User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Question

Could you look at my comment here and tell me if you think it could be easily done on our side or if we'd have to file a bug (if you know)? Specifically, having a redlink from the "talk" tab lead to a "new section" on the talk page instead simply editing the talk page. I've looked around Mediawiki but haven't found anything. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPCD

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‑melon 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, a meta-meta-template!? Sounds like your next task :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol Happy‑melon 21:12, 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)

What do you think of {{WPBannerHeader}}?? I dislike the name intensely, but couldn't think of a better one. Happy‑melon 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Happy-melon/Archive 11's Day!

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! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Happy‑melon 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Toolbar

Can you fix your template so that there is a space before and after the separator? Right now, you get toolbars that look like:

(user| talk| block)

But most of the toolbars I've seen have spaces before and after the separator like so:

(user | talk | block)

The lack of the space before makes the toolbar look funny to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed in MediaWiki:Pipe-separator

Thanks! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Biography banner template

Not sure if you've seen it yet or not, but I left you a reply over at Template talk:WPBiography. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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 :D Happy‑melon 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug #18661

Has been fixed. *\o/* So are we going to use common.css to style tags? It would seem like the sensible thing to do. But I am not sure what the best way to propose this is. Perhaps you can run with it since you created the bug request? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 08:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We're now at r52088, and the change was made at r52071. Should be good to go! :D — Jake Wartenberg 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's going over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Tag styling. Happy‑melon 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WPBS talk page scrolling

Hi,

Did you mean to remove the overflows I added when making your last reply here? It results in the page scrolling horizontally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. How wierd... I've restored them. Happy‑melon 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Books

Now after the bug 18092 was fixed, should we enable this feature again? Ruslik_Zero 08:38, 21 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‑melon 21:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts

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.)

JimCubb (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone added an article, complete with DEFAULTSORT, to Template:US-historian-stub. Pages which transcluded that template and already had their own DEFAULTSORT were added to Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

JimCubb (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion here to start with. I'm not sure what this comment is: are you advertising this discussion? Happy‑melon 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Banner shells

Hi there. I notice you have been busy elsewhere, but if you could comment on the latest specific proposal at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell it would be appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Full date unlinking bot

Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a template

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‑melon 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of thought things looked dark. --droll [chat] 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FULLPAGENAME & quotes

Hi
As a master of all known wikimarkup, I'm sure you can tell me why I had to make this workaround the get the comparison to work? The apostrophe seems to mess up the output of {{FULLPAGENAME}}. From a quick test, both single and double quotes have that problem, other candidates like backslash seem to be OK. Page output always looks OK, and the code {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME:Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard}}|... would have also worked. Bug. Known bug? You're keeping an eye on the lists and IRC, I think, and this seems like it should have surfaced somewhere else before, but I can't find anything in bugzilla. Would you happen to know of anything, or should I open a new one?
Cheers, Amalthea 00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 13:48, 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, Amalthea 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} work (never really done much with the escaped versions, so I don't understand what they do very well)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:50, 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‑melon 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the workaround I used in the example linked above. Messy, but robust, since the bug is hopefully going to be fixed at some point. Amalthea 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Right margin padding on image_right

Hi-need your help with above problem. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WPFlorida banner

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‑melon 14:24, 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‑melon 14:59, 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. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was in junk for some reason; sorry about that. I'll retrieve it... Happy‑melon 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And your reply went to my SPAM box. What harsh critics these filters be. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can sb compare...

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)

Karen David

Hi, Actually, the year of birth is on her bio at the website for the movie "the color of magic" (go to "Behind the Scenes - Cast bio's). The convention "Name (Place of birth, year)" is commonly used in the introduction of bio's on Wikipedia but I'm sorry if that bothered you. Best regards, Spraakverwarring (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 22:21, 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‑melon 10:02, 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 have been trying to replace the {{WikiProject Systems}} with the {{Sys rating}} for over a year now, see also here.

I guess I changed about 1500 templates, but didn't change the last 650 Template:WikiProject Systems.

I guess this redirect would put me back 1.5 years back, with a template with no fields. I guess this can't be your intention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 21:54, 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

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

If you want me to history-merge the two templates together, just say the word and I can easily do that. Then, you can continue to work through Category:Unassessed field Systems articles, and develop the template at {{WikiProject Systems}}, and you avoid the duplication and the unintuitive title. Hope this helps, Happy‑melon 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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:

1. I will accept your advice to relocate the {{sys rating}} at {{WikiProject Systems}}.
2. I would like to keep the "horizontal" display.
3. I just didn't know it was possible to redirect a template
4. I am not really interested in keeping the history intact, because I created both templates

Now I will try to relocate the {{sys rating}} with it's format at {{WikiProject Systems}} tonight, and hopes it all works out well.

Maybe I have some questions later on. Thanks so far. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 19:09, 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)

You mean where talk pages include {{Sys rating|...}} instead of {{WikiProject Systems|...}}?? They're absolutely fine: because Template:Sys rating redirects to Template:WikiProject Systems, all the pages display the same template no matter which one they call. Happy‑melon 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just took a look a the [1] to check if things are fine, and it doesn't seems like it. Could you check. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. There were two missing sets of }} -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's perfect. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One other question. On the Template:WikiProject Systems in the yellow template on top the term "Quality unassessed" links to Category:Unassessed quality Systems articles with the message that "This category is located at Category:Unassessed Systems articles". And the term "importance unassessed" links to the non-existing Category:Unassessed importance Systems articles. Is there a way to fix it? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've changed those links on the template to point directly to the two categories: Category:Unassessed Systems articles and Category:Unknown-importance Systems articles. I hope that is what is meant by "fixed". -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes great. Thank you both. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys. The situation doesn't seem stable yet, see here. Could you take a look -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that one now. Was an extra ]] this time. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see. If I find some more I will let you know. Thanks again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Importance Class Summary}}

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)

I see WOSlinker has been at it since you posted. Is it still broken? Happy‑melon 10:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He fixed it, thanks for the help offer. Again. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#add edit-semi as a feature to "Uploader"?

To be sure what people are supporting, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to move your comment if you were supporting the expansion of uploader as well as the ability for admins to grant it. –xeno^talk 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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. –xenotalk 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I've changed it over in most places now; I'll have another look at Special:Search tomorrow after the listings have been updated. Happy‑melon 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Navbox help

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‑melon 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sister project templates - link order problem

Hi, I just remembered this thread Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem. With David on wikibreak, I was wondering if you'd like to volunteer (either yourself or another admin) to take over these tasks? (There seem to be a few things in the thread that need to be investigated or just fixed). Sorry and thanks ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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...

Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 09:42, 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.
• Spoken: I just saw your request for a reminder here: Template_talk:Spoken_Wikipedia_boilerplate#Imagemap. I'm not sure if you already did, or need the reminder still.
• 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 think that's it ;) That's all I know, anyway. Delegate away. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance review

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‑melon 14:09, 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‑melon 15:33, 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‑melon 16:24, 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‑melon 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

shuffle.js

Hi
FYI, WP:VPT#Monobook.js not working?.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Just a poke to remind you to test, test and test your code again before putting it live in common. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 22:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js

Please do not change this without proper consensus ever again. There was no proper consensus on the page you have linked in your edit summary. Also, I cannot see a consensus for this change anywhere else. Finally, your change did cause errors. I respectfully ask you to be much more careful when modifying such an important page in the future. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

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.

Per your request... =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Phew, feel much better now... :D Happy‑melon 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to oblige any time... *muhahaha* XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bug 17865

You reported T19865. After stumbling across Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace, I noted "Caution: Some messages must have HTML links, and others must have wikilinks. To find out which is which, you must know where the message is used in the interface." I'm not sure what the last part means. I have now fixed messages like MediaWiki:Cite error references no text by using an external link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm rooting for you there, I'm sure you'll do plenty of good on that once you're allowed to start mucking about in the SVN code. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New tool for the tool box

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)

{{class}}

Just wondering if you have any thoughts on my last comment here? Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished

I finished cleaning up Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters. There's one archive that I didn't want to touch because it's an archive, and one spreadsheet (or whatever it's called) that I could not touch. Now what is the next step? Will these "accessmonthday" and "accessdaymonth" parameters be deprecated? Debresser (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. That was nice. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it: Will these "accessmonthday" and "accessdaymonth" parameters be deprecated? Debresser (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I posted at Template_talk:Cite_web#Category:Cite_web_templates_using_unusual_accessdate_parameters; assuming there are no objections, I'll remove the parameters in a few days. Happy‑melon 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another MediaWiki:Common.js

Hi!

What do you think about removing this? (the comment says "REMOVE THIS LINE AFTER 22/01/2009"...)

Have a nice week! ;-) Helder (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be removed safely. I'll do it myself later if you want, or you can do it if you're a mw.org admin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Also-Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 19:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! =D 200.225.190.17 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lady

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)

Hi, and thanks for commenting on this. The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Namingconventions(people), especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifiers not between brackets; it's not absolute, but I think that the consensus is that "Lord" and "Lady" should only be used as prefixes when it is necessary to disambiguate. In both the cases I did today (Rose Gilman and also Lord Nicholas Windsor), there was no conflict over the name and so no need to disambiguate. My opinion is that all these articles should be moved, if there is no need to disambiguate with another figure. Happy‑melon 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Melanesia

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)

Accessmonthday

Have you gotten around to doing sth about the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth parameters in Template:Cite web? Debresser (talk) 10:35, 10 August 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‑melon 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. Ok, don't hurry. Best of luck. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Flagged Revisions

You may may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

B-Class criteria

I see you edited Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. Perhaps you can have another look at it, because I was trying to make spaces appear in the right place on Template:Grading scheme but it's still not working. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If in doubt, hardcode the spaces to stop Tidy eating them... (also)Happy‑melon 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

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)

PS, it's good to see that User:Happy-melon#About Me has been expanded as requested. I still think it's lacking some detail and context, but I'll refrain from adding {{context}} for now :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 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?!? :D Happy‑melon 10:49, 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‑melon 09:05, 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⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! (also)Happy‑melon 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A request for review of an idea,

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)

Dodgy article section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_L'Achim

I think this article (especially the 'Work' section) is a bit controversial. I'd appreciate it if you could look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.149.127 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me???

I need some help. Will you adopt me? I'm really confused. Thankies :) Assyria hightower (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good and bad double redirects

As one of the people who contributed to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_44#Double_redirects, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good. — Sebastian 00:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unable to edit

I am suppose to be able to edit after 4 days and have more than 10 edits. Why is my account not able to edit semi-protect pages now? I seem to see something in the filter log, is this why? Vazgen4 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I able to edit semi-protect pages now? I just tried a semi-protect page didnt work still ? Can you make sure I can edit semi-protect pages now? Vazgen4 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok nevermnind, it works now thanks. Vazgen4 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's not editing any longer as he's blocked as a sock, but is he back? Take a look at my comments here [3]. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I was so close to going to checkuser-l rather than giving him the reset... Next time I'll go with my gut! Happy‑melon 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So should we take action about Ruben31? Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 13 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. Amalthea 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected

Resolved

If you still want to help, I have some editprotected requests in waiting. Only 2 haven't been implemented yet. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Saxophone

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‑melon 15:43, 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)

Hmm... you may well be right! I'm not a bari player... Happy‑melon 17:21, 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)

Isn't it a right thumb key? Happy‑melon 22:07, 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)

I think I'm thinking of the bass clarinet... :S Happy‑melon 09:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Names of China

• 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])

This was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. See Talk:Names of China. --TS 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Happy-melon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Using Template:!

Hi, if you have any spare time, could you look at Template talk:WPBannerMeta/class/sandbox and tell me if there is any way to get that working? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 10:21, 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)

Template:Empty category

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)

Same in {{Cite map}}. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I added another two templates. See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Accessdate for updates, if you are interested.

I can't think of a way to catch all of them together in one place. Do you have any ideas? Debresser (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 14:27, 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)

Actually, I have a request for you. Could you please have a look at Category_talk:Cite_web_templates_using_unusual_accessdate_parameters#Rename? Debresser (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your reply there.

Today I added detection and updated templates and documentation pages for another few templates. Detail on my userpgae (link above). Would you mind checking one of htem, to see if the technical side is correct? BTW, note that I have not removed the parameters from the templates in all cases. There is time enough to do that later for all templates together. At the moment I am concentrating on detection and fixing the articles. I did some 160 today, mostly from {{LondonGazette}}. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished checking all citation templates for usage of parameters. I liked what I did to Template:Retrieved. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you have another look at Template_talk:Cite_web#Discussion_of_second_problem? We need opinions. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a tentative, ananymous consensus of 3 editors here. While that is not so much, I think it is almost enough for such highly technical issues. I would like to propose the following course of action. 1. Wait untill AWB becomes functional again. 2. Let me fix the remaining 300 accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters. 3. Then let's do two things at once a. remove (deprecate) the accessmonthday and accessdaymonth parameters from the templates that still have them (using my list in User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Other_citation_templates), and b. add detection for the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters to the detection already present in those templates. BTW, I would like to add detection for the day parameter (a derivate of the date parameter) as well, as I wrote in the discussion. This won't do any harm. 4. Update all documentation pages. 5. Start fixing the deprecated parameters that will be found. 6. Only after that should we remove (deprecate) the accessyear, accessmonth, and accessday parameters the templates that still have them. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good course of action. Again, if you need admin help, please don't hesitate to ask. Happy‑melon 16:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AWB has a new snapshot version that hasn't fallen prey to the MediaWiki changes, and I have it working now. I'll get to it after Rosh Hashanah. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 18 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)

 Done Happy‑melon 09:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Which means you had the honor of removing the last known instance of these parameters. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Today I have added detection of the other parameters that are about to be deprecated to 13 of the 21 citation templates I am following. I'll ask you to do the other 8 protected ones later, after I had a change to clean out the category. Which undoubtably will get crowded soon enough. The accessyear parameter was very popular. Of course, I have not forgotten to update documentation pages, where necessary. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah! All 13 templates found precisely 1 page. Tomorrow we shall do the rest, if that is fine with you. Debresser (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated the documentation files for those editprotected templates now. Could you please add {{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}{{{accessday|}}}{{{accessmonth|}}}{{{accessyear|}}}{{{day|}}}|[[Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}} to Template:Cite web, Template:Cite map, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal, Template:Citation, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite video, and Template:Cite encyclopedia. Apart from that, I saw a dot on {{Cite book}}, probably from this line |PS = {{#if:{{{quote|}}}||{{{postscript|.}}}}}, so while you're at it, could you add <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags to this template? Debresser (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All  Done. The extra random dot actually appears on quite a few of those templates, it's probably indicative of a deeper problem... Happy‑melon 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Notice that all four templates that have the dot ({{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite book}}, and {{Cite encyclopedia}}) have this same line. So I still think that is the reason, and adding <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags on all four of them would solve this. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Now what are we going to do with 18.000+ pages? Debresser (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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‑melon 19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean you have a bot for that? Ok. I knew about this bot. Sorry.Debresser (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, |accessyear= is by far the most common of these parameters we have newly added. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's up with the bot? Debresser (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot's fine, it's owner has just been too busy to let it off the lead... :D I'll take a look now. Happy‑melon 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not going to have time to get this going for several days. Sorry for the delay. Happy‑melon 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wish you success in whatever you are busy with. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Parodies of Harry Potter

I have nominated Parodies of Harry Potter, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Con is On

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)

Tdlinks

After making edits to Template:Catfd3 for over an hour, I came to the conclusion that this edit had ruined a feature of that template. I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sense of humor

I like it :-) (of course Mizabot would do the usual duty--Caspian blue 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose merging this template into Template:Icon

Hi, since you're one of the primary contributors to Template:Icon and Template:Classicon, please have a look at Template_talk:Icon#Merge_Template:Classicon_into_this_template.3F if you can, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Noindexed pages?

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)

No idea either, but T18979 may be relevant. Also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 66#Noindex categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 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‑melon 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the idea that the category be removed from {{NOINDEX}} then? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 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‑melon 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LOCEinuse

Template:LOCEinuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilan

Please move to Persian Socialist Soviet Republic to Republic of Gilan due to its talk page. sicaspi 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

You need to form a consensus for the move on the talk page, which I don't see. Happy‑melon 08:41, 11 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)

RfD nomination of T:WPBM

I have nominated T:WPBM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

/bchecklist

Hello, PC and I think there is a missing /td in Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist. Could you have a look please? It might explain the problems we've been having with this subtemplate. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is missing just after the </ol> -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured too, but I prefer to leave these technicalities to others ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 20 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 :D Happy‑melon 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You were right. It hasn't fixed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of poker hands

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‑melon 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I know Balloonman (talk · contribs) is a good poker editor you could ask to help out (or at least has been; he doesn't edit nearly as much as he used to). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 21 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‑melon 09:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Active

Are you active again? I mean, active enough to start fixing Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters? Debresser (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, "no". Long answer, "nope". :D Hopefully I'll have more time next week, although no promises. Keep poking... Happy‑melon 13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With pleasure. :) Debresser (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)