Template talk:User blazon

Renaming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This template and similarly named templates conflict with a language code, so {{babel}} and {{#babel}} give different results. This is confusing, so I suggest that we rename the blazon templates into something else. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is an improperly formatted multimove, someone please correct this nomination -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rename to {{User blazon}} etc. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed formatting. Support moving to {{User blazon}} etc. Jafeluv (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Words are only worth shortening if most people know the abbreviation. Both the Wikipedia disambiguation page and the Wiktionary entry lack a mention of blazon (as of 2013-03-30, anyway), so I postulate that "blz" is not a standard abbreviation of "blazon". – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 09:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Babel

blz

This user understands blazon.

Search user languages

Comment There are still redirects from the old names. Those redirects make {{babel}} and {{#babel}} work differently anyway... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why do they need to be the same? You can always list the redirects at WP:RFD if you want them deleted... Jenks24 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: It appears this is still a problem eight years later (looking at the examples to the right). The redirects shouldn't be deleted yet because several users are still transcluding them. I've added them to my to-do list in AWB. Are you wanting to nominate them for deletion at RfD? If so, I can prioritize fixing the transclusions to get that obstacle out of the way. – voidxor 16:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A favor: can one of you @Stefan2:, @Jenks24:, or @Voidxor: please fix this page so that the non-existent categories do not appear on it as redlinks? The nocat=yes parameter is not working. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk)

@UnitedStatesian: The |nocat= parameter is working on the {{Babel}} template. As far as I know, however, the {{#babel}} magic word doesn't have an equivalent. I tried, but couldn't figure out how to do it. You are welcome to fix it if you can find a way to switch off the categories for it.

To be clear: This is an example display of babel boxes during an active discussion that has a comment less than a week old. I realize the categorization of this talk page in a user category isn't ideal, but it is temporary and helpful to this discussion. Question is: why does it bug you so? Also, why can't you fix it. And by "fix", I don't mean removing parts of my comment again without a justifiable explanation. You seem to want something fixed now, yet aren't willing to help problem solve.

Alternatively, could we just let the miscategorization slide for a few more days? I'm hoping that Stefan2 will reply to me with an explanation of what needs to happen once the redirects are deleted, to address his underlying concerns from eight years ago. In the meantime, I've been updating transclusions of the old redirects. – voidxor 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidxor: I assure you, I tried other fixes before coming back here. The two redlinks appeared on the previous version of Special:WantedCategories, and will appear on the next version, but "bug you so" is your characterization, not mine. Of course we can let the miscategorization slide for a few more days, or forever for that matter. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forgive me; I didn't see that we were dealing a with a completely different categorization problem on the {{#babel}} side of the fence. As far as the babel templates are concerned, they categorize users into Category:Wikipedians who understand blazon. I was able to suppress that with |nocat=yes when reviving Stefan's exhibit from eight years ago. However, I am only now realizing that the Babel extension is dropping this talk page into non-existent categories, rather than the user category previously mentioned. Fact is, I don't fully understand how the Babel extension operates yet. Obviously it doesn't support |nocat=. I'll dig a little further into the workings of it and write back here if I find anything. – voidxor 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody patrolling for red-linked cats actually bother to look at what they are removing, or question why it is there before they remove it?! Also love the little lecture Liz dropped me back in March. I feel like I can't work to address certain problems without other editors—who have blinders on—being quick on the "undo" button or the equivalent thereof. Maybe try looking into the history or discussion first. Sheesh. – voidxor 16:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]