User talk:Happy-melon: Difference between revisions

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The big yellow "you have new messages" banner was created for a reason. If you want my attention, edit this page. If I want your attention, I will edit your page. If I just want to reply out of politeness, I'll do it here and save interrupting whatever you're doing... if you're interested in what I said, watch this page and find out. If I'm keen to see your response, I will be watching your talk page, or wherever I suspect you might post it. But if you have something to say you think I need to read, the big yellow banner is kind of hard to miss...

26 September 2024
In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

Thanks very much, both for the nomination and for all the support.

PS, Do you get an error when you try to look at the history of Template:AfC submissions by month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Martin^msgj 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserved it.

Yes, and it's the same error I just got looking at the history of Template:Sister. And, for that matter, the history of every page I check. Looks like it's a biiiig bug... Happy‑melon 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, filed (Template:Bug), and fixed, all within ten minutes. Who says the devs aren't on the ball? Happy‑melon 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why can't they do 16552 then ... ? Martin^msgj 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven only knows. Go vote for it again :D Happy‑melon 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have uses at hand for string functions? Dragons flight (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several off the top of my head, innumerable ones that would eventually materialise. As the top example, {{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/qualheader}}. Happy‑melon 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? I'm having trouble figuring out what that example is intended to do and how you would change it with string functions. Dragons flight (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more happy if mw:Extension:VariablesExtension were enabled. Ruslik (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't complain, but that wouldn't help me with that particular problem. Plus VariablesExtension has been shot down in flames by four of the senior devs (can't remember the bug, but it was pretty conclusive), while StringFunctions gets at worst murmurings of discontent. Happy‑melon 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Category:String manipulation templates for the moment using the pad hack that Brion decided to re-enable. The implementation is objectively terrible in terms of complexity and server load. It really ought to be implemented in parser functions, but for the moment, I'm just going for a demonstration that string functions are useful. Think you can come up with some? Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that on the help pages not only the message about the help page on Meta being the master page has disappeared, but also the link to this corresponding help page on Meta. Could you please restore those links? They are very useful.--Patrick (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messages on the en.wiki help pages suggesting that they are "regularly updated" from meta were completely outdated (the last update from meta was almost three years ago!) and so they have been deleted - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates for the full extent of that unnecessarily-complicated system. The way help content is evolving on Wikimedia is that technical material - pure how-to-use-the-software help that is not site dependent - is being moved to www.mediawiki.org's public domain Help: namespace, and site-specific help is being returned to the respective site. The help manual at meta is being dismantled. Local consensus here is fairly fluid but tends to drift in the direction of soft-redirecing to the mw help pages rather than hosting local content, although that could change. But in either case, linking to (or worse still falsely suggesting that the local content is an uneditable copy of) the meta help pages is no longer appropriate. Happy‑melon 08:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where a useful and related help page is available on Meta, removing a link to it is very unhelpful and against the conclusion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates that says that templates should be appropriately substituted before being deleted.--Patrick (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Happy, how you doin? Question: When I run across an IP talk page that is filled with a long list of warnings, is it ok to clear off the old ones? And how much should I leave? - 3 months? Thanks, and if there's a page that tells me that - could you drop me the link too please, so I can read the full details. Have a good one — Ched (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERPAGE would be the place, if anywhere. Certainly I shouldn't think there'd be a problem with clearing out all bar a couple of months-worth. Happy‑melon 08:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick question for you. I'm starting to help out at CAT:EP, especially the template requests. It would often be useful to compare a sandbox version with the live version. Is there a way of doing that easily? Thanks, Martin^msgj 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just load up the sandbox, copy the code, go to edit the live template, paste the code over the top and click the "show changes" button. I have the "force edit summary" option enabled in my preferences so I know as long as I don't write an edit summary I can't accidentally save the sandbox version. Happy‑melon 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these questions has been asked an answered then never mind. I used the following citation today:

John Muir (1912) "chapter 11". The Yosemite Template:Accessdate

Seems to me that there should be a way to use a citation template without doing this:

John Muir (1912). "chapter 11". The Yosemite. Retrieved 2009-02-27. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Secondly: Has any thought been given to the the {{accessdate}} template and date formats.

And lastly: Has anyone considered some way to set the date format for an entire article.

No reply necessary. These all require added complexity and sometimes it seems we have a difficult time with the present level of complexity. --DRoll (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, do you mean by "there should be a way to use a citation template without [using a citation template]"?? I don't really see where you think the redundancy or difficulty lies. The {{accessdate}} template is redundant to the formatting in full citation templates, but an be used as in your first example with ease. Date formatting on article-wide bases is very much a holy grail for us here. Happy‑melon 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the way the two examples are coded you will see that the first uses only the the {{accessdate}} template while the second uses the {{cite book}} template. The url = parameter requires a full url and the external link arrow is displayed. In the first example I coded the citation using interwiki links. I wonder if there could be a way to use and interwiki link in citation templates to substitute for a url. The way things are restricts the use of interwiki links. This is no big thing to me. I just think it merited a mention. --DRoll (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, inline interwikis should be avoided in articles, as they will obviously break when our content is reproduced elsewhere. So in a citation, the external link format is preferable: ignore the fact that the two sites are affiliated. And given that only wikisource can be cited as a reliable source (with the obvious unique exceptions of articles about Wikimedia), the utility of interwiki links in citations is very minimal. So overall, external links are generally better, and should be used in citations etc even when an interwiki link is available. Happy‑melon 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happy-melon I wanted to let you know that [[]] is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happy-melon I wanted to let you know that [[]] is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]