User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Template:Unbulleted list[edit]

Hi! Your recent edit to {{Unbulleted list}} has, I think, made it display with bullet dividers, not newlines, between the items; in its present from it seems to be superfluous to {{Hlist}}. I imagine that's not what was intended? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Hi there. :) I think you might have misread the revision history - my last edits to Template:Unbulleted list and Module:List were both in 2014. Where are you seeing this bullet divider/newline problem? Maybe I can work out what's going on. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, so I did – so sorry to have troubled you for nothing! Where I'm seeing it is in the infobox at Geometry of Fear, and it looks as if it's a bug feature of {{Infobox art movement}}. I'll ask at the village pump or something. Sorry again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Yes, that's caused by all the lines that look like | class1 = hlist in {{Infobox art movement}}. It adds the hlist class to the <th> and <td> cells in the infobox. The hlist class is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css, and is what makes all the {{hlist}} templates output horizontal lists. (Without the CSS, they would all just display in the default list style, which has each bullet on a separate line.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Escalation of template disruption by Codename Lisa[edit]

With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? Note: I originally tried to ask the question at ANI, but Codename Lisa reverted me several times. 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you two have met. This IP address belongs to a person Codename Lisa and I call "flyboy". He has been hounding Codename Lisa for three years now, chasing her around Wikipedia, reverting her actions, digging dirt on her, bad-mouthing her, like this that he is doing. He tried posting this very same edit in WP:ANI but Codename Lisa reverted him. He didn't dare stage an edit war there, because if admins investigate him, things are revealed that are not to his advantage, especially since Codename Lisa and I are keeping a list of all his IPs with which he has operated so far.
But of course, the reason he has chosen you as the recipient of this message is that you are considered Codename Lisa's friend (rightly or wrongly). What's better than sowing discord between friends? Divide and conquer, you know. Of course, you are not the only recipient. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@FleetCommand: I've rangeblocked the latest batch of IP addresses for a year. Feel free to email me the others. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am sorry but due to Microsoft service outage (OneDrive), I do not have access to the list of his IPs right now. Serves me right for not keeping a copy on this computer. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be a good idea, FleetCommand to create a subpage within your user space where you can list all of these IPs. You and Codename Lisa could get it started. This would leave it where multiple editors/admins could start looking it over. I'll be one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I would almost want to include CINCLANTFLT after seeing your username. I grew used to seeing that name in a different context some years ago.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems other admins have enacted additional blocks, so thanks MS. As for your suggestion, BH, CL says she supplies this list on demand to any admin, but is dead against making it public. You can try talking to her. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Outdated template deletion request[edit]

Could you please delete Template:Dino Charge editnotice, or at least the edit notices transcluding it as it now out of date. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: No problem. If you want to delete the template itself, it should probably go through WP:TFD (although I can't imagine anyone would object to its deletion). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to speedy delete it but I couldn't as it was a protected page, however I am grateful for your reminding me about TfD. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Module:Unsubst/sandbox[edit]

Should the changes in the sandbox be merged to the main template (since you added them in 2014 but never implemented them)? I'd like to port over some additions from Module:Unsubst-infobox such as parameter aliases and stripping empty parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: No - if those changes are merged, then $N will stop being a special case, and start being a regular parameter. The problem with that is that several templates still use the $N parameter, despite it being deprecated. If those templates are substituted after the changes are merged, then |$N=template name will appear in the output, which is not something we want. By the way, how about using longer parameter names in Module:Unsubst-infobox, like $PARAMS and $EXTRA instead of $P and $E? It's not so bad in Module:Unsubst as there are only two of them, but with ten different parameter names it looks pretty confusing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Should a bot request be made to remove the remaining uses of |$N=? I've changed all the parameter names in Unsubst-infobox except |$B=. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yes, I think a bot would be a good idea - that's something that I meant to do but never got around to. About the parameters, I would change |$B= as well, as it's pretty cryptic. How about |$BODY=? Or you could always just allow them both. The templates that need changing are in Category:Calls to Module:Unsubst that use $N, by the way. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know – I think it's fine as it is, although $CONTENT might be better. Would a regex be |\s*\$N\s*=[^\|]+ ? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: $CONTENT sounds good to me. As for the regex, you also need to account for the case where |$N= is the last parameter, i.e. a template invocation ending in |$N=foo}}. And also, potentially, invocations that look like |$N={{some template|foo}}|... or |$N={{some template}}}}. There might not actually be any tricky cases like those in the input, but given that these templates are transcluded on up to 2.2m pages, it will be better to get it right first time. :) If you're using Pywikibot, mwparserfromhell works well for things like this, although you might have to fiddle with it to make it work with #invoke parser functions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Filed BRFA. My bot account still doesn't have a bot flag, so it might be a while. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

SUPG suggestion[edit]

Hi Mr Strad, it's been a while since we've crossed paths. I happened to use your very handy SUPG tool a moment ago and had an idea for a change that might make it slightly better... have you considered adding a category modification element that checks to see if the user being blocked is listed in Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, and removes that category if they are? In my own case, it would save me having to do it with HotCat after issuing the block (something which I invariably forget to do anyway...). All the best, Yunshui  12:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Hi Yunshui, long time no wiki. :) That's a good idea - I've added it to the to-do list, and I'll try and get round to it when I have a moment. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Always nice when one's own incompetence can be compensated for by technology. Yunshui  11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Module:Track listing[edit]

Hey Strad,

Just recently joined Wikipedia. I've edited a few music release pages now and I've realised that the total runtime is entered manually by the user. This isn't a huge issue however it's a little time consuming and also prone to error (as I just had to amend a page for it being incorrectly calculated). I noticed that you've mostly been maintaining the track listing module. I'd love to implement this total runtime automatically by myself, however I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's lua modules. If you could consider adding this, that would be great. I'm willing to help out if needed.

Thanks, Dave - Sherbet-head (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sherbet-head: Hmm, interesting idea. My first thought was that this might not work because track times are rounded to the nearest second. For example, say we had a CD with three tracks of exactly 60.4 seconds each. Each of the tracks would be listed as 1m 00s, as they are rounding down the part after the decimal point. However, the total running time would be listed as 3m 01s, as 60.4 x 3 is 181.2, i.e. 3 minutes and 1.2 seconds. So naively adding together the individual track times won't work in all (or maybe even the majority of) cases.

However, there is a way we could use this idea. The greatest possible difference between the total run time and the total of the track times is the number of tracks multiplied by 0.5 seconds (assuming that CD makers round to the nearest whole number of seconds). So if the actual difference is greater than this, then we can assume that there is an error in one or more of the times, and add a tracking category. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I see your concern, but ultimately it seems a bit of a moot point seeing as:
  • I would assume most wiki authors use the total runtime that they have calculated from the original track times (failing to account for milliseconds).
  • I think it's purpose is to serve a good approximation to the actual running time.
Maybe the best way to implement it for the sake of simplicity and effectiveness is have it automatically totaled by default unless the user specifies because they have a more accurate calculation? It may also be worth considering that the running time data in the music "data box" is also entered separately from the track listing. Sherbet-head (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sherbet-head: You might be right - if wiki editors are calculating the total running time from the track times, then this would definitely be a good feature to introduce. I've added a section to the template's talk page so that we can get more input about the best way to proceed. Let's see what other people say there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Are blocked users obliged to keep their block notices?[edit]

Hello.

Sorry to be bothering you, but I have a policy question and I don't seem to be able to find the answer on my own. And Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, WP:AN and WP:VPP all seem to be the wrong place to ask it.

The question is this: Assume a certain user is blocked for a month. Is he or she obliged to keep the block notice displayed on his or her talk page?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Codename Lisa and Mr. Stradivarius. Per WP:BLANKING, the user can remove ordinary block notices but not declined unblock requests. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-25[edit]

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

Question about the article history template[edit]

Hello - you might be able to help with this query, about why lots of featured lists are appearing in a category restricted to featured articles. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 08:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-06[edit]

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)