User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 6

I need help setting up a varible on some templates

I have set up four templates to ease in building project pages for the WP Food and Drink pages. I have set up some definable fields for colors, but want to have a default set if the user chooses not to define them. Could you help me?

they are:

• Food projects
• Food portals
• Food wikimedia
• Food assessments

the default colors are

• border=#668CFF
• bgcolor=#CCD9FF

Thank you very much for any help you could provide, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting paramater defaults is very simple: have a look at what I did to the first one. For more information on basic template functions like this, have a read of Help:Template or (more usefully :D) meta:User:Happy-melon/Templates, which I hope will eventually replace it. Happy‑melon 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll I can say is "d'oh", that was painfully simple. Thanks for the heads up, I am trying to create a "build a WikiProject" templates to ease the creation of WikiProject pages. Too many of them look like the old personal web pages from the 90s. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more

{{Food heading}}

My latest and greatest (yeah, right). This one will really require you mastery, I think.

I am trying to set this one for the heading section of page templates. I have it pretty much setup the way I want it, but there are some things I want to do but do not know how.

• I do not want it to display undefined fields.
• If a two or more related fields are defined, I wish that there will be a line break between them.
• For the | task force= switch: The default will be "Project", but when "yes" is added, it will change that to "Task Force"

I know there is more but am too tired to think of them now.

Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope. (No, I am not putting on the bikini.)

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at what I've done. Nothing particularly difficult - I'm sure you could have worked it out for yourself. It's just a case of knowing what to wrap in conditional statements (you can leave the |- marks outside the statements if you want, in fact, but I think it's cleaner to hide them to). Plus one little trick for circumventing the whitespace-stripping from parser functions (that HTML character I added to each line is a hardcoded space (which can't be stripped) meaning that the newline is not the first character in the string, hence it's also not stripped). Is that what you wanted, anyway? Happy‑melon 10:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted. Yeah, Happy-Melon! The problem is that the I am unfamiliar with the parser function and after reading the help section, still am unfamiliar with the parser functions. I am more of the demonstrate it to me, then I will do it myself type of learning. I find it easier to learn when some one shows me the way first. I am going to apply this on some of the other templates I created. I may be back, but I deeply appreciate the help. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to agree that the help pages we have on templates and parser functions are, in the main, utterly crap. Not to say that there aren't some gems in there, but they're buried under so much repetition, poor explanation and technobabble that it's no wonder no one gets anything useful out of them. Happy‑melon 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you can't use a raw pipe character inside parser functions (unless it's part of a piped link) without it being thought of as part of the parser delimiters. That's what the {{!}} template is for - it contains only a pipe, which is not 'exposed' until the end of the parser (when the wikitable code is evaluated, after all the parserfunctions). So wherever you wanted to put style="some-style:foo;"|Wording, put style="some-style:foo;"{{!}}Wording instead. Happy‑melon 08:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Styles

I am trying to get some styles in the box to decrease font sizes. Where would they go in relation to the new sections? I would really like to have the fonts after the heading to be at 90%, but I have tried putting int a "style="font-size: 90%;" comment in about every conceivable location and all it did was break the parser statements. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Common.css

Hey Happy-melon, I've seen you're quite active in the Main Page Redesign project and wondered if you could add some comments on my request here, related to it: MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Request_for_background-image_rule I wonder if it is completely out of the question or whether a temporary change may be permitted. Many thanks. Pretzels^chatters 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it looks unlikely to ever gain support, even for a short period. The probability of a design involving such an esoteric feature ever making it to the main page is, unfortunately, even more remote - there are probably accessibility issues to consider, as well as the question of what happens for those readers whose browsers do not support CSS. Happy‑melon 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Cooridinators

Consensus seem to favor a merge as opposed to guideline status. Since I'm an involved editor, and your not, and I recognize your name, would you handle the merger? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Happy‑melon 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New nav bar

Hi - User:JimMillerJr suggested I drop you a note. I've been building a new nav bar here: User:G716/sandbox/WPStat navbar, and was having trouble getting the portal logo centered in the cell in the table. User:JimMillerJr fixed it, but suggested that I ask you to take a look to see if you could simplify the code he added. Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I'm an admin and can follow that breadcrumb trail you left! I've simplified it a little, but there's not a lot that can be done here I'm afraid. Happy‑melon 10:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's weird - I could have sworn I left you a follow-up note that I'd moved it. Oh well, your sleuthing skills are first-class! Can you figure out why the template {{WPStatistics navigation sidebar}} shows up at this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/Cleanup listing/Header, but not here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics/Cleanup listing. (I borrowed this navbar from {{WPNJ navbar}}, which correctly shows up here and here) Thanks again for your help—G716 <^T·_C> 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Try purging or null-editing the /Cleanup page. Happy‑melon 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Template:Otheruses2/doc"

A page you created, Template:Otheruses2/doc, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Lunchscale ^{Talk! Contrib!} 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD templates again

Hi, Happy-melon. I may start a TfD to delete those "/new" CSD templates soon. If you, as one of the contributors to the templates, indicate that you prefer to keep them, I might not start the TfD. If you have comments please post them at User talk:Coppertwig#Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thankyou for your efforts and quality contributions on creating the code for the bot for the conversion of the Template:Infobox rugby league biography. It was much appreciated by me and all users in the WikiProject Rugby league. Thankyou very much.  The Windler talk  22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Many thanks! •Florrie•leave a note• 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Template: Event

I would like to ask that you reconsider your deletion decision. Aside from no support for delete other than the nom, your assumption/assertion that was the basis for your decision was incorrect. The {{tl:current}} template has been kept to a narrow scope (primarilly by the nom). The {{event}} template was created to cover the excluded scope, so it is not a duplication. Dhaluza (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the redefinition of the scope of the {{current}} template series is causing problems, then that redefinition should be reevaluated. Just because a template or process was originally created for one purpose does not mean it cannot evolve to take on new functions. In this case, the redefinition of the {{current}} templates does not appear to have consensus (certainly not within the context of that TfD) and so should be considered invalid. If the restructuring of the system genuinely (and consensually) makes their usage different to the intended purpose of the {{event}} template, then perhaps it stops being duplication (although I'm not entirely convinced). But I haven't seen evidence that this is happening legitimately. Happy‑melon 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions you draw may prove to be correct, but because you have pre-empted the process I was trying to start, we will never know. By creating a separate template, we can let it develop separately, and see how its use evolves by consensus. Then we can consider whether it should remain separate, or be merged. I would not object to a merged template with a field that shows whether it is intended to warn editors, readers, or both, for example.

Notwithsatnding this, your closing of a debate with only two comments by casting what is in effect a tie-breaking vote is problematic, and probably won't withstand a DRV. So I still request that you reconsider your closing decision. Dhaluza (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD is not a vote, it is a balanced discussion of the issues surrounding a template. In most cases, each contributor brings new points and arguments to the discussion, so the strength of argument on each side is roughly proportional to the number of contributors supporting each side. In other cases (eg) incoming contributors contribute nothing to the discussion, so their 'vote' is almost entirely discounted.

Instead of creating new structures to adapt to changing climates, you should be having a more productive discussion (indeed, having a recent discussion at all :D) of the change in usage. There are two possible outcomes; either it is concluded that the {{current}} series of templates should not be repurposed, in which case {{event}} is a duplication, or it is concluded that {{current}} templates should not be used to highlight rapidly-changing pages to the readership, in which case it is difficult if not impossible to argue that another template shoudl be allowed to do exactly that. There is no situation, in my mind, where dividing the functions of the template is the correct solution. Happy‑melon 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is your opinion, and I respect that. However, I still feel that you should have stated your opinion as a commenter, not a closer on the debate. Yes it is supposed to be a balanced discussion, but by closing it definitively with only two comments, the result is hardly balanced. Dhaluza (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion of Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list

Have you seen WT:CASH yet? This template is built for purpose. We don't want to have "See Hollywood Freeway" because it confuses peole when one highway collides with two number. The problem of duplicating the exit list is outdting when people will update one list but not the others, that's why we thouhgt about building a template.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion and background to the template exhaustively before closing the TfD; I stand by my decision. Happy‑melon 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a page allows people to ask for undeletion?--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can challenge a deletion at WP:DRV but you would need to prove that some part of the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators was not followed correctly. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Category-article-count

I noticed that you deleted my versions of MediaWiki:Category-article-count and MediaWiki:Category-article-count-limited. Updates to the category lists still can take some hours. Especially updates to the subcategorie lists. It seems updates of the subcategories run as a lower priority task than the updates of the pages. And removal of pages and subcategories are delayed much more than additions.

I was thinking of changing the message from "Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few days." to "Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few hours.". I know by experience that users who are new to the category system gets very confused when they add or remove a category to a page and they don't see the change on the category page. They then tend to do multiple edits to the article or even the category page to try to force the change, and that is a bad thing.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to change the message to be more clear that it's categories added by templates that take time to update, but I couldn't think of a concise enough wording or find a good place to put it. Category links added directly to articles update instantly, as the page is rerendered for its first display. Any suggestions for making the distinction clear? Happy‑melon 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, under some circumstances when category names are added by a template it can literally take forever until the page gets listed. (Until the next time that page is edited, which can mean months or even years.) And right, when you manually add a category name to an article page or a subcategory page then the category list gets updated pretty much immediately. But when you manually remove a category name from a page (especially a category page) then it can still take some hours before the page is removed from the category list.

I think it is impossible to state all this in a short message. Instead I think it is enough that we state something like this:

Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few hours.

Sure, that is a very imprecise statement. But I think that is enough to make people relax and understand that they don't need to do a lot of dummy edits to make things update. Since they expect immediate updates, and when they don't see that they think something is wrong. But if they are told it can take up to some hours then they understand that that is normal and nothing is wrong. I don't think they will worry if most updates are faster than what we state. :))

Of course, if you want to inform people more about when and how much updates are usually delayed and so on, then we could do something like this:

Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few hours. – learn more

Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few hours.

But I think that is over-information and will just clutter the interface.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no situation whereby the category link will never be updated; even if a template conditionally includes a category by timestamp, the worst-case scenario, the link will be parsed when the page's server cache expires (not the rendered squid cache, a deeper one); IIRC anyway. Editing any page directly causes a complete rerendering of that page, so I think you're incorrect that manually removing a category tag invokes a delay. Delays come when the page is modified without editing it directly; editing templates is the most common and are caught by the job queue, changes in conditionals are more subtle and can take up to 30 days to clear, IIRC. So for 99% of the time, the limiting factor is the length of the job queue, which is usually quite reasonable these days. It's often not even correct to say that they'll be delayed "for a few hours" as it can be almost instantaneous. I'd rather have some more general message, perhaps linking as you say to a more detailed explanation. Happy‑melon 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that the page is parsed when the server cache expires? I thought it was only parsed when it was re-rendered if someone then visits the page. Some odd pages like a redirected category or an unused image might not be visited for ages and thus "never" re-render. You can read about usage cases when a template changes the categorising of a page without the page being visited or edited and the template itself also not being edited, at Template talk:Category redirect#New categorization ideas.

Note that my suggested message says "occasionally delayed", not "usually delayed", so the message is correct. And my point with the message text is that people expect that things happens immediately, so they get worried when that doesn't happen and waste time and resources to try to fix it. Thus I think the time we state in the message should be long enough that users almost never experience a delay longer than we state. Since they don't get worried if things happen faster than we say. And currently it often does take some hours before a subcategory is removed from a category list, so some hours is true. I have seen it happen several times this week, even though I did visit the subcategory pages and even purged them. And during some of those days (nights really) the job queue was as low as 175.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that some form of warning is warranted, although I'm dubious about including any specific timeframe. What do you think about the message I've just instated? Happy‑melon 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"This list may sometimes be slightly out of date"

To me that can be interpreted as: "This list has a backlog, some editor needs to manually update it to fix it." If I were a newbie that would worry me.

"Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few hours."

To me that means: "The servers will catch up soon, just sit back and wait."

And I think we do need to give a time frame. Since the newbies have no idea of what the proper time frame is, so they might think it should take tops some minutes and get worried when it takes more than that. The newbies have no way of knowing, so we need to give them an estimate.

I saw what you wrote over at Help:Category#Delayed updates. I am not sure what you state there about the templates is correct. As I have understood it a page doesn't get re-rendered until someone visits it. So an unvisited page can remain uncategorised indefinitely. But as you partly state there, it isn't always enough just to visit the page, sometimes we have to edit the page for it to categorise. But I might be wrong, since when we added the detection to {{ambox}} it seemed like most pages came into the category faster than they are likely to be visited.

You didn't write anything about that removal of pages takes more time than additions, even when the removal is not template related but due to a manual edit. And especially when the page involved is a category page itself.

By the way, I am currently running a test with a category that automatically should categorise itself into another category, when it itself gets pages in its list. The test has been running for over three days now without the subcategory turning up in its mother category. Of course, what I am testing is a very special case. After two weeks have passed I will visit the subcategory page and see what happens, then wait two weeks more, then purge the subcategory page and again wait two weeks, then I will do a dummy edit.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain about conditional inclusions (eg inclusion based on timestamp, or based on {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}, which I suspect you're using); it may be that these do represent a 'hole' in the category update system, requiring either viewing or editing to rerender - I'll be interested to learn the outcome of your very patient experiment. However, I am certain that, other than that, there is no scope for indefinite delay, and no requirement to either visit or edit the page. AFAIK, pages are not only rerendered when viewed; the job queue thread rerenders them internally and updates the squid cache as well as all the database tables. What tests I have done do not support the idea of removals taking more time than additions, or of subcategory updates being particularly delayed.

I'm still unconvinced as to the merits of a specific timescale; in the majority of cases, except where thousands of pages are involved, updates take only a few minutes; while in rare cases (like when we had the server clock error) they can fall days or weeks behind. Better, in my opinion, to be imprecise and then direct interested viewers to a clear explanation. I don't think the difference is particularly significant as long as the link to the explanation is there. Happy‑melon 09:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, my "very patient experiment" uses the {{PAGESINCAT:}}, so I expect that it will never insert itself in the mother category. I am doing the test since a bot owner at Commons claims it works, and people over at Template talk:Category redirect#New categorization ideas now wanted to use it here at the English Wikipedia. I have now instead devised a much better solution for them by using the MediaWiki API. But I will continue the test since it is interesting.

Ah well. I will not revert your edits to the MediaWiki messages. Instead now that you and I are aware of this issue we can keep an eye on what happens with category listings when we add and remove pages and subcategories in different ways, and soon we will probably know better how it really works nowadays. And meanwhile we might get some reactions to your new messages. Then when we know more we might perhaps revise the messages. So I leave those messages in your care for now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WPStatistics

Hello again - you recently removed Category:WikiProject banners from {{WPStatistics}}, but the instructions for User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription state that the project banner template must be in that cat. I'm not sure how to resolve this - you're the second person to remove it - seems like the requirements for Wolterbot are either not clear or not well known. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All WikiProject banners should be in CAT:WPB or one of its subcats; in this case it is automatically categorised by {{WPBannerMeta}} into Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment, so there is no need to manually categorise it into the main cat as well. Using subcats like this is a way for us to keep track of which banners use the meta-template and which still need to be looked at. I'll try and track down and update that confusing guideline. Happy‑melon 09:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've left a note for the bot owner here: User_talk:B._Wolterding#Cleanup_listing_requirements. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The documentation has been updated here User:WolterBot/Cleanup_listing_subscription#Parameters. Thanks for your help.—G716 <^T·_C> 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Banners

Hi, I've started converting some of the banners on your list but there are some that are protected, so I've starting listing those and my suggested changes at User talk:MelonBot/WikiProject banner stats -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

Why did you do this?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 08:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/Archive 124#Changing links on main page, as given in the edit summary (albeit now archived). Happy‑melon 11:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:MakeBot

Hi, could you explain this edit: [1]. I'm unaware of any discussion that has ruled that interface to be "deprecated" - it has the distinct advantage of logging bot actions in the bot status log where they can be reviewed separately from other user right changes. Is there any particular reason why you feel that bureaucrats must favour one interface over the other? WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed at WP:BN, albeit fairly apathetically. The fact that it files the log entry into a separate stream from the normal rights log was considered something of a double-edged sword. Also-Happy-melon (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Historic fur

Since you closed the {{Historic fur}} TfD, I would have liked to consult with you about how to further proceed with the necessary cleanup, but seeing as you've just gone on wiki-vacations I've boldly gone ahead and turned the template into a warning message outlining the need for review. I've given a notification at WP:AN here [2]. I hope this will find your approval, I think it's sort of in the spirit of the recommendations you gave with your closure. Thanks (and happy holidays) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would have done. Perhaps a link to the template that was created during the TfD for genuine historic photos would be helpful (I can't remember what it was called, and unfortunately don't have time to look it up). In a few weeks time, it can be redirected to one of the deletion templates like obsolete licenses are. Also-Happy-melon (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Standardization

Hello Happy-melon,

I wonder whether you would like to comment here, since you have some experience in the topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Naming convention. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of draft CSD templates

The draft CSD templates have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Draft CSD templates. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Kinston Indians roster

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Kinston Indians roster. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Borgarde^talk 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db-g8

I've been tagging some wayward sandbox pages with Template:Db-g8. Db-g8 does not include pages which are useful to the project. It does take a little while to determine whether a sandbox is no longer useful to the project. Rather than force the deleting admin to take the time research whether a sandbox is no longer useful to the project, Db-g8 should include an optional "rationale=" parameter similar to that of Template:Db-g7 to allow the deletion requestor to make their case as to why the page no longer is useful. I've been using the edit summary for this, but I'm not sure whether anyone see it. I saw your name on the Template:Db doc edits and you seem to know how to modify it. To give the deleting admin more tools on which to decide to Db-g8 delete a page, would you please modify Template:Db-g8 and Template:Db doc to include {{db-g8|rationale=DeletionRationale|~~~~}}? While the Db-g7 rational is required, the Db-g8 should remain optional since many Db-g8 deletions require no explanation. Thanks. -- Suntag (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the change to db-g8 and Db doc. Happy-melon, would you please check to see if the way I did it was OK? It seems to work. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No technical issues with this, and it's likely a good idea, but if a long rationale is required to show how something is obviously unneeded it likely isn't obvious. Most cases where this would be useful could just as easily be taken to MfD. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages are "no longer useful to the project" for different reasons. The rationale= parameter allows the deleting nominator to provide some explanation and links that help establish that the page is no longer useful to the project, making it easier for the deleting admin to make their decision. If a long rationale is required, that would be a clue to the deleting admin that perhaps the deletion isn't so clear as to be speedy. -- -- Suntag ☼ 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Old template

Template:Old template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rumping (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Happy. You marked Old template as deprecated on 5 February 2008. If there was a discussion on that, please provide a link in the TfD. Thanks. -- -- Suntag ☼ 17:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WPStatistics

Hello again -

Could you look at {{WPStatistics}} for me - I'm trying to figure out why the first line of text is slightly indented (i.e., there appears to be a space before "This article is written...") Is this something in {{WPBannerMeta}}?

Also please take a look at User:G716/test banner - would it be possible to modify {{WPBannerMeta}} to optionally allow the banner to include {{topic}} - preferably all in the same colored box?

Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The text appears normally to me on IE7 - what browser are you using? I'll try and have a look at the other issue when I get back. (also)Happy‑melon 07:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.0.1—G716 <^T·_C> 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Templates Help Revision

I commented on this fine work over at Wikimedia. It's badly needed! Mcewan (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive box collapsible

Any chance you can take a look at ABC Template talk. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The matter was resolved. My bad. : ) -- Suntag ☼ 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta and |blp= and |activepol=

Why would you add them to {{WPBannerMeta}}? IMHO, that would complicate its code for no reason—just keeping that code outside of the real banner makes more sense to me. Or do you think those params would be useful on other WP banners too? —Ms2ger (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: Shouldn't User:Happy-melon/Status use {{mbox}}, as it's used on this page?

Some issues substituting #if statements...

Hey, Happy-melon. I'm having a slight issue with the header code in {{newdelrev}}, which I'm fairly sure comes from attempting to substitute an {{#if statement. Unfortunately, the substitution is required to properly reference the section (putting weird things like /* {{#if:{{ucfirst:article}}|blahblahblah}} */ in the edit summary doesn't really work). I've been stuck on figuring out how to fix this for about a month now, and I'd really appreciate it if you could, like, swoop in and save the day (or something like that). End tongue-in-cheek. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about sorting and WPBannerMeta

Is there some option like the "listas" parameter (in the WPBiography template) available in templates that use WPBannerMeta? In other words, if I apply a template like, say {{BTGProject}} to a person (like a game designer), I'd like the page to be sorted on their last name as in the case of BLPs (that use the listas parameter in that template). Is this possible? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WPBannerMeta was recently modified to include the listas functionality by default; it's just that BTGProject was converted to use the metatemplate before the code was added to the parameter list. I've modified the banner to pass through the |listas= parameter, so it should now work - you can duplicate my edit on any other banner that might need to use listas. Happy‑melon 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Craw-daddy | T | 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters

Uhh... What's that supposed to mean? :-P Seriously, though, what constitutes an "unusual parameter," because apparently I have one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just that the code for {{Archive box}} contains a number of parameters that I'm not convinced are actually used - if they're not, they're just cluttering up and complicating the code. I added a tracking category to determine whether they're being used anywhere: if the're not, or they're very uncommon and don't do much, I will remove them. Hope this clarifies things. Happy‑melon 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the templates

Sorry I broke Wikipedia while you were away (even though you did leave specific instructions not to). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic template

Can you help explain this behavior:
{{topic|Statistics|simple=yes|pna=|article=List of basic statistics topics}} gives:

Article – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – To-do

The "Basic list" is not in the documentation of the template, and "topics" is added to the end of the article= name giving a link to the non-existent page "List of basic statistics topics topics".

Also, pna= suppresses the "Cleanup" link, but stubtypes= does not suppress the "Stubs" link. Can we make all parameters work the same so that any can be suppressed.

Thanks —G716 <^T·_C> 02:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the 'basic topics' link - it was just a simple brace position error. None of the parameters allow suppression - they simply allow alternative targets to be specified for the links. The display of the link is dependent on whether or not the target page exists, so links can be 'suppressed' by retargetting them to non-existent pages, by setting the relevant parameter to a nonsense phrase. This isn't very elegant, but it does work. Why would you want to suppress certain links anyway? Happy‑melon 06:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the quick response. I don't want to be a pain (honest!) but:

• Now both the "Article" link and the "Basic list" link point to the article specified in the article= parameter. Is this intentional? It's not clear in the template documentation.

For example, {{topic|Statistics|simple=yes|article=Biostatistics}} shows:

Article – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – To-do

• The behavior of pna= and stubtype= parameters are different:

{{topic|Statistics|simple=yes|pna=|stubtype=}} suppresses the "Cleanup" link, but not the "Stubs" link:

Article – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – To-do

whereas {{topic|Statistics|simple=yes|pna=X|stubtype=X}} suppresses both links:

Article – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – To-do

This is not really a big deal — I just like consistency.

• I want to suppress the "Cleanup" for the time-being because of this. I asked about specifying a different target for the "Cleanup" link on the template talk page (here), but didn't get a response yet.

Best regards—G716 <^T·_C> 07:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's confusing to think of passing a null value as 'suppressing' the parameter, because the template simply isn't designed like that. The reason it appears to suppress the cleanup listings is because the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/ page doesn't exist. Passing null to the |stubtype= parameter links to Category:Stubs, which happens to exist, so is displayed. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that the page formed from the null value of |stubtype= exists while the page from the null value of |pna= doesn't. As you discovered, the 'correct' way to implement link suppression is to use a value such as 'X' - I recommend "μ" as a guarranteed suppression value. I've changed the link to the basic topics. Happy‑melon 07:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and patience. I'm sure it's clear that I am at a complete loss when it comes to understanding template syntax. —G716 <^T·_C> 12:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again (the pest is back). The template seems to give different results depending whether the parameter is lower case or capitalized?

• {{topic|Statistics|simple=yes}}

Article – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – To-do

• {{topic|statistics|simple=yes}}

Article – Outline – History – Category – Stubs

Can this be fixed (other than manually specifying each page)? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 17:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It would be possible to convert the parameter to lowercase, but then that would cause errors when the subject is a proper noun. Happy‑melon 09:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks again for your help—G716 <^T·_C> 20:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

refactor notice

I have copy-edited your posting to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Eckhart

Hi Happy-melon, listen, is there anyway you can scrutinize the "writing" in Aaron Eckhart's article? The reason I ask, is since, I'm trying to aim the article to FA status and I got an oppose saying that the article needs to be "scrutinized" by someone who's new to the article. I was hoping if you could help out with that. If you can't, no hard feelings. But, if you can, I would appreciate it a whole lot. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly - I've had a quick skim of the whole article and read the lead and first section carefully, and already have many comments to make. Firstly the lead: the lead section is not supposed to be an abridged version of the rest of the article; it is supposed to be a "concise version". The difference may not be immediately apparent, but it is crucial. A good lead looks at the article body, and distils it down to leave only the most important points. The current lead takes the article body and distils it while preserving the balance of the article. So you have one paragraph about early life, one about early work, one about later work. That's not necessary. His secondary school is trivial in comparison to details of what he's famous for: it's perfectly ok to skim over entire sections from the main article if there are more important things to include. From WP:LEAD: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". By far the best way to see what a good lead should look like is to read one: have a look at WP:FA and find a couple of actors/actresses that are already FAs - I read Angelina Jolie, for instance. Reading a few of those should give you an idea of what you're trying to achieve.

Throughout the sections I read, I noticed a rather fragmented syntax: there are a lot of quite short and simple sentences. Again, reading existing FAs is the best way to see what you're aiming for: in the majority of cases, sentences in FAs are multi-clausal, containing several related ideas. It's rare to see sentences without punctuation in FAs, such as "Eckhart's older brothers are James Lawrence Eckhard and Adam Eckhart". It is very definitely not a requirement to use every piece of punctuation available in the English language, but you should be thinking about how you can combine sentences together; by replacing several simple phrases with fewer more complicated ones, you improve the depth and texture of the prose and make it both more informative and more interesting to read. It also reduces the frequency of words such as "like", "and" and "also", which are anathema to high-quality writing except in the one place each where they actually belong.

I hope that gives you some idea of where to begin. There is certainly plenty of good material in the article, and it seems fairly well referenced. FA status is certainly attainable. Happy‑melon 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It does. But, I was told in a peer review that I opened for the article and additional feedback, that parts of his early life section should be included in the lead. I was really against that, but, I remembered that the lead needs to summarize the entire article, and that's why its mentioned. I've seen example FA's; Eric Bana was an example article I took and tried to work with Eckhart's article. But, will take your suggestions with other FA actor articles. Thank you for taking the time in giving additional suggestions for the article's improvement. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that is simply wrong; the lead is not intended to summarise the entire article, but rather to be a concise version containing only the most important parts. If none of the content of a particular section is important enough, it does not need to be included. Happy‑melon 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want any problems to start arising because of me, so, I will remove the the secondary school info., as you stated, for its trivial usage in the lead. Momentarily, I will remove the suggestions you left above. Also, is there anything else in the lead that stands out that shouldn't be included? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN vs. A-class

Hiya H.M. I'm pointing Geometry Guy over here too; I'd like to ask you both, is it your sense that all (or almost all) of the active A-class review processes aspire to at least meet the WP:WIAGA requirements, or do some aim lower? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to my humble abode :D! I have very little personal experience of A-Class review programs in action; having never participated in a WikiProject with an active review department; so I'm not a good person to ask for this question. My personal opinion is that A-Class review departments should be aiming slightly above the GA requirements, as an intermediary between GA and FA. I know that position, and the whole issue, is controversial, so I'd be hesitant to advocate it too strongly, however. Happy‑melon 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would WT:ASSESS be a good place to ask? What I'm looking for is to figure out if there are a certain core set of style guidelines pages that just about everyone thinks of as helpful and inoffensive, roughly along the lines of the 6 mentioned at WP:WIAGA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you'd probably get the best response over there. Sorry I can't be any more help! Happy‑melon 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My only direct experience is at maths, which was active for a while. My view (shaped by that experience, and a general impression) is that WikiProjects and GA reviewers are looking for different things, which is why I think it makes more sense to keep GA requirements separate from WikiProject assessments. Neither group has the experience needed to apply the other group's criteria. Geometry guy 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly, guys, that helps, I'll continue at WT:ASSESS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta/qualityscale and unassessed class category

Someone has a question regarding the unassessed-class category and WPBannerMeta. Since you seem to maintain WPBannerMeta would you mind throwing in your two cents. I don't want to wade in and try to fix it only to make matters even worse. See Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Need_help_to_figure_out_something. Ta, Hiding T 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV template trouble

The DRV Newdelrev template doesn't seem to work in all situations. Template issue shows frustration and this shows what appears to be finger pointing. If you can, please take a look at the situation at Template issue before things get more heated. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is supposed to be. The template substituted correctly in all of my tests. I didn't see any whitespace issues with passing |ns=|pg=Foo, for instance, although naturally the |ns=Article doesn't work. What's supposedly wrong? Happy‑melon 19:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it was fixed around 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) - an hour before your 19:01, 2 October 2008 post above (after a long history of working on the problem).[3] I knew that a post on your talk page would fix things. Thanks! -- Suntag ☼ 14:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AOL/collapsible

Hi. Thanks for your note. I'm actually not sure that you were responsible for the problem, since it went away when I restored a previous version of my monobook.js file, and stayed away when I updated that file to be the equivalent of my old file. I assumed that meant that the problem was a munged file of some sort, and not a system problem. In any case, the problem seems to have gone away, and everything that is supposed to collapse seems to be doing so. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to twinklespeedy.js

It seems that some people are having twinkle freeze when tagging articles db-bio. See this thread. Is it possible that this edit might have something to do with it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Banner title alignment

Since it took more time than usual before I replied to you:

I have replied to your question over at my talk page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

mbox-inside

Hi Happy-melon. I noticed that you have removed the "mbox-inside" class from the bannershells, and I see why. However that made me think a little about how to do a smooth transition. As far as I understand most banners still use the "messagebox" class and when "nested=yes" they use "nested-talk". We already gave the "messagebox" class the same top and bottom margin as the tmbox class so talk page message boxes with the different classes look good together, when not inside a bannershell. I think I know how to do the same for the width. That is, I can make it so banners that use the "messagebox" class also become 100% wide when inside an mbox-inside area. (And also use the other "nested-talk" settings.) I presume that would be neat, right?

I have to go to bed now, but I will probably test it tomorrow in my user space and report back to you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That would indeed be neat; however, I'm not sure how useful it would be. Presumably it would involve adding new CSS to MediaWiki:Common.css which would take time to decache; by the time the rule was usable, we'd probably be well on the way to deploying the new banners anyway. Of course if you can think of a cleverer solution that can be used immediately, I'd love to see it, as it would allow us to break up a quite major change into more manageable chunks; as such it would be extremely useful to smooth the transition, as you say. Happy‑melon 11:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, this involves new code in MediaWiki:Common.css. But I can do it in two ways:

1: A minor hack that doesn't have to decache, so we can use it immediately. It will make it so that for the {{BannerShell}} then users with the old CSS see all banners as 80% wide and users with the new CSS see all banners as 100% wide. But for the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} we would still have to use "nested=yes" to get the right widths for all users during the entire decaching time.

2: A less hacky way that has to decache before we can use mbox-inside in the two bannershells.

I will test both in my user space and see what I learn. I think we should use one of these methods since I think it will take much more than 31 days before you guys have converted all the banners to use the tmbox classes.

Oh, and I love the word "decaching" that you have invented for this. I saw you use it some days ago somewhere. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink

Hey. You seem to maintain WPBannerMeta. Could you figure out why there is a blank space before {{WikiProject Food and drink}} on Talk:NoitulovE or Talk:Almond ? Gimmetrow 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK! Gets hard to debug stuff when there are multiple layers of nested templates. Gimmetrow 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it :D. I tried everything before doing that update: I was half intending to wait until October 31 when I could have implemented the shiny new automatic way of collapsing banners inside WPBS, but that'll have to wait. So now it (sometimes) looks a bit odd when you have WPBM banners and normal banners together inside WPBS. Can you tell me if you see anything wierd in the shell at say, Talk:American football?? Happy‑melon 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes. The football template is slightly smaller than the others. Gimmetrow 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrr, this is really confusing me. Do you still see it when logged out? Happy‑melon 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, also when logged out. Worse, the one template is about half-width when "hidden" with javascript on. That may have something to do with the lack of class= coding for the one-line hidden form. Gimmetrow 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one with a problem: {{WikiProject Rock music}}. Gimmetrow 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here to mention Template:WikiProject Rock music as well. -- Suntag ☼ 03:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, I can't see any issues anywhere, either in WPB, WPBS or separate. Can you provide an example? Happy‑melon 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some bits of table code were visible in the template. Seems fixed right now. Gimmetrow 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Midtown Madness right now, with the banners collapsed, I only see the banner for the Video games project as full-width inside the banner shell. The Chicago and Illinois banners are half-width inside the banner shell, with the Illinois banner slightly smaller than the Chicago one. Gimmetrow 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign

Hey Happy-melon, I've updated my Main Page Redesign proposal substantially, and you had some really great points last time you commented - hopefully you'll see the effects of your suggestions. It would be great if you could comment on the new proposal, I'm really proud of how it's shaping up. Many thanks -- Pretzels^Talk! 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to Template:WPBannerMeta

Just letting you know that something with the recent changes to the template have broke the notes on it, needs-infobox, attention, etc do not work now. Discussion is on the talk page Template talk:WPBannerMeta. —Borgarde^talk 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Happy-melon! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WBPMeta

I've left a question on the template talkpage, concerning pages like this. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

Greetings again! Question on the aforementioned category - doesn't seem to be working correctly as of 9/29/08. I doubt that your adding the new header had anything to do with it; however, given the guru you are with these type of oddball problems, thought I'd bring it to your expertise! :) I'd like to add the "IF" >## = admin backlog template to this, but don't want to mess with the templates/headers until the other issue is cleared up. I've cleared out the several hundred that were in Category:Rescaled fairuse images; and will keep an eye on it until the dating issue is resolved. SkierRMH (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's not a lot I can do except entirely unrelated tweaks to the conditional code. Have a read of Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template, which should explain why pages are slow to categorise into the category. Happy‑melon 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Rock music

Hi. I was asked to take a look at the above template since I protected it due to a bit of edit warring. Apparently it is transcluding incorrectly, (see Talk:Bryan Adams or Talk:Linkin Park. I told him to test a new one out in the template's sandbox, and then do an editrequest on the template's talk page; however, the new template doesn't seem to use Template:WPBannerMeta. Do you know how to fix the template and keep the BannerMeta base? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment at Template talk:WikiProject Rock music. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:S-roy

Hello Happy Melon,

Could you please add the following template addition to the list provided for the S-roy template? Thanks!

• [[Kingdom of the Two Sicilies|Royalty of the Two Sicilies]]

Caponer (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: edit summary at Wikipedia:Protection policy‎

"you were bold, got reverted, so you are quite correct to take it to the talk page. But reinserting disputed content is not helpful". I understand the process; I actually took it to Royalguard11' talk page yesterday but didn't get a response. It the absence of feedback I figured that re-adding it the change would either pass without objection or initiate a discussion. tl;dr: not being disruptive, sorry if it looked that way. Plasticup ^T/C 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Adopt me!

Hi! I'd really like to be adopted. I have no experience whatsoever, and I just begun my account. I see your ready for an adoptee. Thanks. Please visit my talk page and tell me if you want me. -WarriorFIRESTAR (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello...

...I am very bored. Please talk to me on my talk page. i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Toys

Hi there. :) I noticed that {{WP Toys}} doesn't have an assessment scheme; I've been looking around, and there are a number of articles about majorly notable toys that have no assessment with any wikiproject. As this will keep them off of any future WP releases, would it be appropriate to add an assessment to that template? BOZ (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, Silly Putty, Colorforms, Mr. Potato Head, Matchbox (toy), Play-Doh, Etch A Sketch, Easy-Bake Oven, G.I. Joe, Rubber duck... you get the idea. :) None of those are assessed, because the template isn't built for that. BOZ (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it would be a good idea, if someone is prepared to make the necessary assessments when the scheme is enabled. Do you know how to add the quality scale to the banner? Everything is explained at Template:WPBannerMeta Happy‑melon 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I'll post a note on the project's page first; it seems kind of sleepy, so maybe no one will care.  ;) Still, getting it set up and leaving it for others to deal with may be better than never having it there in the first place... BOZ (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly started this. My first time at this sort of thing, so I hope I did an OK job. :) A small number of articles had already been assessed, and it's not a huge set of articles. Please let me know how it looks. BOZ (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine, although you forgot to create two of the categories (to be fair, I only added the code to prompt you to create them this morning :D). Oh also, there's no need to keep making trivial edits to keep bringing up the 'new messages' banner; if you want to ask something, just ask, I won't bite :D Happy‑melon 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - I hadn't realized that I hadn't explicitly asked until a few minutes ago.  ;) What exactly am I missing now? BOZ (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The two that it's now asking you to create on Template:WP Toys :D Happy‑melon 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That's better... I knew we needed those, but wasn't sure how to do that. Is everything in order now? I tried to populate most of the categories a little to give people an idea where to start. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Have fun assessing! Happy‑melon 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to do something to get this to appear, or will the bots handle that on the next sweep? BOZ (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that should be done automatically by the bot. If nothing's appeared in three or four days, you might want to poke someone at WP:1.0/A about it. Happy‑melon 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind - thanks again. :) BOZ (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPB

Please see my comment at Template talk:WikiProjectBanners#new_implementation_of_WikiProject_banner_nesting. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Block request

It's clear User:Gamenac isn't here for constructive editing. They've been blocked before and they've continued to disruptively edit Wikipedia. If you could block him/her, it would be appreciated. Thanks! _{TKGD2007|TALK} 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta

How many different notes will Template:WPBannerMeta accept? For instance, if I wanted to set note 1 to "D:TNG" so that the template would show "This article is primary related to the Degrassi: The Next Generation series.", could I set up a note 2, note 3 and note 4 for the other series in the franchise? Thanks, Matthewedwards 02:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any way of not using the graphic, and instead using the show acronyms? Matthewedwards 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 notes built in to the main banner code, with the option to easily add an unlimited number more using the hook {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes}} - this is slightly more complicated than, but very similar to, the other notes. However it would be more elegant to use just one note, and an inverted #switch statement to control the display. Give me a shout if you want me to explain further. Unfortunately it is only possible to specify images to go in the left column; the option to at least not display anything is one I must work on. Happy‑melon 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the template I'm working on is Template:WikiProject Degrassi, which will be used in place of Template:WikiDegrassi. The latter doesn't allow for importance assessments, although it does use show= to determine which series of the franchise each article is concerned with. I was wondering if you'd be able to explain or assist me in getting Template:WikiProject Degrassi to do something similar. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, would setting up Task-force like fields work better? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOO

What an amazing and complex template! I ended up adding assessment to WP:BOO because I couldn't figure out how to make it categorize without, but I figured that was my failing, not the template's. Thanks!--otherlleft (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

'nested=yes' not working in some project templates

Hi Happy-melon, would you please have a look at Template:WikiProject Contemporary music, Template:WikiProject Dance and others where "nested=yes" is not doing anything. it would appear to be one of the components of the WP templates rather than the template itself. Paul foord (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please A) show me an example of a page where it's not working, B) WP:PURGE your cache to get the latest CSS and JS files (although you should have them already :S), C) tell me what browser, OS and skin you're using. Happy‑melon 10:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt it, but to avoid confusion: I am pretty sure Happy-melon mean that you should bypass your browser cache, not purge the Wikipedia page. (I tend to mix those two pages up too.) Although doing both those operations usually is a good idea when some page looks strange.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at User talk:Robertgreer#Issue_with_Template:WikiProject_Dance_nested.3Dyes, an example (now working except for one WP) was at Talk:James Brown. Robert Greer found an example at Talk:Aschenbrödel, it is still happening there. I am using MonoBook (default). Browsers used are Firefox 3.03 on Vista Home Basic. The same thing happens in Explorer 7 on the same system and in Firefox 3.03 on Ubuntu 8.10 -- Paul foord (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul! On Talk:Aschenbrödel "WikiProject Dance / Ballet" is nesting but left justified, not centered, whereas "WikiProject Classical music" on the same talk page is nested and centered. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db-t3, and Template:Age switch

Hi
Could you have a look at WT:CSD#Fault? please? There's some confusion about {{Age switch}} that you created a while ago, it appears it isn't doing its job (anymore). I'm not sure if you know if there was some process that used to trigger a reparsing in the transclusing pages.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for Creation

Hello, regarding your response here, I wonder if you might have time to have a look at our project banner {{WPAFC}} and bring it in line with other projects. The important difference with ours is the notarticle parameter which distinguishes between pages created by the process and pages used by the process. This affects not only the message on the banner but the category of the page as well. When you tried to convert this last time, you depopulated Category:Articles for creation templates. Full information is on Template:WPAFC/doc. If there was a way to make it work, it would be great; I'm just a template beginner so I'm not going to try it :-) Thanks, MSGJ 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are busy at the mo ... MSGJ 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon, I wish I knew why you were ignoring me. MSGJ 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I can honestly say "I didn't see you there"! You have had the unfortunate bad luck to have all three of your posts closely followed by other edits to this page, and never when I'm actually online. As such, I've consistently overlooked your comments thinking that the other edits were the source of my big yellow banner. I've got ten minutes now, I'll have a look. Happy‑melon 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a crack at it. Let me know if anything goes wrong! Sorry for keeping you waiting... Happy‑melon 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you, I'll take a look. And I'm very relieved you weren't ignoring me ;) Just my bad luck I guess. MSGJ 16:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

What do you think about User:Ruslik0/Flagged_revisions? This probably should be moved to a subpage of WP:Flagged revisions. Ruslik (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As what, a trial or implementation? Happy‑melon 13:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trial. Ruslik (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I updated settings. Now my proposal is more or less final. The setup is quite restrictive—nobody except bureaucrats will have any default rights. Ruslik (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it's far too complicated. Remember we're after a limited trial with the potential to expand if there is consensus to do so, not where the assumption is for extension unless "the trials are unsuccessful". As such, there are a number of further restrictions that could and should be made. You should also avoid including copies of the default settings; only settings that are different from the defaults should really be included. May I edit? Happy‑melon 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may edit. I included copies of defaults only for convenience; they can be removed later. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote $wgAddGroups['sysop'][] = 'reviewer'; $wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][] = 'reviewer';, but you probably meant 'editor' not 'reviewer'? Reviewer is too serious to be granted by sysops like rollback. In addition, can sysops +reviewer themselves? Ruslik (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two more points. I think in addition to mainspace, FR can be enabled over portal namespace. Then a trial can be conducted over several popular portals (Contents, currently semi-protected). And for the trial it seems excessive to have two groups (reviewers and flaggers); they can be merged into one. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure about portals, the Featured Portals make their own nice closed set to extend the test to, but every extension made makes it more difficult to obtain the consensus to proceed. I think that we have yet again brushed over on WT:FLR the three questions that are most important: what flags are we going to have, how do we assign the lower group, and how do we assign the upper group? These three questions need answers before we can start a trial, because we have to be testing a proposed solution. So I'd say we need to take this back to WT:FLR as a framework for a trial which we can hopefully all agree on, leaving us only with the three decisions above to make. It's a step in the right direction, at least. Happy‑melon 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot Request

Hi Happy-melon

Can your bot help me with this? This should make it possible for me to complete the tag and assess in about half the time.

Regards,

G.A.S^talk 14:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not from this connection I'm afraid! I could do it after the 16th December... :D Happy‑melon 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem... That is kind of my problem as well...:(. I have set up search and replace to do this for me; but pressing Ignore instead of Save is much faster. Maybe someone else can help with the request. G.A.S^talk 14:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And I would prefer Tag and Assess 2008 not running into the new year:) G.A.S^talk 14:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MetaBanner

I was wondering when the ability to use category intersection will be added to the template. Per this it will be added to the 2nd Gen of WP 1.0 Bot and would be used by many projects. Did you have any thoughts on adding this functionality in the near future? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the implementation proposed for the 2nd generation 1.0 bot will not use physical categories of the Category:FA-Class Top importance Foo articles; instead the intersections will be dynamically generated as the bot crawls the other categories. As such the new bot will actually deprecate the use of physical category intersections, not perpetuate them. Happy‑melon 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I was thrown off by this old BOTREQ and that bot's page. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Watson

[4] You know why, right? It's the form used at WP:ACTOR#Filmography, although nowhere does it say the specific table details (color, size) need to be imitated. Anyway, I objected to this on some other article(s) as an arbitrary style change, and was told it's for consistency among articles selected for the latest stable release. Gimmetrow 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A few words to that effect from the editor would have been nice :D. Why have we settled on this rather than one of the more widespread styles? Happy‑melon 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. It's not like this got a lot of discussion even at the project. Gimmetrow 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaaaaaaa... you will be able to help me I think

Hello there. Just to try and link from the West End theatre article to a few more theatre schools that offer dance and theatre training, I played with a list on the article, but someone keeps reverting it insisting I'm not providing an adequate criteria for notability or something. Individually the schools own articles give plenty of 'proof' of notability for training West End dancers and singers, so I don't know what to do.

I think it is hugely unfair to view only drama schools as notable, and I don't see how a school which consistently trains West End artists can't be viewed as notable in its own right.

Advice needed if you can make sense of my rambling. Basically I'm wanting to add dance and singing specialist schools on there, but this other person keeps saying there is no objective criteria for notability. Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm having quite a lot of difficulty following this! Can you provide some links to diffs or discussions please? Happy‑melon 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I can't think straight, so I'll just not bother worrying about it. Cheery anyway Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Melon bot double tagged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_template_sharing

Not sure why, this didn't seem to happen on the project page. Just thought you might want to look into it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• For some reason I misread the history on the project page and thought melonbot had tagged it too but that it didn't show up, anyway, I removed the duplicate tag from the talk page. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Namespace is giving an incorrect message in some of the articles where it's used

Hello Happy-melon! Please take a look at the top line of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, an article whose name collides with our namespace conventions. It uses Template:Namespace to apologize for replacing its title with an altered version. But it claims it replaced the colon with a *semicolon*, which is not there at all! (It's a hyphen, not a semicolon). I think your edit of November 13 might have to be re-thought, since the previous text was more appropriate. (Refers to 'substitution or omission of a colon' without saying what it was replaced by. A 'Whatlinkshere' of the template shows a variety of other occurrences which also aren't right. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, that edit was following on from the proposed policy change to standardise what we replace colons with when they're in invalid positions: I had originally suggested semicolons, but I'm coming round to the conclusion that a hyphen is actually better. Happy‑melon 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

((mfd)) on category pages?

Hi Happy-melon. I just noticed that you (or rather MelonBot) has tagged category pages for deletion by using {{mfd}}. I don't know that much about deletion procedures, but I think that for category pages you should use {{cfd}} instead. Here is the list of namespaces where {{mfd}} is intended to be used: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Introduction.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you will see that the MfD is a bulk nomination of pages in a variety of namespaces, including categories, templates and project pages. As such, it made more sense to treat the whole lot with one deletion debate than to have separate XfDs for each topic. I'd encourage you to participate in the discussion, it's in bad need of some contributions. Happy‑melon 08:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are right. And I will try to squeeze in some time to read up on and comment on the discussion you linked to. Even though I am really on a mini wikibreak since I have a lot of urgent things to do in real life.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

mbox

I didn't bring this up there becauase adding a tangent to an existing discussion is a great way to sidetrack a discussion (making it near impossible to determine consensus).

One of the goals of this proposal is also the hope that this may remove at least one of the stumbling blocks in the way of possibly eventually merging at least a few of the several types of mbox.

I don't know if that is something you'd be for or against, but I thought it might be worth noting. - jc37 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't really think that the type names are much of a hindrance to merging mbox types, since they're standardised across the whole set. I would be opposed to merging mbox types, for a variety of reasons. Of the five 'namepsace' mbox template, I assume you'd advocate merging imbox, cmbox and ombox into one "other namespaces" box, to leave us with just ambox, tmbox and ombox. Imbox in particular contains a number of special features that are bespoke to the image namespace (like a whole new type!) that would by this amalgamation be propagated to all other namespaces... featured help page, anyone? Similarly, ombox contains code (the small option, for instance), that should not be available in the image namespace. I do happen to like each and every one of the styles we have, which seems to be something of a rarity, but that is just a personal preference and could easily be replicated even if the templates were merged. The main problem is that each mbox template is subtly different, each having its own quirks and foibles, and so merging them is a very complicated task that would result in single template that is more complicated, more bulky in terms of code length and processing time, and can't be so easily modified (since every time we wanted to change anything in one namespace we would have to be careful to check that nothing's broken in other incarnations). All in all, a system IMO inferior to what we have at the moment. Happy‑melon 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than imbox (which covers the double task of licenses, and really shouldn't be merged with anything as it currently exists), the differences of the others appears to be mostly cosmetic. (Unless there is something about tmbox that I'm missing?) And so yes, I believe the rest could be merged through consensual discussion.

Anyway, this wasn't and isn't the main reason why I'm making the proposal, but I thought it might be worth mentioning as an additional benefit. - jc37 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tmbox also has a "small" option, uses some clever tweaks to allow tmboxes to 'nest' (but not quite the same tweaks as used on imbox) and has, of course, the extremely deeply-ingrained coffeeroll background. I doubt you'll gain much support for changing the talkspace messageboxes to anything without that famous brown background. Good call, I think, on keeping this separate from the main discussion: it's certainly an issue for another day. Happy‑melon 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we already have templates which note when they're in the talk-space, so I would presume that the cosmetic "look" of talkspace boxes wouldn't be much of an issue to implement? (Though I can definitely see the concern about adding "one more if statement, and another, and another, etc." : ) - jc37 13:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: In reading the above, I thought tmbox was "template mbox", rather than "talkspace mbox". It's something I "know", but keep forgetting : )

Also, is there a reason that the "extra" benefits of tmbox (such as "small") shouldn't be options on other mbox types? - jc37 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, the templates that switch style when they're in talkspace do so by using tmbox in talkspace!!! There is definitely no point in converting all the talkspace messageboxes to use a template other than tmbox if you're then going to tell that template to go back to displaying tmbox-like behavior in talkspace! that would be utterly pointless :D... Merging mbox templates only makes any sense at all when you also merge the associated mbox styles, which would be contentious to say the least. Probably a majority of users would want to see style A merged with style B, but try and get a consensus to agree on which styles A and B are? No chance :D. The majority of the unique features of each mbox template are generally pretty bespoke and not very useful outside that namespace: the "featured" and "license" types of imbox, the 100% width of fmbox, the automatically-expand-inside-templates-like-WPBS of tmbox, are all largely useless elsewhere and just clutter up the code. I can't see the utility of, for instance, {{cmbox|small=yes}} - are there any examples of image pages where such functionality would be genuinely useful? I'm not aware of any; ditto for category pages. The small code is probably the most complicated and messy part of the entire mbox structure, which is why it hasn't been propagated to other mbox templates. I think the only merger that would make any technical sense would be ombox/cmbox, but even then there are a few oddities (different default images, for instance), and there are probably enough people who like the more vibrant coloured backgrounds in an otherwise incredibly dull namespace enough to make it difficult to attain a consensus for such a change. While the road to get to this position certainly hasn't been smooth, I think the way the mbox series is laid out at the moment is probably, bar a few details (like the type names in your original thread), about as effective and efficient as we can make it. Happy‑melon 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I seem to recall that there are templates which are used in multiple namespaces, which switch to different backgrounds depending on namespace. Perhaps you and I are talking about two separate things.

And things like template width are just variable entries, and as such should be easily "set" on a switch of some kind, I would presume?

(I always feel slightly handicapped in these discussions, because - as of yet - I haven't learned more about how wikimedia software does certain things, so, even though I'm a programmer, I'm not positive about syntax, and where code is "stored" page-wise. So please bear with me : ) - jc37 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you are correct in that there are templates that are 'shape shifting' and change appearance based on which namespace they are in. They use the template {{mbox}}, which is a 'director' template. {{mbox}} contains no rendering code at all; all it does is select, based on the namespace, one of the other mbox templates ({{ambox}}, {{imbox}}, etc) and passes all the parameters it is given to that template. So each namespace uses exclusively one metatemplate to render its boxes; in some cases, however, there is mbox in the middle directing the code flow to the right template. We have considered a variety of ways of making templates change appearances based on namespace. We have found that this 'flow control' template is the most efficient and clean solution; other implementations which combined functionality into one template were complicated, messy and much less efficient. It's quite simply cleaner and more elegant to use separate templates. The point is not that such things couldn't be "set on a switch of some kind" - you're right, they could and, where unavoidable, are - but it is a very hackish way to code. Happy‑melon 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(De-dent) - I dunno if I would call: "on A, do"; to be a "hack", but then perhaps it's a mediawiki syntax problem : )

And Template:WPCOMICS Archive is one that changes styles per namespace. But then I suppose it also hasn't been modified to be an mbox clone either : ) - jc37 07:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that's not a hack, doing "on A, do X, else on B, do Y, else on C, do Z, now do something regardless, now on A, do X, else on B, do Y, else on C, do Z, now do something else, then on A, do X, else on B, do Y, else on C, do Z, now do something, etc etc etc" is very messy indeed. And if you're not going to do that (ie, if you're going to write "on A, do this whole box code, else on B, do this whole other box code") then what's the point of merging them at all? The only valid reason to merge templates is to remove duplication; either we remove the duplication and end up putting huge #switch: statements on just about every other line, or we keep the template codes separate and don't actually remove the duplication at all. Happy‑melon 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have to reluctantly agree.

Mostly because I don't know what the performance costs are for each way. And it sounds like from what you're saying, that having them as separate constructs is "better" than using switches. Is that correct? - jc37 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Whether we had them in one template or five, the cleanest, most efficient and most convenient way to code them is to keep them as entirely separate structures. Given that, what's the point of including all the code for all five structures on every page, when only a fraction of that code is used? Happy‑melon 17:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

enduser-friendliness. But then, that is apparently the goal of Template:mbox? - jc37 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "enduser" are you talking about? If you mean wikipedia readers, keeping the templates separate reduces the amount of code their browsers are forced to download and the time taken for the MediaWiki parser to process the page. If you mean people who code 'simple' templates, than yes, {{mbox}} was designed specifically to make switching between styles completely painless: if you code up a talkspace message using {{tmbox}}, and want to also use in it the image namespace (don't ask me why :D), just strip off that first 't' and you suddenly have a template that will seamlessly switch from one implementation to another when you move it around. All the features used by the main xmbox template for that namespace automagically become available when you move into that namespace, and disappear equally magically to avoid cluttering up other namespaces. What more do you want? :D Happy‑melon 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nod, I can see the intent (which I suppose can be as valid as any other, it's merely a matter of presentation). Which is part of why I was reluctantly agreeing with you, several posts back : ) - jc37 13:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, I'm just working on the reluctance :D. Seriously though, I'm glad you're willing to change your mind; it indicates that you're a reasonable person. A lot of this stuff certainly isn't obvious at first glance and on first appearances it might well look counterintuitive. You're quite right to bring up such 'issues' when you see them as it's impossible to tell on the surface which parts have been carefully designed counterintuively and which are just genuinely stupid! It's just important to keep an open mind and assume the best at all times. For me on the other hand, it's often difficult for me to see why a piece of code appears poorly-designed to the uninitiated: it's often the case that the most elegant way to test a complicated condition or implement a particular idea looks confusing or counterintuitive; similarly it's always nice to have some feedback on how the systems we create look to those who see them as 'black boxes' the workings of which they don't fully understand. Then again, I wouldn't say that I'm completely divorced from that perspective: the geo- and flag-templates are just as incomprehensible to me as I assume they are to you! All in all, it's an exercise in collaboration, just like everything else on-wiki. Which is really a fantastic life skill... maybe I should put it on my CV :D Happy‑melon 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to hear that at least "someone" considers me "reasonable" : )

I have to say that it so feels like I'm banging my head against the wall in trying to get people to think "outside the box" for a moment, and look at other ways in which something could be organised or implemented.

Once they've accepted or understood one way, they seem to become entrenched in that way, refusing any and all others.

Needless to say that seems rather contrary to the Wiki-ideals of constant adpatability and of consensus can change.

I've noticed that when editors focus on the unsupported/subjective/arbitrary they usually are dealing with ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. But for me, the biggest issues of unsupported/subjective/arbitrary that I tend to face are IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT. Usually do to an underlying fear of some kind. (The most common being: give them an inch and they'll take a mile, so IWANTIT to stay like it is to stop "them" from doing whatever I'm afraid that they may do in the future. Logical fallacy that that is, it's fairly common.)

Anyway, back on topic (somewhat anyway), I still think that cmbox and ombox, at the very least should be merged. The main difference is that one is for those who liked the shading on the "other namespaces", and the other doesn't have the shading.

So while I can see your point about using different structive boxes to contain the different "styles", I wonder if a binary switch setting for the two styles might be possible/appropriate. (shading = yes/no)

Though to be honest, I think that, other than ambox (white), and tmbox (coffee), all the other boxes should use the shading standard convention. It's how templates were, and honestly, I think it would resolve several disputes.

For example the debate at MfD would be instantly resolved. All deletion templates get the pink shading, with speedy getting the bold border all the way aound. QED. (And interestingly enough, this "style" is how several of the XfD templates were in the past.)

And it has the added benefit of the templates standing out even more from the wall-o-cleanup. (I am of the strong opinion that, while "delete" should be standardised as part of the mbox system, it shouldn't be part of the wall-o-cleanup.

Look at Template:Notability, Template:Afd, and Template:Prod. At first glance, these are (and have repeatedly been) mistaken for each other. (Template:Blpdispute, Template:Fictionlist, and others on Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, have as well, just not as often.)

This is a problem that needs resolving immediately. The purpose of the standardisation was to reduce confusion, and here it's causing it.

Note also all the different "levels" to the cleanup notices on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup alone. (Including red, by the way.)

But of course, for any change to happen, we'd be facing IWANTIT factions who I'm not sure would even "give" this much yardage.

So while the proposal I note above concerning XfD templates would resolve quite a bit, and presumably end disputes of editors (which would free them up for other discussions/tasks), I'm "reluctant" to be optimistic concerning such a proposal. - jc37 16:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So... What do you think? : ) - jc37 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... sorry for the delay; too many things floating around in my head... I certainly agree to a certain extent on the I(DONT)WANTIT front, although I don't agree that the argument is always a logical fallacy. If there is evidence to support the claims both that going a mile would be a bad thing, and that people genuinely would take a mile, then it's perfectly cohesive argument. Of course, objective evidence is often (even usually) lacking, particularly for the former claim. On the other hand, if you can argue cohesively that taking an inch is itself bad, then it's a separate argument entirely, which I consider to be the case in the specific instance of allowing non-deletion messages to use the "delete" type, for instance.

From a technical perspective there is no advantage whatsoever to be gained by merging templates that use distinct styles, it's as simple as that. With the ease of the {{mbox}} template for switching between structures it really is counterproductive unless the intent is to fully replace two structures with one. So merging ombox and cmbox only makes sense if we also wish to unify the two styles, either deprecating one in favour of the other, or merging them both together into a third. That's very much a separate discussion. I don't agree that the three examples you give are easily or even plausibly confused, and the distinction would be more clear in other namespaces, not less, as full coloured borders would be employed. So I'm not really convinced by your argument, I'm afraid. Happy‑melon 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)