Misplaced Pages

Hmm, I'll have a look. Amalthea 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the discussions you initiated on the talk page it seems to have all worked out. Generally, you'll tend to get competent input for disputes that can't get worked out on the talk page alone if you place (neutrally worded!) pointers at the respective WikiProject's talk pages. Cheers, Amalthea 16:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding from WT:CSD

Actually there was also Misplaced Pages talk:Twinkle/Archive 9 (just being pedantic). Thank you for engaging me in the first discussion you linked by the way. The latter link you provide is to me a black hole. If I could do it myself, I would and it would already be done. I think it's vital but you leave a post and no one with any ability to do the edit comes along and peopel think it's already addressed when it's not at all so you're just talking to yourself. The last user is missing the point. I think it's pretty clear the automation has led to the current warning situation and Twinkle doesn't address the problem. Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast when you can only suggest with a general description because of your own technical limitations. I could structure it to target the problem and take care of it I think but I can't write the program to implement any vision I have. As to my main gripe, you're right, it wasn't on Twinkle's talk page (predominantly). It started here (no response), so went here, and then here, and through that I was able to get the attention and feedback to do this, which lists all the templates I creates so that tailored warnings could be implemented through Twinkle. Without the TfD I don't think I could have gotten it done. More basically, I'm griping about how hard it is to get something like this implemented second hand which is my own failing. Maybe I need to start taking Java programming courses!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Will look into this tomorrow, I'm off to bed now. But thanks for getting back! :) Amalthea 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rather busy currently, and probably will be till the end of the year, so it took me a bit longer than I expected.
I didn't go back into the archives that far, apparently, I myself wasn't active at Twinkle in 2007, and can't really say how it was back then. I was mainly surprised by your comment since I recalled discussing with you about those tailored CSD notification templates and all seemed to be OK, and generally try to not let comments be completely ignored. I do have to weigh between usefulness of a feature and outstanding problems and the time I want to spend on Twinkle, so a number of good proposals are slumbering in the archives, but small tweaks and bugs are typically implemented rather quickly (or used to up until a month or so ago).
Cheers, Amalthea 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Contribution

I just made a (temporary?) fix to Atheism that suggests a tweak is needed. The parameter {{{contribution-url}}} from {{Citation}} is added to the parameter {{{IncludeWorkURL}}} from {{Citation/core}}. In such a case we do not need the warning that "a url is needed if there is an archiveurl", because the contribution-url is there.

I am certain a tiny addition in the right place can take care of this, probably even in {{Citation}} alone.

If you want to copy this to the template talk, go ahead." Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into how it works today, it should be a trivial change, you're right. Amalthea 07:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep me posted here if you fix it. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a really minor request. but I think it would be usefull to do so. It consists of two parts. It has to do with the fact that editors often don't add both archive parameters (archiveurl and archivedate) together.

• In {{Citation}} move |ArchiveDate= {{{archivedate|}}} to the beginning of the line and right after |ArchiveURL= {{{archiveurl|}}} (before |OriginalURL = {{{url|}}}). Like this

  |ArchiveURL= {{{archiveurl|}}}
  |ArchiveDate= {{{archivedate|}}}
  |OriginalURL = {{{url|}}}

• Update the documentation Template:Citation/core/doc to remove the |Archive= paragraph. I'd do it myself, but I am not sure what I should do with the other information there, so I prefer you handle it.

In the mean time I'll slightly update that same documentation in regard to the archive parameters, based on Template:Cite web/doc, which I have improved months ago already. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, see this diff. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you around? Debresser (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly at all, currently. Anything you need (besides a the requests above)? Amalthea 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is all. The purpose is to make shure people know how to use these parameters. I have updated that documentation, and on other citation templates as well. So far, so good. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done After reading that paragraph carefully, and thinking it over, I came to the conclusion that it could be removed completely. Relevant information about the |IncludedWorkURL parameter is mentioned later in that documentation file. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to fix the problem described in the beginning of this section? Debresser (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Eventually I hope I can do everything I set out to, but at the moment I'm happy if I can keep up with my watchlist (which I've culled already).
Check out the Template:Citation/testcases. Looks OK, problem is that it's asking for a parameter url, not contributions-url. Both have more or less the same effect, but not quite 100%. Good enough?
You've made all the doc changes you mentioned above already, right? Amalthea 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, I can only wish you success in all your positive endeavours. Yes, I made all the changes to documentation that were needed. I checked the fix to {{Citation/sandbox}}, and it works. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I added the parameter without "-", as in the specific case at Atheism, and analogous to |chapterurl=. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've patched citation/core, at long last. I haven't, after all, introduced the contributionurl variant, since I noticed that a number of other citation templates also have the same three variants chapterurl, chhapter-url, and contribution-url, and that you changed the parameter name in Atheism when you tried to get it to work correctly, it wasn't used like that before. We can, of course, introduce a fourth spelling variant, but I'd rather try to cut the variants down and unify all the the templates to use one style?
Anyway, the archiving looks good now. :) Cheers, Amalthea 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did it. Congratulations! Nice job. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice templates

Hi, the two editnotice templates you mention look interesting; an editnotice for all talk archive pages springs to mind. The templates don't seem to be documented or linked from anywhere helpful, though. Rd232 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One for *all* Archives would need to be built into the namespace notices, but would be quite trivial.
I built the templates when we put the loader template together, so they are probably only linked to in the discussions at WT:Editnotice, you're right. But all in all they are of rather limited use, only the subpage template is currently used in a couple. Amalthea 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivial sez you, I don't immediately see how to do it. I think it's a good idea potentially, maybe worth raising at the Village Pump, essentially to warn passersby that it's an archive (like {{archive}}). Perhaps you could do that if you agree - I seem to be wearing people out with all my ideas, judging by the level of response to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/userfication. Rd232 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

:)
Something like {{#ifeq: {{str left|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|8}}@ | Archive @ | {{Archive editnotice}} }}, placed on all respective talk namespace editnotices, would do it. Cheers, Amalthea 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Palit

Why did you delete this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.35.109 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 71.165.35.109.
When I deleted the article, it had the following content:

'''Palit''' is Palit Microsystems Ltd.

== External links ==
*

It was deleted per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion since there was no indication in the article why the company might be notable, and in addition a more detailed article was already deleted a while ago following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palit.
Typically, if an article on a topic is to remain on Misplaced Pages, it needs to be covered in-depth in multiple, independent reliable sources, like newspapers. If you are convinced that the company is of encyclopedic notability and passes that requirement, I would also advise you to read the respective pages in our article wizard on notability of companies and the reliable sources an article should have.
A later version of the article was deleted by another administrator, but also had no references to reliable sources (only a link to a partner listing of Nvidia).
Kind regards, Amalthea 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SWAT

I do like this idea but shouldn't I be the team leader? SoWhy 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're the president. You know, the puppet figurehead we use for nominations and present at parades, who has no power whatsoever. :D
Amalthea 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cool. That sounds muuuch better than being the team leader!! :-D *goes off to get himself a cool El Presidente hat* SoWhy 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way, else we'd have to think about replacing you. :) Amalthea 15:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What? You cannot do that! I already made an userbox! You cannot rob people of this glorious infobox! SoWhy 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you play your role and aren't going to develop any ambitions it won't come to that. Hmm, we might want to consider rebranding though, to the "SoWhy adminship team", "SoWhat". :) Amalthea 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/sandbox

This change will fix the logic bugs, although I have no idea if alternating against IncludedWorkURL if OriginalURL isn't present will be a good idea or not. See {{cite IETF}} for an example of where these parameters are getting a full workout. The first 3 changes in my diff above were new bugs, the last 2 changes appear to be old bugs. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Toth
Thanks for that! I've played with it a bit before, as you'll have noticed, but there still was a problem with it so I didn't deploy it. Have you checked if all citation templates that use core will work OK with it? I had noted down Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference that I believe had issues with how I started it (it's been a couple of days though).
Cheers, Amalthea 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How with the change to {{Citation}} we discussed above? Is that also waiting for this? Debresser (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, yes, the tweaks we talked about above weren't quite sufficient. Amalthea 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But the problem I wrote about would have been solved by them. That I tested. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In exactly the one template, {{citation}}, but not in the others. If we start putting in those patches in the outer template layer while they should really be placed in the core template, this template structure is going to be even less maintainable than it is now. The change Tothwolf made should, from a glance, work in the whole pack without putting logic into the wrapper templates. That's the way this should be fixed. Amalthea 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I've not tested it at all, I've kinda had my hands full. I just fixed the logic bugs that I saw. The last two in the diff I linked to should still be fixed in the template even if the other changes aren't used since right now only the URL parameter would have any effect in those #if statements. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at those myself then, hopefully tomorrow, but I'm extremely busy myself these days :(
Cheers, Amalthea 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Say, do you think we could also fix the issue with |ID= not working correctly if |Title= or |IncludedWorkTitle= are not present? This would allow me to simplify a huge section of code in {{cite IETF}} as right now I have to do all sorts of extra logic tests for |Title= and other parameters. Examples:
{{Citation/core |ID = id}}
{{Citation/core |ID = id |Title = title}}
{{Citation/core |ID = id |IncludedWorkTitle = included}}
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, speaking about logic in the wrapper templates ... :)
Is that problem described somewhere? When i just caught up with my watchlist I admit I've skipped all citation talk pages. Amalthea 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh that one is so complex I finally had to create a real regression tests suite for it, see {{Cite IETF/regression tests}}. Kinda hard to avoid the logic code for much of that template too since it requires it to have the functionality that it has. I don't think the |ID= issue is mentioned anywhere. I'm playing with a copy locally and if I can figure it out I'll add it to the sandbox for {{Citation/core}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one I noticed just by reading the code:
{{Citation/core |Place = place | Periodical = periodical}}
This one is a trivial fix though. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've put that and some other stuff in the sandbox. I broke it up into 3 edits so all the changes can be seen independently. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Just let me know when you fix it, please. And keep in mind my suggestion of adding all possible variations, including with and without "-" for both "contribution" and "paper". Debresser (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Answered in a section farther up regarding this one, I applied the patch now anyway to not put this off any longer. Cheers, Amalthea 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tested the changes to {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and they seem to be working correctly. I set up {{Cite IETF/sandbox}} to use {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and then built a full set of tests at {{Cite IETF/testcases}} based on {{Cite IETF/regression tests}}. It looks like my changes to {{Citation/core/sandbox}} didn't break anything and the IncludedWorkURL/ArchiveDate issue seems to be working correctly now. See both {{Citation/core/testcases}} and {{Cite IETF/testcases}}. Once {{Citation/core/sandbox}} is copied over I can remove all the extra code from {{Cite IETF}} that currently works around the broken |ID= parameter. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the two changes I mentioned above that I fixed in that first edit that were not related to your changes fixed the |AccessDate= issue for |IncludedWorkURL=, search for section-url and page-url on {{Cite IETF/testcases}} and you'll spot it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Further testing and investigation of the |Place= parameter is showing that parameter is currently pretty screwed up. I suspect that it is used less than |PublicationPlace= so it hasn't generated any bug reports yet. I'm going to see what I can do with it as well while I'm working on this stuff in the sandbox version. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will look at them tonight. I'm extremely busy at the moment, and mucking with the citation templates really isn't something I'd liked to do when I'm tired, considering how it went the last time when I was highly confident that I'd tested it all extensively. :) Sorry that I'm taking so long with this.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note on Template talk:Citation/core after speaking with another editor who had overwritten the changes I had in the sandbox. He has restored them although his change is still there as well (I didn't see a major issue with his change, although someone else deactivated his editprotected request). I won't likely have time to rework the |Place= parameter for the next week or so as I'm now rather busy with an ArbCom matter. The current code should still be fine to merge, but the preexisting bugs in the |Place= parameter are still there. Basically, the parameter was never properly implemented and other template additions since then have compounded the issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've applied the sandbox now, just tweaked the whitespace a little to get a better diff, but it's the same otherwise. I didn't look into any of the above again since I didn't want to put it off any further, I'm sure you both agree with that. :) Cheers, Amalthea 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MOTD

Now delete October please. Simply south (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Y All gone: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October. Cheers, Amalthea 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as usual. Simply south (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Not an official feature request yet, I just created {{wmnc}} to satisfy the issues mentioned here - and maybe someday it will be welcomed into Friendly - but for the time being I am wondering if there is a suggested way I could code it in there myself. In other words, can I either extend the friendly code by doing something local (in monobook for example) or can I copy the entire friendly code and modify it? Thanks as always for your wisdom.  7  07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the Friendly documentation WP:FRIENDLY#customWelcomeList. Your template doesn't take any parameters so you won't have any issues, like Floquenbeam had a couple sections down (see also their monobook for an example). Amalthea 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  7  00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to your comment at User talk:Aoi

I agree that Aoi got inadvertently caught up in a edit-war - they should have known better than to misuse reverts, but given their assurances and previous good record I've unblocked. However, I can't agree to unblocking either Ophois (talk · contribs) or Thewtfchronicles (talk · contribs); both have a history of blocks for edit-warring, neither seems to accept that they were edit-warring, Ophois has been revert-warring elsewhere too (, ), and Thewtfchronicles had just been warned about their increasingly problematic behaviour at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Review a block?. I hope this helps to clarify. EyeSerene 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Yes, as I just said at User talk:Aoi, I wasn't aware of the issue that lead up to this when I made that request, and only looked at the history of iCarly.
Cheers, and thanks for taking another look, Amalthea 11:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, seems we've got three conversations going on at once, so I'll stick to here. Thanks for your input - reviews of my admin actions are always welcome :) I normally post a link to the ANI thread when a block results from it, but as most of these were only peripherally related I didn't bother. I also normally protect a page in preference to blocking, but as the reverting at iCarly had largely died off but the edit-warring extended across multiple articles, I thought blocks would be the 'least harm to Misplaced Pages' solution. Again though, thank you for your comments (and I was perhaps harsh, so Aoi probably owes you a "thank you" too!) EyeSerene 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea, thank you for speaking on my behalf on my recent blocking (and doing so so quickly!). It seems that no matter what I do to mess up on Misplaced Pages, you're always there to get me out of whatever mess I put myself in. I appreciate it! Thanks! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention it, it's unfortunate that you got caught up in this. Cheers, Amalthea 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks/question

Amalthea, Thanks much for the tweak to my monobook. I can't understand the syntax of what you did, but I can now leave a {{welcome-test}} without a linked article, and this is fine for my purposes. In case it interests you and you enjoy fiddling with this stuff, it still does not add a link to an article, even if I type it in the box at the top of the menu (that box works for the standard templates). But to reiterate, I'm quite happy now, so no fiddling is needed if the puzzle doesn't intrigue you.

Floquenbeam has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

It does intrigue, as I said at WT:FRIENDLY the custom template lists would need to be extended to allow passing of meta information, such as whether a template accepts parameters or has a built-in signature to allow this and avoid problems like you had with it.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Listen, I know you fix a lot of friendly and twinkle scripts. According to wp:minor edit, when an individual removes or adds tags to an article, the edit should not be marked as minor, but friendly does. Could you fix it? Btilm 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I fixed it by removing the recommendation from the help page. This was brought up twice before at WT:FRIENDLY, I don't think there was ever a consensus for that addition to Help:Minor edit: There's some sparse, ongoing discussion on its talk page since 2007, it was added early 2009 by a now-banned editor, and I for one don't think that such a blanket recommendation makes sense. In particular with new page patrolling, I don't consider any added Friendly tags as major edits. It certainly is a different story with older, more established articles, I would agree with you that addition of tags should not be called minor. Then again, in my opinion Friendly shouldn't be used to tag any established articles anyway: Pointing out issues on the talk page or, if possible, just fixing them makes way more sense with older article with many revisions and authors, where the categorization isn't that helpful, issues are typically not as clear-cut or undisputed, and drive-by tagging understandably angers the main editors of those articles a bit anyway.
Any user can already change his Friendly configuration to not mark taggings as minor. We could also add a checkbox to display and toggle the status in the Friendly window.
Feel free to discuss this or ask for more opinions at WT:FRIENDLY though.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Syntax advice wanted

I would like your feedback on the syntax for {{if pagename}}, since we are now deploying that template among others in the {{cat handler}}. I have written up my question and some examples at Template talk:If pagename#Pattern syntax, if/when you feel like it take a look.

As you know, a part of that syntax is based on one of your ideas.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Cheers, Amalthea 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Noch einmal