User talk:Pppery/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pppery. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Can we hold off for the full 30-days of the RFC

There is NO CONSENSUS on the Talk page for Jane Austen for any of these edits by these 4 users. All editors must follow the Open RFC to the letter until it ends. Could you hold these edits until the RfC is completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I removed some contradictory hidden text about infoboxes, which there seems to be no discussion about on the talk page? Pppery (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sig

Please reduce the total vertical height of your sig; it's negatively affecting line-spacing, and making it harder to read discussions, by giving the appearance of a new post when one of yours line-wraps. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's actually notably worse now than it was when people first complained about it in June. If you reverted to that version, it would obviate the problem I'm talking about. (And obviously I don't hold to the view that people should not have fun, custom sigs like my cat-face one). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to add to the previous comments about this and say that I think your sig is needlessly distracting, and toning it down a bit would be appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Series overview table transcluding

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T144762

Just so we're clear, your way of transcluding is not necessarily "better". Take a look at these revisions at Step by Step (TV series) – there is an unnecessary space that renders at the bottom using your way of transcluding the 'Series overview' table that isn't supposed to be there. The same issue was present yesterday at Breadwinners (TV series) (which is why I went to onlyinclude tags) though for some reason that issue has resolved at that article. If you can solve that issue using your way, great! But, for now, I going to revert at Step by Step because that extra space shouldn't be there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like #section-h includes everything between the header for the section wanted and includes any spaces in the source to the start of the next section. To stop that need to remove the spacing between the end of what is wanted to transclude and the next header. This is generally not desirable as generally headers in the source have spaces before them and removing that spacing is not normal editing behavior. It may be better to use #section instead and mark the sections in the source to what is wanted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall and Geraldo Perez: But that removes one of the reasons why #section-h should be used in the first place - that it doesn't require duplicate markup in the source of the target page. <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags are very opaque and produce counter-intuitive transclusion behavior, while not using #section-h produces markup like:

== Series overview ==
<section begin=SeriesOverview />

in which one of those appears to be redundant to the other (but they aren't). It's better to just remove the spaces. Ppp ery 16:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against doing it your way (though I probably need more convincing to actually start using it myself) – it's just that your way is currently leaving an "extra space" after the 'Series overview' table which is undesirable. If the "extra space" thing can be eliminated, then I won't object to your way at all (though I'm also not sure it's worth the trouble of "converting" all those transclusions done the "old way" to "your way"...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec)The spaces will likely be added back in future edits as editors try to format the source code for readability and to how it is generally formatted in most articles. One header in an article with no space before it looks unusually and the reason it is not there when it would normally be there is not obvious. This looks to be a bug in #lsth, spaces before the next header should be ignored. onlyinclude tags look to be a better way until that issue with lsth is fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Onlyinclude tags are definitely not better for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Ppp ery 16:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Pppery – removing a space between sections is really not acceptable editing behavior. Please self-revert. Whether you are right or not on the merits, this is really not productive editing on this. I think you need to rethink your approach on this – you definitely need to rethink your insistence on using 'section-h'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I still am not sold on your blanket opposition to using onlyinclude tags, primarily because I have yet to see one example of this "anomalous" behavior your referring to. Can you provide an example where use of onlyinclude has led to a poor rendering outcome at an article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(ec) And removing the space before a header is not desirable either. You seem to be familiar with this extension. Could it be possible for you to work the spacing issues with the developers, maybe get a version of #lsth that excludes post and pre header spaces? I'd love to use this as it is a much better solution then marking up another article but this spacing issue is annoying. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IJBall and Geraldo Perez: Why don't one of you file a bug report on phabricator? Also, this discussion probably should be happening on Help talk:Labeled section transclusion. I never said that <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags have lead to a poor rendering outcome at an article. What I was saying is that I was confused when I first encountered onlyinclude tags with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy transcluding Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (since LSTified by me) didn't display the full page. Ppp ery 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall and Geraldo Perez: Pinging again because an edit conflict caused me to make some minor spacing changes unintentionally. Ppp ery 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be much more familiar with the development process than I am and will likely be able to communicate much better to the developers than I can. From your user page you look like you speak their language and you are familiar with the issue. Your help would be appreciated as I really would like to use this if the spacing issues could be fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Geraldo Perez: What I'm not good at, though, is formulating a bug report. Ppp ery 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that Cyberpower678 could probably help you with that. If not, I'd try the Admin MusikAnimal. Both of these editors are "code"/technically savvy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a test with a section edit and the space before the header is automatically put there. Removing the spaces before the headers is not really permitted by the wiki software and mosts people do section edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

IJBall has now awakened the great beast.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678, Geraldo Perez, and IJBall: I filed a bug report. Ppp ery 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Some maintenance categories

Hi Pppery, thought I'd alert you to Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects, which can be used to determine editnotices that possibly need to be moved (like in a recent RMT request you made).

And on the onlyinclude fixes, there are times when a page transcludes another one via onlyinclude, and an editor unaware of onlyinclude will remove one or both tags, unaware of the consequences. Sometimes these breaks will make the page appear in one of these three categories: one, two, three... Just FYI, since it seems you're quite eager and passionate about onlyinclude issues, and cheers — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Re the topic of onlyincluding - that is one of the reasons that #section-h is better - it is not possible to break #section-h without renaming the section, which is not something that can be done accidentally. Yet over 9500 pages have onyinclude tags, incorrectly in my opinion. Ppp ery 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016)

I put the September 2016 qualifier on there because IWRG has held similarly named events in August 2016 and other times in the past, I am actively working on IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (August 2016) and the article you moved should really be moved back to be consistent. Once I have more than one "IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara" article created I would use the base named article as a dab page. MPJ-DK 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: A RfC recently concluded on WT:DAB showing that There seems to be no consensus about altering titles that do not strictly collide. Ppp ery 23:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No clue what that even means, is that supposed to explain why it's okay to just move the article and ignoring the comments made to naming? Since I know there will be an "August 2016" version and that will lead to the base name without qualifiers being an overview page for all IWRG shows of that name I know that either now or in a week or two it'll end up back at "(September 2016)" - why not just leave it there now instead of getting moved again? Seems pointless to me. MPJ-DK 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I put something for both the "August 2016" location as well as the article name without qualifiers to complete the set. MPJ-DK 23:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation

It has an RfD tag, but no RfD entry. FYI — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: There is an rfd going on. The discussion was just relisted and is now found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#WikiProhect Disambiguation. Ppp ery 01:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Question on updating John Loeb Jr. Wiki Page

Thanks for your help as I get up to speed on Wikipedia. I received a message that said the Wikipedia page John Langeloth Loeb, Jr. has been moved to: John Langeloth Loeb, Jr but when I go to that URL I do not see the page. I do see the original page at: John Langeloth Loeb Jr.

You advised me to post my updates on the talk page for "John Langeloth Loeb Jr." using {{request edit}}.

Quick question: We have updates to make in several sections, in the middle of paragraphs, etc. Is it possible for me to make all the updates and post the ENTIRE page (with all updates) to the "Talk" page for John Loeb Jr? Or maybe there is another place I can post it for review?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. Mybestwords (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mybestwords: I'm not sure what move log notification you are talking about. I moved the article to John Langeloth Loeb Jr. (dropping the comma before the Jr.), rather than to the title you claimed it was moved to. As for your second question, I'm not sure how to answer it. The general format of edit requests is "please change X to Y". Ppp ery 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, you should keep discussion on one place. May I point out that you have posted requests relating to this article on your talk page, my talk page, the Teahouse, and the talkpage of the article. Ppp ery 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks for your reply. The log notification was in an email that I received but it sounds like there are no problems, so that's good. Sorry about posting my query to several places. I will consolidate my queries moving forward. Just learning, with your help. Thanks! Mybestwords (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

noinclude list

I'm just curious, mostly because I haven't dug into the coding of your module, but is there a reason why your noinclude list seemingly transcludes every template at TFD? Primefac (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Primefac: My noinclude list transcludes every template at tfd because I use mw.title:getContent() on every template at TFD to get the page source and see if it contains the text noinclude in the relevant spot. This thus causes a transclsuion to be recorded in the database. The coding is at Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd Ppp ery 02:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk response

You said an outdated URL would automatically be replaced, but that assumes there's something to replace it with. The other person to respond pointed out that manual archiving is the best way.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: clpo13, the other person to respond if I understand which thread you are talking about, certainly didn't point out that manual archiving is the best way, he merely told the asker how to do say, infact he explicitly said I was correct. Additionally, links that are not extremely short-lived and are not on a site with a restrictive robots.txt will probably have and archived copy generated before they go dead. Ppp ery 21:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No, he didn't say it was the best way. Sorry, I didn't say that right. I really meant that it was the best way to assure there is a URL that will continue to work. You made it sound like the site would be archived, but I'm concerned that's not as true as you think.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Proof that some links go dead without being archived? Ppp ery 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been my experience that this happens a lot. If that is changing, that's news to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine does a fairly good job at automatically archiving pages over time, but pages may not be archived for a number of reasons, not least of all a site's robots.txt blocking the crawler. Some on-demand systems, such as WebCite are susceptible to this as well. Archive.is, on the other hand, does not honor robots.txt, but archives may be taken down at the request of the content owner, which is true of all archiving services. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Newburgh

This was a slightly more complicated move. If you find any need for corrections, let me know — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Pppery. You asked for Belong Betray to be moved to Belong ╪ Betray. When I fill that name into the page-move form it says that it's forbidden by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I declined this as a technical move. As an admin I can override this problem, but first I'd like to know why that name is blacklisted. Can you ask someone who might know about the blacklist, such as User:MER-C, or post a question on some technical board? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't act like this please

Sorry for removing the irrelevant comment, but your insisting on restoring an irrelevant and nonsense comment is not pleasant to the eyes really. I'm not bound to speak of the copy vio when there's no problem with that. Btw, the outcome had no effect on the progress of my nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Headings

Thank you for converting the headings I use at WT:DYK into links, but I think it's unnecessary, particularly when most of them become queues before the issues are addressed. While I completely acknowledge that you're doing a "good thing" I'd suggest you spend that time doing other good things because I'm not clear what real value those edits are adding to Wikipedia; editors interested in these issues are fully aware of how to find, say, Prep 5, without a hyperlink in the section heading to help them. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, but honestly, I'm not sure if you're really making the best use of your time. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your LISTGAP edits are not helpful at all. In fact, editing my own talk page to implement this LISTGAP methodology is unwelcome and I'd ask you to not do that again. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I disagree. The edits I am makings, while they seem minor, in fact are fixing an accessibility issue that arises whenever there are blanks linkes between list items or some methods of mixing colons and stars. I don't understand why you are reverting me here. See #Reformatting discussions above. Ppp ery 21:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm content your intentions are noble. Please be advised not to make such edits to my talk page ever again. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Rye (town)

Hi Pppery, wanted to give you a heads up that another user undid your move of Rye (town), New York, which I believe is legitimate per WP:USPLACE. — Andy W. (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi,
Thanks for following through with all that copyright stuff, though I have my doubts about the current version too. I hope they'll have a look at that too once their attention is drawn to the article. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RMT instructions

I honestly don't think this is necessary given the editnotice, but for the sake of completeness, shuold I (or you?) update the oldid on the clickable button at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions at the bottom of the page? — Andy W. (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I wasn't aware of that button (which I can't see, because I'm not an admin or page mover), but that would be a good idea. (BTW: I added that comment because a similar one was already present in the "requests to revert undiscussed moves" section, and the inconsistency seemed odd to me). Ppp ery 19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)