User talk:Lainagier/2009

South east asia

and Indonesia projects are relatively discrete projects - I see no reason why the large mass of Indonesian stubs need to be tied into the south east asian ones - unless you can provide a good reason? Satu Suro 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your talk page. • Lainagier • talk • 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all depends the whole (as opposed to the parts) - if there is indeed an active and well participated in south east project - thats one thing - otherwise linking one projects cats (in effect) is linking in a project with a possibly dead or very inactive project - it seems pointless. But hey it is in the end a matter of opinion - if the sea project ties in all component part articles and categories - whoops - it would be very very big - is there any need if there are so few participants? so in the end I dont bother either way - but you might be bringing a lot of work on yourself that no one else is going to follow on with in any way in the forseeable future. Satu Suro 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

I have undid your changes to Template:Korea-baseball-outfielder-stub as unnecessary, in my opinion asbox is easier to understand and configure than raw code that may end up needing to be changed in the future. If it continues to use asbox, this can be made in one edit to the main template, not each individual template. Borgarde (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had I checked the template's history, I wouldn't have been so cavalier - it comes as some surprise to me that {{asbox}} has some current support, having had so little around its creation, and (until recently, to my awareness) being routinely removed on sight by some stub gnomes. I thought I was just observing common practice. I'm not at all opposed to asbox myself - I was actually rather disappointed it never took off. If you have reason to still be promoting it, I'll hold off on removing more. Is there any ongoing discussion I've missed? • Lainagier • talk • 11:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Israel-poet-stub

Jolly good indeed. The category inside the <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags is the category bestowed upon pages that the template is transcluded upon. That is why it includes the {{PAGENAME}}. The category that is inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags is the category of the template itself. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly put. I had something else in mind, though. You'll notice I switched it to the one category declaration covering both cases, with just the sortkey excluded from transclusion: I assumed it was functionally identical. Then it occured to me that by explicitly sorting articles by {{PAGENAME}}, {{DEFAULTSORT}} statements within the articles are overruled. I couldn't think why this would suit the template, but it was different and I wasn't about to presume I knew better, so I put it back.

Now that I stop to think about it, though, a biography category ends up sorted by first names. (Glancing at Category:Israeli writer stubs, I see Alexander Penn under A, Baruch Maoz under B...) Is this something you intended? • Lainagier • talk • 15:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems you closed a debate in which you had participated. This should always be avoided! Generally, closing these discussions should be left to administrators anyway. I'll leave that debate closed this time, but please refrain from doing this again. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]