This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
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. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja18:33, 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)
Better would be to create a template that wraps the WPBS autocollapse magic as a separate template. We could probably even make WPBM use that as a meta-template... Happy‑melon16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously though, there are various banners which use some WikiProject-ish features but are not associated to WikiProjects. {{V0.5}}, {{WP1.0}}, {{WPCD}} are examples. If they can be incorporated without too much bother then maybe we should consider it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Happy-melon/Archive 11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Happy-melon/Archive 11's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Happy-melon/Archive 11!
Yeah I got it. I'm stuck on a laptop atm so everything is much slower and more painful than it would normally be; I responded to the points I could answer without switching between tabs too much :DHappy‑melon16:21, 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, — JakeWartenberg23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been fixed, but the MediaWiki revision containing the fix is not yet live on Wikimedia wikis, AFAIK. As soon as it is, I'll start a discussion on styling tags somewhere, haven't decided where, and link to it from everywhere else. Happy‑melon08:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia's config has been updated to continue the stauts quo, which is not what we wanted. We need to decide who, if anyone, should be able to save books to the wiki, file a site request bug to get the appropriate config settings implemented for enwiki, and then we can reenable the feature. Happy‑melon21:14, 26 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.
There was no discussion here to start with. I'm not sure what this comment is: are you advertising this discussion? Happy‑melon21:12, 26 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)
This is a known bug. The contents of the ref tags are removed by the parser and replaced by a placeholder text that can then be filled by the Cite extension with the proper contents (in this case, just a little number, and then the extension keeps track of the contents of the ref and then reparses it when it encounters the <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‑melon14:17, 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, Amalthea00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The apostrophe is escaped to " which causes the comparison to fail. I think it's a known bug; if not, it should certainly be filed as one. Happy‑melon13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I should have thought of HTML entities but didn't, since single quotes should really need escaping? Anyway, you provided me with the necessary search terms, bugzilla:16474 is describing the bug. {{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAME:Foo's Bar}} | Foo's Bar |Y|N}} → Y. Cheers, Amalthea15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, IIRC that's the usual workaround: use the URL-escaped magic words, and URL-escape (either manually or using urlencode:) the comparison string. Messy, but reliable. Happy‑melon18:40, 29 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)
Hi, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. You have the B-Class checklist enabled on the banner, which means that (by default) articles can only be marked as B-Class if all the B-Class checklist criteria are marked as 'passed'. So when an article is marked as passing all the B-Class criteria, it is automagically 'upgraded' to B-Class (eg: before, assessed, after). If this behaviour is not desirable, it can be altered, but it's a feature, not a bug; many projects find it desirable for the banner to behave this way. What do you think? Happy‑melon14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For a lower-profile, lower-activity project like WPFLA, it's a bug; we don't have many people who assess articles. (FWIW, I've done the most assessments for the project. A lot of those B-class assessments without the checklist completed were done by me; it wasn't a requirement before.) For an active project like MilHist, it's a nice way of verifying compliance, but only a handful of WPFLA participants do assessments. I didn't notice there was a problem until another editor dropped a note on our project's talk page, squawking about an article which was B class in all of the other wikiprojects, but showed up as a C-class in ours. That was when I started digging, and noticed the problem with all of the "disappearing" B-class articles.
That raises another issue: often, when a wikiproject does an assessment after an article has been worked upon, the reviewer will change the assessment on all of the templates (I've done it myself, and I've seen it done by other editors in a variety of projects). If an editor changes it to B-class on the template, but doesn't complete the checklist, it's going to show up as C-class, and we'll have more queries on the talk page.
I'll leave a note on the project's talk page explaining what happened, and we'll have to go through and reassess all of the (now) C-class articles for B-class compliance. A lot of the assessments predate the implementation of C-class, so it's probably a good idea anyway, but it does mean more work for those who are up to the task. Horologium(talk)14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, if the behaviour isn't constructive to your project, it can be altered, you're not 'stuck with it'. However as you say, it is probably a Good Thing To Do overall. Happy‑melon14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead and leave it. It'll provide a way of forcing a review (although there might be some who simply add the criteria and automatically check "yes", it's more likely that a real review will occur). Thanks for the quick response and the explanation. Horologium(talk)15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Email
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. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja05:27, 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)
If it's referenced, that's completely different. I'm aware of the MoS guideline and as I said in the summary, if it was a full article it would certainly be appropriate. However, the guideline is that dates and places of birth should not be entangled: dates should be given in the brackets, and places separately. But if we can legitimately add the date, then that's fine. Sorry if I was too quick to revert the addition there. Happy‑melon22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Tennessee banner
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)
It's certainly true that templates one is unfamiliar with tend to be difficult to interpret. The reason meta-templates so often fall into this category is, IMO, because those developing the meta-templates are often not those associated with the instance templates. That rule is not universal: the db- and pp- template series are essentially one body; but it is certainly the case with {{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.
I fully agree with you that the schema used for the assessment categories is horrible, ugly, unintuitive, self-inconsistent and at times just plain wierd. However, it is finally coming to be universally applied. These categories are not reader-facing, they are navigated almost never by readers, rarely by editors, indeed almost entirely by bots. For a bot, it matters not what the category is named, and whether that name makes any sense at all; it only matters that it is possible to define a schema that can be reliably used to locate relevant categories. From the metadata encoded into WPBM banners (another advantage), it is possible for a bot with the appropriate schema to instantly identify the category title for any component of the project's assessment scheme, which is a huge advantage. In short, the fact that it is not a particularly 'correct' title in places is not really important, because the categories are not reader-facing: much more important is that they are consistent within projects, which is what we have achieved by standardising the categories using WPBM. Happy‑melon10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Template:Sys rating
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'm not sure I understand. Before redirecting {{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‑melon21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, yes the template title is extremely confusing. I agree. I am not happy about that. But I do like the new look of the whole template, and that is what I like to keep. There should be a solution here. Could we maybe copy/paste all the content of the {{Sys rating}} to the {{WikiProject Systems}}.
... But still I am still afraid the assessment system would crash. The sys rating template is linked to maybe 2 dozen other template related pages? But maybe I am mistaken here. And what to do with those 1500 templates already in place?
I am glad if you could help and advice. I have been trying to "fix" this problem for over a year, but it seems to big for me. Or I simply didn't have three days to change those 650 articles and I sure don't have a week to change those 1500 description
The template does look interesting, more like {{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.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "would crash". What is important for the top-level categorisation that you've implemented to keep working is that setting, eg, |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.
Sorry I didn't mention it before, but the {{sys rating}} is indeed based on the {{maths rating}} template, and that is why I also came up with the name "Sys rating". I think intially the {{tl:WikiProject Systems}} was also based on the previous WikiProject Mathematics assessment template. And when they introduced the fields, I have deceided to follow their example. Further:
Looks like you succeeded, all seems well. WOSlinker and I have made a few edits to tidy up the code a bit and reduce duplication; just employing little tricks to avoid having to repeat stuff. There is much more that can be done, of course; you might want to look at implementing the tmbox classes in place of the (long since deprecated) "messagebox standard-talk" styles, and various other things. Do give me a buzz if you ever get stuck or need help. Happy‑melon19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I noticed the changes in the template (which mostly I don't exactly understand), and I did some correcting the documentation myself, which seems ok now.
I do have a question about the about 1500 "sys rating" codes on all articles talk pages. Should this be removed, and is it possible to let a bot fix this problem? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What would be your definition of "fixed"?? :D If it's that the category is unexpectedly redlinked, you can just create it! If it's the wrong category, you need to edit the template to link to the correct category. Happy‑melon22:08, 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)
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. –xenotalk15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Abusive Edits!
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. –xenotalk13:37, 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)
This is on another wiki? I suspect that it is running a version of MediaWiki which is not up-to-date enough to allow the magic words{{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‑melon22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the offer (What did I ever do to offend you so?!?!) As I said to Martin, I'll consider it in the autumn, once the sun has stopped tempting me outside. I'll let you know.
In the meantime, do you have any advice/suggestions for the original question? I don't understand the intricacies of the {{click}} template, or the details of image-license-linking, alluded to in that thread, so was hoping a code-savvy admin with image experience could be enticed to look the problem over...
Hmm, so the conclusion was to change {{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‑melon09:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Conclusion: You're describing option#2 from that thread. David seemed to be supporting option#3. I'm ambivalent (inadequately informed), though tentatively support option#3.
Protection: At the time, I went through all the links at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects, and updated everything, except the ones that were fully protected [most], and except the ones that were particularly complicated ["a handful that I wasn't sure what to do with (the wikibooks and wikisource templates with multiple links, including cookbook, 1911 britannica, etc)"]. The category you linked to includes non-sister-project interwikis. I haven't looked at it before.
Click: seems to have been removed from most instances. It's still being used in a few mainspace templates[2], and quite a few userboxes and userpage templates (such as Template:Administrator and Wikipedia:WikiOgre/topicon). Those instances should probably be removed/cleaned up.(?)
Click 2: David was suggesting that a VPump thread about the wisdom/legality of {{Click}} might be good/necessary. I wouldn't know where to begin, for phrasing/framing/starting that discussion.
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)
Thank you for doing so. I stand by the comment on the proposal itself, although it was not (and is not) intended to extend to the contributors behind it. I know your efforts are in good faith, and I actually sympathise somewhat with what seems to be your position; it was a "trainwreck" in totally failing to address the questions that I also want answered. You have to agree (I count at least six people in that RfC who do), that the phrase "Election to the Committee is on the basis of each candidate's ranking in terms of the strength of their vote." is unintelligible, certainly as a piece of policy text. The choice of a prime number for the total number of arbitrators, given that they are divided into more than one but less than seventeen equally-sized groups and only ever make decisions by majority vote, is incomprehensible. The process by which the proposed text appeared out of thin air two minutes before voting was requested (I have searched your contribs, and can't find any previous incarnation of the wording, if I've missed it please do point it out with my apologies) is completely antithetic to how policy is made and changed on enwiki. Overall, I don't think the claim made for it to be a "carefully crafted" proposal is defensible. But as I said, I know you are acting in good faith, and I actually agree with you somewhat; certainly I agree fully that this issue needs proper and frank discussion. Discussion. Not a rush to vote on a grab-bag of related specific proposals. Happy‑melon14:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Election to the Committee is on the basis of each candidate's ranking in terms of the strength of their vote."—It's exactly what happens now. Please see the 2009 vote and the fact that candidates were selected in terms of the strength of their vote. from memory, Casliber got the strongest vote at 92%. Since the community is explicitly given the power to determine/change the voting system, the wording was conceived to cover any voting system (plus votes or plus minus votes, whatever) it might decide on. I find it unnecessary that you and Risker and others were utterly derisive—with almost personal intent—on this point.
I have no idea why prime numbers are an issue, and I don't much care. Mr Wales chose to boost numbers to 17 after the last advisory election result. It seemed the easiest way to go, but as I explained on the talk page of the RFC, it's up to the community to decide the actual number—the critical issue is that a "top-up" number be stated. Otherwise, who chooses how many of the candidates gain a seat?
"is completely antithetic to how policy is made and changed on enwiki"—It was shaped beforehand by the co-proposers, with the intention of presenting a workable solution. I believe this was a good intention and I have seen far too many proposals go to jelly because they were vague from the start. If "17" and "2 year" (terms) had been left as "x" and "y", it seems people would have reacted quite differently. That is a pity, but it was our best judgement in both respects as to what would produce the best arrangement.
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)
The point is not that, with suitable appreciation of context, people can just about work out what was meant to be said. It's that for a proposed modification to the least flexible and most constitutional of all our policies, such confused and vague wording is both unnecessary and undesirable. If all you wanted to say was that the community has the right to choose the voting system, why not simply have said "The format of the elections, including the process by which the winners will be selected, shall be decided by the community"?? In fact, by prescribing the condition, you are removing the prerogative for someone (Jimbo currently, the Community allegedly under the proposal) to choose how the winners are elected, and leaving them only the horrible job of deciding amongst themselves how the "strength of their vote" clause is to be interpreted in the context of whichever voting system is selected. In all likelihood, the clause will simply be interpreted as "whoever wins under the standard rules of the voting system wins", which renders the whole clause completely pointless.
The point is, of course, that problems like this would have been identified and fixed before the proposal was frozen by voting, if there had been the opportunity for discussion and consultation on the proposal rather than an immediate move to vote. The fact that it was "shaped beforehand by the co-proposers", and only the co-proposers, is precisely the reason why it is an unworkable solution. I agree that it was with good intention, but you cannot avoid the fact that, however well-meant, the procedure used was wrong, in as much as it has completely failed to allow discussion or resolution of the (legitimate) issues at hand. Proposals, in order to be workable, must start vague and finish specific, and the process by which they go from one to the other - the discussion and consensus-building with as wide a goup as is manageable - is the key to getting things done on Wikipedia, and the element that is missing from most failed proposals. Happy‑melon15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"The format of the elections, including the process by which the winners will be selected, shall be decided by the community"—possibly, but it seems like a minor point. I don't see anything "confused and vague" about it. That the format of the elections is chosen by the community is already in the policy, so no, I didn't "want to say" anything new, as you assume. And no, whatever system of voting is used, the strength of the vote should be easy to see. It probably should not have been included, but I don't see what the big deal is, and I certainly don't see why you'd want to be rude about it, and attempt to discredit the entire proposal on the basis of this point.
"The fact that it was "shaped beforehand by the co-proposers", and only the co-proposers, is precisely the reason why it is an unworkable solution"—illogical.
I think it's the best solution, and so did a sizeable minority. I note that you're very keen to label the whole thing as "wrong". It's not tenable to do so. And starting "vague" usually finishes vague at WP—had you noticed? Might that be the reason there is hardly ever reform?
"Failed proposal"—I was delighted it received so much support, especially among those who didn't understand that the codification was necessary to remove Mr Wales's powers, and who—much at your behest—complained about conflation and placed themselves in the Neutral category. Neutrals who said they felt Mr Wales's power should be reduced, removed or further discussed will be placed in one category, with all those who fully supported. Tony(talk)16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few of these points seem to use the incorrect conclusion that I disagree with the fundamental principle of this proposal. I do not. I am open to be persuaded that removing Jimbo's codified influence as anything other than a) editor, b) admin, and c) Foundation board member, is a good idea. This feeling seems to be shared by, as you note, a very sizeable fraction of the people participating in the vote. The process has "failed" those participants by denying them the chance to develop a proposal that they could support without reservation, instead forcing them to react to the structure of the proposal rather than its contents. Starting vague does usually finish vague, and it is the reason why there is so rarely reform. Surely that simply reinforces my argument that it is essential to involve that crucial development phase in a successful proposal?? Happy‑melon16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does it reinforce the need for design-by-huge-committee at the early stages? Experience has taught me the opposite in every organisation I've worked in, including WP. If you want something, present it on a silver platter at a relatively mature stage—at least everyone can see more easily what they do and don't like, which speeds the process. You go back and change it, and resubmit. I think that is a very good strategy in a wiki, where discussions have a tendency to spin out of focus into thousands of words, ending in nothingness. We weren't going to risk that, especially given the technicalities that had to be worked out. We never expected to receive a thumping majority required for consensus, and are happy to receive more than 40% or so (for what you are comfortable with, plus full support of the new text—a composite figure, which I believe is fair because of the cross-overs in voting intention, mainly in the neutrals)
It is a good platform for proceeding to the next stage, and I do believe the community may well end up with the type of codification suggested in the RFC proposal text when they think it through. The ArbCom side of the proposal is, after all, the simplest you could imagine that would replace Mr Wales's role and work automatically.
I do agree that it might have been better to leave out the codification details first up, and have introduced them later. Tony(talk)17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Template:User Commons/topicon
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)
You got the format right: with {{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‑melon22:20, 11 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 // discussion22:31, 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.
Example
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
Essentially it means that there are a few general rules-of-thumb, but that really you need to know where the message is used so you can test it! Cleaning up the system messages is a long-standing goal of mine once I get SVN commit access. Happy‑melon15:58, 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)
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)
The reason it wasn't working is that there were two sets of TF_4 defined. (Happy-melon cannot count apparently!) Therefore the second set overwrote the first. I've fixed it by moving the New Caledonia stuff to TF_5. I've made it use the existing categories, e.g. Category:Start-Class Vanuatu work group articles. Hope this is okay now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't do anything from here, I'm afraid, I'm not logging into my admin account from where I am ATM (and will be for a few weeks yet). I guess I could throw up an editprotected like everyone else does :D(also)Happy‑melon19:15, 10 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)
Oversight is like protection or deletion: it's a 'defensive' tool. CheckUser is like blocking, it's an 'offensive' (as in military, not as in rude). Taking the fight to the 'enemy' is something that I recognise has to be done, and I hugely admire the people who do it, but it doesn't hold so much appeal to me. I like my place on the 'second line': not out in front battling the vandals directly, but in the quieter area behind doing 'mop up', but also with time to work on actually improving articles and structures. The Oversight interface is not particularly technically demanding, but it is an extremely interesting process; the backend of the RevDeleted functionality is woven extremely deeply into the software.
And to be honest, I wasn't entirely certain that I should run until I got the 'promotional literature' from ArbCom, which reminded me that all CheckUsers and Oversighters are expected to participate on functionaries-en. I think I have a lot to offer those discussions, and it's important to have as wide a pool of interests there as possible.
I guess detail of my wiki history was not quite what you had in mind when you put sect-expand on that section?!? :DHappy‑melon10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see now. If you wanted to keep your blocking log empty then I suppose being a CU might have been a bit awkward. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My empty block log is a symptom, not a cause. I have no problem with blocking people, I've just never been in a situation where it's both necessary, and where I've been the most trigger-happy admin on the scene. It's that whole area of 'front line' defense that I tend to avoid. (also)Happy‑melon09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems we're birds of a feather in that regards. I don't have an empty block log, but all the blocks I've done (not many) have been very clear-cut cases. I'm not too big on the idea of entrenching myself amidst all the drama an active blocking admin finds themself in. (and BTW, good luck on the election! don't let the "oppose"s get you down ^_^ ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy100018:11, 1 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:
Preprocessor node count: 7719/1000000
Post-expand include size: 92556/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 25297/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
compared to the infobox meta template version:
Preprocessor node count: 20378/1000000
Post-expand include size: 154215/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 55642/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 4/500
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)
I forgot to mention that code on the code page is protected from substitution in an <pre> block. That needs to be stripped off when the page is saved in the sandbox. As far as I'm concerned there is no rush about this. If you don't have the time I will understand. Thanks –droll[chat]23:58, 22 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)
Already blocked. And I think most people had the same gut feeling about Vazgen4, but his contributions could have been harmless, and were hard to build a WP:SPI case from I think. Amalthea20:37, 13 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)
That's a good point WRT the sixth lower: you were right to generalise that. All baris AFAIK have thumb keys for low-A, and I have no reason to doubt the same extends to bass and contrabass (which are pretty rare :D). Thanks for discussing. Happy‑melon15:43, 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)
10:07, 27 April 2008 Happy-melon changed protection level for "Names of China" (ridiculous. China, hit with the same style of protection, was unprotected long ago [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
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. ----
Oversight
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)
That method hasn't worked since Tim rewrote the parser preprocessor in early 2008; I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if there was documentation dating from before that time over at meta or wherever. The division of the template call up into template name and parameters is made before inner templates are expanded, so the preprocessor is concluding that you're trying to call a template named "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.
What you probably need to do is create a soft redirect to {{class mask}} which has |FQS=yes hardcoded, and call that where you're currently using the ! template. Happy‑melon10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks. That certainly explains why it doesn't work. Your suggestion is probably the best method. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:53, 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)
Deprecated parameters
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)
Unfortunately not, it's probably a matter of looking through all the citation templates and seeing which ones still support the parameters. Incidentally, I can't say too many times what a fantastic job you're doing with this; if you need any help editing protected pages or whatnot, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Happy‑melon14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just now starting with other citation templates. It will be a while to get that done, both adding detection to the templates themselves and changing the documentation pages. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 10 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)
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)
All Done. The extra random dot actually appears on quite a few of those templates, it's probably indicative of a deeper problem... Happy‑melon17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Eek! Well, I'll start with the accessdate/accessyear combo; I already have approval to deprecate |accessyear=. Guess we'll have to see how many that leaves. Happy‑melon19:12, 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.
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)
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)
That's it exactly: I added built-in support to MW to automatically add a tracking category to pages using the NOINDEX behaviour switch, just like the one for HIDDENCAT. However, I'm a little confused over its implementation; it seems to be behaving a bit erratically. The category is added when the page is reparsed, so it fluctuating is indicative of different servers coming to different conclusions as to whether it should be there or not, which is Bad. I'll poke Brion... Happy‑melon21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it a) removes the need for the template purely to add the tracking cat, and b) removes the ability for people to avoid the tracking cat, and c) helps identify pages where it's being misplaced (because it categorises the page whether or not the behaviour switch works there (articles, etc)). Happy‑melon22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Many times have passed since I have said that in tha talk, and nobody has opposed. I do not know what else should I do. The name of the article was republic of Gilan previously, but sb has changed it and me and many others do not agree on th basis of historical sources. sicaspi 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)
Strictly Come Dancing 7
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)
Yup, there's definitely one missing. I doubt that that's affecting the display, though; HTMLTidy would have been adding in an extra </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 :DHappy‑melon22:50, 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)
Eww. I'll try and take a look in the near future; certainly a lot of that editing needs to be reverted. Vis references, it's a tricky subject to actually source: any poker handbook in the world will have all that info in, but it's essentially common knowledge and maths, it's like referencing list of colours of the rainbow would be. Prod me again in a few days; hopefully I'll have time to give it a once-over before then. Happy‑melon22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your response. We could always reference paper rather than web if we had too, assuming someone had a decent enough source for those probabilities etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a cleanup; can't think how to fit a bold string into the lead, but it's a lot cleaner, and I pulled out all the random duplication.
The problem is not lack of sources so much as an overabundance of them: most of the stuff, the order, examples, et, are common knowledge. And the maths, while not exactly 1+1=2, is hardly up there with the Riemann Hypothesis. Perhaps we chould spell out the working in the notes section, but I don't really think there's much point in finding external sources for it. Happy‑melon09:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Short answer, "no". Long answer, "nope". :D Hopefully I'll have more time next week, although no promises. Keep poking... Happy‑melon13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
