MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive41

From MediaWiki
Revision as of 17:27, 30 November 2009 by Bluestreak7 (talk | contribs) (dead links)
Jump to navigationJump to search
[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive41|0|-0}}Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|«]] Community Portal / Archive41   e [[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive41|0|-0}}Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|»]]

from~?
to~?

notes:

Mold reusage list

I've been working on a list that lists the most reused molds. Sorted after Toyline and alphabetical order. Now I would like to know if this would be a useful piece of information or if it's uninteresting for the wiki. Check out the current poor and far from finished version here. Should I continue working on it or stop and erase it.Dead Metal 13:09, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

It's almost worth it just for that picture. LiamK 09:20, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
I think it would be worth it, just have all this info in one place. That and the comedy possibilities. I can see where it could be considered redundant though. --Tigerpaw28 17:33, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
Armada: The Air Defense Mini-Con Team, with 10 to 12 different decos (depending on whether you count minor differences between the Hasbro and Takara verisons or not).
Energon: One of the combiner limbs. Which one depends on whether you count Hasbro/Takara differences or not (some of the tank limbs in particular are considerably different). Also, do the unreleased Movie Target Scouts count?
Cybertron would be Legends of Cybertron Starscream (8 different versions, with notable differences between the initial Hasbro and Takara releases) and Optimus Prime (7 versions, also with notable Hasbro/Takara differences), with larger toys Deluxe Hot Shot (5 or 6 different versions, minor differences between initial Hasbro and Takara releases), Sideways (not sure on Hasbro/Takara differences here, therefore 5 or 6 different versions), Crosswise (some differences between Hasbro and Takara releases, 6 versions), Scout Clocker (notable Hasbro/Takara differences, 6 versions) and Voyager Leobreaker (5 to 7 different versions depending on Hasbro/Takara differences for Ligerjack/Leobreaker and Dark Ligerjack/Nemesis Breaker).
Classics winner is Deluxe Starscream (15 different versions, with Hasbro and Takara releases being considerably different in all instances), followed by Voyager Prime (6 or 7 versions depending on whether the unreleased black Takara convention exclusive counts or not).
Movie... Deluxe "Concept" Camaro Bumblebee, hands down. There's a running change variant for the Hasbro version (not a Hasbro/Takara difference, the later Hasbro version is identical to the Takara release), depending on whether that counts or not, we're talking about nine or 10 distinct versions here (including ROTF Cannon Bumblebee, who features 2007 Bumblebee's legs). Then there's Voyager Prime (7 definitely different versions, with minor but notable differences between Hasbro ROTF Voyager Prime and Takara's convention exclusive "Optimus Prime Revenge Edition". There might also be minor differences between the battle damaged Voyager Prime from the Sam's Club exclusive Prime/Starscream/Arcee three-pack and the Asia-only "Autobot Optimus Prime" single pack.)--Nevermore 15:13, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
Damn, I'm starting to think I was retarded just to think of starting it, but I think I'll continue working on it and once I think it's near complete I'll "publish" it and let it be updated by others that are more in the know. Danke für die hilfe werd mich reinhaun.:D Dead Metal 15:19, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Software upgrade (and known issues)

Now that the traffic from ROTF has died down some, is it time we looked at updating the MediaWiki software we're running? The latest version out is 1.51. --abates 17:00, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Interwiki linking

I was trying to link to this ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_Second_Inaugural_Address ) article today... and I realized I couldn't do it.

I can interwiki link to WikiSource... but not to en.wikisource.org. [[wikipedia:Articlename]] links properly direct to en.wikipedia.com; since we are an english wiki, it assumes we want to link to the English wikipedia... but no such assumption is made for WikiSource (because you could reasonably be assumed to be linking to a non-English source, once supposes.)

In fact I can't link to the spanish-language version of the Tacitus article either; [[Wikipedia:es:Tácito]] takes me to a non-existant article named Tácito on the english Wikipedia.

It's not a big deal... the need to link to non-english articles is so rare that we can just substitute an external link. but it does means that we can't link properly to Wikisource at all because their articles require the language code to be set.... and we simply can't do that. (We should check back on this problem and see if it fixes itself with the software upgrade.) -Derik 05:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

That es:Tácito link does, in fact, take me to "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tácito"! Once I hit en.wikipedia.org, I get redirected to the Spanish version. --abates 05:28, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
I think that's being handled server-side by Wikipedia's server though. "No article by this name, what could they be searching for? There's a spanish one..." The point is that link format should take you to the correct sever without the server itself acting as a catchment for sloppy linking. (And Wikisource doesn't do that, which brings us back full circle.) -Derik 05:35, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
Sure, ideally, but from looking at the MediaWiki source, it looks like that's how they intend interwiki links to the Spanish version of Wikipedia to be done. There's nothing stopping us from adding in our own Interwiki prefixes of course! So even if the update doesn't fix the problem, someone with database access can tweak the Interwiki table. I have noted down to suggest this extension, when we get around to installing extensions. --abates 06:20, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Macron issue

I've only tested the SQL statement I came up with to fix the macron issue on version 1.12, so ideally that should be done before we upgrade the software. I sent it to McFly a while back, but haven't heard anything more. --abates 22:30, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

SearchSuggest

The SearchSuggest extension which we're using will be obsolete once we upgrade (it's been replaced by native functionality as of version 1.13 of MediaWiki). I suspect that it'll probably need to be removed. --abates 21:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

On upgrading...

Just checking - whenever we upgrade, the relevant version of MediaWiki allows you to move images in the same way as pages, ja?

I ask because I made a list of all the Marvel UK cover uploads earlier today (NB: #168 and #170 don't appear to have been uploaded in any form, and quite a few others are GIFs, blurry or tiny) for future reference, and there really is no consistently-applied naming schema. (Some don't even mention the issue number in their names. They should all be at "Image:MarvelUK-XXX.jpg", which is the most common and consistent with the "Image:MarvelUS-XX.jpg" format for the Marvel US series.) - SanityOrMadness 17:13, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, newer versions let you move images. That's one piece of functionality I'll be glad to have! --abates 17:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
Also, judging by Wikia, images are in a File: namespace instead of the Image: namespace. Hmm. (Incidentally, if you're in need of a laugh, go to the old wikia and click on "Recent blog posts" in the sidebar. Wow.) --abates 17:49, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Googlejuice - Bad News Everyone

Current Google: TFWiki third for transformers wiki, behind two Wikia results

New Google (a.k.a., "Caffeine"): TFWiki fifth, behind two Wikia results and two Wikipedia results.

So. - SanityOrMadness 18:38, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, for me, we've been in "fifth" on google.com since soon after ROTF came out. I assumed it was just cause a bunch of bloggers had been linking to the Wikipedia article (and Google regards "wiki" as a synonym for "Wikipedia") in which case as the posts they made with the links in moved off their front pages, Wikipedia would move down again. --abates 20:11, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
The sandbox link you gave there is showing us third, San.--RosicrucianTalk 20:41, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
The sandbox link doesn't actually work for me now, for some reason. And, re: Abates... now I look, google.com does show as fifth, while google.co.uk shows as third. I didn't realise that .com and .co.uk showed different results for a worldwide search... - SanityOrMadness 16:19, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
They use a bunch of different databases which all seem to be updated at different rates. I see the one the sandbox version is using has an updated version of our Dirk Manus article (which annoyingly seems to have dropped out of the database google.com is using). --abates 19:09, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Content-wise, there's not a lot we can do. We were down a lot during the period when the Great Unwashed were blogging about Transformers and didn't know to link to the good wiki.
SEO is server-side, and no one's seen Scout in weeks. (I'd recommend we pursue the "canonical URL" thing, which search engines are supposed to like.) I'd be happy to take a whack at it... but I don't have FTP access. :p -Derik 21:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
Note: canonical url's have been added to MediaWiki 1.15, the most recent version released in June. -Derik 21:33, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
Another good reason to upgrade! --abates 22:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
No, another good reason to perform a full database backup.
Once that is done and copies saved in at least 3 different locations... then we can attempt an upgrade. -Derik 01:37, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
One hopes after the previous incident that that would be taken as read! I'd reiterate my previous query regarding regular backups, but... --abates 02:07, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Backups are fine, I'm running a test restore to an alternate machine to confirm that the beloved database is okay. If we're going to run an update, I recommend we bring the wiki back to read-only prior to a nightly backup, do a test restore, make sure said test restore is functional, and then (and only then!) attempt the upgrade on the live server. That would probably take a few hours, and you're working around our job schedules, which makes it a little hard to find us. I'd probably drop the macron fix in at that point as well. --McFly 11:15, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
Confirmed. I just restored yesterday's backup to an alternate machine, and the whole thing came up with a working DB, just as we'd like. Huzzah! --McFly 12:19, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
Just as a thought... we've now (I think) cleaned out the Wikia spam from all the active pages, but obviously the page histories are all still crammed with it. When the upgrade comes, could the filter that was originally ran to clean all that out be run again? - SanityOrMadness 16:38, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
The filter we originally ran was on the database dump before it was restored, whereas doing an upgrade would be on the live database, so the same technique wouldn't work. I don't know that there'd be much of a benefit to go about working out a way to scrub the spam from the histories — people don't look at them that often and the search engines don't index them.
Also: awesome news on the backups, McFly! --abates 17:03, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

So Someone at IDW Reads the Wiki it Seems...

Oh, hey, the wiki's back up for me. Er. I guess I'll double-post this for the folks who don't read the Allspark, then:

Someone on the IDW forums pointed this out, and I realized they're right: At the back of All Hail Megatron #14, on the page advertising All Hail Megatron 15, the blue text behind the drawing of Perceptor is taken verbatim from our G1 Perceptor entry. All of it, seriously (I did manage to check before the wiki went poof...) I actually have no idea what to think of that. --Jeysie 18:41, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Is that in-line with the CC-BY-SA licence (or, I suppose, the GDFL depending on when they locked for print), especially the "Attribution" part of that? [I don't have the issue, since I've never bothered with AHM, so I can't check that for what was said/used] - SanityOrMadness 19:52, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
It means that All Hail Megatron #14 is now Creative Commons, and anyone can make a copy of it or remix it without fear of legal repressions. -Derik 19:58, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Edit: Oh, it was an ad for the next issue. Just the ad is creative commons then, no biggie. We'll see if anything make it into the issue itself.
Seriously, this is exactly why I was suggesting we adopt a separate license with terms for comercial productions that already have the TF license from Hasbro/Takara, to prevent exactly that sort of legal ambiguity. -Derik 19:58, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
I agree we should have a license that better reflects our legal rights and not-rights... it's just the question of how to legally switch to it without the impossible task of getting permission from every wiki contributor that's the problem. --Jeysie 22:55, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
I talked about this (how to rollout a second Hasbro-friendly license) a little... somewhere in that long-winded thing I wrote.
I've been poking at it for a couple hours... and I think that we'd be best off invoking the principle of a "customary freehold", an unwritten legal arrangement that's seldom seen anymore (because since the 19th century all contracts have been written down) but which is still recognized to be valid.
That would cast us as (try to keep a straight face) untaxed tenant farmers on Hasbro's land. We keep the result of our labor, but our work also benefits Hasbro in that it cultivates their land (promotes their brand.) No contracts were signed, but our mucking about on/with Hasbro's property does not make us outlaws... but some mixture of neighbor, a guest and serf. We incur obligation to our host, and Hasbro incurs obligation to its fans... both of which can be said to be "paid down" by characterizing the kind of fractional diffusion/transmission of intellectual property that takes place between both parties is a 'gift.' (This is distinct from turning a blind eye and pretending it does not exist, because it means that Hasbro actually has a right to use a small non-specified portion of our labors... we gifted it to them!)
Put more simply, it makes fans pilot fish existing in a mutually beneficial symbiosis with a larger corporate entity.
The reason I favor this solution is because
  • That's not a license. It's an underlying legal principle that was always in effect. (In other words, it applies to all past edits.)
  • I think this actually reflects what fans believe they are doing then they contribute to the wiki, as well as our general belief that we've incurred some (though not overwhelming) moral obligation to protect our "Landlord"'s interests.
  • The actual second license itself would grant limited usage rights in a more explicit manner for all edits made past 11-01-2009 (or whatever), then fall back on customary freehold rights for the remainder... and only when that is exhausted does Fair use come into play. In short- "we give them explicit permission to use this portion, they had implicit permission to use a portion of the remainder, and they have a legal right to use another portion of that remainder afterward without our permission." 3 levels of diminishing legal protection that act as "catchment" for Hasbro's use of our content. They would have to heroically abuse our content-- wholesale reprinting-- to bust all 3.
That's pretty much the best of all possible worlds... in that it actually has some retroactive application to old content, because rather than releasing the content under this principle it recognizes that this principle had always existed, just like Fair Use always exists. -Derik 00:08, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
I voted for that. At least I voted as close to that as possible without knowing a whole lot about the ins-and-outs of licenses and such. - Starfield 00:46, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
It doesn't work that way... those come INTO the cover. They only get infected if they go OUT of it again. -Derik 02:16, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

(Edit break)

Actually, this makes me happy. You know why? Two reasons:

  1. The text is very definitely from our version of the article, not Wikia's. There are passages in that promo that we wrote after the split with Wikia.
  2. The text includes one of our nutball captions: "Like every other tough-guy group walk in the movies..."

This tickles me pink, really.--RosicrucianTalk 22:09, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

That's awesome, especially the (no doubt unintentional) use of the caption. --abates 22:50, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
True, I am glad to know that the IDW folks don't look at Wikia... Does this merit a mention on the issue's page itself, with a link to the current Percy revision? (And maybe a nice, clear scan of the advertisement?) --Jeysie 22:53, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
I think it only means the colorist of the graphic reads our Wiki. I believe it's one of the covers of AHM #15, not merely an ad. --ItsWalky 22:59, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Yep. It's going to be Cover A.--RosicrucianTalk 23:10, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Ah! In that case, I think Joana Lafuente is the colorist, if I'm remembering my IDW forum posts correctly. --Jeysie 23:18, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
Not surprising she'd throw a little love our way, considering. Personally, that's all I take this as.--RosicrucianTalk 23:19, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
If Hasbro contacts us RE: that cover, can we offer to settle a nickel? --FortMax 23:13, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
No actually, under CC-BY-SA3, no one person or body has the ability to act as legal proxy for all contribuitors. IDW would need to contact every single person who's ever edited the Perceptor article and get them all to sign off on it. (I'm not kidding, that's actually what the code mandates.) If they fail to do this, the result automatically becomes CC-BY-SA3.
...or we could do this. (I've been researching you see.) -Derik 20:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Wait, if AHM14 came out on August the 19th, surely they went to print before we switched licences? Marvel print in North America, and they still go to print 19 or 20 days before an issue comes out. IDW print further afield (in South Korea, wasn't it?), and even AHM15 may well have gone to print before Aug 1. - SanityOrMadness 19:57, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
[Oh, and while you're saying the "infection" is small, and limited to the ad/cover... the "infected" cover would/will include the Transformers and IDW logos...] - SanityOrMadness 20:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

A new argument

Okay, this is a little specious, but I'm going to throw this out and see what others think...

  • Preview art is often pending approval, (particularly covers) and may receive changes prior to the actual hard-copy publication.
  • It would be most accurate to say that the work is first licensed (or at least re-licensed) at the time of hard-copy publication.
  • The AHM#15 ad then, would be a work unto itself... complete with ad dress.
  • The AHM #15 cover, which will remove this ad dress (and possibly re-crop or re-present the base illustration) before adding cover dress is a new work... not derived from the AHM#15 ad. (the ad dress was not an earlier state from which the actual cover derived-- both the ad and the cover are branches of a dress-less illustration.)
  • As such, at the time of AHM#15's publication, that cover will be licensed under whatever terms we have available... and not as a derivation of the AHM#15 ad.

I'm a bit wary of this... because it seems to claim that the online previews of the cover with no dress does not count as a licensed work. Yet such previews often are listed as 'subject to change' and thus are demonstrably not a final product. (In the case of Marvel titles, they can have cover elements completely altered when they realize their penciler traced copyrighted images.) Finally, and perhaps most lamely... the text on the preview isn't legible.

(Uh... FWIW the ad itself appears to be a slight crop-down, and perhaps had its colors re-graded compared to the original preview.) Basically this hinges on the online preview not having licensed the content from us... defining it as 'an internal work-document' whose use of our content was not yet licensed under CC-BY-SA... the licensing to take place after final approvals at the time of hardcopy publication.

(This isn't entirely crazy, fair use allows you to make a cull copy of a movie for your personal use, but you'd have to clear the rights to use more than snippets for a comercial product. Graphic designers routinely do mockups of layouts without clearing the fonts or stock photography used... only doing so after the final version is approoved. Who are we to say at what point in the process the licensing occoured? We know only that it must have happened before the end.)

Thoughts? And does anyone know the actual publication date of AHM #15? -Derik 10:15, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Nothing more specific than "September" for the moment. With any luck IDW's newsletter will come out tomorrow so my placeholder can finally get properly sorted. (It used to be that Tipton would have an up-to-date schedule on his blog sidebar, but he seems to have stopped regularly updating it.) --Jeysie 20:02, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
Looks like it's coming out on the 16th. --Jeysie 18:23, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
What a lovely due-date we have! -Derik 18:30, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Preview's out

Preview, cover text intact: http://www.bzzurkk.com/2009/09/transformers-all-hail-megatron-15-preview/ - SanityOrMadness 17:06, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Lovely. I have drafted some notes on a possible license. Please feel free to review and respond.
If no fundamental problems arise, I will probably beat my head against a wall tomorrow to flatten this into an actual $%^&* license text (with a forward-compatibility clause in case we discover a problem later) and propose it to the wiki for formal consideration.
Whether or not anybody but me thinks it's a good idea... remains to be seen. - Derik 16:45, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Blinking redirects gone from Show Preview?

Was wondering where the triple-underlines and yellow blinking went whenever I hit "Show Preview". I might've missed the memo regarding that. --Lonegamer78 13:19, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

You're right, it's not working for me either. I want that back, it was incredibly useful! :( --Jeysie 17:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Looks like Derik made a typo when commenting out a bit of code in the stylesheet - there's a stray s after the comment. --abates 18:27, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Oops. I shall fix. -Derik 20:51, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Shouldn't stuff like that be in MediaWiki:Common.css anyway? Once it's tested and working, etc. --abates 22:36, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
In theory, but some people hate the blinking so I've held its status as "in development" until people either get used to it or a superior solution emerges. For example, Rosicrucian specifically asked me how to override the blinking a few weeks ago, so I think he's either messing about with different effects or at least intends to do so. Given that he's done a good chunk of our designwork (I do a lot of the template stuff, but he developed monacobook) there's a reasonable chance he's could come back with a solution everyone likes better, so holding the code as 'in development' for awhile longer is merely prudent.
(If I had admin access I might feel different, but I don't, so going back to try to tweak code once it's in Common.css because you later realize it needs changing is a major hassle. So I try not to migrate these styles until they seem final and there's nothing on the horizon that seems likely to change 'em.) -Derik 23:00, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Ah. Maybe just yellow highlight and triple-underline them without the blinking? --Lonegamer78 23:41, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
I kinda like the animation as it catches the eye, though Firefox seems to have problems figuring out when you click on a blinking link. I'm thinking maybe if the text stays put and instead it has an animated background, which could be a small animated gif that pulses or something. --abates 23:54, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
Oh, so THAT'S what that was. I was getting incredibly annoyed by that. ---Blackout- 03:39, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
It's supposed to be annoying, so you'll be motivated to change the redirect to the proper link to make it go away. (I tried telling that to Rosicrucian when he complained about the blinking, but I don't think I explained it very well...) --Jeysie 19:31, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
Oh, why do they have to be back?! ---Blackout- 09:25, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
Maybe because they're incredibly useful? -Mazenoise 09:29, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
Where did I put the code I gave Rosicrucian... ah, here it is. If you truly hate the blinking, add the following to your style page:
#wikiPreview a.mw-redirect{
	text-decoration: underline; 
}
That will turn blink off. -Derik 14:00, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
DERIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIK!!!!!
That doesn't work. ---Blackout- 15:21, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
Does so. Shift-refresh to clear your cache. -Derik 17:11, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
I did that, and it still doesn't work. ---Blackout- 01:40, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
Curious. You don't happen to be using Monobook as your defauly style instead of Monacobook, do you... ? -Derik 03:57, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
Nope. ---Blackout- 07:49, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

GoBox Problem

Is there something wrong with the GoBoxes? Whenever I go to "Talk:Bulkhead syndrome", I get a GoBox that leads to this page. ---Blackout- 09:20, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Go-boxes for a given page will sometimes cache for short periods of time.--RosicrucianTalk 11:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)


"(Marvel Comics)" or "(Marvel comic)"

Would it be too much to suggest that we pick one and stick with it? - SanityOrMadness 08:43, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh, not to mention Marvel UK's Collected Comics (Marvel), nor the characters Decepticon medic (Marvel Comics) and Jose (Marvel Comics). - SanityOrMadness 08:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
The last discussion kind of stalled on the question of whether or not to have "Comics"/"comic" at all. Technically speaking, "(Marvel)" does the job. Before, I was favoring "(Marvel comic)", but I think now I'm leaning towards just "(Marvel)" because seriously, parentheticals should be as short as possible. - Jackpot 09:24, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
Marvel Productions - SanityOrMadness 10:27, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Considering that Marvel Productions was apparently a child company of Marvel Comics, I don't see that as a problem. --Jeysie 19:19, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Marvel Productions (now defunct) relates to the cartoon. Marvel Comics (obviously) relates to the comics. - SanityOrMadness 10:25, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
Considering that any Marvel Comics-specific concept or character is either going to have the Comicnav template or some form of "Marvel Comics continuity" on the page... I still don't see a problem. Anything that comes from the cartoon is going to be just (G1) or say "cartoon continuity" since Sunbow is always the main company known for cartoon stuff. --Jeysie 17:09, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
"Rampages"? Really, now. —Interrobang 20:08, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
I hereby dub thee a "Deckchair Rampage"! Hurrah, we now hast a term by which to call it! -Derik 22:43, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk page "dead link" removal

Can I ask what is behind the mass removal of "dead links" on talk pages? Does having "dead links" on talk pages mess something up? I'm just curious. - Starfield 16:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, for one thing, dead links that are not meant to link pages do somewhat pollute the "Wanted pages" index. --Ascendron 16:45, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Oh. I'm surprised talk page links show up on "wanted pages." - Starfield 16:58, 8 September 2009 (EDT)


Wikicode problems

I've noticed that a "=" (equals sign) in a URL linked as a source in a quote tag results in the entire source section not being displayed in the article. Example:

I told them that I would literally commit suicide if they made an action figure of me. I will kill myself.

I fiddled around with the URL and nailed the source of the problem down to the "=". Is this problem common knowledge?--Nevermore 09:15, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Been toying around my userpage.
Check it out:
{{factions|former|decepticon}}
"former" (or whatever you write) is shown.
{{factions|=former|decepticon}}
"=" renders the text invisible.
seems like "=" affects templates.
hah. funny. -- Silvery 10:55, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
EDIT: I'm so dumb... "=" is one of parameters used in templates. [1] -- Silvery 11:03, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
Is there any way to solve that problem? "=" appears in quite a few URLs.--Nevermore 11:26, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
As Silver surmised, it's down to the equals being a template parameter.
Your options are:
  1. Escape the "=" as = - Entertainment News International
  2. Feed it through a URL shortener like TinyURL or bit.ly - Entertainment News International

i.e.:

I told them that I would literally commit suicide if they made an action figure of me. I will kill myself.Megan Fox, Entertainment News International.
- SanityOrMadness 11:36, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
Just add a "2=" to the code: {{quote|Blahblah|2=Megan Fox, [http://enewsi.com/news.php?itemid=13816 Entertainment News International].}}
BlahblahMegan Fox, Entertainment News International.
—Interrobang 14:37, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

"Murder" Category II

For some reason, it automatically deletes itself when I try to create it.


Weird. ---Blackout- 09:43, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm pretty shore it's not supposed to be created, just like the things that don't exist category. Dead Metal 06:38, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
The Things that don't exist doesn't automatically delete itself. ---Blackout- 07:19, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
I know but those two categories are not to be created it's part of the joke. Dead Metal 14:29, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Sourcing statements

I've recently dealt with a bunch of articles where statements were either entirely unsourced, or just broadly attributed to a source without more specific details (such as, just naming a magazine without stating the volume, issue number, date, page number etc., or not linking the online article/interview). I've spent quite some time tracking down the sources and then fixed the statements to better reflect what is actually said in those sources. Basically, someone read a magazine interview and then added some trivia bits from memory, that kind of thing.

Should we have a more rigid mandate that statements should credit sources? I'm not talking Wikipedia-esque anal-retentive "author name, title of article, date of publication, date of accessing" details and sources for general knowledge stuff such as "Devastator has a Supreme Class toy in the ROTF toyline". But anything that is definitely based on a single source should better be followed by a footnote. Especially since a lot of these unsourced statements eventually turn out to be urban myths.

Should we make this a mandate, and if yes, how should we enforce it?--Nevermore 14:25, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

It already is a mandate, technically speaking. --Jeysie 14:34, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
That's more of a style guide rather than an actual rule, though. My thought is something similar to what (at least the German version of) Wikipedia does: When you click "submit", you're shown a warning that asks you to make sure you have sourced your statements. It's not too obtrusive (clicking "submit" a second time will submit your text anyway), but it does drive home the point.--Nevermore 15:19, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
Our style guides are rules, pretty much. And that one at least is definitely a specific policy. If we had to mandate every single rule we had before every edit, the Submit screen would have a sea of text. The best we can do is try to encourage newbies to actually read our Help and Policy pages. --Jeysie 15:26, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://tfwiki.duckdns.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive41&oldid=397203"