Module talk:Biglist

Bug

@Johnuniq: if you use "topicsearch", and entry has more than one word, then you get incorrect links. See the same Aalenilla compressa in example. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgars2007: I think it is working as intended. The idea was to list all items from a global index with search links. The red links show articles which could be created (see 'A' example). Following is an example using biglist with topicsearch with two topics where the article exists:

Aalius androgyna – (wp gwp g bwp b | eb 1911 co gct sw arc ht)
Aalenirhynchia – (wp gwp g bwp b | eb 1911 co gct sw arc ht)

It looks like {{Search species}} has been created to avoid the post‐expand include size exceeded problem, and the links are now different from those produced by biglist.

In case I want to find it later, the discussion behind biglist was here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to say, that for page "Aalius androgyna" it was indented to make links, that searches for only "Aalius" and not "Aalius androgyna"? Don't think so :) {{Search species}} is working fine (it would search for "Aalius androgyna"). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you mean. Fixed, thanks. It looks like {{Search species}} has the same problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of functions

@RexxS: Saying code is useful does not make it so. Why is it a good idea to have code in Module:Biglist when the same code already exists in Module:WeatherBoxColors and Module:Storm name? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Code can be refactored. What good do you think fiddling with module does? Are you hoping to save server space? Are you trying to build a collaborative technical community where people get along and help each other? Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Nevertheless, the code is useful. If functions are forked into other modules, that's fine when there is an intention to develop them. That's exactly how open source software works. However, as far as I can see Johnuniq created the code and has been maintaining it. You, on the other hand, don't seem to create or maintain code; you just move or delete code that others have worked on. You have given absolutely no justification for deleting code from this module, other than you feel the need to alter modules to suit the way you think they should be organised. That is increasingly becoming a problem over a number of areas. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing code that is redundant to code in a pre-existing module isn't "fiddling". Neither is moving code to a module with a name that actually describes what the code does from a module with an entirely irrelevant name and documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Yes it is fiddling. You have not explained why you think one piece of code is redundant to another, nor why moving code into a new module just to change the name of the module is beneficial. If Johnuniq has collected together a bunch of utility functions in a single module because he finds it easier to maintain the code that way, then it's not your place to force him to do it differently. That's something you would know if you actually wrote and maintained modules, instead of simply messing about with them in some sort of "feng shui" organisation that looks better to you. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]