User talk:Pppery/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

TfD template transclusions

I've been meaning to ask you this for a solid six months or so but haven't gotten off my ass to do it. What's up with User:Pppery/noinclude list? It shows in "What links here" as being a page that all templates currently nominated for deletion are transcluded on, which makes things look a bit weird when I go to remove existing transclusions of a template I've just closed a discussion for. The "transclusion" could also be a tad misleading for all the "unused" nominations recently. Is there any way to alter the underlying module to avoid this without breaking whatever you're doing with that page? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You can't have been wanting to ask me this for six months, since the page itself is only four months old. The template appears to transclude every template at tfd because it looks at the content of all such templates via the lua title API and lists the ones whose tfd tags are missing or incorrectly (in my opinion) noincluded. I don't think this could be reimplemented without the transclusions without someone writing a bot, which seems unnecessary to me. Pppery 20:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mexico TV

I noticed you changed the way the TV station templates are transcluded. Is this a new method? I've never seen it before. Raymie (t • c) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Raymie: It's labeled section transclusion, which has been around since 2013. The advantage is that it does not require markup in the source article. Pppery 12:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Much cleaner but had never seen it. Thanks for sharing! Raymie (t • c) 18:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Qif

I know why that tag was added. If you taken note of my edit summary, you might have better understood why I removed it. At the time of my removal of the tag, there was an issue of sorts causing all references to be replaced by the deletion notice. When I tested how my change affected these pages, it seemed to correct the problem, although in hindsight, it seems that purging the page may have been the only reason for this. It seems that the issue may have actually been caused by changes here (although I'm really not certain). Anyway, the problem has been addressed, so no more changes appear to be necessary. Dustin (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes

Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I've opened a new general Request for Comment concerning whether predecessors and successors should be included in the Infobox Officeholder template, further to my RfC concerning Michael Portillo specifically. The new RfC can be found here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing at {{Infobox television season}}. The code to restrict use of num_stories to Doctor Who articles was deliberately added to the template after a discussion. This field is not, and should not be, used by any other series, however it is required by Doctor Who articles, which is why the code is included. If you disagree, please open a discussion on the template's talk page, but modifying the template because of your own preconceived notions without discussion is, at best, disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For your helpful lua module. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Pppery!

Happy New Year!

Pppery,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

).

Sorry

I am a bit allergic to bold, red text popping up on WP pages, so I did my best to avoid it, and I must admit I did not even read all of the bold, red text. I see now that I was in error, for which I apology. I take this opportunity to wish you all the best for 2017. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Listen, I was a little harsh with you over at the RfD discussion. I know you mean well, just try to take things a bit slower, and think twice before nominating at any of the XfD boards. Each nom sucks up a huge amount of editor time, and there's rarely any hurry, so if in doubt ask someone (especially the page creator) privately first. EEng 01:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And I somewhat overreacted too, rushing to defend a nomination based on a incorrect premise. Apology accepted. (And my subsequent wikibreak had nothing to do with that nomination). Pppery 03:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we understand each other. In future it will save time if you remember what someone said here ;P When you get back we need to decide on the big question about the protection table i.e. whether to segregate the Pending protections all together at the end. EEng 03:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back from my wikibreak on Monday afternoon (EST), by the way. Pppery 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Queried requests

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Subsection titles on AD birth/death transclusions

Hello Pppery. I noticed that you changed the templates {{Transclude births}} and {{Transclude deaths}} to create real level-3 headings instead of pseudo-headings. I understand your purpose but I wish you had discussed it first. I mentioned my rationale for using pseudo-headers at Talk:0s after you had intervened there but you didn't reply to my ping. I believe we should keep the TOCs light in the decades pages, and the accessibility of properly-bolded pseudo-headers is not an issue. Actually, the repetition of several "AD n" headers on each decade page might create an accessibility problem of its own. Please reconsider. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it mentioned anywhere that multiple headings with the same title is an accessibility issue (that's not listed on WP:ACCESS. Additionally, to me, the headers are logically sub-headers that belong in the table of contents, even if small. Would it make sense to list all of the births in one undivided section? Pppery 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, indeed, in those decades I want just one section for all the births and one for all the deaths, because we list so few of them. Full headers and transclusion markers for each year are overkill. The bolded year names look fine, and I'm confident they don't hamper navigation for blind users. (I've done some usability work with blind people in my job.) — JFG ^talk 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

When I said "without any dividers, I really meant that, without the "AD 1" subheader at all. To me, either it should be a full header with its own transclusion note, or it sshould not exist at all, for the sake of accessability and precision. Pppery 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Well, if we remove the headers completely, we lose the information about the birth year for each individual, so that won't fly. I tried adding the birth date to each line but it looks awful:

• AD 40: June 13 – Gnaeus Julius Agricola, Roman governor of Britain (d. AD 93)
• AD 40: Pedanius Dioscorides, Greek physician (approximate date) (d. AD 90)
• AD 40: Frontinus, Roman general and military author (approximate date) (d. 103)
• AD 40: Dio Chrysostom, Greek philosopher and historian (approximate date) d. c. 120)
• AD 40: Claudia Octavia, daughter of Claudius and Messalina (d. AD 62)
• AD 40: Empress Ma of the Han dynasty (d. AD 79)
• AD 41: February 12 – Tiberius Claudius Caesar Britannicus, son of Claudius[10] (d. AD 55)
• AD 42: Herennius Philo (approximate date) (d. 141)
• AD 42: Pope Sixtus I (d. 124)
• AD 43: Martial, Roman poet (d. 102/104)
• AD 44: Fictional Jacob (Lost) and fictional Man in Black (Lost) were born on an island in the South Pacific Ocean.
• AD 45: Statius, Latin poet (approximate date) (d. c. AD 96)
• AD 45: Plutarch, Greek historian/biographer (approximate date) (d. 120)

Frankly, I think the bold subheaders are the cleanest solution here. If you still disagree strongly, I'm happy to put this to a wider discussion among interested editors. Let me know. — JFG ^talk 13:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I still think and will not be convinces in this case that bold headers are a bad idea (side note, someone should file an enhancement request about hiding specific headers from the TOC) , but further arguments about this seem likely to lead to a repeat of the earlier commotion about WP:LISTGAP that happened before. Pppery 14:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have trouble parsing your statement here: do you fear that further discussion would lead to drama? Are you ready to accept my proposal for the sake of peaceful resolution, or are you advising me not to insist because it might result in backlash against me? Sincerely confused as to your meaning… — JFG ^talk 11:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The middle option. When I said "further arguments", I really meant "further arguments from me". Pppery 17:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll take this as a green light to restore the bold pseudo-headers and proceed with applying the new templates on a few more decades. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

From Talk:0s

@Pppery: As explained on Talk:AD 1 I'm experimenting with transclusions of the births and deaths from individual year pages to decades pages, in order to populate them and avoid duplication of effort by editors. The reason I don't want to repeat section headers is that there are typically very few births and deaths per year in this part of history, so that we keep just a decade-wide "Births" and "Deaths" entry in the TOC. If we reduce the TOC level instead, then we lose the detail of events by years, which have more content including subsections. Hence pseudo-headers are an appropriate solution here. — JFG ^talk 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Module:WikidataIB

Thanks for trying to improve the capitalisation on Module:WikidataIB. I often find the parser functions are a bit too dumb to do those jobs accurately, so I wrote Module:String2 that has a sentence() call which just capitalises the initial letter of the first word and can cope with wikilinks and piped links. As WikidataIB is really meant as a set of building blocks to help infobox designers create templates, I was expecting them to use String2 on the output of WikidataIB where it was needed, which would allow the option of using the raw result from WikidataIB if anybody needs to. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

It doesn't make too much sense to leave outdated information on the noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make too much sense to remove others' comments from talk pages. Pppery 12:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK

For the record it would be easier to simply drop a line on my talk page asking if I did a copyvio check/hook length check rather than pinging every DYK review I've done over the last few days. Every hook I reviewed was copyvio checked (with some flagged and noted for being probable copyvios) with Earwigs during their review and the hook lengths were also eyeballed for length. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a little puzzled. Looking at your contribs it is clear that you went though almost every DYK I reviewed recently but you only flagged some as "incomplete" while others you merely commented on, and one you even approved even with a QPQ pushing a month and a half (also, the reason we introduced QPQ a few years ago is that we have a perpetual backlog of hooks, if their is no time limit someone like me who has been volunteering on and off and DYK for nearly a decade could conceivably use hooks from years ago and never review again). Have I done something to offend or upset you? I've worked with DYK for years on and off and from the tone of some of your comments I'm must admit I'm concerned. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you did not offend me. In fact, I don't recall having any interactions with you prior to yesterday. I didn't flag as incomplete because the review mentioned a copyvio check (... Earwig ...). Nor was I specifically focusing on you. I was going through Template talk:Did you know/Approved, starting just above the special occasion area, and scrolling up, flagging any incomplete reviews I noticed. Pppery 14:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of "(disambiguation)"

Since in the discussion at Talk:Haswell (CPU)#Requested move 11 February 2017, you expressed an opinion regarding the use of disambiguators, these two current discussions, Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 February 2017 and Talk:Edward Wynne#Requested move 10 February 2017, both of which focus on that subject, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

US stations

Hi Pppery

I'm not sure about the station entries you're adding at WP:RMTR. Although I sort of agree that the disambiguator is not necessary, there's a fairly strong precedent for including the line in parentheses in every case, even where there's no ambiguity. See, for example, Category:IRT Second Avenue Line stations, Category:IRT Lenox Avenue Line stations, Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, New York, etc. Practically all of them have a disambiguator. I think this might be better handled as a multimove request at WP:RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I don't really see why a full RM is ncessary here, since the removal of parenthetical disambiguators that are not needed is usually considered uncontroversial. BTW, I had moved East 105th Street myself since there was no competing title. Pppery 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it as controversial, mainly because so many articles are titled this way. It really is every station on the New York City subway. There's also a question of WP:USSTATION, which in general advises that the word "station" should appear somewhere in the name. You may well be right, and the community may agree to support the move in an RM, but it's clearly been set up this way for a reason, and a wholesale change of this nature, potentially affecting every subway station, is not automatically uncontroversial I would have thought. I don't specifically object to the moves, but it's perfectly possible others may. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. I'm posting here because I saw the requested moves you made. I'd agree with them, but only if there's a new uniform standard for NYC Subway station titles (for instance, Howard Beach–JFK Airport would be better located at Howard Beach–JFK Airport because it's also an AirTrain station, but it would also be better located at Howard Beach–JFK Airport station (IND Rockaway Line) or Howard Beach–JFK Airport station if we were to go strictly by WP:USSTATION, which is also disputed).

However, for the most part the consensus at WP:NYCPT has been against the page titles without disambiguators, if only because disambiguators allow consistency across articles about stations on the same line (e.g. from the current page title, you can see Howard Beach is on the IND Rockaway Line). Additionally, these page titles are NYCPT policy so they have been very hard to change: the only agreed-on changes in recent years have been the removal of spaces between endashes in the title. The mass RM is needed to uphold the policy standard, but I suggest that you read the lengthy discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) for a similar move that was rejected. Thank you, epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Epicgenius, TonyBallioni, and Kew Gardens 613: RM discussion started Here. Pppery 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

'Flint Water Crisis' - Disagree with name change

I have followed the crisis closely and it has been regularly been referred to as the 'Flint Water Crisis' - if at all it has rarely been referred to as the "Flint, Michigan Water Crisis" - even if it has, the most common term is the former. Rather than undo-ing the change I suggest an alternative title: "Flint Water Crisis (Michigan)" or something similar. Thoughts? Pajokie (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)pajokie

(edit conflict) Strongly oppose that title as an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator. If you want to revert my move, just do it. Pppery 01:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an old saying

Possibly attributed to George Washington...

It is generally best to keep silent
and be thought a fool,
than to open one's mouth
and remove all doubt.

I'm totally bemused by your hyper-focus on a simple discussion about future strategy, nor why you would want to affect so many pages with a unnecessary protected edit accomplished no additional publicity for the discussion. Between the Vpump and the TFD. As I noted in the VP, the many probably don't realize there exist a better and best choice than the column templates... which I've used extensively btw, over the years. God knows, I'm the last person anyone around here would call a deletionist, especially for a template tool! For Pete's sake, I headed up the old interwiki templates dissemination and co-ordination project back in 2008-09ish, and helped categorize most back then. Also invented the doc-page documentation system with CBD and Tim, though the implementation was improved a bit by the template programmers crowd a few weeks in. Most good template documentation started from those projects! So Relax. That TFD snowball is just to get a consensus without a RFC! And to improve performance in PAD computers. Kids have them integrated onto a space 14" below their nose, these days! // FrankB 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not hyper-focusing on that one tfd, my actions there are something I do with most tfds in which the templates were not properly tagged. I made that protected edit request because it says at WP:TFD#Listing a template, a tfd tag should be added at every template, and it should only be noincluded if the template is substituted (which this one isn't). Pppery 22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Full stop - Your Name

I see that you had reverted my edit. I've undone your revert, and am here to prevent any edit wars. Here is the link to my rationale. The talk page also clarifies my reasoning. Please read them carefully.

Good day.

LoMStalk 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: "Your Name." is a technically valid title that was in fact the former title of the article. Therefore, {{correct title}} is inaproppriate. Pppery 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the move log: the person who renamed/moved the article was incorrect to do that. Why? Because there are guidelines to naming an article, i.e. policy dictates that we may not use . or .. in a title. And since Your Name. is the official translation used by the producers/distributors, and we're restricted by that specific policy, that should be reflected in the article. Hence the use of {{correct title}}.

Linking WP:NC-SLASH again, and emboldening the relevant sentences for your convenience.

Page names consisting of exactly one or two periods (full stops), or beginning with ./ or ../, or containing /./ or /../, or ending with /. or /.., are not allowed. In most such cases DISPLAYTITLE will not work, so {{correct title}} should be used. As a result of this, the abbreviation of Slashdot, /., does not redirect to the page.

I hope the above clarifies any confusion.

LoMStalk 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: "Your Name." does not "[consist] of exactly one or two periods (full stops), [begin] with ./ or ../, [contain] /./ or /../, [nor end] with /. or /.." Also, policy is not a technical restriction.

policy dictates that we may not use . or .. in a title. I see no such policy at WP:NC-SLASH. The text you are quoting prohibits titles designed to look like unnecessary long file paths like "a/b/../c", or "a/b/.". Pppery 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. My brain was substituting consisting with containing. I was in error.

You can revert my edit. If you don't, I'll do it later on, since I'm preoccupied right now.

Good job for correcting me.

LoMStalk 01:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Outcasts (2017 film)

I see you removed the year. It's been fixed now but it's important to look at what other articles exist before removing part of articles' titles. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit glitch

Thanx for the fix.[1] I just wanted you to know my change was inadvertent. My browser is glitchy today, and I didn't even notice what happened. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

National emergency number of Australia

Regarding this request: I ended up settling on Triple Zero (000) as the title, largely due to the subject being referred to that way throughout the article (i.e. 18 times), and it being presented that way in some of the sources (especially official ones). However, as an American, I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic. If you think another title is more appropriate, let me know, and I'll either implement it or start a requested move (depending on the suggested title). Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Why did you notify me about this discussion, when I had already participated in earlier versions of it. Pppery 12:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking. This was for the formal Request Move discussion. For neutrality's sake, I contacted every single editor who edited the article or its talk page over the course of the last year. Boy, did that turn out to be more work than I thought! Thank you for your understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)