could become a one-click operation (now that we can also set a default summary, another thing to add to the list). I hope by "7MB in size" you're not thinking of the most monumental check-every-possible-string block? :D Happy‑melon 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more thinking of the 'amateur' template coders who don't have the foggiest idea why adding
- Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have everyone using
{{NAMESPACE}}even if they don't understand the voodoo behind it. It'd be a lot more efficient and thus less likely to upset the developers, for one thing. And if this functionality is introduced into MediaWiki itself, then Template:NAMESPACE will be deleted and {{NAMESPACE|}} won't work at all. - Could you better explain what {{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/qualheader}} needs string functions for? It seems like the problem was misspelling, and there's no way that string functions will be able to intelligently detect and correct misspellings.
- Yep, the template would have to contain every Unicode character allowed in XML in order to be as reliable as it should be. That's why I'm doubtful that that's going to be a viable option, and I'm still not seeing why it's necessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have everyone using
- Actually, you've got a point. It's not something I'm particularly wedded to, and you're right in that the magic word will be much more dev-friendly. On the other hand... :D
- That template is called as a preload from the many "please create this category" message boxes that appear on WPBM template pages. Take a random example
{{WikiProject Nickel Creek}}. Clicking on any of the "create" links takes you to a page where the /qualheader template is preloaded. The final output requires two or possibly three bits of data. Firstly the class of the category that's being created: this is the first word in the page title, and is brutally hacked out by the template when the other data is given. The second part is the topic, which is also in the title, but is buried in the middle. The third part is (sometimes) the project name, where this is different to the topic name. With proper string functions, I could extract both compulsory data pieces from the title automatically and users would only have to do anything other than hit 'save' if Wikipedia:WikiProject TOPIC from Category:CLASS-Class TOPIC articles wasn't a valid link to their project. Happy‑melon 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have redirected Template:Spanid to Template:Anchor as the two templates are the same. Just wanted to give you a heads up as to why I did that. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey :) Can you see any obvious reason why class=cat isn't working at {{WP Banksia}}? I've compared the code of WP Australia (where it works) with WP Banksia and am not seeing the distinction. Orderinchaos 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing up on the "i" > "f" conversions. I had to leave to attend a funeral so it was nice to see them finished upon my return. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I vaguely recall once seeing a list of WikiProjects which had elected not to use C-Class, but I've got no idea where to find it. Do you know of what I speak? PC78 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you broke something in {{tag}}. {{tag|ref}} produces <ref>...</ref> with out the closing tag. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I figured out the missing slashes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hiderevision links.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've finally gotten around to finishing this off (I think); can you do me a favour and check the code, see if it's ready to replace the existing banner? Is so then I'm happy to forgo a formal {{editrequest}} and let you make the switch, but by all means give me a buzz if you think I'm doing anything unnecessarily funky with the code. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks really good, great job! I've made a few tweaks, but they really are very minor. Assuming that nothing I just did broke anything, I'm perfectly happy with the code; I'm off in a couple of minutes but I'll do it if you catch me, otherwise remind me to do it in the morning (or just throw up an editprotected). Thanks! Happy‑melon 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. Your bot has made an incorrect edit to coprolalia, twice. The date format there is day month year; please see WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools and refrain from changing established citation methods without gaining consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 12 for an explanation of what the bot is doing. I do not agree with you that the bot is creating an error; if the result is incorrect, it is because the original was also incorrect. Quite apart from the display using
|accessmonthday=being broken (it displayed "accessed on 2006"), if as you say the dateformat for that article is dmy, then the use of|accessmonthday=was incorrect to start with, as it would have forced display in the mdy format. Assuming that the script correctly implements 'dmy' on cites using the|accessdaymonth=parameter and 'mdy' on those using the|accessmonthday=parameter, it is not possible for the bot to introduce dateformating changes; any inconsistency with the rest of the article must have been present to start with. Hope this clarifies, Happy‑melon 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for correcting cite errors on the quinolone page. I am rather new here at wikipedia so if you have a chance could you get me up to speed as to the correct format I am to be using when I reference a citation within these articles? I am currently working on all the quinolone/fluoroquinolone articles to bring them up to date, so there is a lot of old citations that will be intermingled with my additions. So avoid a lot of unneccassary editing it would be advantageous for me to know the proper way of doing things when it comes to citations instead of stumbling around in the dark. Please respond either on the article's talk pages or my talk page if you have any suggestions. Thanks..Davidtfull (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly. The only recent changes are to the date parameters, other inputs continue to function as normal. The preferred way to enter dates is using the
|date=,|archivedate=and|accessdate=parameters, respectively; you can enter the date in any acceptable date format (like 1009-02-05 or February 5 2009 or 5 February, 2009 but not 05/02/2009; see Template:Date for details). With that done, you can specify an output format for all the dates in the template using|dateformat=- in general you should use 'mdy' for articles with a primarily American subject (like [[Baseball), and 'dmy' otherwise. - The "separated" parameters of
|day=,|month=,|year=, and|accessday=,|accessmonth=,|accessyear=, still function and will be automatically combined by the template and formatted appropriately; although not preferred, these parameters are still supported for now. The parameters|accessmonthday=and|accessdaymonth=are now explicitly deprecated and will soon be unsupported, so avoid using these parameters. - Hope this clarifies, Happy‑melon 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this template (unprotected) is transcluded to a large number of page. However I can not find where is the problem (if any exist). What do you think about this situation? Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I think these are pages still left over from the time when the sandbox call was accidentally loaded into the live
{{cite web}}template, where the links tables haven't been updated yet. I could be wrong, but I certainly can't see anywhere obvious where the sandbox is being transcluded, and the sandbox itself is not cascade-protected, which it would be from somewhere like User:Cenarium/Protected templates if it were being used somewhere like{{cite web}}. Happy‑melon 11:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been tinkering with {{Film}} again; curently the template accepts "yes" as a value for multiple parameters. What I'd like to do is make this case insensetive, so if I've got things right I need to change:
{{#ifeq:{{{foo|}}}|yes|blahblahblah}}to:
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{foo|}}}}}|yes|blahblahblah}}Right? If I then want to have the template accept "y" as an alternate value, then presumably (and here I'm less sure) I would change it to:
{{#switch:{{lc:{{{foo|}}}}}|yes|y=blahblahblah}}Am I on the right track here? PC78 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am considering a proposal to add a link at the end of the cite errors like Help. What do you think? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The more prominent, the better: I'd support linking the "Cite error:" part to the help page. Happy‑melon 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- That works as well. It won't be in red since it will be a link, but it should make the point. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I want to thank you for coding and running MelonBot to remedy the broken retrieval dates for {{cite web}} and the other templates I listed. It was a relief not to have to go back and change all of the various ship-related templates. The question I have for you is in relation to {{cite news}}. I've started a discussion on the talk page about some different formatting introduced when that template was updated with {{citation/core}}. Since you are much better versed in {{citation/core}}, would you possibly be able to see what changes would need to be made to {{cite news}} to restore the previous formatting? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
While working on category:Wikipedia Portal templates I found the numbered subpages template and found it to be quite useful in configuring portal sub pages. There were no real instructions on it usage and I would like to be able to set a max size on it. Could you take a look and see if that can be done? I would like the default set to 25 id possible.
Thank you again for all the help you have given, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is possible without introducing an enormous number of parserfunctions. Sorry. Happy‑melon 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, can it be redone similar to {{Random portal component}}? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- That uses the
|max=parameter (AFAIK) purely to define the limit on the random number generated; the method is not really applicable to anything else. Happy‑melon 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
One last thing then, how difficult would it be to create another version of this template that has only 25 links? ({{25 random subpages}}) --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The conversion of the project banners to use the updated nested code is just about done now. There are only about 80 left of which just about all are protected. Just wondering if you wanted to have a look at those protected ones. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the change you made to {{Film}}, the
|nested=parameter is also used for the two collapsible sections; does the code need to be updated there as well? PC78 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)- Hmn, interesting problem. I made a stab at 'fixing' it, only to realise that I was implementing the exact opposite of the desired effect :D. I can't think of a way to have sections collapsed outside banners and uncollapsed inside (short of including the whole section twice, once collapsed and once not, and hiding the inappropriate version). But why do you want to have it uncollapsed inside shells anyway? Happy‑melon 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, dunno... that's just the way it is/was. :) I'm more than happy to have the sections collapsed when the banner is inside a shell. Does the edit you reverted achieve this? If the
|nested=parameter is no longer needed then I would like to remove it from the banner competely. PC78 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) - Also, in the Biography banner the BLP notice is displayed within the shell when
|living=is set to "yes" (previously it didn't). PC78 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, dunno... that's just the way it is/was. :) I'm more than happy to have the sections collapsed when the banner is inside a shell. Does the edit you reverted achieve this? If the
- Hmn, interesting problem. I made a stab at 'fixing' it, only to realise that I was implementing the exact opposite of the desired effect :D. I can't think of a way to have sections collapsed outside banners and uncollapsed inside (short of including the whole section twice, once collapsed and once not, and hiding the inappropriate version). But why do you want to have it uncollapsed inside shells anyway? Happy‑melon 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't just move a template using WPBM—as you did with {{WikiProject Classical music}}. I thought you'd know that by now! :) —Ms2ger (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please could you tell me why you closed this debate rather than re-listing it for further discussion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's true, it could perhaps have been relisted; I admit it wasn't something I considered. Would you like me to do so? Happy‑melon 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply; yes, I think it would best be re-listed, please. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Nine CIA attribution templates have 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. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I talked to you a while back when you did some fixes to the WP:ALM template and categories. Right now we're going to turn the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject The Smashing Pumpkins into a taskforce of our project. While turning the proejct page into a taskforce page seems easy enough, I wanted to ask if you could take care of the necessary template and category changes, which definitely intimidate me. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a fascinating graphic! What did you use for your data? Physchim62 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have written five templates that depend on cite web. They all have accessdaymouth. accessmounthday and assessyear as alternate parameters. I understand and agree with the change to cite web and I will change the documentation for the templates I have written presently. Could you write a bot to detect which articles use these parameters or add the functionality to your current bot. I don't think there are many cases and I will be glad to fix them manually. The templates are {{cite bivouac}}, {{cite gnis}}, {{cite ngs}}, {{cite gvp}} and {{cite pb}}. I'll watch this page for your response. --DRoll (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I've added the code from cite web to the other templates that puts them in the tracking category Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters when they use those parameters, which is what the bot uses to identify articles to work on. I'll add those extra aliases to the bot script and re-run it when the category has filled up. Happy‑melon 08:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
One of your user sub-pages is currently the only remaining member of Category:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates. JPG-GR (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure you'll know the answer to this :)
The following code is preloaded onto new AfC submissions in order to add parameters for the submission time and the author.
{{AFC submission|ts={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|a=~~~}}
This takes up quite a bit of space and looks messy so I thought I could just put it into Template:AFC submission/submit and then substitute this instead. What happens though is that {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} goes in verbatim but is not actually substituted! Performing a null edit sorts things out, but is there a better way? Thanks, Martin 09:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Template substitution is still a pretty arcane and buggy area of MediaWiki, with much work still to be done to create a consistent interface. My immediate reaction is to make the change I just made; let me know if that helps any, and if not I'll take a closer look. Happy‑melon 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This banner still has a few nesting problems, which I assume are longstanding. Parameters such as |needs-image= add an extra box beneath the banner, but this also occurs within the banner shell; see Talk:Kim Won-yong. I was wondering if there was any way around this?
Incidentally, I noticed that you have a meta version of the banner in the sandbox. Are you planning to eventually convert it?
Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- As you're only an acolyte in the nefarious Template Cabal, I can't possibly reveal the nefarious schemes behind the WPBiography sandbox or why it's not been implemented. I can only tell you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with T18552... :D
- I'll have a look at the nested display at some point... poke me if I haven't got around to it in a few days (I'm very busy atm, but I'll try and find time). Happy‑melon 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit to Template:WikiProject Virginia regarding nesting has caused a problem. When nested, there is an extra line in the template with just "}}". You can see this on a talk page like Talk:Virginia. Thanks!--Patrick «» 04:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would think about changing the current layout of the box in coordination with most of the othe rinfoboxes to have a larger map underneath the coat of arms. The current layout renders it that the map is so small it is the same size as the coat of arms which on most wikipedia settlements is at least 200 px while the coat of arms often well under 100 px. Most of the time the map is four times larger at least than the coat of arms, not the same size. For instance on Hockenheim you'd expect the map to be roughly the same size as a the photograph. Add to the map a thick locator pin that we currently have rather than the thinner pin used on the French communes map for instance and it makes the scale of the map awkward especially as we now have much higher quality pin maps. How about flags and coat of arms go side by side on top and you display a decent sized map underneath as with most other countries on here. As for as I can see it is only a hadnful of countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland and perhaps Norway that insist on keeping it. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Fyi, {{WPBIO}} still uses the "tmbox-small" class. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the assist with updating these banners! :) (I wondered who was doing it!) I think your edits to the template may be a little premature, though. Articles have been trickling into the tracking categories for weeks, so I'm not convinced that they have all been found yet. PC78 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- As long as the emphasis is on "trickling", it's not too much of a problem, although I'll happily revert if you think it's worth it. I'm certainly cogent of how long things take to filter through at the moment, though; every time I come back to Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters it's filled back up again :D Happy‑melon 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you could revert, please; no harm in keeping these categories active in the short term, though of course my aim is to ultimately remove support for all of the outdated syntax. Is there any rhyme or reason as to how pages filter through? After some chages were made to the film banner earlier this week, it took less than 48 hours for some 15,000 articles to jump from one category to another, but for the entire 7,500 or so articles of the Korea project it's taking bloody ages! PC78 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you also delete Category:NA-Class Korea-related pages for me? All pages have now filtered through to the new article category. PC78 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Last November, you changed a couple of Banners I wrote to use the Banner Meta. I don't have any problem with that but now the templates aren't cooperating. The are changing '/Comments' subpages to plaintext. A couple examples are Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Talk:Colinet de Lannoy, and Talk:Agostino Agazzari. Do you have any ideas? It look like there's something wrong with the Meta Template but I don't know what. Thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I assume by "changing /Comments subpages to plaintext" you mean that the first section header did not display as a header? If so,
Fixed Happy‑melon 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- With the above issue, the Composers project (which really seems to hate change) is discussing changing {{Composers}} back to the original version. Thought you might want to comment there about the benefits of the meta, I tried to convert them before but was shut down rather quickly. §hepTalk 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I've put an updated version of Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces in Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/sandbox which now shows when your are looking at the template page. Could you take a look and see if it's ok? And if it is copy it over to the live template? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Great, could one of you also look at the A-class hook? It's not displaying properly on the template page. E.g. Template:Vital. MartinMsgj 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some problems linking the cite error messages; see Help talk:Cite errors#Problems. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted both my and your last edits to MediaWiki:Cite error references no backlink label since links do not work in some of the messages. I added a link to Help:Cite errors that did not show at all and you made the link to the backlinks live, but that broke the message, making it show as:
- Ran out of custom backlink labels. Define more in <a href="/wiki/MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels" title="MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels">MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels</a>
- I have also documented this issue on the help page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You restored detection for accessdaymonth/accessmonthday on 2/12/09. The job queue was basically non-functional at that time, and on 2/16/09 all jobs in the queue (including updating pages that use {{cite web}}) were deleted. Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters has been slowly populating naturally since then. As the job queue is now fixed, if you do a null edit to {{cite web}} all pages that use it will be updated within an hour. Hopefully your bot will then be able to clear out that category. --Pascal666 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, both for the nomination and for all the support.
PS, Do you get an error when you try to look at the history of Template:AfC submissions by month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Martinmsgj 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- You deserved it.
- Yes, and it's the same error I just got looking at the history of Template:Sister. And, for that matter, the history of every page I check. Looks like it's a biiiig bug... Happy‑melon 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Noted, filed (T19655), and fixed, all within ten minutes. Who says the devs aren't on the ball? Happy‑melon 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that on the help pages not only the message about the help page on Meta being the master page has disappeared, but also the link to this corresponding help page on Meta. Could you please restore those links? They are very useful.--Patrick (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The messages on the en.wiki help pages suggesting that they are "regularly updated" from meta were completely outdated (the last update from meta was almost three years ago!) and so they have been deleted - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates for the full extent of that unnecessarily-complicated system. The way help content is evolving on Wikimedia is that technical material - pure how-to-use-the-software help that is not site dependent - is being moved to www.mediawiki.org's public domain Help: namespace, and site-specific help is being returned to the respective site. The help manual at meta is being dismantled. Local consensus here is fairly fluid but tends to drift in the direction of soft-redirecing to the mw help pages rather than hosting local content, although that could change. But in either case, linking to (or worse still falsely suggesting that the local content is an uneditable copy of) the meta help pages is no longer appropriate. Happy‑melon 08:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where a useful and related help page is available on Meta, removing a link to it is very unhelpful and against the conclusion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates that says that templates should be appropriately substituted before being deleted.--Patrick (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Happy, how you doin? Question: When I run across an IP talk page that is filled with a long list of warnings, is it ok to clear off the old ones? And how much should I leave? - 3 months? Thanks, and if there's a page that tells me that - could you drop me the link too please, so I can read the full details. Have a good one — Ched (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:USERPAGE would be the place, if anywhere. Certainly I shouldn't think there'd be a problem with clearing out all bar a couple of months-worth. Happy‑melon 08:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually have uses at hand for string functions? Dragons flight (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, several off the top of my head, innumerable ones that would eventually materialise. As the top example,
{{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/qualheader}}. Happy‑melon 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? I'm having trouble figuring out what that example is intended to do and how you would change it with string functions. Dragons flight (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would be more happy if mw:Extension:VariablesExtension were enabled. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't complain, but that wouldn't help me with that particular problem. Plus VariablesExtension has been shot down in flames by four of the senior devs (can't remember the bug, but it was pretty conclusive), while StringFunctions gets at worst murmurings of discontent. Happy‑melon 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've expanded Category:String manipulation templates for the moment using the pad hack that Brion decided to re-enable. The implementation is objectively terrible in terms of complexity and server load. It really ought to be implemented in parser functions, but for the moment, I'm just going for a demonstration that string functions are useful. Think you can come up with some? Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a quick question for you. I'm starting to help out at CAT:EP, especially the template requests. It would often be useful to compare a sandbox version with the live version. Is there a way of doing that easily? Thanks, Martinmsgj 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I usually just load up the sandbox, copy the code, go to edit the live template, paste the code over the top and click the "show changes" button. I have the "force edit summary" option enabled in my preferences so I know as long as I don't write an edit summary I can't accidentally save the sandbox version. Happy‑melon 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If these questions has been asked an answered then never mind. I used the following citation today:
- John Muir (1912) "chapter 11". The Yosemite. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
Seems to me that there should be a way to use a citation template without doing this:
- John Muir (1912). "chapter 11". The Yosemite. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
{{cite book}}: External link in|chapterurl=|chapterurl=ignored (|chapter-url=suggested) (help)
Secondly: Has any thought been given to the the {{accessdate}} template and date formats.
And lastly: Has anyone considered some way to set the date format for an entire article.
No reply necessary. These all require added complexity and sometimes it seems we have a difficult time with the present level of complexity. --DRoll (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- What, exactly, do you mean by "there should be a way to use a citation template without [using a citation template]"?? I don't really see where you think the redundancy or difficulty lies. The
{{accessdate}}template is redundant to the formatting in full citation templates, but an be used as in your first example with ease. Date formatting on article-wide bases is very much a holy grail for us here. Happy‑melon 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the way the two examples are coded you will see that the first uses only the the {{accessdate}} template while the second uses the {{cite book}} template. The url = parameter requires a full url and the external link arrow is displayed. In the first example I coded the citation using interwiki links. I wonder if there could be a way to use and interwiki link in citation templates to substitute for a url. The way things are restricts the use of interwiki links. This is no big thing to me. I just think it merited a mention. --DRoll (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- In general, inline interwikis should be avoided in articles, as they will obviously break when our content is reproduced elsewhere. So in a citation, the external link format is preferable: ignore the fact that the two sites are affiliated. And given that only wikisource can be cited as a reliable source (with the obvious unique exceptions of articles about Wikimedia), the utility of interwiki links in citations is very minimal. So overall, external links are generally better, and should be used in citations etc even when an interwiki link is available. Happy‑melon 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This hidden category is now showing up every time I edit a baseball team-season page (e.g., 1952 Philadelphia Athletics season). There are over 2500 such pages, so before I go on, I'd be interested in knowing what this means. -Dewelar (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please revert your last edit to Template:Tnavbar? At {{Tnavbar-header}}, the span and the individual letters are positioned instead of just the span. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Happy-melon I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 11 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Melon. I've reverted your last edit to {{Tnavbar}}, because it broke the order of parameter precedence (which parameter overrides which), and also because both 'style' and 'fontstyle' still serve different functions. I will say that Tnavbar is long overdue for an overhaul, decrapating all but the 'style' parameter, but only after building a working version in the sandbox, and the decrapation of those parameters has been thouroughly documented on the /doc page. Util then, no changes should be made to Tnavbar. How about we start thinking about the overhaul on the template's talk page? — Edokter • Talk • 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ooops!! Sorry for that, seems I went offline at the wrong time! Thanks for reverting, and especially for doing it carefully enough to leave the tracking cat alone, and triple kudos for also finding the connected change at
{{navbox}}; you certainly did the job thoroughly, so thanks for that. I certainly agree that the template needs an overhaul; I've been working on something much cleaner in{{tnavbar/sandbox}}. What do you think? Happy‑melon 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)- Looks good, already fixed a bug :) I wonder if we should make 'style' apply to the entire template. Right now, it is applied twice; as a whole and to the indivudual links. I think we can remove the indivudual ones. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not; then the links would just stay blue. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is even "worse" news; There are literarely 1000s of templates that still use fontcolor, mainly through {{Tnavbar-header}} and other sister templates, so it can't go yet. I reluctantly had to put that back in, but luckily without the fontstyle-fontcolor-parameter-override-hack. I do think the new sandbox version finished and ready to be rolled out. I even got the namespace parameter to work. It is basically the same, but with lots of optimizations. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not; then the links would just stay blue. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, already fixed a bug :) I wonder if we should make 'style' apply to the entire template. Right now, it is applied twice; as a whole and to the indivudual links. I think we can remove the indivudual ones. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You removed the new NAMESPACE:Foo / TALKSPACE:Foo parser functions that were the whole reason I became interested in the template in the first place. We don't need the |namespace= parameter: we can now code things, I'm sure, such that we can recognise namespaces automagically: the same syntax as for template calls (Template: if no namespace specified, other full page names work) can be made to work, which means we no longer need forks like {{navbar}}. The transitionary code may be a bit messy, but the results will be worth it. Happy‑melon 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Darn. I thought they were malformed parameter evaluations; I couldn't make sense of them. I'll put those back in (if you haven't already). — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I put it back in, but it doesn't seem to work. I put Tnavbar/sandbox on User:Od Mishehu/example and transcluded it back to testcases, but it still links as Template:. — Edokter • Talk • 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
