FANDOM


Archives:

Autogrow Edit

Lovely. I didn't think it could be so easy. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:32, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Neither did I: it pays to read the documentation! Thurstan (talk) 19:18, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Surname Edit

Was it really worth the trouble of precise sorting? I can muck it up with one new person-article. Maybe your sorting system is smarter than mine! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:27, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

I believe I added surnames "Bradford", "Crowninshield", "Evans", "Greene", "Hinckley", "Savage" and "Sherman". To compensate, I removed "Payne". Thurstan (talk) 19:22, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
Well, you're the only one who has added names to that page. I might add some occasionally if I knew of an easy way to search for names that had crossed the threshold. (I hope you agree that the splitting has made editing easier.) Thank you for the Evans; now mucked up your sorting (with one of my wife's sister-in-law's relatives). -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:29, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

#invoke Edit

Seems we can't use "#invoke" imported from WP. You have probably mentioned it earlier. See Template:Userbox-2. Can you fix it or should I seek an alternative "English ancestry" template? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:40, January 24, 2017 (UTC)

We have had support for "#invoke" for a while. However, the script implementation is missing some functions that the Wikipedia version has, so the modules often have to be fiddled with. I haven't worked out how to debug them easily, to see what exactly the error is. In the first instance, we could go back to the 23 January 2012 version of Template:Userbox-2 on Wikipedia. I will see what I can see. Thurstan (talk) 00:49, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Fixed: I've copied the module across. I am intrigued that you didn't use {{User English ancestry}} which I copied across this morning. Thurstan (talk) 00:57, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've used that one now; it wasn't in enough categories for me to find it earlier! WP categorization of such templates is inconsistent too, and I had to create an Irish and a Welsh one separately because WP doesn't seem to have any equivalent (unless they are concealed in new-style multi-option templates with somewhat unhelpful names). {{Userbox}} seems to work OK, so maybe we don't need Userbox-2? And on the subject of multi-option templates, see my latest blog post. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:30, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the page called Template:User_in_New_Castle_County&action=edit too Thurstan (talk) 03:41, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Autogrow and field size limits Edit

I see that it is now even easier to add lots of sources to events. That's probably good.

However, I'm aware that a "property" field in a form, as distinct from the free text area, has a size limit. Did we get it raised to 5,000 once? Might it have reverted to the standard (1,000?) - which used to cause a problem for properties such as children notes - under one of the "upgrades"? Could that be a problem with the apparent "invitation" that autogrow offers? (I recall more than once filling less than half of a big input field on another website with half of what I wanted to say and being suddenly told that I had reached the limit. Not all sites are as good as Twitter or WikiTree in telling you how much space you have left.)

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:11, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

No, there is currently no limit to the length of properties of type "text". We had a problem with the buffer length in the string function for replacing text, which was used to display the notes and sources, but I removed that long since. There is still a buffer somewhere ("explode" prehaps?) but I don't think we have a problem at present. Some of these functions could probably be re-coded in LUA if we did have a problem. Thurstan (talk) 02:34, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

WP person infobox problems Edit

Please have a look at Davina Elizabeth Alice Benedikte Windsor (1977) below the siblings. Maybe you can educate me on what is needed to fix it. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:12, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you want a redundant infobox that duplicates the information we already display. Thurstan (talk) 20:53, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
OK this time. We don't display age but we could. I've removed the box. (I feel for you folks with another heatwave; I hope you and all the lovely wildlife survive.) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:35, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This problem is typically caused by missing HTML closing tags, with the formatting ones like "small", "bold" and "center" being the usual suspects. This causes the software to scan for the closing tag, while ignoring the closing tags for the enclosing elements. In this particular case, the table has swallowed a heap of the following text. The first closing tag which is ignored is the "/span" at the end of the "spouse" line, so the problem is probably inside {{marriage}}. Thurstan (talk) 00:03, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
I looked at {{Marriage}}. The only tags are includeonly and noinclude - all proper. Gazillions of curly brackets though. I twice lost count when trying to see if they balanced. Last effort got me to line 4 before a "|date=" and it seemed that there was only one in credit at that stage so I gave up. Am I right in thinking that WP can get away with the occasional unclosure but FP can't? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:42, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia runs all output through HTML TidyWp globe tiny, which fixes various errors. Maybe your {{marriage}} problem is in {{event}}? Thurstan (talk) 19:12, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
I've just noticed (and recategorised) Help:Htmlbug fix. You may be able to improve it. ---- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:56, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

The long and short of it? Edit


|short_name=George Henry Wellington Loftus, 7th Marquess of Ely
.....
|long_name=George Henry Wellington Loftus

Any chance of adding a field for long name to the simple form? There seems to be room for it and it's the sort of thing I sometimes want to add. But maybe not if the definitions defy logic as above?

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:43, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

It ought to be easy to add. The "long name" is used by the {{showfacts biography}}, followed by the "titles", while the "short name" is used as the heading on the infobox. I like the version with the titles to be the heading on the infobox, and the version without the titles in the minibio (so that it can be followed by the titles without repetition), so to restore the logic of the names of the properties, perhaps the usages should be swapped. What do you think? Thurstan (talk) 07:52, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Not easy to add for someone who does not understand all the intricacies of how the form filters code that's to be invoked only for the advanced form. I have looked at it but decided that it would be too easy for me to muck up.
The usages seemed OK to me when I thought about them a long time ago. A matter of taste, which goes where. You can make someone's short name longer than his long name but I don't. Maybe worth posting a proposed change as a Watercooler item or blogpost? (The short one also appears in the child table heading, I think, so that some non-standard "ultra-short" names (e.g. "John") leave a fairly uninformative heading, especially in a half-sibling table where the other parent's full name is nowhere on the page.)
-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:28, March 5, 2017 (UTC)

"What links here" Edit

I'm sorry "Conde Tony" has caused you a lot of work. But his pages have shown me what I might never have suspected: that you are not perfect! http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Tony_Piazzi_(1961-2015) may not matter in this case unless one of the correspondents tries to use that link on my talk page, but my sympathies are not with them. Keep up the great endeavours, pal! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:16, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I think, though I must protested that as a certified perfectionist, nothing even seems perfect to me, including my own work. Thurstan (talk) 03:19, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
Well, now, on the subject of redirects (inspired by the above), I've just created a link to Joan of Scotland, Countess of Morton (c1428-1486) and she seems OK. Check? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:45, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
Not okay to me: I see "Joan of Scotland, Countess of Morton (c1428-1486) was born on an unknown date ." as the minibio. Her mother's page reports no facts about her. Thurstan (talk) 03:59, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Phlox Edit

Some of the revered and much missed Phlox's early work includes a child list coding which I found while browsing Category:Pages ancillary to articles about individuals.

Please skim http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wilson_Blackstock_(c1847)/children_list?action=edit and tell me whether it has anything of residual value. It uses {{Child}}, which was created by User:AMK152 (recently inactive), last edited in 2008, and may similarly be of little value.

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:03, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so: I think it a pre-info_page version of sharing child lists between parents, which was replaced by info_pages and then by SMW properties. Thurstan (talk) 03:07, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Pages that become targets of new redirects Edit

Recently you pointed out problems with this. Something gets duplicated? Anyway, I've just created another such redirect. Nothing obviously wrong with the target (but I carelsssly said that about the last one!!). However, editing the target saw it treat itself as a new page with child fields. Joan Trelake (1497-1573), with detail mentioned in my 2nd-last edit summary. Does it warrant your expert attention? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:13, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

It is another example of what I said above: all the SMW properties get wiped, so when the form makes an SMW query to see if the page already exists (coded that way because of the mistaken assumption that SMW queries were cheaper than #ifexists queries), the query fails, so the form acts as if the page doesn't exist. I recommend the "null edit save" before the formedit. (If you do a "purge" on the page, rather than just looking at the cached copy, you see that the properties have gone). Thurstan (talk) 06:19, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

13th-century births Edit

Your edit summary for http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Beke_(-1293)?diff=1306252 looks like a generic shortcut. You have deleted a couple of rare stub templates, which is fine by me, and deleted just one category, as far as I can see. Do we have no categories for 13th-century or other century births? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:19, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

The first thing I learned when I joined this Wiki was that we didn't use some of the Wikipedia category names: "1920 births" became "Born in 1920", "13th-century births" became "Born in the 13th century", etc. I have always thought that you were one of the champions for this difference, which seems to have caused us all much grief over the years. Of course, with Afil's change, we no longer use the birth date and death date categories explicitly. Thurstan (talk) 08:40, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
I did support those changes and still do. But:
  1. You didn't replace the births one with the corresponding "Born" one. I'll do it now.
  2. We should add centuries to the list on Help:Copying from Wikipedia.
Same with decades?
-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:15, June 3, 2017 (UTC)
I did so last night, with a general note (don't forget millenia too): if you want to duplicate the "Born in" etc and the "Established in" for these time units, feel free. Thurstan (talk) 02:54, June 3, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. (I really should check my email backlog from earliest to latest instead of starting with the latest and acting on something without seeing what went before.) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:28, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
That's okay, I am sure we all get caught by that! Thurstan (talk) 02:58, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

Redirects Edit

http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Henry_Grey,_2nd_Earl_of_Tankerville?diff=next&oldid=1306162 seems not to have changed the appearance or the functionality of the page. It was not a page that Andrei had spent time on. What were you hoping to "repair"? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:41, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

The version with the "PAGENAME" variable doesn't act as a redirect, because of the order of the software processing. If you look at the two versions, you see that they look quite different. Your broken ones turn up on "Uncategorized pages" (since the system doesn't see them as redirects), and so User:Afil tries to add categories to them (since he can't see what is broken either). Thurstan (talk) 06:19, June 8, 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see now. Sorry. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:27, June 9, 2017 (UTC)
It is easy to miss. Redirect processing seems to be quite precise: I remember having one a while ago that was broken by an extra space or a space missing. We had the same problem with "Uncategorized pages" with that one. Thurstan (talk) 11:48, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Married and maiden names Edit

Could you have a look at article Married and maiden names. It is actually a question by a user and not an article. Unfortunately I am not able to answer the question, but the user should get an answer. Can you help? Afil (talk) 18:51, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Your standard additions to people pages Edit

http://familypedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Ralph_Douglas_Fuller_%281951-1966%29&diff=1310568&oldid=1310548 is a fair illustration of how you often enhance pages. However:

  • You seem routinely to omit {{siblings}}; why?
  • NOTOC is seldom any use since we modified the standard to include the TOC below the minibio
  • I wonder whether SHOWFACTS goes against the whole idea of having a sensor page to collect data that is not displayed on the base article and would slow down the loading process (or is displayed on the base article, some of it more than once there, and therefore doesn't need repeating)

Respectfully - -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:40, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

SHOWFACTS doesn't seem to work any more, but the idea of the sensor page is to do the queries required for calculations. SHOWFACTS would do a single query (which we can't actually formulate, I think). I have left it in because I think it was always useful to see if anything is not coming out as expected, and it may be turned on again in the future.
Do you think we should add a query to a sensor page to read all the standard person properties we can think of? That sounds like a reasonable replacement for SHOWFACTS. Thurstan (talk) 01:44, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the comments about SHOWFACTBOX (as it is called, see here) are a bit off beam: it works for the page it is on (so we can't move the processing to /sensor page), and it should very cheap to process: all that is required is everytime a property is set, the property name and value is shown at the end of the page, so no database query should be required ("should" because that is how I would implement it: the documentation doesn't describe the implementation details, and I am unwilling to trawl through the code to find it). Thurstan (talk) 05:45, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said SHOWFACTBOX; going too much from failing memory. I'm not sufficiently au fait with SMW intricacies to offer useful comment on your responses above. If you're satisfied that the addition doesn't appreciably add to loading time I'm OK with it. I've created Help:Factbox and another relevant help page using partial copies from the SMW site; they may save some looking up.
The first and second points in my initial note: if you do have a standard set of additions for deficient pages such as the Fuller one quoted, I'd be pleased if you could include {{T}siblings}} so that I don't feel the need to add it separately when I look at the page. That template can be very useful and seldom causes any problem except where there are no sibs displayed and a bit of unheaded biography follows, in which case a small rearrangement fixes it.
Thank you as always. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:13, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

"Place" fields Edit

You are probably the best qualified to suggest or make changes as suggested at http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Familypedia_talk:Classification_conventions_(geographic_names)#2016_update . The locality and street details are among the parts that most need qualifying or at least noting what we do in practice as distinct from Phlox's laudable ideal.

I'm quite happy - as I guess you are - entering a suburb or village in a "Locality" field and giving it a bdm subpage, so Phlox's idea of restricting that field to third-level divisions of a nation (which Wikipedia still does not properly cover) seems unrealistic and unhelpful to genealogists. London suburbs, for example, have much more genealogical relevance than the larger boroughs that now contain them. I hope we can make meaningful use of the hierarchy of the four standard fields (and maybe add a fifth or even a sixth and seventh - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sixth-level_administrative_country_subdivisions !), but I don't expect to see it in our lifetimes.

Kind regards. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:35, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

I have always somewhat disagreed with Phlox's idea, which as I read it, was designed to use "Locality" for the largest place possible. I have always thought that "Locality" should be the most detailed version that we have. But I find the usages of the London suburbs are a bit of a mess: "Locality" is sometimes a building, a street, a neighbourhood or district. Since I don't expect that Wikipedia will somehow find consistent classifications (especially since the real world doesn't afford them: witness in the United States the "consolidated city-counties" and the "independant cities" which are not in counties, for example), I can't see how we are going to get a robust standard! Thurstan (talk) 04:58, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Wing brothersEdit

I'm descended from all three Wing brothers.

One line is an all male down from John Wing to my grandmother, Elvira Susan (Wing) Shaw.

I have a copy of the Wing Genealogy Volume One and have exchanged many emails with Raymond Wing, the editor.

Bil Munsil EoGuy (talk) 05:47, August 13, 2017 (UTC) EoGuy99 wmunsil "at" cox "dot" net.

Regrettably, perhaps, Thurstan and I probably do not have any lines of ancestry to those Wing brothers, as William Munsil (living) has! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:56, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Trumps and LuaEdit

I've updated some Trump-related pages and just now copied Trump family from WP. Its categories suggest that a few technicalities need attention. I've not checked it. Your expertise in such matters could be valuable. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:18, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an easy fix for these. The introduction of Lua (programming language)Wp globe tiny on Wikipedia, and the half-hearted implementation from Wikia means that many of our templates cannot be updated to match those on Wikipedia, or not without some extra tweaking. I haven't worked out how to debug the Lua template code: "Code error" is not a very helpful message. Thurstan (talk) 01:56, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
I've not taken a serious interest in Lua. But you may be interested to know that some of the keen contributors to the Civilization Wiki seem to be using it happily. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:34, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Questions Edit

Please see the latest discussion on my talk page. User:MainTour has a problem I can't solve. Can you? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:52, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Refresh with form Edit

Man, it's great that you can embellish a newby's article with WC refs. But your "Refresh with form" still deletes the siblings template and adds the useless NOTOC. In http://familypedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Henry_Jarrett_%281807-1886%29&diff=1336357&oldid=1336323 you also deleted some details about the children, which may or may not be elsewhere but surely did not deserve to be deleted from the original contribution. It is not uncommon and can be very useful to list, after the child table, details that we don't include in the table. Respectfully! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:24, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I will get back to that page and create the pages for the rest of the children. Thurstan (talk) 07:08, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Page issueEdit

It seems I accidentally made a duplicate page for Rachel Buell (1826-1905). I was fixing links and it was red and so I thought it hadn't made yet, but it already did under a different name. Could you please delete the duplicate page? I will just rename the already-present page with the middle name. - TheGreatKuzon! (talk) 50px 02:05, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have deleted the duplicate page. The standard way to request deletion of a page is to use the {{delete}} template. Cheers. Thurstan (talk) 02:34, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

WP infobox Edit

Please have a look some time at the coding for Rachel Meghan Markle (1981), where there's a rogue "end" tag at the start of the article and a bit of a mess in {{marriage}} (which is possibly out of date because WP has changed it a bit since you copied it). -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:15, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Fixed: we have our own infobox, I don't see any point in trying to rescue Wikipedia's {{marriage}} Thurstan (talk) 19:23, October 28, 2017 (UTC)
see discussion above from February this year. {{event}} seems to be the problem template. Thurstan (talk) 21:02, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tabs_person/doc Edit

Is Template:Tabs_person/doc relevant to our standard person-page? If so, does it need partial rewriting (e.g. "/descendants" for "/Descendants")? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:08, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

No, {{Tabs person}} is the pre-SMW version. Thurstan (talk) 09:35, November 12, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've put a big warning notice near the top of the doc page. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:05, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

Citations etc Edit

Sorry for not noticing double redirects for Christian Keith. She's been a bit of a headache.

Now what's this about "standard templates"? Last time I opened ThePeerage and WorldConnect I saw no mention of templates, and {{Cite WC}} seems not to have joined its "cousins" on Forum:Templates update. Even listing them in the right places doesn't encourage readers to use them instead of the easy instant solution of pasting the URL; so I suggest that their promoter supply persuasive reasons.

Congratulations on hitting the BIG 400!

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:23, November 17, 2017 (UTC)

The advantage of {{thepeerage}} and {{genealogics}} is setting properties, so we have more GUIDs for pages. The advantage of {{Cite WC}} is shortening the link. I am happy to continue to add them as required. I notice that you are missing citations to http://www.kittybrewster.com/b.htm for Christian Keith: It has more of her children. Thurstan (talk) 03:31, November 17, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the kittybrewster tipoff. Our baronet's site isn't the first place I look for most stuff but it is indeed good for its specialist families. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:49, December 18, 2017 (UTC)

Templates etc Edit

http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Duncan_Campbell?diff=1347094 - is it really worth the trouble of an edit just to change that to that? People in the know may be more inspired to look at the WP, though a WP disambig is often overwhelming and tedious (and if we are not going to create articles for any of them it may be counterproductive to lead people away from FP or even to add WP's list to our page) - but one template is as good as the other for people who don't appreciate the fine points and who might or might not bother to check WP, no matter which template presented itself.

I don't want one of my best mates to spend time with very little apparent value. Maybe he can convince me. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:38, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

I have the same argument that replaced {{alsoWP}} with {{trywp}} (was it Plox?): it looks really unprofessional to say "here is a link to a page that doesn't exist on Wikipedia" when clicking on it shows that it does exist on Wikipedia! Even worse when it does exist, and isn't a hndis page! It make us look incompetent! If you want to save me effort, when you create the page, you click on the link to check, and change it yourself Thurstan (talk) 18:47, December 13, 2017 (UTC)
{{Trywp}} does not say or even imply that WP does not have the page. I worded it very deliberately. It tells readers where they can look if they wish but implies that there is little or nothing on WP at last viewing that would add anything of value to FP. If the WP is an individual with no stated parent, spouse, or child, as is common, it's a waste of time checking it. But I have recently been religiously checking as soon as I create the new page, just in case (and, of course, instantly renaming if WP does have an individual or a redirect to a "... (disambiguation)". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:38, December 15, 2017 (UTC)
I don't read that message that way, so I think we will have to agree to disagree. Thurstan (talk) 22:33, December 15, 2017 (UTC)

FAG surname search Edit

The new Find A Grave has several search options. If you input just a surname you get an URL like this: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/search?firstname=&middlename=&lastname=Testlastname&birthyear=&birthyearfilter=&deathyear=&deathyearfilter=&location=&locationId=&memorialid=&datefilter=&orderby=

Can you manipulate that into a {{FAGsurname}} that just takes the surname as parameter? Then we can include it as standard on the surname article model, much as we do for the Surname database. See Croudis (surname) for example of possible expansion once the link is readily available.


Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:51, December 29, 2017 (UTC)
That should work. I will have a look. Thurstan (talk) 06:04, December 29, 2017 (UTC)
Done - try that for size. Thurstan (talk) 00:27, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

Please help me Edit

I know you are much more conversant than me with some of the Familypedia secrets. I have tried everything I could imagine but could not solve my problem so I am asking for your help,

Look at the article Zabolotye Lake which I have written, posted in Famillypedia and then copied to Wikipedia without any changes. The article uses the Template:Infobox body of water which exists in Wikipedia and I have copied without any changes to Familypedia.

In Wikipedia the article copied from Familypedia works fine. It reads the coordinates and then loads the location map as it should.

However, in Familypedia I get an error message for the coordinates, though they are identical to the ones in Wikipedia.

Why does it work in Wikipedia and not in Familypedia? Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Happy New Year Afil (talk) 08:17, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

The latest version of Template:Infobox body of water uses Module:Coordinates to process the coordinates, and we don't have that module. The first thing I would try is to go back to an earlier version of the template on Wikipedia that doesn't use this module. Thurstan (talk) 09:53, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try. Afil (talk) 23:51, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Please don't reverse my fixes to the module. Thurstan (talk) 00:01, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

Form:Person Edit

In the last day or two I've found some "Edit with form" pages showing "Edit article (without form) Advanced form Create tab: Ancestor tree Create tab:Descendants page " - i.e. missing the create/update sensor page link. Your specialty? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:29, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

Did they already have a sensor page? Is it the "rename/redirect" bug? Can you point me to an example? Thurstan (talk) 09:32, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
See Forum:Subpage links in Form:Person for my take on the logic. Thurstan (talk) 04:28, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Infobox body of water Edit

I tried to fix the temolate but was not successful. The versions I was able to use could not access the location map. If you could fix the template I would be very grateful.

Regards Afil (talk) 23:25, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.