User talk:Pppery/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	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)

Tfd

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)

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)

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)

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

Wood Street station (PAAC)

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)

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

Your recent edit in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic"

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:IPA\Transwiki

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)

Tfd tags

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

A barnstar for you!

	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)

User:Pppery/noinclude list

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Batch protection (originally "Under-protected modules")

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. I'm reusing User:Pppery/pages to protect for a different task {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Question

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)

(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)

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)

@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)

Coxeter–Dynkin diagram

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)

Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template issues

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Infobox settlement wrappers

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)

Infobox RM

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)

Enough

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)

(talk page stalker)@RexxS: you don't WP:OWN ANYTHING on Wikipedia so threatening another user with topic ban because of their work is frankly laughable. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Especially when the entire substance of the complaint is a months-old content dispute and then me making a bold move. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Coxeter–Dynkin diagram

You seem to have broken Point group. J G Campbell (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@J G Campbel: A null edit seems to have fixed the problem. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates with similar code

Based on your Module:String crusade, I thought you might have some insights on this. See all the templates at Template:Yes documentation. They all (or mostly all) seem to have the same exact code, with the only difference in the class and color values. Seems to me that a module doing that work with the templates only supplying the variables would make for much better maintaining of current templates, and for the creation of newer ones (as I'm pretty sure that some of the editors just copy/paste without actually understanding the code). Thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Storm name

Module:Storm name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests

Hi. Do you think you could take a look at some of the <6 pending requests> I have open?

1. Template talk:Single-purpose account#Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019
2. Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case#Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
3. Template talk:JSfile#Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
4. Template talk:Policy-guideline-editnotice#Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
5. Module talk:AFC submission catcheck#Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
6. Template talk:BLP Spec Admin#Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

XfD notice

Regarding your XfD notice on User talk:AnomieBOT, due to this edit by bot operator, please do not add any XfD notice on this page, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What happened there is someone notified to bot of an RfD because it created the redirect. That's nothing like what I did, which is notify of a TfD of a template that the bot does care about. You're massively overgeneralizing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, Ahhh, I think User:Anomie will remove this as pointless. See WP:CANVASS. Hhkohh (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That is, of course, his right to do. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

confused

I evidently misunderstood what was happening with Module:Text_count. Would you mind helping with the actual conversion? Its been sitting in the holding cell for almost a month. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I've been waiting for the merge of Module:PatternCount and Module:Text count into Module:String to happen first; doesn't make sense to me to convert uses of one template in the holding cell to another template also in the holding cell. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fold into intro?

Feel free to fold my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#RfC_on_templates_storing_data into the intro to the whole discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NaNs due to deletion of Decimals template

Hello, this morning I noticed a problem on some articles where NaNs kept appearing in inflation-adjusted currency amounts. For an example, see Macy's, Inc. I couldn't pinpoint the problem so I asked the Village Pump, and the problem was traced back to this edit. The cause is that the output of {{Inflation}} is often piped to {{Formatprice}}, and {{Formatprice}} doesn't like numbers in human readable scientific notation (like 6.022×10²³). {{Decimals}} used to output in computer readable scientific notation (like 6.022E+23), but {{Rnd}} does not. Do you have any objection to reverting your edit until a solution can be found that prevents these errors? Thanks. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@BorgHunter: No, go ahead. Also, pinging the users involved in the merge: @Zackmann08, DannyS712, and Kadane:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this something we want to fix by changing articles, or should we update the template to recognize human readable scientific notation? Kadane (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kadane: I'm not actually sure what do do right nowm, but it's not changing articles. My best idea is to modify Template:Rnd (actually Module:Math in some way as to support the computer-readable output. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Help requests from sock puppet

Hi Pppery, just fyi, you fulfilled an edit request in Rising Sun Flag, which was actually made by indefinitely-blocked user:Shingling334. He often places the "{{Help}}" template on protected article talk pages, asking for changes. He sometimes edits via VPNs, or sometimes just directly from his ISP, "Talk Talk Essex". Typical subjects are related to Northern Cyprus, Turkey, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, any "de facto" states, politicians, and so on. The section in question has in the meantime been removed for unrelated reasons, so it's a moot point, but you might want to double-check before answering similar "help" requests in the future, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages with graphs

Hi Pppery

I closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17#Category:Pages_with_graphs as rename, but can't figure how the modules are populkating the categories.

Please can you help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The category isn't populated by a template at all; it's populated by the software directly. To implement my rename proposal, you need to edit MediaWiki:Graph-tracking-category and MediaWiki:Kartographer-tracking-category. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Done!

Now just waiting thousands of pages to be purged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)