User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Template:WP_Australia 2 Outdent 3 Copyedit request 4 Help me! 5 a shiny 6 {{SharedIPEDU}} 7 Betacommand thread 8 Templates WikiProject Dance 9 Pp-meta family templates 10 Archiving old FACs 11 Copyediting 12 Re: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and User:Betacommand 13 ANI 14 Copy-edit 15 Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace 16 BAG process 17 Kosovo 18 Search box 19 Reward for loyal service 20 Congratulations 21 Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat 22 Subst 23 Request for assistance 24 Template:WPBannerMeta 25 Cite journal 26 Question about {{WPBannerMeta}} template 27 your closing of a recent TfD here 28 Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall 29 Small(?) problem with new {{WPBannerMeta}} 30 SUL stuff 31 Splitting languages 32 Template:Infobox_classical_composer 33 LOCE 34 {{WP Dance}} tidy 35 heads up re your bot 36 Help? 37 Opera Project request 38 Kosovo 39 MelonBot deleting undeleted template 40 Deletion review for Template:Foreignchars 41 Deletion review for Template:Foreignchar 42 Mistake on editprotected

Template:WP_Australia

Thank you so much for fixing and cleaning up the template! However, I was just wondering whether its first few lines would be better replaced by an {{ambox}} ? Comte0 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Outdent

Having the unicode/utf8 inserted directly is nice, but if you just want the character with minimal hassle, then it is just ←, ←, the left arrow. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, you might remember me as I asked you to help me with a template back at Christmas. Could you be so kind as to help me again and do a bit of copyedit on Highlander: The Series (season 1) ? This list is currently a FLC and Scorpion0422 said the episode summaries need polishing. I did my best on them, but I'm not a native English speaker and I'd be really grateful if you cared to have a look. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello, User:Koalorka is talking very rudely to me and he is insulting Turkishness. Please help me because he hates Turks and he always behaves hateful to me. Please look [1] his message. Thanks! Izmir lee (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this (which I liked so much I plagiarized it on my main userpage) and this edit summary, which I'm still laughing about. J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{SharedIPEDU}}

Hi Happy-melon. I recently noticed that you make some changes to the SharedIPEDU template. It seems these changes removed the RSS feed link, which is present within the other SharedIP/ISP templates. Is it possible you could restore that link, as I'm sure it is quite helpful for the administrators managing those educational IPs. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the template. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand thread

Hello Happy-melon. I reverted your edits to the subpage because it's just too serious to move to there. It needs to be easily available to everyone. I hope you understand. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is big, but I think we need to keep discussion here, at least for another 12 hours to give everyone time to comment. We can move it over after a big longer. Sound ok? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates WikiProject Dance

I saw the tidying you did at Template:WP Australia and wondered if you could help with Template:WikiProject Dance, it works fairly well but there are some things not working properly such as List does not show up on the banner (see Talk:List of dances). Thanks. Paul foord (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating {{WikiProject Dance}} cross posted from User talk:Paul foord - I use |Ballet=yes together with |nested=yes extensively to avoid having to put two seperate templates, {{WikiProject Dance}} and {{WikiProject Ballet}}. Doing so saves screen space and produces a banner giving both WikiProjects' names. — Robert Greer 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

not cross posted - There are only a few dozen Wikipedians writing seriously about dance, scarcely two dozen about ballet; for my part I've been kept fully occupied trying not to fall too far behind New York City Ballet to worry about anything else. As you mention |class= is important (I use it often, in place of |nested= with re-direct, disambiguation, list and category pages.) Of the rest, |portal= looks interesting; there is a well-developed Portal:Dance, and Paul foord and I have begun Portal:Ballet, but it's nowhere near ready to announce. When that time comes, we may need seperate |Dance-portal= and |Ballet-portal= tags (the {{WikiProject Dance}} template is purely Paul foord's bailiwick.) — Robert Greer (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Than you for your response. (I have noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance. The following would be useful:

• General parameters
  • class
  • importance
  • portal
  • attention (where Ballet=yes can this categorise to category:Ballet articles needing attention or does it need Ballet-attention=yes?)
  • needs-infobox
  • needs-image
  • nested
  • small
  • auto:
• Wikiproject specific parameters
  • Ballet
    • Ballet-importance
    • Ballet-attention (see attention=yes))

Comments are used occasionally

Not in use are (plus any others not above):

• orphan
• maindykdate (last updated in 2006)
• peer-review

-- Paul foord (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I use the shortcut {{WP Dance}} quite regularly. The discussion should probably be continued at Template talk:WikiProject Dance Paul foord (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pp-meta family templates

Hi, I just undid a few of your edits. Specifically, I undid your edit to {{pp-template}} which simplified its icon-text and undid two consecutive edits to {{pp-meta}} which changed its tooltip text setup. I did this for two reasons: one, I believe that your changes to {{pp-meta}} broke its tooltip functionality as you moved the icon-text setup from the tooltip section of the ImageMap (from the part after the pipe within the page link) to the alt-text section of the imagemap (the part where one would normally place an image caption). This broke the tooltip functionality as I could see it in Safari 3.1.1 for Mac OS 10.4.11; it displayed "Wikipedia:Protection policy#Permanent protection" instead for {{pp-template}}. Secondly, I personally believe that the tooltip text should be as descriptive as possible, even at the expense of being short. This is specifically why I reverted your edit to {{pp-template}}, which turned a very descriptive summary into a mere label. I then made one further edit to that template to improve the descriptiveness by including an additional word, "indefinitely".

I want to emphasize that I don't have any problem with you; this is not an attack on you or your edits and I don't want it to be a dispute but, to be frank, I don't think that those edits improved the templates. I'm open to discussion – it is certainly possible that I'm missing something. Cheers, Nihiltres^{t.l} 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't bite :D! I was responding to this legitimate criticism of the system, which is that the template with |small=yes is difficult to differentiate for users with colour blindness. My edits added tooltips to the small padlocks to allow differentiation, which do not display in IE7 under the current code. I'm not entirely sure where you say you see the 'broken' tooltip in Safari.

I'm not tremendously fussed how comprehensive the tooltip is; but I think that the current contents of {{icon-text}} for {{pp-template}} (which does not currently display any tooltip at all over the small padlock in IE7) is too long. Given that the padlock links directly to the relevant section of WP:PPOL, why is it necessary to include anything more than "This template is fully protected"?? (I realise that this is more than my version contained; I'm just pointing out the redundancy in the full text). Whatever text is used, however, I would appreciate it if you would restore whichever parts of my edits were responsible for displaying the tooltips over the small padlocks in IE7, which are currently lacking. Happy‑melon 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the part of your code that added text to the "alt text" or "caption" part of the ImageMap. It provides your text unless overridden by {{{icon-text}}}. That should, I hope, solve the IE7 issue. I'm still skeptical of short wording, but we can always start a larger discussion to see what people think. Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :D Happy‑melon 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving old FACs

Happy-m, Gimmetrow suggested I ask you about an archiving bot job, because he's say it's similar to what you did with PR. I'm a bit confused on this score, since most of the code is already part of GimmeBot. When you have a chance, can you peek in on the work we're doing at Template talk:ArticleHistory/work#Unarchived FACs in articlehistory? When we first set up articlehistory, we went back and built AH for all WP:FAs and WP:FFAs, but we left a lot {{facfailed}} templates on talk pages (there were thousands, and cleaning up those talk pages would have involved sorting out a lot of GA and PR errors that we just didn't have time to do). Subsequently, other editors have built {{articlehistory}} templates without correctly archiving the FACs, which causes a problem on the pre-load of {{fac}} when editors re-nominate an article (they encounter an old fac, and then mess up the moving and archiving). So, we have to go back and archive failedfacs from articles that already have articlehistory built without having archived the FAC. Then, GimmeBot can continue building articlehistory on the ~ 400 remaining {{facfailed}} templates that are on pages without an ah. Gimmetrow thought you could do the archiving portion. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi! I'm a major contributor to the article Civil Air Patrol, at FAC now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Civil_Air_Patrol. I noticed you were listed as an active member on the League of Copyeditors, and there have been some concerns raised over the tone and prose of the article. I'm too close to the text to be able to see the issues in language presented. I wondered if you could help make some major copyedits to the article so that it can be made into Featured Article quality. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far! You're not stopping, I hope! :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to sleep sometime you know :D Happy‑melon 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, time zones and all that. It's dinner (supper?) time here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and User:Betacommand

Beta requested it ages ago to do something – honestly, I have no idea what that was now. Seeing that he could already edit via his bot account, it really is / was no big deal to add his main account. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit brief here before as I was running out the door as I was responding. There were several reasons that I added the name, namely, (A) he already had access to AWB, (B) from what I've been told, it's trivial to override the list locally anyway, (C) all it allows for is removing the annoying 'ad,' a bit faster edit rate, and automated edits (which, again he had through the bot account, and I, personally, used to use an automated clicker when I used AWB), (D) it wasn't as though it was marking his edits as 'bot' in RecentChanges or the watchlists, and (E) other accounts on that list are not bots. I hope that clarifies a bit. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I think you would be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Re: Peter zhou's_Socks, China, and Names of China. Cheers, nat.utoronto 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hey Happy-melon, I saw you have yourself listed as a copy editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Natalee Holloway is up for WP:FA and Karanacs (talk · contribs) asked us to get an independent copy edit before she can support. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any copy editing you can provide. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

huh? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you deleted the talk page associated with Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? With over 2500 edits to it, we use it quite a bit. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<trout> Yes that was me going far too fast with closing a bulk TfD - I expect that I deleted a template, went to the talk page to G8 it, and went straight to the delete tab without realising it was a redirect... </trout> Happy‑melon 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was deleting Template talk:3RR5-multi :D Happy‑melon 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know what happened now. All the warning template talk pages redirect here so that we could have centralized discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice one :) I was wondering why the deletion log suddenly appeared in my watchlist for some reason. Oh well all's well in the end. ^Khukri 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG process

These prior "BAG-coms" Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_5#BAG_as_.27arbcom_for_bots.27 and Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_3#Betacommand may be of interest. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I linked to the latter of those threads earlier in the discussion - that's exactly what I want to do - have a sensible, evidence-based discussion and come to a sane conclusion; but (as usual) apathy seems to be taking hold... How do you think it best to proceed? Happy‑melon 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I have recused myself from any Betacommand related BAG matters, but I would suggest either contacting another current BAG member and asking them to file the matter, or jointly filing it with another non-BAGer (for credibility purposes), closer to the form of the most recent BAGcom than of the earlier meandering discussion thread. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Please be quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to repeat myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Then please be more specific in the first instance. Please be quick to do what?? Happy‑melon 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Search box

I experimented with moving the search box between the "navigation" and "interaction" links, but I thought that it wasn't much of an improvement. Nonetheless, here is the code you can paste into your URL bar to see how a page would look that way:

javascript:void(document.getElementById("column-one").insertBefore(document.getElementById("p-search"), document.getElementById("p-interaction")))

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reward for loyal service

		The Special Barnstar
		This is to thank you (Happy Melon, in specific, not any other random reader) for clearing the final obstacle towards finally standardising the documentation for succession boxes. I took my time, it is true, but I never forget those who have helped me. Should you need anything, anything at all, the members of SBS will be happy to help you. Waltham, The Duke of 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy‑melon 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Plan A failed. Let's try Plan B...

Could you please answer a question of mine? Waltham, The Duke of 10:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

... On being the first name I found when I had a question to ask. Hopefully this won't irritate you too much. If there is one thing that irritates me about wikipedia, it's articles which link back to themselves (via redirect). I find it disruptive to reading, and generally an inconveniance. Naturally, going through millions of wikipedia pages by hand to weed these things out is impossible, but I lack the ability to code a bot to do so by hand. I've been unable to find an official place to pose this query, so I've asked you in the hope that you will either redirect me to a place where it can be asked, or answer it yourself.

A) Does Wikipedia have an official policy about article's which link back to themselves? B) If they are taboo, what steps could I take in getting a more proficient, and undoubtably morally superior, person to code a bot to remove them?

Thanks alot, and I appologize for intruding on your otherwise serene wiki-experience. Simon Smncameron (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-redirects are certainly extremely irritating, and utterly useless as you say. They are (in my experience) most commonly created when material is 'spun out' of a large article into one or more smaller ones. For instance, an editor may split from an article about a TV series material about one of its characters. Links are created across wikipedia to this new article; and it is only later realised that the new article does not meet WP:N or some other important policy, and so the material is merged back into the article or deleted altogether. If the content is merged back to the article, then in order to preserve the attributions of any edits made to the material while it was split (for GFDL compliance), we have to keep the edit history of the article, so it needs to stay as a redirect and can't just be deleted.

In answer to your main questions, A) no, we don't have an official policy on this issue (you'd be surprised how many things we don't have a policy on :D - it's most of them!) but common sense would suggest that links on an article, which link to a redirect to the top of that article, may be safely removed as and when you see them. Links to a redirect to a specific section of the article, however, might still be useful; this is the main problem with having these links removed in an automated fashion - it would be impossible for a bot to know when they make sense and when they're just making circles. I'd encourage you to use your judgement and to remove any links that obviously don't make sense whenever and wherever you find them. While I don't think an automated removal of these links would be a good idea, for future reference requests like this can be made at Wikipedia:Bot requests, or WP:BOTREQ for short. Hope this helps, Happy‑melon 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat

You ought to have explained how and let me move the page under my user pages, since I asked for that. How do you do that? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Subst

Hi. I just noticed that your subst at Negros Occidental Science High School resulted quite different from mine. What am I missing here? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I went through substituting the templates, I edited the template and replaced {{# with {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#. Consequently, when the template is then substituted on a page, instead of a mess of parser functions, a mess of subst:#if style parser functions appears, which automatically sorts itself out when you save the page. Just a little trick I picked up somewhere... it does cause the template to misrender spectacularly when not substituted, but since it was about to be deleted anyway that was no big deal. Happy‑melon 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! - Nabla (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. Can you go through the Synthesizer article and add {{citationneeded}} tags in the appropriate places? I've done a lot of cleanup/rewrite work on this article (and all those existing citations were added by me), but I think it would be beneficial if someone else went through looking for the places that need citations still. Hope you can help, thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got an awful lot on my plate at the moment, but I'll have a look if I get time. Happy‑melon 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta

The core issue with this template is the use of {{!-}} as the first thing in many of the conditional parser functions. Most (or all) parser functions strip out leading white space. So, the <br>s are being used as a hack of sorts to force white space before any uses of {{!-}}. For example...

{|
|-
|foo{{#if:1|
{{!-}}
{{!}}bar}}
|}

expands to...

{|
|-
|foo|-
|bar
|}

but...

{|
|-
|foo{{#if:1|<br>
{{!-}}
{{!}}bar}}
|}

becomes...

{|
|-
|foo<br>
|-
|bar
|}

I actually ran into this very issue today on another template. The usual fix is to put {{!-}} at the end of the conditional, and then to adjust all of the other |- uses in the template accordingly. Though, I think an easier fix is to replace <br> with &#32;. --- RockMFR 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're the one who created this. I guess you probably understand most of this already. I've bolded the key point of my message above. --- RockMFR 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite journal

Hi, would you mind taking another look at the edits I'm proposing at Template talk:Cite journal? The imbalanced brace issue is certainly sorted, and could use updating ASAP; I'm pretty sure the other edit will work as you suggested too. Thanks for your help, Smith609 Talk 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about {{WPBannerMeta}} template

I was wondering if the "full" quality scale option on the WPBannerMeta template includes "Future" class articles as an option. The full scale includes categories, templates, redirects, etc, but it's unclear if there's an option for Future-Class articles (such as Category:Future-Class Horror articles). Many thanks in advance! --Craw-daddy | T | 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It currently does not include future-class, unfortunately. I'm working on a complete overhaul of the quality assessment code, so I'll try and remember to add future-Class when I commit that update; I'll let you know when I've done so. Thanks for suggesting! Happy‑melon 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! A couple of other thoughts that I've had about this... (1) I'm guessing that a "Future-Class" category would likely be assigned a NA-importance rating (like categories and such), but your thoughts might differ, and (2) I have noticed that some category structures use "importance" (such as "High-importance board and table game articles") but others use "priority" (like "High-priority strategy game articles"). Perhaps there should be an option to specify the name (i.e. "importance" or "priority" or something else(?)) of the category structure. Maybe there is and I have overlooked it, but the few "priority" ones I have seen don't use the WPBannerMeta template. Just thought I would mention these things. Feel free to ignore them.  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now added "Future" as an acceptable choice for the |class= parameter. It is currently not on the list of classes which receive an automatic NA-importance rating, as I can see how it could be useful to prioritise upcoming articles. There is currently no support for using anything other than "importance" in the category names (although you can of course use a parameter |priority= instead of |importance= by putting |importance={{{priority|}}} in your banner template), and I don't have any intention of adding that functionality: part of the value of implementing a meta-template is that it encourages the standardisation of these little things, which can be very annoying when you expect to find something at one location when it's actually in another. Happy‑melon 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

your closing of a recent TfD here

Would you mind looking at the discussion again? You put that the result of the debate was redirect when noone even mentioned the word redirect. I don't see why the template can't just be orphaned and deleted. As a prt of the orphaning, either <references/> or {{reflist}} could be used instead.--Rockfang (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I elected to redirect because deleting would require the modification of 2,228 pages when redirecting has exactly the same effect without such a massive quantity of unnecessary work. It's not a case of "just" orphaning and deleting; rather, redirecting is the "just do X" option. As an admin I'm not required to simply count votes, I'm expected to use common sense where appropriate as well; here, it is abundantly clear that the sensible thing to do is not to modify 2,000 pages just to effectively expand a redirect. Happy‑melon 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing the templates would not be hard to do. I've just done 100 changes using AWB. It can also take of spelling and layout problems at the same time, making the changes even better. I don't see how its not common sense that if a template is redundant to another you replace it with the simpler one and delete it.--Rockfang (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not easy, I'm saying it's not necessary. If you question my judgement on this TfD closure, please file a deletion review. Happy‑melon 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:FootnotesSmall. 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. Rockfang (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Small(?) problem with new {{WPBannerMeta}}

Greetings! I've noticed that this template has been recently updated. While I haven't yet grasped the new changes, it seems that you left off the word "articles" in the templates. See, for example, the talk page of something like Coloretto. This used to be in Category:Start-Class board and table game articles, but the word "articles" is missing in the template so it's now in the (non-existent) Category: Start-Class board and table game. And there are similar knock-effects for other templates that use WPBannerMeta, and for the "importance" categories as well (as you can see in the example I cited). Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This was mostly a problem with {{BTGProject}}, which was using an incorrect value of |ASSESSMENT_CAT=. This hadn't caused a noticeable problem before because {{WPBannerMeta}} was itself broken - when first building the template, I made a tiny mistake when coding the phrase which enables the default "{{{class}}}-Class {{{PROJECT}}} articles" categories to be overridden, and then copied-and-pasted that error into every instance where that option was required. In this big update I spent quite a long time hunting down and fixing those errors, so the template now correctly chokes on incorrect usages of |ASSESSMENT_CAT=. I managed (after three attempts :D) to fix the categories on your template. Happy‑melon 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed what you did and fixed another couple of project templates myself. One other thing that I've noticed. Previously, templates and redirects (and categories if memory serves) were automatically filtered into the "NA-importance" class, but this doesn't seem to be working anymore. Also, I can't seem to do that "manually" as there seems to be an extra "articles" word in {{WPBannerMeta/importancescale}}. (This means that if you do this manually it tries to filter something into "NA-importance xxx articles articles" category, which doesn't exist.) Hope this makes sense.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 07:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed left out the |class= parameter to {{WPBannerMeta/qualityscale/class}} !!! Happy‑melon 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Came here with a similar issue... without having to read the above, what do you suggest be done about the red categories on Talk:Cê? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that one can be handled by a simple edit of the Album template (by someone who is allowed to do that, not me). Specifically, I would guess that the ASSESSMENT_CAT needs to be updated to say "Album articles". --Craw-daddy | T | 09:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what value is needed, but if you could do that Melon (me not being an admin) it'd be great. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Happy‑melon 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You rock. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL stuff

I now get "In migration. Your account is active on 1 project site. Unconfirmed accounts with your name remain on 4 projects." I went ahead because I thought I'd be able to use my SUL account on the other projects but not the missing accounts (turns out there were two the tool I previously used had missed). So what now? Do I need to wait for my accounts to become active on the other sites (eg. the German Wikipedia and meta) or am I in limbo again? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As best I can guess, your current position is that you've got the username "Carcharoth" reserved on every wikimedia wiki except those four. It says your account is only "active" here because you've never used your SUL anywhere else. Try clicking a random link in Special:SiteMatrix and try logging in (I ended up at la.wiki when I last went on a wiki-wander). It should then bump your active-count up to 2. What you now need to do is negotiate for your slot on those four wikis (commons, meta, de.wiki and fr.wikt, was it?): unmerged accounts can be moved from (say) Carcharoth@dewiki (to use the global rights terminology used at meta:Special:Log/rights), but not to usernames assigned to a global account: as soon as Carcharoth@meta becomes free, it'll be reserved by SUL (AFAIK). Once you've got a situation where you've got an empty user Carcharoth@wherever, but you also have Carcharoth1@wherever, you ask a meta bureaucrat or steward to delete your global account, rename Carcharoth1@wherever to Carcharoth@wherever, and then you can recreate your global account with that username additionally included. Hope that makes sense, Happy‑melon 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of sense. Thanks. The four are Commons (the only one where I created a separate account - commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons)), fr, ro (Romanian?) and tr (um, where's that list of language codes?). Meta and German is where I would like to use SUL, so I will do the log-in there if I can remember my password (I'm too reliant on caches). About time for me to change passwords as well. You can do that in SUL, right? Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your global account has one password which you can use to log into any wikimedia wiki, so when you merge in your meta and de.wiki accounts (by remembering what passwords you used there (Special:Mergeaccount takes the password you enter in that box, hashes it using the same method as special:Login, and compares the hash to the one stored in the usertable for Carcharoth@wherever - if they match, it knows you know the password for that account) and entering them at Special:MergeAccount) those passwords will be overwritten with the password used for your global account (which is the password attached to your old username at the wiki where you started the merge process - in this case, whatever password you use on en.wiki). You can change your global account password from special:Preferences; I'm not sure if you have to be on your home wiki (here, in your case because it's where you started the merge from - although you can change that IIRC) or if you can do it anywyere. tr.wiki is turkish, btw :D Happy‑melon 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the browser filled in the password during the SUL process, but it's not doing it when I go to other wikis. <sigh> There are a few combinations I can try before doing the e-mail reset thingy. I should probably stop relying on browser password caching anyway. Terribly insecure. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol don't tell anyone who works with computers that... they'll have a fit! To be honest I'd say the commons issue is pretty clear - they'd be mad (or just following policy :S) if they didn't let you usurp that account. But then again, I'm not sure if (if I were a not-so-benevolent dictator) I'd say you should usurp Carcharoth@frwiki - it is their primary account. But then again, there's no reason (other than completeness) why you should want to usurp that account: it's not as though you speak french, right? The commons account, on the other hand, you'd probably make use of, so it makes sense that it should be given to an active contributor. That's how I'd personally arbitrate SUL name conflicts: which user is going to be the most benefit to project X? In terms of the other projects, Carcharoth@trwiki has no contributions, so if you can find anyone who can translate english/turkish, you shouldn't have any difficulty getting that usurped if local policy is at all sensible (tr.wiki is quite small, with only 3 local bureaucrats and 20 local admins). I haven't checked the situation on de.wiki. Of course there's no particular reason why you should desperately need to usurp these accounts; it's just a question of how tidy you want your global login to be. I'm lucky: I got every one of the Happy-melon@wherever accounts, so I can run for steward without any problems :D. In seriousness though, the only users who need to have complete global accounts are the stewards - everyone else has a high probability of running into trouble like you and Carcharoth@frwiki, where there's no particular reason to favour one over the other. Happy‑melon 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I could also have asked for this account to be renamed... Probably not to "Carcharoth (Commons)" though. I did consider Fenrir and other mythological wolves, but many of them had already been created! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting languages

Hi, see my reply here - basically I think the templates are not part of any WProj, so if you wouldn't mind going ahead and splitting them, that would be fantastic! Many thanks. Cricketgirl (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_classical_composer

With only two options, it's sure hard to strike a good compromise. Looks like you succeeded, though! Thanks for the thoughtful close. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to second that. I tried the "usual" close on it the last time it was up for TfD and it didn't go so well. Good job! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the nominator here. I wonder if you could clarify your decision on this? Have you left the box open for immediate recreation or have you blocked it to some degree? As the last closing admin wrote at the foot of the TFd: "To the closing admin - Whatever you decide, please try to make this a final decision somehow. 4 TfD votes is enough." --Kleinzach 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is discuss first, then possibly recreate (or better yet, just restore) if the discussion supports it. It's not salted, but if one were to recreate it without prior discussion that would be strong grounds for prompt deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It only takes three minutes to recreate an infobox. To delete it takes 15 people, 8 days, and two and a half thousand words of discussion. I don't think I would be prepared to go through that again. The whole thing could just go on ad infinitum. --Kleinzach 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

XDanielx sums it up extremely well: as long as you're happy to have a fresh (and hopefully better organised :D) discussion about whether or not it would be a net benefit to the articles to add an appropriate infobox, then any recreations that aren't a result of that discussion are elegible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of appropriately deleted material. Whatever result comes out of that new discussion should overrule any previous consensus, and anyone in that discussion who attempts an argument along the lines of "X many people said Y last time therefore..." should be troutslapped immediately :D. Happy‑melon 09:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My question (above) was: "Have you left the box open for immediate recreation or have you blocked it to some degree?" I wonder if I could possibly have a reply? Thank you. --Kleinzach 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had answered that question above. If you are referring to technical measures (ie salting) then no, I have not, and it would be a both technically impossible (given that there are an infinite number of variations on "infobox composer" and the fact that protecting them all would merely prompt a would-be infobox creator to use an unobvious template title) and highly inappropriate for me or any other admin to do so. Happy‑melon 08:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, salting was only requested for the two names used by the last box creator. The typical scenario is that of a bona fide editor seeing that composers don't have a box, creating it and then putting it on the pages of two or three famous composers, usually without either reading the article or its talk page. Salting would have stopped that kind of editor from going down that route and wasting his/her time. I hope that's clearer now. --Kleinzach 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the very unlikely event of said bona-fide editor attempting to create an infobox at one of the exact titles previously used for the infobox, they would have been greeted with the standard "you are creating a page that has been deleted" message, which should be sufficient to make them delve more deeply. Salting would have created the appearance of a firm and widespread consensus that I am not convinced actually exists, the sixteen out-of-date 'discussions' recently listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Infoboxes notwithstanding. I'm still seeing no evidence of any new discussion on the issue on any of the three projects which seem to be involved... Happy‑melon 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The last discussion was this month. May 2008. If that's out of date - so is every discussion on Wikipedia. --Kleinzach 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When was the last discussion which didn't feature numerous posts along the lines of "we've already discussed this here, here, here, here and here, and so I'm sure this discussion will come to the same conclusion"?? Of course it will come to the same conclusion if anyone seeking to re-evaluate the consensus has to overturn the massive 'weight' of previous "oh we've discussed this before" 'discussions'. My advice to these projects: remove the links to the old discussions; start one central, consolidated new one, preferably as an RfC; and inform all participants that anyone who refers to the old discussions will be troutslapped. If the arguments against infoboxes are compelling, then they should be compelling in isolation from those age-old discussions. If you keep suppressing and stringing out this debate, you will be directing people to the latest 'discussion' (which is in fact mainly directing people to the 'discussion' before that, and so forth) until hell freezes over. I'd advise these projects to stop running away from the issue; have one solid, rational and above all widely-attended discussion; and then the outcome of that discussion will represent a valid consensus that you can legitimatley refer people to. Happy‑melon 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, you can't expect people to interminably repeat the same discussions, month after month, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. It would be ridiculous. People simply won't do it. I don't know how long you have been on WP, but you need to be realistic. On the other hand, however, if a genuine WP-wide centralized discussion involving all those on both sides of the argument, arts and scientists etc., were to be held, a useful discussion might develop. Unfortunately I don't have time to organize this - I know how much time is involved because I've organized one of them - and of course it wouldn't really be appropriate for you to do so after being the closing admin on the Tfd. --Kleinzach 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. It is unrealistic to expect a real discussion every time someone asks the question "why doesn't X have an infobox". Directing people to the previous complete discussion is an acceptable, indeed vitally necessary, action; but threads which do that do not constitute new discussions in their own right: they do not 'reset the clock' on the age of the consensus formed in that original discussion. That clock has now been running, AFAIK, since May 2007, which is a very long time in wikiworld. Consensus can change over much shorter periods than a year, and it is well past time that that consensus was revisited. Happy‑melon 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't May 2007. Leaving that aside, consensus - that hazy, imprecise WP concept always invoked by disruptive editors- can indeed change. Maybe even biographical infoboxes can change, but there is no evidence of either at the moment. Your general point that minimal discussions do not reset the clock is correct, except there is no clock, in the sense there are no time limits. Things change when they change. In your closing statement you said the (presumably original) discussion was "poorly-organized" which I think demonstrates that you don't understand how WP works. It isn't organized at all. A discussion consists of what the participants write, in good faith and bad, in good English and with spelling mistakes and bad grammar. No-one edits it. --Kleinzach 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. Whatever else you may think of me, please don't call me ignorant; if the admin bit means anything (and it means very little else) it's that the community trusts me to know what I'm talking about. I trust that your comment about "disruptive editors" is strictly academic. I am fully aware of how the wikipedia consensus-building process works: it works, that's about all that can be said of it. It doesn't matter how a consensus is arrived at, as long as that consensus accurately represents the view of the community. However you might see it, it is very clear to me, as an outsider with no interest whatsoever in whether or not there is an infobox on Beethoven or Vivaldi, that the decision-making process that is being used to uphold the prohibition of infoboxes isn't working. The most recent 'discussion' at WikiProject Composers descended into a slew of trolling and personal attacks: it's a bloody template, for Christ's sake! You, and by that I refer to numerous editors across all three projects, of whom you personally are not the most guilty, are holding on to a decision made by perhaps twenty editors over a year ago, and treating it as if it were holy writ. Why? It is perfectly possible to imagine that, if you opened a centralised discussion, linked to it on WT:INFOBOX, WT:BIOGRAPHY, WT:OPERA, WT:CM, WT:COMPOSERS and {{RfC}}, maybe even {{cent}}, and presented the numerous arguments you have against the use of infoboxes (some of which I see have considerable merit); you would get a consensus of scores if not hundreds of editors that yes, you are quite correct, infoboxes do not improve the articles and should not be used. On the other hand, if consensus has changed and the outcome of that discussion would be in favour of infoboxes, then you'd have the answer to why you've been reverting so many good-faith additions of infoboxes to these articles. Consensus changes when it changes; you couldn't be more correct. Wikipedia is not organised: there is no requirement for anyone to tell these projects that their policy is no longer in line with consensus, because no one knows what the consensus is until someone asks. Maybe consensus has changed; maybe it hasn't. My advice to you and to these projects, in the strongest possible terms, is find out. Happy‑melon 12:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOCE

I deleted a reference to the template Template:User LOCE on the talk page of the league of copy editors because that template does not seem to exist. Since you created the instructions, could you take a look? --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

{{WP Dance}} tidy

With reference to the discussion at User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 4#Templates WikiProject Dance & Template talk:WikiProject Dance#Template WikiProject Dance tidy would you please go ahead with the tidy. Thanks, Paul foord (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't notice? Then I've done my job properly :D Happy‑melon 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did find some changes but did not connect the dots. The change led to the replacement of Category:Dance lists with Category:List-Class Dance articles and the same for ballet. However the new cats do no appear to show up in Category:List-Class articles (probably unrelated). Paul foord (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in there somewhere, but because the category link on Category:List-Class Dance articles didn't have any sortkey, it would have appeared unde "L" (or maybe "C" - I'm not sure how the default sortkey works). I've added a sortkey now so it should appear in Category:List-Class articles under "D" now. You can do the same for any other categories that display the same symptoms. Happy‑melon 10:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

heads up re your bot

There are some messages regarding concerns on the bots talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MelonBot added WP:Opera banner to Jeff Buckley, i removed as it's not really applicable. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi; IRC's down and a page is being flooded with IP violations. Could you peep at this, please, as an active admin? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'll buy that. Semi-protected for 48 hours. Nice new sig BTW. Happy‑melon 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! That's what happens when you get good episodes with lots of hints for the future - the article goes to pot. Inverse proportionality: quality of episode/quality of article :-o And I bet I've got the world's only sig based on the design of a treasury tag!!! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty odd-shaped treasury tag! What's it for, files in two sections? I like it better than your old sig tho: the orange always struck me as a bit garish. You might want to scale down the 'tags' a tiny bit tho: I think it's affecting the line spacing a little on IE7. Happy‑melon 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the downside of using FireFox, everything's better ;-) I'll try it out later... Thanks again! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Opera Project request

Hi. Just wondering whether you can give an estimate of when you might be able to get round to this. Alternatively, can you suggest another bot-owner who could be approached? What with the request having been archived and User:SatyrTN's housebuilding, we seem to have reached an impasse - and what is a WikiProject without an assessment process? (No need to answer that.) Best --GuillaumeTell 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... it's actually getting there! Depending on how this weekend goes, I might be able to finish it then. I'm afraid SatyrTN has pretty much cornered the market in terms of banner tagging - Betacommand does really massive runs from categories and their subcats, but not (AFAIK) autoassessment. Happy‑melon 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and nice to know that we toilers in an obscure vineyard haven't been forgotten. --GuillaumeTell 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, which I couldn't reply to earlier as I've been away (at the opera, where else?). No problem about using {{WikiProject Opera}}. However, please could you give our articles "class=Start", not "class=B"! And could you ignore

• those already tagged FA, GA or FL
• those tagged "class=Stub" if and only if the article contains {{opera-stub}}. If "class=Stub" is there but there's no opera-stub tag in the article, then we'd like "class=Stub" to be replaced by "class=Start".

Hope that's clear. Do you want to do a short test run for me to have a look at? --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, which I also couldn't reply to earlier as I've been away watching bears up in the mountains. Anyway as GT has said {{WikiProject Opera}} is fine. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on your helpful description of the process (which I'll outdent):

• General: a lot of the banners have {{opera}} rather than "Opera" with a capital O - will this mess things up?

If the article uses a stub template, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=Stub}}

• Fine, although many articles with a stub template will already have {{Opera | auto=yes |class=Stub}} (e.g. Talk:Matilde di Shabran) - is that a problem?

If the article appears in the FA list, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=FA}}

• Fine, though we do have a couple of FLs (List of important operas, List of major opera composers) which presumably should have class=FL

*If the article appears in the GA list, replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=GA}}

• Fine

If there are other banners on the talk page, which agree on their rating, copy that rating to the new banner

• No thanks, we don't trust other Projects' ratings of operatic subjects, I'm afraid! Treat as below

Otherwise, leave unassessed (replace {{Opera}} with {{WikiProject Opera|class=}})

• Fine. I'll look forward to hearing from you about the initial trial run.
• --GuillaumeTell 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A few things have arisen. First, when we get round to doing assessments we want to leave comments for future action. SatyrTN set up a system for our Wagner project articles in which, if we created a page called Talk:Articlename/Comments then the banner had a link which took you to that page. See, for example, Talk:Die Feen. If no comments page existed then there was no mention of comments within the banner. I believe I mentioned this in my original bot request a few weeks ago. To test this with an article that Melonbot has processed, I set up a dummy Comments page for a little-known opera librettist at Talk:Jules Verne/Comments, but no reference to this has appeared on the banner, not to my surprise. WPBannerMeta doesn't seem to quite cover this, or am I wrong? I notice, by the way that the comments page activation seems to work for {{WikiProject Yorkshire}} - see, for example, Talk:York Museum Gardens. Any thoughts on this?

Also, I see that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Opera has picked up pages such as Telenor which incorporate Template:OperaBrowser. Is this a problem?

Once the present run has finished, I'm wondering whether it might be possible to go through all the articles in Category:Opera and subcats in order to pick up articles which haven't got the banner on their Talk pages. Any thoughts?

--GuillaumeTell 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - a trawl through the cats would definitely be a good follow-up. On Comments, I'm really not happy with the all-or-nothing option with, in the absence of comments, the banner displaying a note asking editors to add their own comments (which I think is what's been implemented in the Yorkshire Project). Editors can comment on Talk pages; the Comments sub-page is for Assessors to justify their ranking and suggest improvements. It would be great if you could code something up and hang it on |BOTTOM_TEXT= or (definitely better) add it to {{WPBannerMeta}} itself. Thanks for all your help. And, by the way, I'm out of here for two days from about 2pm tomorrow (Sat), so feel free to contact Kleinzach if anything arises between then and c230pm Mon. He's on Japanese time, though! --GuillaumeTell 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of an update on what's happening? The 50-article trial went OK (subject to the correspondence above) and I was sort of expecting that the rest would follow, but the Bot seems to have been spending its time on Discworld, football, etc. --GuillaumeTell 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delay; I've been fairly busy (read "snowed under") with off-wiki things this week, and I've barely had time to get on-wiki at all (not that you'd guess from my contribs :D). Essentially the issue is that I can't really plough on with your tagging until I have full bot approval, and I won't get that until I do the Discworld trial, for which I need a couple of solid hours where I can run the script and just sit and watch what's running across my screen and make sure it's not doing something stupid. I will try (and this is, unfortunately, the same sort of "try" as I said last time, so read "will eventually get round to") and do the Discworld run this weekend, from which we can press forward. Again, I'm really sorry for keeping you hanging around: the bot-operating community hasn't exactly earnt five stars for service on this particular request! But I'm sure you'll understand, we all do (regrettably :D) have things to do in the Real World :-(... Happy‑melon 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To something useful for you with the ten minutes I've got now, I've added a note to {{WikiProject Opera}} to display a link to a comments subpage if one exists. As you can see, it's fairly simple and basic - do change the wording if you think it could be improved. Happy‑melon 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, tiny Comments typeface notwithstanding. And, in view of this green page, and not to discount your Real World activities, uh, any chance of, er, ......?? --GuillaumeTell 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're watching my Talk page, but, if not, you might have missed this. Feel free to reply here or there. --GuillaumeTell 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for organising the cleanup. We'll chew over what to do about the remaining "unassessed" articles - probably deal with them on a case-by-case basis, is my current thinking. I hadn't realised that redirects like Arleen Augér would have the Opera banner.

The one remaining thing that (IIRC) you said that you could do for us would be to whizz through articles in Category:Opera and all its subcategories, looking for "lost articles" which should have but don't have the banner on the Talk page. As previously, Stubs, GAs, FAs, FLs would get those classes and all the rest would get Start.

Thanks for all your help. --GuillaumeTell 14:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Urgent! I just realised that we don't want the Opera banner on Wagner or Gilbert and Sullivan pages (they have their own banners and assessments), but I see that Melon-bot is doing so. See my last edits on my Talk page. --GuillaumeTell 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You said "any dodgy subcats are likely to be in Category:Operas, Category:Opera genres or Category:Opera singers." I've checked through all of these. Operas has sub-cat Category:Operas by genre, from which I've removed Category:Oratorios which was one of the problems. Category:Opera singers had sub-cat Category:Singers by range which I've removed, as it contains subcats which include James Blunt et al - any proper opera singers are in the cats "Operatic [type of singer]....". As for Opera genres, it has a sub-cat Category:Operetta which has a further sub-cat Category:Gilbert and Sullivan This IS a valid subcat BUT it has its own banner (Template:G&S-project), so please can you skip any article that has this on its Talk page. If that's a problem, I can do a temporary fix while the bot runs. Duplicating this on my Talk page. I'll now get back to checking the bot problems --GuillaumeTell 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Please add Sierra Leone.84.134.87.152 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding European parliament recognized Kosovo. Secondary sources you mention never published news that EP recognized Kosovo as independent state. This was never an issue in EP. They have raised a flag of Kosovo, some members of EP interpreted it as recognition. That's all that says in those sources.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not the place to debate the merits or demerits of the edit or its sources. If you can establish a consensus for the opinion above on the talk page of the article, then I or any other admin will revert the change. If you feel that my edit constitutes an abuse of administrative tools, then you need to post at WP:ANI. However, there is no point in having a discussion on this page, as it merely constitutes a fork of the debate. Happy‑melon 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for tips.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

MelonBot deleting undeleted template

MelonBot seems to be deleting Template:Foreignchar from article pages with the comment that the template has been deleted. It has not, and the TfD on it is still open: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foreignchar. I know that this has happened to Übermensch, where I have reverted the change. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to (have now actually done) close the TfD as delete, and was removing the transclusions, prior to deleting the template, prior to closing the TfD. Slightly confusing order, I know. Happy‑melon 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That deletion spree has attracted more attention of users actually involved with the articles affected. Please check back the the TFD page. Agathoclea (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Foreignchars

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Foreignchars. 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. Agathoclea (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Foreignchar

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Foreignchar. 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. Agathoclea (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you check back at deletion review - thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems fairly comprehensive: I've restored and relisted the templates. I'm really not sure what to do about restoring the ~700 transclusions that were removed when the template was deleted; I think if the template is kept we should take this opportunity to adjust the syntax slightly such that we can merge {{foreignchar}} and {{foreignchars}} together: there really is no point whatsoever in having two different templates to handle two instances of the exact same problem. Happy‑melon 10:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you ok with me rollbacking your removals of the templates? Agathoclea (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the template again, I want to alter its syntax: |1= should be the "alternative title", and parameters 2 onwards should be individual accented characters; that way, I can add a simple switch into the template to display "characters... they are not available..." when |2= is defined, and "character... it is not available..." otherwise. That way we can combine the two templates and get at least some good out of the whole incident. Given the large number of restorations to make if the template is kept I'll write a script to change the syntax en masse. What do you think? Happy‑melon 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That does sound like a brilliant idea. It will be one less template to worry about. What I was more concerned about was the reinstatement of the templates where there have been removed, otherwise the TFD notice on the template itself is moot, due to the fact that it is no longer transcluded anywhere. Agathoclea (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with you restoring the templates - as you say it rather defeats the object of the exercise if the relisted TfD gets as little participation as the previous one! I have now modified the template, so simply rolling back MelonBot's edits will not be sufficient: each one needs to have its syntax altered slightly. this is the list of all pages MelonBot removed {{foreignchar}} and {{foreignchars}} from (beware there are also a few random edits in there); I've restored the template with the new syntax in the top instance (Algés): you can see the overall change in this diff. My recommendation would be start restoring them by hand; if it looks like the TfD is leaning towards keep, then I'll run a script to restore the templates en-masse automatically. Happy‑melon 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistake on editprotected

The correct link in the EL section of Prem Rawat to the sister project Wikisource should be {{Wikisource author}} and not {{Wikisource|Prem Rawat}}. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me guv, I just copied what was in the sandbox! Fixed it, tho. Happy‑melon 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)