User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2019/Sep
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Inappropriate use of AWB
April 2019
I see that you have already been warned about inappropriate edits with AWB. Replacing templates like {{ifempty}} with {{if empty}} in a template is entirely cosmetic (and pointless) and goes against the rules of using AWB. Template redirects are perfectly acceptable and do not need to be replaced. Please stop, or your rights will be removed. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I made that change to exactly six templates, in two cases in conjunction with other minor improvements. What's so terrible about this admittedly small improvement that you feel you it's appropriate to threaten me, without even seeking any sort of discussion? Colonies Chris (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because multiple discussions over multiple years have determined that minor edits that do not actually affect the output of a page are not how AWB should be used. I apologize if my message is overly aggressive, but I noticed that this matter was discussed a month ago as well. While I realize that these edits were made in a small batch, I was concerned that you would be next finding other templates to replace in larger numbers. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
Special:Diff/897068980, Special:Diff/897071671, Special:Diff/897071105, Special:Diff/897070009, etc., etc.
You know what you're doing; please stop. Courtesy ping to Primefac. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I've already noted above, many of these changes are in conjunction with other minor improvements. Even the freestanding changes provide a small performance improvement, through avoiding the need to follow a template redirect when the page is loaded. No harm is done, and a small benefit is gained, so why make such a fuss about it? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Of the 5 diffs I randomly chose, 4 (above) only changed {{clc}} to {{Category link with count}}.
Even the freestanding changes provide a small performance improvement
- 1) by a trivial amount, on any scale, and 2) WP:PERFORMANCE.- It goes against AWB's very simple rules of use, which states
Repeated abuse of these rules will result, without warning, in the software being disabled.
- The 'harm' is that it needlessly fills edit histories & watchlists with inconsequential edits.
- If you don't agree with the above and wish to change the rules, then feel free to do so at the appropriate forum instead of willfully ignoring them as you have for at least the past 3 months. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I've already noted above, many of these changes are in conjunction with other minor improvements. Even the freestanding changes provide a small performance improvement, through avoiding the need to follow a template redirect when the page is loaded. No harm is done, and a small benefit is gained, so why make such a fuss about it? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Please stop making cosmetic edits like this one with AWB. They are straightforward violations of AWB rule 4. If you think that these edits are valuable, you'll need to apply for bot approval. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of art schools in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silesian University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Replacing template shortcuts
Hi, I came across this edit. I don't think this is an improvement: sure, {{significant figures}} is more transparent to newbies, but template shortcuts like {{sigfig}}} are there not only to save editors some typing, but to make the wikicode neater and more readable. Especially for linguistics pages, where it's not uncommon to have a lot of template markup in the text and sometimes nested templates, it pays to have it as short as possible and that so far has been the preferred style. – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Uanfala - there are several benefits to this sort of change. It's easier to understand for newbies, as you've noted. It's also a little more efficient, as it avoids the need to follow multiple template redirects whenever the page is loaded (and this is more significant where it's a template call within a template that is itself used in many articles). The question of whether the abbreviated form or the full name is more readable is very much a subjective one, and probably more a matter of what people are used to whether it's in any objective sense easier to read. There's something to be said for consistent usage of one form of the name, whichever it is, but choosing the actual name (rather than a redirect) seems preferable to me. AWB's general fixes routinely perform this sort of template name substitution (not these specific templates, but other commonly used ones) - for example, it will convert any of {{Morerefs}}, {{Moresources}}, {{Not verified}}, {{Ref Improve}} to {{More citations needed}}, which is both clearer and longer. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with that, but these benefits are relevant for templates that are normally used once in an article and are usually separated from the article's text (like infoboxes or the editorial templates you've listed). When it comes to formatting templates, which frequently appear within the text and are often used many times in a given article, then the preferred way to use them is via the shortcuts. {{Sigfig}} doesn't add as much clutter as {{significant figures}} and because it's short, it encourages use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing's stopping editors using the abbreviated form; if another editor comes along later and converts to the full name, it doesn't place any burden on the original editor. And the performance benefit is all the greater for templates which are called multiple times within another template - in the example you quoted, {{clc}} is called more than 40 times. But it's not a massively significant matter either way. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with that, but these benefits are relevant for templates that are normally used once in an article and are usually separated from the article's text (like infoboxes or the editorial templates you've listed). When it comes to formatting templates, which frequently appear within the text and are often used many times in a given article, then the preferred way to use them is via the shortcuts. {{Sigfig}} doesn't add as much clutter as {{significant figures}} and because it's short, it encourages use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)