User talk:Pppery

please why did you cancel my update back to /Flow since Structured discussions are declared obsolete on their corresponding page and lead to discussion tools - something not logic for reader who follows the links ? -- Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Because what you said is:

> Wikis where Extension:DiscussionTools ... is used are not generally eligible for deployment at this time.

That's downright wrong - the page is intending to talk about wikis where the legacy StructuredDiscussions system is used, not discussiontools. The maintenance status of StructuredDiscussions is not relevant in this context.

Template:Extension#hook says "For custom hooks defined by extensions, use extensionName/hookName", but a recent edit to an extension page I made (revision 6775208) left out the prefix? Which form is the more correct one?

I was unaware of that documentation. The current standard is in fact to use the hook name alone for all extensions, and we've built up a lot of infrastructure around that.

Thanks for adding the tag! It deserves a Tech News entry indeed! As you have certainly noticed, we're making changes to TN, and this ticket totally lands well in the new format. I'm genuinely grateful for your move.

Hey, I'd like to comment your edit. Under usual circumstances, I'd agree with you – typically, we don't know when exactly a project would end. I wouldn't have added the end date in the infobox. But the Charts group is tasked with a specific job, and there is an official plan that we wrap up in December. We'd like to make it clear for everyone interested. After that, all staffers involved get back to their regular teams in their previous capacities. Sure, maybe later the leadership would change their minds, but for now, we're officially wrapping up in December, which is different from the usual "we'd like to wrap up in December". For this reason I'd prefer to keep the end date in the infobox. What do you think?

(Context: This is about Extension:Chart/Project)

You should say those words (or some variant of them) somewhere on the project page then. Just having it in the infobox doesn't convey the point very clearly, as you can see from the fact that I missed it and interpreted that as a usual idealistic timeframe that I've repeatedly seen not be met.

This situation is so rare that the template didn't properly support future dates and put the page in the redlinked Category:WMF Projects 2024q4, which brought it to my attention as I monitor redlinked categories here. I'm working on fixing the template now, though.

Hello. As you know, a space is needed after the period at the end of a sentence, so please insert a space between ‎</translate> and ‎<translate>. The Translate extension does not automatically add this space.

• Incorrect: <translate>Sentence1.</translate><translate>Sentence2.</translate>
• Correct: <translate>Sentence1.</translate> <translate>Sentence2.</translate>

Noted.

You have found a very elegant solution to the matter, like a real expert! Thank you for that!

I failed to add this to the ExtrensionHook/Doc:

	"skin": {
			"label": {
				"de": "Name der Oberfläche",
				"en": "Skin name",
				"es": "Nombre de la apariencia",
				"cs": "Název zobrazení",
				"fr": "Habillage"
			},
			"description": {
				"de": "Name der Oberfläche, in der der Hook aufgerufen wird; Alternativ für die Variable 'extension' zu setzen.",
				"en": "Skin name where the hook is called; alternatively, set for the 'extrension' variable.",
				"es": "Nombre de la apariencia donde se llama al hook; alternativamente, establecer para la variable de 'extension'.",
				"cs": "Název zobrazení, kde je jmenován hook; pro případ, že zdroj není v úložišti základního kódu MediaWiki.",
				"fr": "nom de l'habillage où l'accroche est appelée; dans les cas où le source n'est pas dans le dépôt de code du noyau MediaWiki."
			},
			"type": "wiki-page-name",
			"required": optional,
			"example": {
				[...]
			}
		},

Added.

Hello, I've reviewed the "Help:Interwiki linking" articles on both Meta-Wiki and MediaWiki.org. I found that Meta-Wiki includes more comprehensive examples, detailed explanations of technical configurations, and specific guidelines for usage not present on MediaWiki.org. I'm interested to enrich the MediaWiki.org documentation by integrating these aspects. Could you guide me on adapting this content appropriately, considering licensing constraints? Specifically, advice on incorporating examples and technical details would be invaluable.

- Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking

- MediaWiki.org: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking

Examples themselves (i.e the table at m:Help:Interwiki linking#Project titles and shortcuts) are generally below the threshold of originality and can be copied without regard for copyright, although that specific example is specific to Wikimedia wikis so properly belongs on Meta. Some of the more technical stuff belongs in Manual namespace (which is not public domain so you can copy directly) rather than help namespace (i.e Manual:Interwiki). See Project:PD Help vs. Project:Manual for the difference between the two namespaces. And make sure the technical stuff is still true - a lot of Meta help is very outdated.

For content that does belong in the PD help namespace, see m:Special:PermaLink/22520095 versus mw:Help:Redirects and m:Help:Redirects as an example. The more philosophical stuff probably does belong in the Help page, rewritten.

Thank you so so much for your kind detailed reply!

Another thing is, may I use your reply as reference for GSoD's project proposal?

Not sure exactly what you mean, but sure, go ahead.

Thank you for giving me the permission!

So I added it here in my proposal like this.

Hi, For Season of Docs/2024, Google offers a stipend of $500 USD to community members who help answer questions and review work for the selected documentation project. If you're interested, I thought you'd be a great fit since you've already done so much on the migration project and have already been contributing to the Season of Docs talk page. If you're interested, let me know by March 29 so I can add it to our application.

Thank you, but I don't think I'm interested in getting formally involved, although I will probably continue to review help pages as they are migrated.

Totally understand, thanks for all your help!

Hi, I was just checking out Extension:DeToc (which I wrote) and the download link seems to be working fine for me...  « Saper // talk »  01:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd. It's working fine for me too now. At the time I was getting an error saying that repo.or.cz was overloaded, and I guess I interpreted it as a something being permanently broken rather than a temporary state.

I just came to let you know but you seem to have noticed and fixed it already, so I guess thanks for your diligence. Sorry I didn't discuss with you first, I figured since it is so widely used it was better to get it working first. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's totally reasonable, and it's my fault for not testing my change properly.