Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

A tag has been placed on Category:Baseball at the 2011 Pan American Games templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What does this edit summary mean, because I think that is a "live" template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you undid it immediately. I'm trying to understand why we have Template:WikiProject Military history/class and Template:WikiProject Military history/Class — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad code is bad code. I have no idea as I haven't looked into it. In general I'm not going to help projects that want to go their own way. Let them be stuck with their own problems. Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Association football at the 2011 Pan American Games templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Basketball at the 2011 Pan American Games templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Handball at the 2011 Pan American Games templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Association football at the Pan American Games templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:DNC not applies? If yes, kindly link me to the consensus. And also, FYI on Wikipedia:Database reports/Drafts with categories which was why I DNCed it. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 18:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it easy with the snarky edits. Don't tell me to deal with anything as it comes across as rude and pisses people off. I was specifically looking to get back his arrest history as it seems pretty significant.

Best regards,

Yavor mezil (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then abusing the revert button isn't how you do that. Find the specific text you want and add it back, don't revert everything that was done between then and now. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gonnym, thanks for working on my draft. I really appreciate it. Would you mind if we talk about it on the talk page of the draft? I have some questions about the page as well as specific areas I was hoping to improve and I'd love some advice. Ladtrack (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who can't write decent templates, not the users who just use them. The-Pope (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore false info on WP. Doing so could be considered vandalism. If you want to fix these articles, great! If not, leave them for other people to fix. We started with over 800, and after a few weeks are under 200. It won't take long to correct them all, if you allow people to do so. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not only edit warring but also adding invalid language codes and this was explained to you by another editor. Stop. Gonnym (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an error tracking category. It doesn't have to be an ISO because it's supposed to be replaced by the correct ISO code. The original template should not have been deleted before these articles were fixed. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you just tagged a pronunciation as English, and at the same time gave it the ISO code [und]. That's just stupid. Assuming you're not, it suggests that you're a troll. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tagging anything. I'm restoring the template was decided at WP:TFD. Any editor, including you, can figure out what language that is and add that language. At that specific article, you've edited it 5 times adding the made up code of xx until you finally used a valid language code. If anyone is trolling it must be you at this point. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any editor can figure it out if we have an error-tracking category so they know to look.

The TFD decision was to delete the template once the transclusions had been fixed with the correct ISO codes. Really, if you can't understand that, after it's been spelled out for you by several people, you have no business editing WP — kwami (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person thinking this. You might have other made up friends who agree with you, but they so far, have yet to appear. We also already have a tracking category as Fram (and myself) have pointed out to you. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clearly you're a troll. You've discussed this with other editors, who've explained to you that [und] doesn't mean 'Gonnym can't be bothered to look up the ISO code.' If you're talking to my imaginary friends, then there's something very very wrong with you.

We have a tracking category for [und], not for transclusions that haven't been supplied with an ISO code. As you keep repeating [as if anyone ever disagreed], [und] is a legitimate ISO code, not an error code. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I'm done talking with you. You don't have any consensus for you interpretation of how und should be used or what transclusion category is. The only discussion that had any other people other than the both of us talking had 1 editor somewhat agreeing with you and another who wasn't. Two other editors there that hadn't voiced their opinion, however one of them was the original editor that both sent the templates to TfD and converted them to und. So that's 3 editors to your two. At this point you just need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and either fix whatever usages you know, or let other people do it whenever that happens. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to {{Translation category}} has had the effect of spewing out a bunch of redlinked categories that don't exist:

• Category:Biography articles needing translation from
• Category:Geography articles needing translation from
• Category:Government articles needing translation
• Category:Law articles needing translation
• Category:Science articles needing translation

The latter three might be defensible for creation if they're actually desired, but the first two obviously shouldn't ever exist at those names, as they obviously shouldn't just be "from", and need to be either "from something" or just end after "translation" — but regardless, all five of them need to either get created or disappear, because content can't be left sitting in redlinked categories that don't exist to have content sitting in them. So could you double-check your edit in case there was a coding error in it? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! MSAOM (talk)

MSAOM (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about your recent edit there [1]. I'm noticing that if you use the name of the month (e.g., February) in the parameter list, it returns "not a number value" instead of the date represented. Could you check that out? I'm not 100% on this, but since the edit was made yesterday, thought I'd contact you. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Film date}} wraps around {{Start date}} which requires numbers only. So "February" was always invalid. It should be "2". Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was there to clean up in [2]? I wasn't aware using these shortcuts like {{WPBS}} was in any way deprecated. --Joy (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances where redirect banners aren't detected by the module. Take a look at Talk:List of UK caving fatalities. After my edit, the module correctly detects it is placed outside the banner shell, before it didn't. That's one of the issues, but there are more, like not detecting duplicate banners on the same page and others. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. How does this detection of placement affect the module? I don't see the difference visually, maybe I'm missing something. Why isn't the fix to just move that tag inside the banner shell instead of this bypassing of shortcuts which doesn't do apparently anything? Anyway, why can't the module have a software detection of redirects (be it automatic or through a list)? --Joy (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Banner shell and Module:WikiProject banner and their related modules are mostly maintained by one editor and have many moving parts, so why stuff aren't fixed is just part of the world of volunteer coders.

You are correct that the fix is to move the banner inside the shell, but how would I, or the module, know that the banner isn't inside the shell? The current code has a known issue that it fails in some situations to detect redirects. That is why I replaced some barely used redirects (those specific ones had 1 usage), with their non-redirect version. This will eventually allow easier detection of new usages to manually be reviewed for undetected errors. Can't detect new usages, if you need to go through all of the old each time. Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gonnym, how are you? It looks as if someone's messed with the {{Start date}} template so that it now produces an error when there's a written-out date. Thanks for fixing some of those, but please ... don't mess up the date format when you do so, as happened here, for example, where your edit introduced back-to-front dates (I've fixed that one and a few others). I wouldn't normally bother to mention it, but since I'm here: could you kindly avoid making edits like this one, which made no perceptible difference to the way that page displayed? The only real effect of an edit like that is create watchlist clutter, and heaven knows we don't need any more of that. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mess up any date format. Editors using a template should actually read the /doc and understand how that template works. The template has a |df= that can be used if the order needs to be switched. My only concern is fixing the template which were broken for years, any decision on usage of d/m or m/d is on the editors of that page. Regarding the banners, I've explained above that those edits actually serve a purpose. Gonnym (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gonnym, it's my opinion that you did indeed mess up the date format here – it previously read 1 November 1540, and after your edit it read November 1, 1540. The page is clearly tagged with {{use dmy dates}}, as you must have seen when you opened the page to edit it. I see no reason why you might think you need not respect that and indeed WP:DATEVAR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your opinion. Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how this happened, but in this edit you/AWB substituted {{wmata}} (a link template used in articles) with {{WikiProject Washington Metro}} (a talk page template). I've fixed that, but I recommend keeping a close eye on AWB. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've seen that pop up and always remove that. I thought I fixed it when I removed it from [3]. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonnym! It looks to me like this may have been a cosmetic edit. It's best to try to avoid those when using AWB, but I may have missed something non-cosmetic, and regardless not a big deal. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 05:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Gonnym's edit ("fix date") was to fix the invalid date in the Original release field of the infobox, and remove the category from Category:Pages using start date with invalid values. The other parts of the edit are fine, as they accompany the substantive edit that fixed the date. Harryboyles 10:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harryboyles. The {{Start date}} template was misused for years. It doesn't accept plain text (that is what {{Start date text}} is for) and it should only be used with numbers, separated by parameters. Misusing the template like that firstly breaks all functionality it has behind the scenes, and it also has the potential to break even the layout of the page itself. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gonnym. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lauren LeFranc, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]