User talk:Leucosticte

 Dear, Welcome to MediaWiki.org !

Yes, welcome! This site is dedicated to documenting the MediaWiki software, the software behind many wikis, including that of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

Please, take a look at the following pages. They might prove useful to you as a newcomer here:
 * Project:About
 * How does MediaWiki work?
 * Help:Editing pages
 * Help:Navigation
 * Manual:FAQ

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and find this site useful documentation of the MediaWiki software. Thanks, and regards, — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor user right
You seem to be making quite some good edits. If you get the editor right, you won't need to be checked by existing editors like me. I think that'd fit you well.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. Sure, if someone wants to grant that right, that'll be fine. Leucosticte (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted. Happy editing!Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

PWD for version 1.19
I'd like to use Pure Wiki Deletion on my wiki (well, the 1.19 upgrade of it), but the person trying to install it says it's throwing SQL errors on that version. Is there any chance you could look into updating it to support 1.19? PDW seems like a much more appropriate system of deletion for a wiki, much more open, and with very few exceptions (legal things, spambot pages) letting users view deleted pages is not a problem at all.
 * That's unfortunate, despite the minor issues like lack of cache invalidation on blank and showing up as blue on special pages it seemed like a pretty good solution. The link coloring even seemed more like a feature to me, it's handy to know whether there is some available history on a link or whether there really is nothing you can access there. Even if Wikipedia is not currently keen on it, having this setup available for other wikis seems very positive. Would you be able to at least point us at the parts of code which need updating?


 * And as for Inclupedia, yea. I've read huge amounts of wikipedia policy and debates in preparation for setting up my wiki, and.. the way deletion imposes massive risks of wasted effort and limits the scope of WP is by far the largest thing which has prevented me from getting involved. I'm not in a position to help much with that kind of project, but I do hope that either WP's restrictiveness (especially on web/game content, weee classic forms of media not finding much notable, despite huge numbers using them, wanting information on them, and being willing to write it) is reduced or something like that comes along.--Esp261 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thread:Project:Current issues/ Project:Translate extension
I'd like to hear your opinion. --Nemo 09:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:MW version
I think this is usally not called directly. Does [//www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Manual%3AInterwiki_table&diff=600769&oldid=587402 this] mean that it's no longer so in 1.21? --Nemo 11:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there another template that is supposed to call it? I haven't checked 1.21; would you rather I just put an "and after" rather than a range? If that's the proper convention, then I'll note it as such in Template:MW version/doc. The downside of using an "and after" is that it can go out of date, and readers might not realize it. E.g., suppose I put "1.19 and after" and it changes in 1.22 but no one updates the page. People might be unaware that it's outdated info. I don't think that putting 1.19-1.20 indicates that the schema is different in 1.20; it just means that no one has checked yet to see whether the schema is different in 1.21. Leucosticte (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1.19-1.20 has the same problems as 1.19+: when we're at 1.21, one doesn't know if 1.21 is not mentioned because the page is outdated or because 1.21 is actually different. --Nemo 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that (a) putting 1.19+ with a note that says "current as of 1.20" or (b) putting 1.19-1.20 express the same message, is there any particular reason to pick one convention over the other? As you point out, either way it leaves ambiguity as to what is going on with v1.21. We could take out the "current as of 1.20" note, but to the extent that removed ambiguity, it would also make it potentially misleading. Leucosticte (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)