User talk:Nephele/Archive-2009-07

Get better soon!Edit

So sorry to hear of your injury! Take care so it heals quickly. We need ya! --GK^Talk2me 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Get well soon, Neph. I just hope the pain medication doesn't mean you can't drink wine! –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A broken wrist? Is THAT all?!? Just type with your toes! Sheesh! :Þ Get well soon! --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Get better soon Neph! –Eshe^talk 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And a "get better" from Denmark as well. :) Krusty 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're back at full strength soon. You're invaluable! Wolok gro-Barok 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought...Edit

This probably doesn't need immediate attention, but what do you think about including a link to UESPWiki:Policies_and_Guidelines from the Recent Changes page? In light of some recent confusion, I think it couldn't hurt to make that important information a little more accessible to those who might not know it exists in the first place :). –Eshe^talk 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want, feel free. --Nephele^Talk 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Neph :). For some reason I assumed that was a change you would have to make. Dunno where my brain is today. –Eshe^talk 03:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WristEdit

Sorry to hear about your wrist. I broke mine last year, when I was practicing freerunning, so I know how painfull it can be. Take care, and get well soon. Jayden Matthews 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful PotionsEdit

I noticed you placed a WIP on Oblivion:Useful Potions long ago, and I was wondering what you were wanting to do with it. I managed to wikify two of the tables, but I couldn't see what else needed to be done. I left the tag on there, so I just wanted to check to see what needs to be done. Thanks Neph! --Elliot^(T-C) 02:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I'd left the WIP tag there was because those two tables were still in the old, very inconsistent format. There are other things that could be done, but they're less important. So thanks for cleaning that up for me. --Nephele^Talk 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Problem diffs"?Edit

(from Administrator Noticeboard) "Long-term, I'd like to find a way to fix these problem diffs, instead of adding a policy just to cover a software bug."

I didn't want to derail the conversation at the Admin board, so I thought I'd bring it to your talk page instead. I'm curious, just what is it about the diffs that causes the problem? If you're concerned about elaborating where someone might take advantage, please feel free to respond to my private e-mail. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Large magnitude edits (>100k, roughly), whether additions or deletions, tend to cause problems when trying to view diffs of the edit. It's already been stated a few times (now probably in various archived discussions, but nevertheless still available for reading), so it's not worth being overly secretive about it ;) My guess is that having a subprocess (in this case, the diff3 command used to generate the diff view) take longer than apache's 15 minute timeout limit somehow breaks the connection timeout process, but I have yet to confirm the guess. --Nephele^Talk 04:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting bug! Thanks for the explanation. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 05:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Yeah thanks for that i couldnt figure out what was causing me to be in that category Liam head 08:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New Magic Word / Parser Function QuestionsEdit

I'm starting to pluck up the courage to consider making the bigger changes to templates that your new functions allow, but I've hit a couple of issues in my initial tests. There's no urgency whatsoever about any of this, so if your wrists aren't up to it, don't hurt yourself on my account.

First, the #include function. The change I made to Template:Faction Header worked perfectly - just as I expected. I then moved on to Template:Faction/Code. That one uses a text include if no template is available, but I don't know how to do that with the #include function. Template:Include has an "else=" param to specify a text-only inclusion. Is there such an option with #include, or should I look for another way to do this? While testing, I hit what looks like a bug: {{#include:Oblivion:Mage's Guild/Rank{{!}}1|Oblivion:Mages Guilds/Rank{{!}}1}} was one test I used while playing with the Faction template, but all it produces is a blank page. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, since the {{!}} I used on the Faction Header template didn't produce the same result, but I'm not sure.

Second, about the author and description params for books. If I put them on a Lore article, will an Oblivion article that transcludes that article pick them up automagically or do I have to refer to the Lore page to load them? If they turn out to be empty, do I then have to check the Oblivion-specific versions? Should I copy the author / description params to the Oblivion version of the book? I think I know the answer to these questions, but I'd rather not spend ages messing up the site to see a simpler solution appear when you heal :)

I'm sure there will be Third, Fourth and Fifth at some point... but I'll leave you alone for now. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue with {{#include:Oblivion:Mage's Guild/Rank{{!}}1|Oblivion:Mages Guilds/Rank{{!}}1}} has been fixed. I didn't add any type of else parameter with #include because it no longer seemed necessary. The template can do its own check to see whether the variable is blank, then do whatever seems appropriate. With the ability to assign the results of expensive functions to variables, there's no penalty for subsequently doing more processing of the variable.

For books, I'd basically been thinking that the Oblivion page would #load the Lore parameters (assuming no Oblivion-specific versions were provided to the template), then re-#save them for the Oblivion page. I'd like to get rid of the mess of every Oblivion book link having to check five different places for the book info -- it should just have to check the Oblivion book name; duplicating information in the database is cheaper overall. I'd also been thinking that a lot of the other parameters in the Book Summary should be #save'd (at least for the Lore version): title, sortkey, grouping, etc.

Hopefully that makes some sense. Sorry about taking so long to follow up on this. --Nephele^Talk 05:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Parser CallsEdit

I just got this error while doing a Show Preview on Oblivion:Normal Books:

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.
It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 832 calls.

That came at the top of the page and it was added automatically to "Category:Pages_with_too_many_expensive_parser_function_calls". Additionally, none of the authors or descriptions from Guide to Leyawiin downwards got displayed.

I'm guessing this is due to the upgrade and we need to push forward the switch to #author and #description, but I thought I should ask first. I haven't seen it happen anywhere else. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the joys of insomnia, I caught this message before the site erased it ;) I've temporarily increased the limit to 1000 but, yes, we should try to update how we're handling the book data long term. I also saw your earlier, related question; I'm just trying (not too successfully) to first clear out a few other "projects" with which I'd been tinkering. --Nephele^Talk 03:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Tried again and now I get "It should have less than 1000 calls, there are now 1070 calls" and the list now goes down to the Song of Pelinal v5. I think I'll leave it for now... –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)