User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013/June

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Toy Piano
Who are you to pass a judgment on instrumental repertoire and delete precious information about contemporary pieces premiered all over the world? I find this an appalling demonstration of censorship. What is the criteria for a repertoire to be "irrelevant"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.89 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion, and to edit, and so am I; hardly censorship. Please don't come here with your hyperbole about censorship, that is lazy criticism and clearly not supported by the facts. The information was moved to the talk, and with comment. The article is about "toy piano" and when the article is overfilled (my opinion) by the other components of premieres and other trivia, and some absolute garbage. It was straying from the guidance at Writing better articles (my opinion). Have a look at Relevance. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I added my view to the talk section with a proper suggestion. I find very hard to deal with wiping out of information, specially when we are not a physical book and can have any length we want, and furthermore there is no consensus (specially in arts) what is "relevant" and not. That is purely gate keeping. I assume that adding clear sections and spin-off articles are the best solution. Never erase information, instead, store it in a more efficient way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.89 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Billinghurst

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)