User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/February

Active discussions

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
I'm amazed that someone read the comments on my account request and that accounts truly require manual verification. I'm new to this, you see, but the point is that I'm sorry for being a dick and I appreciate the work you do. Thank you very much for getting me set up! Memorablename (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello JJMC89, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
 
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anthony J. Hall-Martin

Thanks for sorting that out and my apologies for the extra work. KJP1 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, KJP1. After an admin does the revdel, you can accept the article again if appropriate. — JJMC89 18:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
 
fix common mistakes
... you were recipient
no. 1579 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! — JJMC89 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Forking

Why is it necessary to fork Module:Template wrapper from Module:Citation/CS1/Wrapper? Are two modules that do more-or-less the same thing truly required?

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You didn't like the idea of having a parameter blacklist for CS1|2. I find that a blacklist is helpful, and forcing the wrapper to use parameters starting with an underscore is not. Of course it is not required. (Also, despite the name, Module:Citation/CS1/Wrapper has nothing to do with citations.) — JJMC89 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that I did say something to that effect but can't seem to find where I said it; where did I say that?
Regardless, we still have the forking issue that should be resolved. The module got named the way it did because it was originally developed for the cs1|2 templates so had everything to do with citations. As far as I know, neither module is used for anything but wrapping cs1|2 templates.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Found it. I think that perhaps you misunderstand my reservations. When you suggested a blacklist, you wrote this:
Perhaps |blacklist=edition,example2,example3 would prevent the module from passing |edition=, |example2=, and |example3= to the wrapped template.
I objected to that because your example included |edition= which is a valid cs1|2 parameter. I think that valid cs1|2 parameters must not be blacklisted. I don't think that I wrote anything in that conversation to suggest that I objected to blacklisting the parameters used in the wrapper template.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood you at the time or recalled your position incorrectly when I wanted to use the module yesterday.
Yes, the forking should be resolved. I would prefer the general module and function names to prevent confusion when used outside CS1. While they are currently used to wrap citation templates, there are other wrapper templates that the module could be used for (e.g. infoboxes that wrap other infoboxes). Citation wrapping will most likely be the most common use case.
I think that unless blacklisted, all parameters should be passable. Allowing positional parameters to be passed wouldn't impact CS1|2 since they are ignored, but someone may want to pass them in other templates. Not passing parameters beginning with an underscore would be problematic if the wrapped template has parameters beginning with an underscore, and they cannot be tested with {{test case}}.
— JJMC89 23:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
To the contrary, positional (or numbered) parameters are not ignored by cs1|2:
{{cite book |title=Title |a positional parameter}}Title. Text "a positional parameter" ignored (help)
{{cite book |title=Title |1=a numbered parameter}}Title. Text "a numbered parameter" ignored (help)
which is why we do the if 'string' == type (k) test when getting the live parameters.
Suppose that we have a template that requires three positional parameters:
{{wrapped template|first|second|third}}
Suppose that we want to make a typing-aid template so that editors don't have to repeatedly write the same values for {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} every time a particular form of the template is needed.
{{typing aid|third}}
Internals of {{typing aid}} might look like this:
{{#invoke:template wrapper|wrap
|_template=wrapped template
|first
|second
}}
The wrapper module dutifully adds {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} from frame.args to the arguments table as args[1] and args[2]. From pframe.args the module would extract the 'third' parameter but, in pframe.args the 'third' parameter value is extracted from pframe.args[1] and written to args[1]. The result is the same as if the editor had written:
{{wrapped template|third|second|}}
One might write:
{{typing aid|3=third}}
but that rather defeats the purpose.
Yeah, I know that this is contrived, but I think that passing positional parameters will be sufficiently confusing for editors that we should not be doing it.
I've been wondering if |_blacklist= is the best name. That name conveys sense of the forbidden. Perhaps |_exclude= might be better.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Err, yea ... aren't used, not ignored. You have a point about positional parameters – I'm convinced. |_exclude= is definitely a better choice. — JJMC89 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Thanks for taking the time to implement. — JJMC89 03:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter Adriaens tag

Hi, I've left a message on the talk page of the Peter Adriaens article, which my COI prevents me from editing about having the tag removed from the page. I'd love your input. Thanks! Alex Thermopolis (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was created in by an undeclared paid (and probably banned) editor. Many articles edited by the user and his sockpuppets were tagged. This was discussed on the relevant noticeboard (1, 2). — JJMC89 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
How to use these tags is currently under discussion at WP:COIN. This would be a good test case if somebody wants to bring it up. My opinion is that the sockfarm's input is overwhelmingly reflected in the current article content, and the tag should be retained until this is no longer the case. Look at the article history for any substantial deletions since sockfarm activity. There isn't any to be found. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

new template

Hi.
I just created a new template. Would you please take a look at the source code to make sure if everything is okay? {{NGA leaders}}. Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I see Jonesey95 has made some edits. Looks good to me. — JJMC89 03:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox station

I set ans=no so Cards84664 could see why I turned down the request, and explained so in my edit summary. Special:Diff/826000503 Do you have a better way of showing him why? Cabayi (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I just assumed that you forgot to toggle it to answered. It happens frequently. Maybe add a HTML comment about it since I doubt many look at the page history when reviewing already answered but open requests. — JJMC89 03:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate template switch

Would it be possible to have your bot switch the coordinate templates in Infobox settlement on scowiki in the exact same manner as it was done on enwiki? --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Yes, it is possible. It was done for all infoboxes, not just infobox settlement. See Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes for the work done here on enwiki. Are the scowiki infoboxes and coordinates templates ({{geobox coor}}, {{infobox coord}}, {{coord}}) translated clones of the enwiki ones? — JJMC89 02:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they are translated clones. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Do you only want infobox settlement and infoboxes based on it converted or all infoboxes? — JJMC89 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
All infoboxes. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: Do I need a bot flag on scowiki? This was the edit summary used here: Migrate {{Template name}} coordinates parameters to {{Coord}} see [[Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes]]. I can use the same thing for scowiki, or you can provide a different one. — JJMC89 20:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That summary will do. About the bot flag, I honestly don't know much about it, but I think you'd have to request it on Metawiki since I'm not a bureaucrat on scowiki. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've posted at sco:Wikipedia:Mercat Cross#Infobox coordinates conversion bot. — JJMC89 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

More tricks?

That trick above is cool.

What others do you know?    The Transhumanist 07:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice technique

The Transhumanist, from the TOTD department, here.

We met on Evad's talk page.

I'm always on the look out for tricks and techniques to add to WP's reservoir of know-how.

I noticed your User:JJMC89/Signature.js page, in which you saved your signature on a page with a .js extension, so that other users could not edit it. Definitely a trick I did not know.

I tested substitution of the page, and it worked fine.

Nice trick.

Out of curiosity, why do you sign from a page rather than via the signature box in preferences?

What else can you tell me about this trick?

I look forward to your reply.    The Transhumanist 07:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I still sign with ~~~~. My preferences had {{subst:User:JJMC89/Signature.js}}. It is a relic from when the unsubst wikitext was too long to fit in the preferences field. Any css or js subpage in userspace requires editmyusercss/editmyuserjs (Edit your own user CSS files/Edit your own user JavaScript files) or editusercss/edituserjs (Edit other users' CSS files/Edit other users' JavaScript files). Any page can be subst regardless of content model. — JJMC89 04:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I setup my profile page?

@JJMC89: I can't think of any way I can setup my profile page. How should I do it? Xenoslyce (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're looking to do. — JJMC89 02:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2018/February".