User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2016/April

Thank you
For this I had started the same but saw that you had finished - thus saving me five minutes or so. It even gave me time to leave this message :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , we can only hope that they'll give up one day .... —&thinsp;JJMC89 01:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope springs eternal :-) Bonadea certainly does not deserve this nonsense. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another question
Hi. Is this something that could be archived with AWB? I was told I might need a script to do this, but thought I'd check with you first &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be possible with some regex in AWB, but I don't know if I would be able to come up with something to cover all cases. I can look into it. Maybe could integrate it into WP:Bot requests if it isn't already. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , the way my bot works is by rolling all of the banners together into Article history; the only thing it does to individual ITN, OTD, and DYK templates is to remove them. In the case of the diff you linked to, for instance, the bot would roll both the ITN templates and the OTD template into a single transclusion of with the appropriate parameters. Would this be acceptable too? APerson (talk!) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just tried it on that article mentioned above, and it looks good. I support your bot's proposed actions. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Besmircher
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Plenty of pseudo-journalistic OR, mile-long quotes and nothing properly sourced. There's no way I'm allowing enormous chunks of unsourced stuff in Fleetwood Mac album articles. I shouldn't have allowed his treatment of the AC/DC album articles to remain, as they are all basket cases now. I might revisit those at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Template syntax
If have a question. Why is it that in More footnotes and BLP sources, the syntax {{#if:{{{suffix|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{{suffix|{{{1}}}}}} includes both {{{1|}}} and {{{1}}}? I had originally thought that maybe it had to do with making it work with both, for example, {{BLP sources|section}} and {{BLP sources|section|date=April 2016}}, since the former doesn't have a pipe after the suffix and the latter does. However, when I was making my edit request on {{tl|No footnotes}}, I experimented with this, and it wasn't the case. It seems that in template syntax, pipes are often used to specify additional parameters or conditions. Is this what this for? Does that mean the extra {{{suffix|{{{1}}}}} is unnecessary? Or does it do something else? -&copy;2016 Compassionate727{{sup|( Talk )( Contributions )}} 17:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) If my explanation isn't clear, please let me know. —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * {{Reply to|Compassionate727}} It isn't about calling another parameter (having a pipe) after it. Pipes are used to separate parameters in template transclusions. When coding a template, a pipe inside a {{param|parameter}} allows a default or fallback value to be specified for when the parameter isn't specified in the transclusion. In the case of, {{para|1}} will be used if {{para|suffix}} isn't specified, and if neither are specified, it will result in an empty string. For  , {{para|1}} will be used if {{para|suffix}} isn't specified; however, if neither are specified, it will result in the string  . {{pf|if}} tests a string and determines whether or not it is empty. If the first one in   didn't have a pipe and {{para|suffix}} is not specified, {{pf|if}} will evaluate whether   is empty, and if {{para|1}} is not specified it will always result in the string  , which is not empty. The second one doesn't need the pipe since {{pf|if}} has already determined that   has resulted in a non-empty string, which could only occur if {{para|suffix}} or {{para|1}} were specified in the template transclusion.
 * It took me an hour (seriously, it did), but I'm finally pretty much certain I figured it out! Had to read that link {{pf|if}} takes you to, but I finally understand. {{tl|No footnotes}} contains the code . In it, the only code involved in checking for something is  . This code first checks to see if you transcluded  . If you didn't, it then checks if you transcluded either   or  ; these two methods are equivalent. If you didn't do any of these, it prints the code  . If you did, it prints what you inputted ({{param|suffix}} does it if you used {{para|suffix}}, {{param|1}} does it if you used {{para|1}} or just typed the input in after a pipe) along with the code  . Did I get it? -&copy;2016 Compassionate727{{sup|( Talk )( Contributions )}} 15:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * {{Reply to|Compassionate727}} Yes, that is correct. —&thinsp;JJMC89 16:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello, I am trying to do something with AWB and you seem to be quite good with it. The idea is (per WP:DCS) to remove /Comments subpages of article talk pages. There are two steps: If you could help I would be grateful &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Substitute the contents of the subpage on to the article talk page. I can do this easily, making the list using one of the categories in User:WOSlinker/comments and then appending {{subst:substituted comment/subst}} to each talk page. Works a treat, see Talk:Forestry for example.
 * 2) Redirect the subpage to the article talk page. This is where I'm stuck. I don't know how to make the list - it would be good if I could just add a suffix "/Comments" to each page from step 1. Secondly I don't know how to redirect by replacing all content with #REDIRECTTalk:
 * To make the list of comments subpages I would just save the list from step one or Category:Pages whose comments subpage can be redirected (List > Save list...) and use a text editor to find  and replace all with  . You can then make a new list using the text file as the source. To replace everything on a page use a regex find of   ( [ 42 test edits]). —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I don't suppose you'd be interested in running a bot like this? I did post at WP:BOTREQ but it didn't garner much comment. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I could run a bot task for this. Once you've settled on a implementation for substituted comment and {{subst:substituted comment/subst}}, I can file a BRFA. —&thinsp;JJMC89 16:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. What do you think of current implementation? Planning to add collapsed box if comment is particularly long (>1000). I'll try and get a few people to comment on WT:DCS to give evidence of support for this task. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Substituted comment might be better off being subst but otherwise looks good. I made an adjustment to it to prevent issues from archiving. I adjusted {{subst:substituted comment/subst}} so that it doesn't give any output if there aren't any comments. This will make the bot not have to check the same thing that ifexist not redirect checks. If the error output is needed, I'll look into having the bot check it. Are the tracking categories needed for something in the future? I can build lists from the categories on User:WOSlinker/comments, so I won't need Category:Pages whose comments subpage can be redirected. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes look good. I think the currect setup with substituting the content but transcluding Substituted comment is cleanest: don't need all the technical code on the talk page, and still have the ability to tweak the code later! Good catch with the archiving. All these categories can and should be depopulated/deleted when the job is complete. I think you can open the BRFA whenever you are ready. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89 06:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left a couple of notes/queries for you at Template talk:Substituted comment when you get a chance. This is in readiness for the trial. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA nom?
Hi! I know you're not listed on WP:RRN, but I thought I'd ask anyway. (Sorry for bothering you.) I was reading through a few discussions on WT:RFA and thought I should look into doing another RfA. Would you consider (co-)nominating me? I'd be focused on technical work, but also some AfD or uncontroversial CSD work. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 02:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a bother, APerson. I recall seeing your first RFA, but I didn't participate. I'd like to do some research. We can move this conversation off wiki if you prefer. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/APerson and its talk page are essential reading. I feel a future nomination is likely to be successful, but it would definitely help if APerson could be transparent about the alternate account thingy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely would, and I plan to be as transparent as possible in future discussions about it. APerson (talk!) 11:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding suffixes in templates
I noticed that More footnotes and No footnotes are nominally designed to support, but they actually don't. Refimprove, Unreferenced, Cleanup bare URLs and Copy edit aren't designed to. I've never seen anyone use suffix in a transclusion. I think it would make those two templates significantly more readable to simply remove all the instances of from them. What do you think? -&copy;2016 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I'm not sure what you mean that suffix doesn't work; works fine. Didn't your edit requests introduce suffix into those two templates? In any case, I don't think I've seen anyone use it, and it's not really a good parameter name since it's a prefix, not a suffix.  could be removed. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)