User talk:Pppery/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The usage of

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RegExp is not one of my skills in that area. Sorry. Pppery 19:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not an admin, so... Serendi^podous 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How about

WP:RMTR? Pppery

19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

...for fixing the Signal/One mess. Some backstory here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

... strange that reverting one of your edits would be considered "fixing" ... Pppery 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably should have reverted it myself, but couldn't figure out at the time why the page wouldn't dismbig from signal. Anyway, my thanks is sincere. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, slashes in titles can be confusing. Pppery 23:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, that works if the most notable individuals have direct links (as in this example, G.K., A.K., and Frank).

What are the rules for which people are sufficiently notable? --pmj (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature says A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page and A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. I for one find your current sig distracting and hard to identify. It also increases he line spacing where it is used, or so it appears. Please consider changing it. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you intend to consider this, and change or respond? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question - your signature makes it pretty much impossible to easily get to your talk page on a mobile or tablet. Please change it before I

get consensus to change it for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please respond to this. Jonathunder (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I've changed my signature to {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk), to be reminiscent of the fact that my recent edits have been about removing code duplication from templates and modules. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I stayed shut I objected to the previous sig and I object to your new one - Both are as equally bad as each other, Can you not just have a normal sig like the rest of us ?. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on Template:Births and deaths by year for decade.[1] I never knew this arcane template language had a loop construct! We learn something every day on Wikipedia… — JFG ^talk 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pppery! Just wanted to let you know I undid your edit to the above referenced template as it was causing an error in all dabs tagged with it. You can see an example here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: It turns out that I made a stupid mistake in that edit of forgetting to provide a separator param, so the first numbered case was interpreted as the separator. Fixed. Pppery 14:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pppery I have no idea what any of that means but thanks if you fixed it! :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your tagging of the page as poorly sourced, which later got tagged with citation needed tags to the poorly sourced page, Russell Young (tennis).

Unfortunately, user keeps removing all the {{

User also keeps adding back wholly unsourced info and unreferenced claims with no evidence.

What can be done here? Sagecandor (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this complaint (the last three sentences) belong on Talk:Russell Young (tennis)? Pppery 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Did that too, what else can be done? Sagecandor (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A year ago ...

bold but not reckless
... you were recipient no. 1467 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, does time fly! Pppery 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

... and now two years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there appears to be a problem with the Post-nominals template in the Wikipedia Android app described on the talk page. I suspect it may be due to one of the recent changes to the template. Since I am not aware of any way to test a template change on an Android phone in a sandbox, I'm inclined to back out your last change temporarily as a test to see if it caused the issue. And perhaps the change before it. If these changes are not the problem, I would revert my reverts. I am also not sure if templates are cached somehow, or take effect immediately, so I'm inclined to let the reverts remain for a short time, perhaps for an hour. I don't want to surprise or offend anybody by the revert(s). Should I proceed with the revert, or do you have any other advice? Thanks. CuriousEric 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pppery, thanks for your prompt investigation and solution! CuriousEric 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pppery. The search link used in Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings seems to be broken. Is this a result of your recent edit of the search template? The link used is {{search link|abberant||ns0|ns14|ns100}}. Can this be fixed. Thanks and regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it was my fault for forgetting that equals signs need to be escaped. Pppery 11:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Orenburg1 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox with the previous (stable) version before "code duplication" was removed. How sure are you that the code was duplicated? Did you do a diff? I seem to remember that it was necessary to duplicate except for minor variable name. (Thank you for taking an interest in Template:Search link.) — Cpiral§Cpiral 21:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpiral: Yes, and that's exactly what I mean by "code duplication" . Code duplication with minor variable name changes is still code duplication, and one of the features of the template that I used is the ability to repeat the same code many times with exactly that sort of minor change while the code is only stored once in the template. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. But I still ended up having to revert it per the edit summary. So let's use the talk page of the template or its sandbox or its test page if we have interests in {{search link}}. Thanks. — Cpiral§Cpiral 06:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Was doing some lint stuff and noticed that {{Infobox power station}} is throwing some mighty errors with regards to Module:WikidataIB. I see you and Ans have recently edited the module. Not sure if it's an error with the template invocation or the module itself, but I thought I'd let you know, since you've got a bit more familiarity with recent changes to the module. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: The answer is "a bit of both". I fixed the Module error, so that call doesn't produce lua errors. However, it is not being parsed in the way you expected. When |qid= isn't passed to the template, the empty string isn't recognized as a valid item id by the module, soit gets ignored for that purpose, and (since no |eid=} parameter is specified), the current page is used (as you want). However, that empty string is then treated as the property id (because empty strings aren't filtered out by the module). This (as far as I can tell) was the case in the module before my version too. How to fix that I have no idea ... {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So I guess this could be fixed by not having the template invoke the module directly, but rather call {{

wd}} or other similar template? Primefac (talk

) 01:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It already calls {{

wd}}) to call the former. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk

) 01:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. Your sig is doing something strange, btw, unless the fake-template thing is intentional. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It is. I am deliberately showcasing a fake template call in my sig as a symbol of my edits to remove duplicate code from templates and modules. It symbolizes the removal of the duplicate letters from my username, even though it's longer that just "ppp" would be in this case. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Threw me off for a second until I saw the code. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello:
Thanks for fixing my template here. I don't know what the problem was; I used the template at WP:RM, but when I put the proposed name at new1 it showed in preview as a question mark. I notice though that you used a different template; where would I find it? Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, by deleting the redirect the following article would be not only written but also created by me, that's why i asked for speedy deletion. In de.wp that's a sufficient reason for speedy deleting a redirect, is this not possible here? All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghilt, you're welcome to create a page at SDS-PAGE. You don't need to delete the page first. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Primefac, that i know, but deleting the redirect makes me the article's creator and lets it pop up on the 'pages created'. I've written a few hundred articles so far, and in four language versions... cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And in the meantime, we'd be short a redirect. If you sandbox the article you want to have replace it, I am happy to move it to the proper location when it is finished. This will delete the existing page and you will be credited with creating the page. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks, --Ghilt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: i guess i'm ready (User:Ghilt/SDS-PAGE), --Ghilt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Someone declaring intention to [re]create a redirect as an article is not a criterion for speedy deletion of a redirect here, so I'm glad that the deletion was not done. Should someone ever request deletion of a redirect so that they can "create" an article of the same name? Shouldn't they just start editing, replace the redirect with actual content, and say that they "created" the article (in the edit summary and on their talk page)? Oh, no, the new "creation" should "pop up on the 'pages created'" counts and lists. (Someone should have linked this - I can't find mention of "pages created" on Wikipedia, except for some posted links that showed me the [current] URL formats for two wfmlabs tools: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Ghilt/all and https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/created.py?name=Ghilt&server=enwiki&ns=,,&redirects=none .) So this is about credit. Well, no one owns any article. Typically the one(s) who contribute more to an article, earlier, deserve more credit for it.

The replacement article got created in user space and then got moved into article space on top of the existing redirect (instead of copy-pasted), thus establishing "creation" credit according to the mentioned tools (which presumably look at the oldest entry in each revision history). However, the move-over-existing had the same effect that the deletion would have had - all history of the old redirect vanished forever. (Probably little or no value there, except maybe the earlier date of the initial "creation".)

Maybe if the tools were smarter, they would deem the first (or last) editor who makes a redirect into an article its real "creator". Why credit a "creator" on a mere redirect at all? A redirect is a lesser creation, isn't it? Not really an article. How many editors were cheated of their credit when they converted mere redirects into real articles without asking for special service? Classes of articles, classes of editors. Every "real" creator deserves full credit. Now you have to do this for everyone. Get crackin'! [mildly annoyed satire] -A876 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If you had a point, I'm not sure you made it. Policy change proposals are

thisaway. Primefac (talk

) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's try second-person. Your first reaction was rational - if someone wants to upgrade a redirect into an article, go ahead and do it. Next, the real reason emerged: It was a childish request, along the lines of "turn off that light, so that --I-- can get credit for turning it on". And then you did it anyway. •Was the move from user space (erasing the existing redirect), instead of the available copy-paste, valid within existing policy? (I'm not going to try to research this one. Either there is a principle or there is not.) •You opened a door - everyone who wants "creation credit" for upgrading a redirect can fairly make a similar request of you (move my user-space article on top of a redirect so that --I-- get "creation credit"). •You established that upgrading a redirect into an article deserves "creation credit" - thus you have retroactively made thousands of upgrades unfairly deprived of their deserved "creation credit" – are you prepared to rectify each one by deleting all history prior to the upgrade? (obviously not the way to go) I know, it was nice of you, and no good deed goes unpunished, but there are grounds to re-think this one. -A876 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I offered a solution to a problem they had. This is no different than if someone were to create a draft, submit it for review at

WP:AFC, and the reviewer then deleting the redirect upon acceptance (I actually expected them to do that). While I agree there was no need to do it this way, there is also no harm in doing so. It's only when someone maliciously performs such tactics that I get annoyed. Primefac (talk

) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And no, I don't think that we should go around histmerging every deleted redirect that became an article, or deleting the revisions of a redirect-turned-article before it was the article. I did not "establish" anything, and I have zero power to unilaterally make policy decisions. Anyone looking at this particular situation as any sort of precedent should be sent to

WP:OSE for why their arguments aren't valid. Primefac (talk

) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi A876, and sorry for my late participation in this meta-discussion. Now, i don't really get what's your problem. And no, granting me the deletion of the redirect while moving the article from my namespace does not guilt Primefac of the deprivation of thousands of others at all, but rather the setup of the en.wp. IMHO, it's all about motivating people to contribute in their free time. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't ever remove functions that are in use. You make a mess of infoboxes using that function. If you'd don't understand what you're doing, don't interfere. And if you ever mess about with one of my sandboxes again, I'll take you to ANI and see that you don't have the chance to repeat your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me an example of one page that uses the emptyor function from Module:WikidataIB that I removed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Peter Donnelly
• Matthew Stephens (statistician)
• Peter Coles - there's three examples for you. Now do your own research in future and don't mess with things you don't understand. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that {{emptyor}} (the template) is in use on those pages, but that does not mean that {{#invoke:WikidataIB|emptyor|...}} (the module function) is used on those pages as I've reimplemented the template using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It will be when you've self-reverted your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Which I won't do, as categorizing this as "meddling" is totally incorrect. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the idiosyncrasies of using {{ping}}. Now that I'm aware of it I've noticed a few occasions where I've probably messed it up, so I left a note on the user's talk page rather than twiddling my thumbs. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 01:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that Doprendek wanted to move Qingjian realty to Qingjian Realty and was requesting a technical deletion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is the wrong venue for such a request. {{3x|p}}ery (talk

) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

... especially since (s)he could have just moved the article in the first place. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-g6}} is a valid reason for speedy-deleting a redirect (Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves), so while the exact template subtype was "wrong" it was still a valid request. I've moved the page in question. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hello, you recently changed the article name of

The very fact that I was technically capable of making the move shows to me that it is not technichally restricted. And I can

link to the page just fine. {{3x|p}}ery (talk

) 23:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you’ve proved me wrong that you can indeed link to it, however that doesn’t change the fact that per

WP:TSC, that character cannot be used. “There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _” so I’ll be changing the article name back to Poet Artist when I can. Alexanderlee (talk

) 23:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That section of

WP:TSC is just reiterating the restrictions that the software enforces, not trying to set any rules on its own. {{3x|p}}ery (talk

) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

would you mind joining the conversation over at the talk page? thanks Alexanderlee (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)