User talk:Happy-melon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates
2 Banner shells
3 Problem with a template
4 Full date unlinking bot
5 FULLPAGENAME & quotes
6 Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Right margin padding on image_right
7 WPFlorida banner
8 Email
9 Can sb compare...
10 Karen David
11 Template:Sys rating
12 WikiProject Tennessee banner
13 {{Importance Class Summary}}
14 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#add edit-semi as a feature to "Uploader"?

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates

Yes that was what I meant and I've changed the wording to clarify it. Hope that helps. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:33, 22 February 2009

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Full date unlinking bot

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

I will accept your advice to relocate the {{sys rating}} at {{WikiProject Systems}}.
I would like to keep the "horizontal" display.
I just didn't know it was possible to redirect a template
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] 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)

User talk:Happy-melon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents