User talk:Bouncingmolar

Hi, regarding ampersands within an article, could you give me an example since I'm not sure what you mean? -- Barrylb 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Extension template

Please explain the rationale for changing a large number of extension pages to use a template which, so far as I can see, provides no additional benefit. Examples of this are [1], [2], [3] and [4]. robchurch | talk 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi robchurch. Yes I have made a template called extension categorized which is a duplicate of the extension template. The only difference is that it does not contain the category:extension.

The rational behind this move is that I have been going through every single extension manually and sub categorizing them and placing them within the subcategory category:extensions by category. I created a duplicate template because it is easy to revert if my work is disputed with the trade off of having an identical duplicate template. However I hope that you can see that I am slowly making progress. Why remove the [[category:extension]] you may ask? Well the main reason is that it is extremely difficult to sub categorize the extensions because it is hard to tell which ones are already sub categorized. This way the sub categorized ones are nolonger within this category and the uncategorized ones are retained in the extension category. I was using the category convention used in wikipedia. I just assumed it applied to mediawiki as well.

"Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges."

I realise this rule doesn't apply to everything so if you think I should revert them all once i've finished sub categorizing everything let me know... however sub categorizing is proving to be a very slow process.

-Bouncingmolar 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, please make the change to the template in use. We do not wish to encourage forking of templates with an identical purpose, as it doubles the maintenance overhead. I would suggest making a complete list of all pages which need to be processed prior to removing the categorisation from the template, and then updating these. robchurch | talk 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying Rob; that we don't need identical templates because if a new version of the template is made we have to update both. However the templates are not identical (even if it is only a minor difference). The Main purpose of the alternative template is that it has the [[category:extension]] removed. The problem with modifying the original template:extension is that the category:extension information is stored there!(as i mentioned on the category:extension talk page.) :If i remove the extension category from the template then un categorized extensions will not be listed in the main extension category nor the extension subcategories. Which is a problem! So what the modified template does is it allows me to retain the original template structure without removing the category from all of the uncategorized extensions. I hope that makes sense.

Bouncingmolar 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the categorisation difference is trivial. As I suggested above, use a list to store current categorisations and update the pages with them, or keep a list of extension pages which have been updated.

The current behaviour, introducing a useless extra template that will need to be changed back later is disruptive and redundant. You also provided no justification in the form of edit summaries, which is considered courteous in the least. robchurch | talk 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

this discussion will be continued on the category:extension talk page Bouncingmolar 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)