User talk:Pppery/Archive 7

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.

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Pppery, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 22:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at nominating Module:Rail with T3 speedy for duplication, does that seem like the right one for this situation? Cards84664 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally see no reason that

Module:Rail, it does not meet T3 as it is a redirect. I would recommend starting a RfD, if you think the redirect as it remains is implausible or should otherwise be deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk

) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the redirects. Knowing Ythlev's editing behavior, they're just gonna restore it in a day and keep injecting sandbox code into Template:Infobox station, as they did recently. Now the problem is that I'm not experienced with RFDs, could you make the nomination for me? Cards84664 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RfD created at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 2. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at

@Cards84664: Yes. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit deletes the code <noinclude> and </noinclude> from the template "Year in various calendar" used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". However, you should remain "year=1250" in the template "Year in various calendar", which used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". 123.150.182.177 10:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

... the template already produces so many errors on its own page that it's not worth worrying about this specific case. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:IPA\Transwiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unused redirect with awkward backslash leftover from a rename

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

Thank you for adding them! 77.183.150.15 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks so much for doing all the tricky template work at Template:Tfm and Template:Tfm/dated, I appreciate you stepping in where I came up short. More impressively, I might add, is that you not only came back and back to fix things up, but took care of various other things as well. Truly a tireless contributor! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Question for ya. What is the purpose of

@Zackmann08: You're the third user to ask. It's a tracking category of sorts, which lists all templates at TfD that are missing TfD tags or have the TfD tags noincluded when they shouldn't be. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. Not a huge deal, but any way to have it list the template by name rather than using a transclusion? Just makes it easier to know when a template is good to be nuked based on having 0 transclusions. If its a pain to do then no worries, but would appreciate it! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: It does list the template name, but in order to check whether the a page has a TfD tag, Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd has to call title:getContent() on every page at TfD, which records a transclusion. Also, it should only transclude pages with open TfDs, so it shouldn't interfere with the process of deleting templates: close the TfD and the transclusion should go away. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. Good to know. When I'm closing a TFD I check the transclusions to see if it is ready to be deleted or needs to be orphaned. That's why. All good! Thanks for the info. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I saw this and figured that this list and this script might come in handy. Pinging @MusikAnimal who asked for a list. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This will need some manual processing to determine which page has the right level, so its not super useful. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if we wanted to protect all of them with the same level you could do so directly on the category page with Twinkle. I understand that is not the case, and it looks like your RFPP requests are being handled already. The mass-protection concept is just something to think about for next time. Thanks for bringing these templates to our attention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Don't worry, I have far more pages in my queue to request protection for, and I even made multiple edit requests to the infrastructure behind protection. In any case, real life is getting in the way, so I won't be able to do more work on this for many hours. Pppery, the protection wizard 05:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I've now done the requisite processing and created User:Pppery/pages to semi-protect, a list of pages that should be semi-protected (modules or CSS pages that aren't protected but are used in semi-protected templates). Pppery, the protection wizard 23:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I spot-checked about half of them and indeed the associated template was semi'd. The rest I'm taking your word for :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

System messages

@MusikAnimal: OK, I'm back at the protection-management task again. Please fully-protect all pages in Category:Pages used in system messages needing protection, an auto-generated category I just created that categorizes all pages tagged as {{Used in system}} that aren't already fully-protected. Pppery, the protection wizard 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you think it's a good idea, we could have User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector automatically protect anything in this category. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: That's too prone to vandalism: what if someone adds {{Used in system}} to a random template they want protected. This would be a good idea, however, if the bot actually checked that the page was used in a system message, and removed or nocatted the template if not. Pppery, the protection wizard 22:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking the same. It would need to verify {{

WP:AN soon, I'll be sure to mention these ideas. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk

22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Removing the template is going to be a difficult bot task, as pages can be used in system messages in extremely obscure ways. See Module:Jf-JSON for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't even see how MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js is using it, but okay. I guess that bot task is a no go! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Template protection

@MusikAnimal: One final set of pages to template-protect as modules/stylesheets of protected templates is available at User:Pppery/pages to protect. I'm reusing User:Pppery/pages to protect for a different task {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the pages that will still be left in the bad protection level categories after this:

1. 3 pages need full protection, which is requested normally at
   WP:RFPP
2. Template:Infobox book is a false positive: the code isn't designed to handle a template that sometimes calls a module.
3. The "XXX as random slideshow" templates, Template:Stack begin, and Template:Smallcaps2 are false positives: code isn't designed to handle CSS pages used by multiple templates.
4. Someone needs to decide on the right protection level for Template:Flex columns: the module, template, and CSS pages all have different levels and I'm not sure which is right.
5. Template:Pp-office and Template:Pp-reset are a special case: neither template-protecting nor fully-protecting the entire line of modules they use feels correct to me. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stop here. I think we need broader input. Semi and system messages are one thing, but template-protection for Module:Search for instance I don't think is really needed. Yes, {{search}} uses it, but I'm not sure why that's template-protected either. ECP at most, in my opinion. I think the solution is to start using cascading protection, if we really wish to have all transcluded templates have the same level of protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Cascading non-full protection isn't allowed by the software because it would allow non-admins to protect pages. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'm still a bit unsure about some of these. Template:Chess diagram I think used to have a lot more transclusions. Today I don't see template protection as necessary. Maybe these could use a more thorough look over? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

How is

(

Template:!Cite exists, so subpages of it doesn't meet G8. In my opinion, G8 doesn't apply to subpages of redirects, and in this case there is nothing wrong with a redirect to the doc page of the target. {{3x|p}}ery (talk

) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on, G8 is used for these routinely. There is also absolutely nothing to gain from a redirect from a /doc template with no incoming links. Please revert your revert as this is really pointless. --Gonnym (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: No. CSDs are intended only for uncontroversial actions. The fact that something is done routinely does not make it right. If you really wish for these templates to be deleted, please take it to RfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)