User talk:Newbzy

Hi, Newbzy. Was just wondering what you were going for in this edit at Template:Unreferenced/sandbox? You don't really need the #if: conditional there. The only time they act different, is if someone passes positional param 1, and assigns it a blank value. Namely, if they pass {{Unreferenced|1=}} you get a Lua error. But I don't think anybody tries to do that, and the simpler code without the conditional is easier to read. That said, if you think the change makes it better, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. This one's pretty easy - I was trying to standardise the code of {{unreferenced}} and {{more citations needed}}. In the latter, {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}} is used instead of {{{1|article}}}. I thought that yeah, people writing {{unreferenced|}} was bad, so there's the fallback onto "article", but I understand that's a little redundant. Maybe I also thought that since {{more citations needed}} is by far the more commonly displayed template, its code would have it right? Hmm.

That said, I don't actually intend to copy over these sandbox changes. What I'm trying to do is develop a standardised code format that I can use for {{one source section}}, and therefore {{one source}}. Unlike the two section templates I've been working with - {{more citations needed section}} and {{one source section}} - {{one source section}} does not use a customised wrapper (around {{one source}}). Once I've worked extensively on the sandboxes, I hope to change this. Thank you. Newbzy (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Reach out if you need anything. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

One other thing: you said, ...that since {{more citations needed}} is by far the more commonly displayed template, its code would have it right? Ha ha, we don't live in that universe. Never make assumptions; you may find some squirrelly stuff out there and maybe there isn't a good reason. Trust your judgment, or ask around. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, ye, I was being pretty silly. Newbzy (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sigehelmus. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template:Expand language, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page, which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. See talk page, come on dude. If you want "clean", you don't have to make the site more of a depressing silent film. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 14:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

(Obviously it hasn't been reverted yet because it's protected, but please do it yourself, at least make a new version of the glyph with some color back, seriously. At least ask for thoughts next time on such a gigantically used article. Don't worry I was subject to same scrutiny too.) ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 14:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I see that you are quite active with your new template editor permission. Please always use an edit summary, per the policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy. This is especially important in template space. Even if you think the reason for your edit is obvious, explain it anyway, since it may not be obvious to someone five years from now who is trying to debug a problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)