This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Hello:
Thanks for fixing my template here. I don't know what the problem was; I used the template at WP:RM, but when I put the proposed name at new1 it showed in preview as a question mark. I notice though that you used a different template; where would I find it? Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pppery. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, by deleting the redirect the following article would be not only written but also created by me, that's why i asked for speedy deletion. In de.wp that's a sufficient reason for speedy deleting a redirect, is this not possible here? All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilt, you're welcome to create a page at SDS-PAGE. You don't need to delete the page first. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Hi Primefac, that i know, but deleting the redirect makes me the article's creator and lets it pop up on the 'pages created'. I've written a few hundred articles so far, and in four language versions... cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in the meantime, we'd be short a redirect. If you sandbox the article you want to have replace it, I am happy to move it to the proper location when it is finished. This will delete the existing page and you will be credited with creating the page. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and thanks, --Ghilt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: i guess i'm ready (User:Ghilt/SDS-PAGE), --Ghilt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Someone declaring intention to [re]create a redirect as an article is not a criterion for speedy deletion of a redirect here, so I'm glad that the deletion was not done. Should someone ever request deletion of a redirect so that they can "create" an article of the same name? Shouldn't they just start editing, replace the redirect with actual content, and say that they "created" the article (in the edit summary and on their talk page)? Oh, no, the new "creation" should "pop up on the 'pages created'" counts and lists. (Someone should have linked this - I can't find mention of "pages created" on Wikipedia, except for some posted links that showed me the [current] URL formats for two wfmlabs tools: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Ghilt/all and https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/created.py?name=Ghilt&server=enwiki&ns=,,&redirects=none .) So this is about credit. Well, no one owns any article. Typically the one(s) who contribute more to an article, earlier, deserve more credit for it.

The replacement article got created in user space and then got moved into article space on top of the existing redirect (instead of copy-pasted), thus establishing "creation" credit according to the mentioned tools (which presumably look at the oldest entry in each revision history). However, the move-over-existing had the same effect that the deletion would have had - all history of the old redirect vanished forever. (Probably little or no value there, except maybe the earlier date of the initial "creation".)

Maybe if the tools were smarter, they would deem the first (or last) editor who makes a redirect into an article its real "creator". Why credit a "creator" on a mere redirect at all? A redirect is a lesser creation, isn't it? Not really an article. How many editors were cheated of their credit when they converted mere redirects into real articles without asking for special service? Classes of articles, classes of editors. Every "real" creator deserves full credit. Now you have to do this for everyone. Get crackin'! [mildly annoyed satire] -A876 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a point, I'm not sure you made it. Policy change proposals are thisaway. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's try second-person. Your first reaction was rational - if someone wants to upgrade a redirect into an article, go ahead and do it. Next, the real reason emerged: It was a childish request, along the lines of "turn off that light, so that --I-- can get credit for turning it on". And then you did it anyway. •Was the move from user space (erasing the existing redirect), instead of the available copy-paste, valid within existing policy? (I'm not going to try to research this one. Either there is a principle or there is not.) •You opened a door - everyone who wants "creation credit" for upgrading a redirect can fairly make a similar request of you (move my user-space article on top of a redirect so that --I-- get "creation credit"). •You established that upgrading a redirect into an article deserves "creation credit" - thus you have retroactively made thousands of upgrades unfairly deprived of their deserved "creation credit" – are you prepared to rectify each one by deleting all history prior to the upgrade? (obviously not the way to go) I know, it was nice of you, and no good deed goes unpunished, but there are grounds to re-think this one. -A876 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a solution to a problem they had. This is no different than if someone were to create a draft, submit it for review at WP:AFC, and the reviewer then deleting the redirect upon acceptance (I actually expected them to do that). While I agree there was no need to do it this way, there is also no harm in doing so. It's only when someone maliciously performs such tactics that I get annoyed. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I don't think that we should go around histmerging every deleted redirect that became an article, or deleting the revisions of a redirect-turned-article before it was the article. I did not "establish" anything, and I have zero power to unilaterally make policy decisions. Anyone looking at this particular situation as any sort of precedent should be sent to WP:OSE for why their arguments aren't valid. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A876, and sorry for my late participation in this meta-discussion. Now, i don't really get what's your problem. And no, granting me the deletion of the redirect while moving the article from my namespace does not guilt Primefac of the deprivation of thousands of others at all, but rather the setup of the en.wp. IMHO, it's all about motivating people to contribute in their free time. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever remove functions that are in use. You make a mess of infoboxes using that function. If you'd don't understand what you're doing, don't interfere. And if you ever mess about with one of my sandboxes again, I'll take you to ANI and see that you don't have the chance to repeat your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example of one page that uses the emptyor function from Module:WikidataIB that I removed. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter Donnelly
• Matthew Stephens (statistician)
• Peter Coles - there's three examples for you. Now do your own research in future and don't mess with things you don't understand. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly well that ((emptyor)) (the template) is in use on those pages, but that does not mean that ((#invoke:WikidataIB|emptyor|...)) (the module function) is used on those pages as I've reimplemented the template using Module:String. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will be when you've self-reverted your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which I won't do, as categorizing this as "meddling" is totally incorrect. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the idiosyncrasies of using ((ping)). Now that I'm aware of it I've noticed a few occasions where I've probably messed it up, so I left a note on the user's talk page rather than twiddling my thumbs. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 01:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Doprendek wanted to move Qingjian realty to Qingjian Realty and was requesting a technical deletion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is the wrong venue for such a request. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... especially since (s)he could have just moved the article in the first place. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ((db-g6)) is a valid reason for speedy-deleting a redirect (Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves), so while the exact template subtype was "wrong" it was still a valid request. I've moved the page in question. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Hello, you recently changed the article name of Poet Artist stating that it is a “non-technically restricted name” however, this title IS technically restricted, and per WP:TSC it can never be used in article names. With the currently article name that you changed it to, you can’t actually link to the article.Alexanderlee (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that I was technically capable of making the move shows to me that it is not technichally restricted. And I can link to the page just fine. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you’ve proved me wrong that you can indeed link to it, however that doesn’t change the fact that per WP:TSC, that character cannot be used. “There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _” so I’ll be changing the article name back to Poet Artist when I can. Alexanderlee (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section of WP:TSC is just reiterating the restrictions that the software enforces, not trying to set any rules on its own. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind joining the conversation over at the talk page? thanks Alexanderlee (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nooo. Since you had some involvement with the Nooo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your change for mw:Template:Graph:PageViews - all graph templates follow the convention of first explaining what the template does, and afterwards show how the template is made. Most of the time, how something is made is not as important for the viewers. --Yurik (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change things without discussing first. Graph templates follow the same convention as Lua modules - first the documentation, followed by the code of the graph itself. Both are important, but documentation is more important than code. It doesn't mean code is not important for those maintaining it. If you think they all should change, please start a discussion instead of deleting. Thanks. --Yurik (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graph templates follow the same convention as Lua modules. AKA Graph templates arbitrarily deviate from the standard convention for templates, which is the result of the code first, then the documentation. The reason that lua modules look the way they do is that lua cannot be interpreted as wikitext usefully, whereas the markup of graph templates can. I'm not deleting anything; the code is still there, just on the "edit (source)" page instead of the main template page, where it doesn't belong. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when nominating a template for deletion, it's normally good practice to leave some sort of edit summary stating that you're nominating it for deletion. A lot of people go by what they see on their watchlist (without going through the diffs of each change) and if they see an edit by an established editor without an edit summary they're likely to assume it's a relatively minor technical tweak rather than something as consequential as a deletion nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC) ....And you're also expected to notify their creator, as with any other XfD. – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been clearer to explicitly mention that you were talking about ((!Cite)), which I didn't notify the creator for since they hadn't edited for 5 months. Good point about forgetting an edit summary there, though. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ((!Cite)) and the immediately following half a dozen other templates created by the same editor. True, there's no need to notify retired people, but four months of inactivity is probably not enough to consider someone retired (provided they haven't indicated on their user page that they have retired). I think this is precisely the category of editors that the XfD talk page messages are meant for: if they were logging in every day, they would have presumably noticed the nominations anyway, wouldn't they? The crucial thing is that there are people who do not edit, but who receive email notifications if someone posts on their talk page and who will come out of the thicket if it's about something they're sufficiently interested in. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dealing with user sandbox+ project, directly. Please discuss first. Please restore page names. Thank you.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say without providing any reason. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a multi-language project to support equity in contributing. Our team has responsibility for its functionality. Thank you.   ManosHacker ^talk 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own this set of templates. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I will be happy to demonstrate it and cooporate to make it better. Do you have a skype account to share my screen on?46.198.215.34 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not willing to take this dispute off-wiki. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please install user sandbox+ to your sandbox and try it out yourself, and I will assist by answering questions onwiki. Build personal and project libraries, more than the global library. Create and (or at least pretend to) move articles from user space to main space. Try all advanced options like starting a page directly to main space or edit in wikicode editor. If you have complete picture, we will save time and effort and the tool will finally get proper english optimization (which I know it needs).   ManosHacker ^talk 01:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (sigh) You seem to be conflating the content side and the technichal side. I'm not required to go throught the motions of useing your template just to rename confusingly named templates or convert ((#if:((REVISIONID))|...|...)) to ((if preview|2=...|...)). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that you continue to break functionality with your bold edits. You do not know the depth of the tool and the impact to functionality with what you are doing. In libraries like Template:Article page template class/Article template library, param4 cannot have a space before (after |). Please ask before making changes. Now param3 has to be whthout space after | too, and the help during the creation of custom libraries must also change to reflect this, as well as the matrix template itself. Please make proposals to take them step by step.   ManosHacker ^talk 03:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In creation, not Template:In use, but also revised to meet the tool's needs (also a time bug of original template is bypassed). Please ask first, the template targets people who create new articles.   ManosHacker ^talk 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only tangentially looked at this, but it sounds like some things are breaking. Rather than edit-warring over the main template, any proposed changes should be sandboxed in order to demonstrate functionality and backwards-compatibility with old usage. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Dear Pppery, since you are the only editor who really had an opinion on improving user sandbox+ templates family, I would like to hear form you to go forward properly. Initially there was only user sandbox functionality using a generic article template. This is now enhanced with templates for article types to select from. Would it be wise to have two main template family trees (i.e. user sandbox+ and article page template families) and host all templates under these two, or just one? Maybe it is time now for a full re-design in templates structure. Regards,   ManosHacker ^talk 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. I was considering proposing a more broad refactor of template naming, but never got around to it. One thing I would suggest though is move ((Article page template)) -> ((User sandbox+/templates)), making only one family. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here, if you please. Yes, it is easy to make it one family, and even shorten template names. On the other hand it might be wise to give the option to the templates to work with different tools than the sandbox I thought of. What do you think?   ManosHacker ^talk 21:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pppery, I am preparing several word documents, for each template that needs translation, that take linked strings for translation from excel. This seems to work and I am building it now. Is there a better way to do it onwiki? Word and excel do not follow version changes onwiki.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly mw:Extension:Translate isn't installed here. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pppery, have a look here to see the translation need. Would it be acceptable to build the translation on sub-templates under each of the pages? Porting to other languages would be significantly accelerated by this method. Do you have in mind any handy wiki-system that can fetch strings without stressing the servers and is easier to keep up-to-date compared to template pages creation/deletion? Thank you,   ManosHacker ^talk 07:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if mw:Extension:Translate were installed here, doing this would be trivial. I don't personally agree with manually reimplementing this sort of thing with template calls, but I can't thing of any better way of doing it. Had I not known about this discussion, though, my instinct would tell me to nominate the kind of template your proposing creating for deletion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pppery. I trust your instict and, in order to avoid any possible conflicts, I will not create any sub-templates. If the tool is of any worth to become a gadget and have system support for languages, I suppose it will find its way. Until then I will be translating it on demand.   ManosHacker ^talk 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about that page, Characters of the Suderhof? Should that be incorporated into the main Neues vom Suderhof page, or should it stay a standalone page? Germanhexagon (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion as to the type of sources I should include to make it stronger, as a standalone? Germanhexagon (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Germanhexagon (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a content kind of editor. Sorry. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tip regarding time formatting; I think it is going to work. I had found Template:ISO date, but I hadn't yet deconvoluted it; your snippet was much more to the essence of the problem. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pppery, I hope you are doing all right. I wonder if you have in mind any way to implement prependtext functionality, preferrably by not using, user's or common, js. I would like to replace ((User sandbox+/flush page))'s guidance with a two step procedure (click, confirm). Js code might partially look like the following:

then(function(){
  var api = new mw.Api();
  api.postWithToken( "edit", {
    action: "edit",
    title: "((NAMESPACE)):((PAGENAME))",
    prependtext: "#REDIRECT [[((NAMESPACE)):((BASEPAGENAME))]]\n\n"
  })

but I still miss how to do it properly. Thank you,   ManosHacker ^talk 11:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not aware of any way of doing this without JS, and I doubt you'll get consensus to implement such js on the English Wikipedia. One thing to note, though, is that #REDIRECT [[((NAMESPACE)):((BASEPAGENAME))]] doesn't work because redirect targets can't be template determined. Also, wouldn't it be better for this to add ((db-u1)) (or the wiki-specific option -- it would seem really weird for a wiki not to let users delete page in their own userspace) in addition to or instead of masking the content behind a redirect ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the (()) syntax is incorect in js, I put it there to show my intention. The delete issue was a solution due to low admin activity in Greek Wikipedia, which is inherited here. It might indeed be better to give the option for delete instead of making it a redirect, in English. (In my opinion users should be prohibited from moving pages from other spaces to their user space, allowed to delete their own space pages and move them around under their own space, and maybe finally to another space, without leaving a redirect behind). Thanks once again, Pppery.   ManosHacker ^talk 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I was wondering if you might help me with a problem at Template:Infobox earthquake. I've added some parameters, including 'timestamp', which should display as "UTC time" at the top of the list. However, if there is no value, and iff 'pre-1900' is set, I would like the label to not display. However, it is always displayed. But only in main space! The code works as I expect in testcases, my sandbox, and draft space (see Draft:1382_Dover_Straits_earthquake)). At one point I had another label ("Test") set up so it was doing the same thing, but I don't recall just how I did it. I'd greatly appreciate it if you should be inclined to take a look. There's a test stub to play with at 1382 Dover Straits earthquake--test.

And time for me to take a break. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. It was a combination of a subtle logic error, some unexplained (and undocumented) behavior, and a short-fall in my understanding of the full scope of that behavior. Whew, I'm glad that rock broke before my hammer broke! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my sloppiness. I only do that because it's so much easier to find the link to the talk page than it is searching for the link to the testcases page. I'll try to be more rigorous in future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ((ping)) for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery (talk) Can you please protect the article of edit fully-protected[[1]] from being deleted in future reference? If you can do so thank you in advance and have a nice day as being semi retired. =) Wiki Informant X (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Informant X, pppery is unable to do this as they are not an admin. To request page protection please go to WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Wiki Informant X I'd add, more importantly, that your article is not going to be protected from deletion; that is not a thing that we do Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in deciding the direct fate of article, only in insuring they aren't incorrectly speedied. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you explicitly state that a function has "Dependencies: none" then you are differentiating between the case where a function has no dependencies and that where a function may or may not have dependencies, but it has not been documented. That's an important distinction for any third party looking at the code who may wish to reuse it. Best practice is to make that distinction clear. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this set of experiments will indicate, I'm obviously missing something. Help:Substitution does not cover substitution of #invoke. The goal in this case is for the template to work as-is, and also to substitute cleanly if it is substituted (i.e. to produce [[French language|French]] from ((subst:ISO 639 name link/sandbox|fr)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that was failing, but modules should be safesubstable like everything else. (example: ((MultiReplace)) is substable by passing safesubst to a module) ((3x|p))ery (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that doing safesubst:<nowiki /> will not work but safesubst:<noinclude /> will. Mysterious but noted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the order in which stuff is evaluated. My guess is that the <nowiki /> tag is extracted early, before the template is evaluated but the <noinclude /> tag is not extracted because it is directly related to template evaluation. The content of <nowiki /> tags is reinserted after template evaluation. What is not clear to me is why it is necessary to insert anything between safesubst: and #invoke or a template name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise the safesubst gets parsed during PST of the edit being saved. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please. I don't know what the initialism PST is.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-save transform. I mean that, just like if one types "((subst:foo))" and gets the result of substing Template:foo, the same thing happens with safesubst. ((3x|p))ery (talk)

Please stop moving those template styles pages and please revert those already moved. It is disruptive. If you think they should be named differently, please come chat at WT:TemplateStyles.

Thanks. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. For all other uses of subpages, the "/sandbox" goes at the end (ex. Template:Db-multiple/item/sandbox is not called Template:db-multiple/sandbox/item. TemplateStyles should not be special in this regard, and I am not going to endorse this deviant behavior by reverting myself. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding Template:Template sandbox/styles.css, is there any alternative to test templateStyle without creating a subpage of the template sandbox? Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. A CSS sandbox probably is a good idea, however the solution to that problem is to discuss it at WT:TemplateStyles or WT:About the Sandbox, not to create pages that meet G2. (Also: this is the second time I had to G2 such a page, which explains the announcement to all edit summary). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. This has now been solved at WT:TemplateStyles#TemplateStyles in Modules. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi.

so you moved "Template:Chess from pgn/template style.css" to "Template:Chess from pgn/styles.css" with summary "Naming convention" (wish i knew how to link to specific move log item). this is fine, but i think that when doing so, it should be your responsibility to see that the template that includes this style using "templatestyle" tag, is modified to use the moved page.

we can argue whose responsibility it is, but twisi, something was working, you made a change, for "naming convention", to a state that was not technically wrong, or in violation of any policy (as a side, please note that even Wikipedia:TemplateStyles does not stipulate specific name, at least not consistently: there is at least one example using a different name), and after your change, things were borked: the template referenced non-existing page, and did not get the style it needed.

i do not mind it that much, as a one-off thing - i fixed it shortly after, and the specific template is not currently used in article space, so the impact was very limited. however, if you regularly move style pages this way, i think you should not leave broken stuff behind, and when you rename a page, you should fix the places it's referenced, so the reference is made to the new name. if you can't or don't want to do this, i think you should refrain from moving those pages, even when their name violates the convention: better violate naming convention, than violate a working template.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(not a talk page stalker, just happened to be reading) קיפודנחש, you can link to [Special:Log?logid=92283440 a single log entry] using User:Enterprisey/links-in-logs.js - just visit a Special:Logs page (like the move log for the second page) and the timestamps will now be links. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion discussion you mention The fact that it uses an expensive parser function means it is by definition not "extremely efficient". Which parser function is that? (please ping with reply) Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this link, click show preview, scroll to the bottom of the page and click Parser profiling data, midway down is 'Expensive parser function count'. If there are any expensive calls in ((template parameter value)) they will be tallied there. The only function in module:template parameter value that can be expensive is mw.title.new() but only when called with an id number (see its documentation). It appears that the template expects article titles as text strings so the occasion of id will be rather rare. It is possible that whatever is handled by frame:preprocess() might be expensive (I don't know what that is because the author couldn't be bothered to document the code – shame on them) but such expensive calls are not caused by ((template parameter value)).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: It looks like I was just wrong when I said that. The piece of code I was thinking was expensive was calling getContent on a title object, but that doesn't seem to be true. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trappist the monk and Pppery, Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this discussion, and the related WP:CFDS comments, I'd like to invite you to open an RfC/CfD to reach a standard for naming these categories. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. Can you please tell me which WP policy doesn't allow links to Wikidata in article text? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, which I guess isn't technically a policy. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, since it is not really a policy, it looks like it is not enforced. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be enforced very well, but it should be, so I enforced it when I stumbled across that set of articles in an unrelated task. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been working on cleaning up the module space recently, does this seem useful to you? For me, I would think typing ((=)) would be simpler. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could theoretically be useful. For example, if ((URL)) were implemented in Wikitext, using this module would be useful if it were rewritten to use parent arguments. Personally, I probably wouldn't nominate it, but wouldn't !vote keep if someone else did. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the orcs belong to Blackrock Clan which has resumed demon worship as revealed in the second mission of the human campaign, Blackrock & Roll. That said, it's not really relevant to the plot as whole, so your removal still makes sense, Regards SoWhy 08:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pppery. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. Thanks for fixing the visual glitch at WP:VPP. I noticed the glitch but couldn't work out what was causing it. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you click here, Scroll up one to Ser's greeting - Click edit next to that header .... It takes you to the template .... Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 21:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You just fixed it as I wrote this :), Unfortunately it's still taking me to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ShilohbyBillings&action=edit&section=T-1, Thanks for your help, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 21:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I've configured things so the problem should fix itself by a bot in 20 or so minutes. In theory, I could code up a more short-term fix, but it's not worth it in my opinion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're a legend!!, Thanks so much your help is very much appreciated :), Merry Christmas and I hope you and yours have a Happy and Healthy New Year, Thanks again. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 22:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Pppery, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 22:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at nominating Module:Rail with T3 speedy for duplication, does that seem like the right one for this situation? Cards84664 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no reason that Module:Rail can't be kept as a redirect, as the name seems plausible to me. Given that I boldly redirected Module:Rail, it does not meet T3 as it is a redirect. I would recommend starting a RfD, if you think the redirect as it remains is implausible or should otherwise be deleted. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the redirects. Knowing Ythlev's editing behavior, they're just gonna restore it in a day and keep injecting sandbox code into Template:Infobox station, as they did recently. Now the problem is that I'm not experienced with RFDs, could you make the nomination for me? Cards84664 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD created at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 2. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wood Street station (PAAC) as an example, Adjacent stations is pulling "toward to" instead of "toward". Can you fix that? Cards84664 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: Yes. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit deletes the code <noinclude> and </noinclude> from the template "Year in various calendar" used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". However, you should remain "year=1250" in the template "Year in various calendar", which used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". 123.150.182.177 10:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

... the template already produces so many errors on its own page that it's not worth worrying about this specific case. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:IPA\Transwiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unused redirect with awkward backslash leftover from a rename

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding them! 77.183.150.15 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks so much for doing all the tricky template work at Template:Tfm and Template:Tfm/dated, I appreciate you stepping in where I came up short. More impressively, I might add, is that you not only came back and back to fix things up, but took care of various other things as well. Truly a tireless contributor! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ya. What is the purpose of User:Pppery/noinclude list??? I keep seeing that page show up in TFDs as the only page transcluding a template that is about to be deleted. Just curious what that is for. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: You're the third user to ask. It's a tracking category of sorts, which lists all templates at TfD that are missing TfD tags or have the TfD tags noincluded when they shouldn't be. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Not a huge deal, but any way to have it list the template by name rather than using a transclusion? Just makes it easier to know when a template is good to be nuked based on having 0 transclusions. If its a pain to do then no worries, but would appreciate it! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: It does list the template name, but in order to check whether the a page has a TfD tag, Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd has to call title:getContent() on every page at TfD, which records a transclusion. Also, it should only transclude pages with open TfDs, so it shouldn't interfere with the process of deleting templates: close the TfD and the transclusion should go away. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha. Good to know. When I'm closing a TFD I check the transclusions to see if it is ready to be deleted or needs to be orphaned. That's why. All good! Thanks for the info. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial discussion

I saw this and figured that this list and this script might come in handy. Pinging @MusikAnimal who asked for a list. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This will need some manual processing to determine which page has the right level, so its not super useful. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we wanted to protect all of them with the same level you could do so directly on the category page with Twinkle. I understand that is not the case, and it looks like your RFPP requests are being handled already. The mass-protection concept is just something to think about for next time. Thanks for bringing these templates to our attention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Don't worry, I have far more pages in my queue to request protection for, and I even made multiple edit requests to the infrastructure behind protection. In any case, real life is getting in the way, so I won't be able to do more work on this for many hours. Pppery, the protection wizard 05:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: I've now done the requisite processing and created User:Pppery/pages to semi-protect, a list of pages that should be semi-protected (modules or CSS pages that aren't protected but are used in semi-protected templates). Pppery, the protection wizard 23:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I spot-checked about half of them and indeed the associated template was semi'd. The rest I'm taking your word for :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

System messages

@MusikAnimal: OK, I'm back at the protection-management task again. Please fully-protect all pages in Category:Pages used in system messages needing protection, an auto-generated category I just created that categorizes all pages tagged as ((Used in system)) that aren't already fully-protected. Pppery, the protection wizard 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you think it's a good idea, we could have User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector automatically protect anything in this category. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: That's too prone to vandalism: what if someone adds ((Used in system)) to a random template they want protected. This would be a good idea, however, if the bot actually checked that the page was used in a system message, and removed or nocatted the template if not. Pppery, the protection wizard 22:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking the same. It would need to verify ((used in system)) is accurate. I like the idea about having it remove the template if it is incorrect, too. I'm going to be making some new proposals for this bot at WP:AN soon, I'll be sure to mention these ideas. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Removing the template is going to be a difficult bot task, as pages can be used in system messages in extremely obscure ways. See Module:Jf-JSON for an example. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't even see how MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js is using it, but okay. I guess that bot task is a no go! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection

@MusikAnimal: One final set of pages to template-protect as modules/stylesheets of protected templates is available at User:Pppery/pages to protect.

Of the pages that will still be left in the bad protection level categories after this:

1. 3 pages need full protection, which is requested normally at WP:RFPP
2. Template:Infobox book is a false positive: the code isn't designed to handle a template that sometimes calls a module.
3. The "XXX as random slideshow" templates, Template:Stack begin, and Template:Smallcaps2 are false positives: code isn't designed to handle CSS pages used by multiple templates.
4. Someone needs to decide on the right protection level for Template:Flex columns: the module, template, and CSS pages all have different levels and I'm not sure which is right.
5. Template:Pp-office and Template:Pp-reset are a special case: neither template-protecting nor fully-protecting the entire line of modules they use feels correct to me. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to stop here. I think we need broader input. Semi and system messages are one thing, but template-protection for Module:Search for instance I don't think is really needed. Yes, ((search)) uses it, but I'm not sure why that's template-protected either. ECP at most, in my opinion. I think the solution is to start using cascading protection, if we really wish to have all transcluded templates have the same level of protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Cascading non-full protection isn't allowed by the software because it would allow non-admins to protect pages. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I'm still a bit unsure about some of these. Template:Chess diagram I think used to have a lot more transclusions. Today I don't see template protection as necessary. Maybe these could use a more thorough look over? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Template:!Cite/doc not a subpage of a deleted page? Template:!Cite is a redirect to Template:Full citation needed. Am I missing something? --Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Gonnym: Template:!Cite exists, so subpages of it doesn't meet G8. In my opinion, G8 doesn't apply to subpages of redirects, and in this case there is nothing wrong with a redirect to the doc page of the target. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, G8 is used for these routinely. There is also absolutely nothing to gain from a redirect from a /doc template with no incoming links. Please revert your revert as this is really pointless. --Gonnym (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: No. CSDs are intended only for uncontroversial actions. The fact that something is done routinely does not make it right. If you really wish for these templates to be deleted, please take it to RfD. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, I moved the template and module per Requested move; but you need to fix documentation text manually in the Module. Regards, Xain36 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you meant by template limit issues? Asking because of your revert on Module:TfdLinks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: It was part of a (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to get Wikipedia:Templates for discussion out of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, see Wikipedia:Template limits. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I don't see any issue with the page being a larger size. If it actually prevents proper functionality that is different. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: It is preventing proper functionality: it's causing the bottom part of the page to not transclude properly. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the page and see no issues... What are you referring to? How does adding another link prevent the page from transcluding? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Then you haven't looked closely enough: Look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions and see that all of the log pages before the 22nd are linked instead of the content showing up like they should. My edits are trying to fix that issue. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok now I'm seeing it. Thanks for clarifying. Not sure what we can do there. Removing the link from the module won't help. It is still transcluding the same number of templates. As we continue with this large cleanup of unused templates I think we are just going to have to deal with the old discussions not transcluding onto the main page. If you want to look at the old discussions, click the link and look at them there. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: The actual way the limit I'm trying fix is calculated is not "number of templates transcluded", but roughly "amount of Wikitext transcluded by templates" (see Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size for a better definition), so removing the link from the module does help, as do my recent "hack to reduce post-expand include size" edits. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been involved in previous similar discussions. A new batch of wrappers has been proposed for replacement: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers 89.12.133.115 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMs usually turn into !voting and zero discussion which was why I didn't open it as one. From the two comments already there, this will probably be the case here. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your appalling rudeness in moving pages such as Module talk:WikidataIB/testing that I've invested so much time into, yet you have never contributed to, without any discussion or a notification to me is unacceptable. This is not the first time you've fiddled with work that I've spent so much time on - the documentation at Module:WikidataIB is a classic example of you deciding that you know best about what should be included in a module and stripping out the documentation of whatever you didn't like. If I don't get assurances from you that this is the last time I have to complain about such actions on your part, I'll be taking steps to see you topic banned from the area of modules. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]