User talk:Bugman

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The collapsible script template

Noticed the {{collapsible script}} template. That will probably come in handy in many places.

I had no idea that there was such a thing as {{#tag: }}. That may be useful later when I have played around with it.

Hmm, I see the template defaults to Dec Vadic's Imperial Arem Star. lol ;-)

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

There are quite a few places in the wiki cluttered up by long scripts or code segments. I guess it is mainly Nasal, though some other parts could benefit from other templates using collapsible NavFrame elements. The {{#tag: }} concept is quite useful for programmatically adding tags in templates, avoiding the initial HTML parsing, but it isn't perfect. Anyway, I can see it spreading on the wiki already :) As for the template default, I hope no one is curious and tries it out!
Bugman (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2015 (EDT)
Let me add that {{#tag: }} allows for transclusion within any HTML tag, which is normally not possible.
Bugman (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

The newsletter template discussion was moved to FlightGear wiki:Village pump#Newsletter templates (perm).

German FGAddon translation

Hi Edward,

are you still working on the German translation of the FGAddon article? If not, should I go ahead with the translation?


Dg-505 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

Hi! I'm on holiday and have been distracted by other work. Go for it!
Bugman (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
Okay, thank you.
Dg-505 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2016 (EDT)

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

thanks for renaming that file... i can't believe that i misspelled that like that... sometimes the fingers think they know what the brain is trying to write :lol: Wkitty42 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

No problems! I often have the same problem :) Anyway, if you need any pages or files moved, just say.
Bugman (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

The <aircraft>/info template


It seems the new template for the aircraft info box or <aircraft>/info page doesn't show '_' (underscore) in the --aircraft= field. The old info box template did so it is probably a bug? AndersG (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for spotting that! I can see that that is a problem with the #titleparts function: "All underscores are automatically replaced with spaces". That is rather annoying. I might then create fgname1 to fgname10 as an alternative, as the number of *-set.xml files with underscores is very low.
Bugman (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

The so caled "Emilianh H's hangar"


While I appreciate your efforts, I would also appreciate it if this labeling would be possibly omitted, also not directly linked to.

I would also had appreciated some sort of preliminary discussion/warning prior to such labeling/linking if it would have taken place.

Thanks for your understanding

I4dnf (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

No problems. I'm just experimenting with this, to allow for automated link creation for the new aircraft infobox template (see User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft). This also includes the important note that the aircraft is {{non-GPL}}. Note that in the end, all wiki aircraft pages will be identified by hangar when available. But for the | hangar = emilianh parameter value, the heading "Emilian H's Hangar" has been removed. See User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft#IAR 80.
Bugman (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (EDT)
Thanks, however unfortunatley link to "website" still shows. How about "Aircraft by $Name" instead of "$Name's hangar" ? what happens if $Name has n aircraft hosted in m places?
I4dnf (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2016 (EDT)
I don't quite follow, but we should be able to expand on the User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft to match all aircraft author's needs. That is the aim of this new template to replace {{infobox aircraft}}. Click on the 'Edit' link, and then search for emilianh to see all the customisations I have made. We can change this to anything, to help automate the infobox creation. I thought I'd use your aircraft as a testing example for improving GitLab support in User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft and Category:Repository link templates.
Bugman (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2016 (EDT)
The User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft still displays the website and the devel-repo links. I, personally, for my aircraft, would prefer it if those were not ever shown, and only the download link was available. However I now noticed that on the actual IAR 80 page it is properly hidden.
As for the second part of my previous question, what happens if I had say the iar80 hosted on github, the l10 on gitlab, and some other aircraft hosted on somesite.somwhere.else, to what does the "hangar" point to?
I understand that in this particular case you were using it to improve an example gitlab based "hangar".
Regards, I4dnf (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2016 (EDT)
That is because you removed the hangar and aircraft parameters from IAR 80/info, and added download, removing most of the automated aspects of the template. How the | hangar = emilianh parameter value automates the template creation is totally up to the aircraft author - and it is directly coded into the template. I have created most of these in the User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft testing template with direct author feedback. So for excluding the website and devel-repo links, that would simply require removing those lines in User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft, where the emilianh hangar parameter is found. Feel free to customise User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft for the | hangar = emilianh parameter as you wish. You'll see the result in the User:Bugman/Infobox Aircraft#IAR 80 when previewing the changes. You can also change emilianh to any value you wish.
Bugman (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

Duplicates of c182s pages

Hi Bugman,

We have renamed the Cessna 182S project from c182 to c182s, and to reflect that change I created a new wiki page for it. It turns out that wasn't necessary as I could have moved the previous page to a new name, so now I have two mais wiki pages and two infoboxes:

I would like to delete the last two (the ones without the S). How can I do that, could you please give me a hand?

Thanks a lot!

Gsagostinho (talk)

To preserve history, I'll delete the first two now, then move the last two to the first two. I think only admins can move and rename pages. Anyway, it'll be done asap.
Bugman (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
I see, thanks a lot and sorry for the mess.
Gsagostinho (talk)
Done. I've left redirects, as there are many links to the original. These links should really be updated to the new pages. Click on Cessna 182, at the top of the page you will see "Redirected from Cessna 182", click on that link, click on "What links here", then hunt down and update all links. Cheers!
Bugman (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Thanks a lot, Bugman, I really appreciate it!
Gsagostinho (talk)
You're welcome! Most of the links to the old Cessna 182 will be in {{Cessna}}. Minimally that one should be updated. I'll let you chase up these old links.
Bugman (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
I see now what you mean. I updated that link and I will keep an eye for any older ones. Cheers.
Gsagostinho (talk)
There are a lot more ;) See Special:WhatLinksHere/Cessna_182. The double redirects are especially important to remove, as these will be flagged here: Special:DoubleRedirects.
Bugman (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
So, I did that for all those links (plus a bunch more that I found with the search), but here are a couple of things:
* some of those links can't be edited (e.g. )
* there are mentions in this very page here, should we really remove it? If we do, this conversation will make much less sense for a 3rd person
* there is an image of the very old c182, which I don't even know if is the model S or not
Would you mind taking a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Cessna_182?
Gsagostinho (talk)
Thank you! That saves the admins a lot of cleanup work. For such redirect links, it is ok to leave the locked articles and, especially, the talk pages. You have fixed as many links as an admin would, so this is perfect wiki maintenance. Cheers!
Bugman (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Glad to hear that! :-)
Gsagostinho (talk)

Messerschmitt AG


You added the tag "Messcherschmitt AG" to the BO105, but that's not correct. The Messerschmitt AG only existed until 1969 and then fusioned with Bölkow-Blohm. The BO105 was originally developed at Bölkow-Blohm. So before the serial production of the BO105 started, the "Messerschmitt AG" didn't exist anymore.

Cheers Heiko --HHS (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Actually, I have revamped absolutely all of the Category:Manufacturer navigation templates, and created Category:Messerschmitt AG and the {{Messerschmitt AG}} template ;) So the category was then auto-added. I think the manufacturer parameter for the MBB Bo 105 was originally incorrectly created, by myself, by copying the Wikipedia article manufacturer Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm. I'll change the parameter to Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm/Eurocopter. Cheers! Feel free to correct these yourself though. I generally mass convert everything on the wiki so such small mistakes creep in.
Bugman (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2017 (EST)

catalog.xml in Hangar overview


I just saw your edit of the hangar page with the reasoning why you integrated the catalog.xml into the hangar list "if every hangar provides a catalog.xml one day it would replicate the hangar list." I agree with you here, however beside one hangar that consists of one plane, the only two other unofficial hangars currently on that page are from me. And while I could start scraping more "hangars" for catalog.xml my current script requires them to actually be github groups so I highly doubt the number of catalog.xml enabled hangars will rise in the near or intermediate future.

The whole reason for me putting the catalog.xml hangars at the top was to promote the use of this much easier approach rather than manually downloading the planes. Therfore I agree that the table is a nice thing, but we should somehow still make the catalog.xml entries more prominent to encourage more people to actually use them, raising the awareness that this is a used feature and hopefully increasing the number of catalog.xml enabled hangars out there.

Additionally I think it to be a useful information whether or not hangars are update regularly so that people know where to expect updates (given that the models are improved or new models added) and where not.

DJGummikuh (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2018

Hi! Actually, I was going to add something to your talk page. You have created catalog.xml files for HerbyW's Hangar and for the FGMEMBERS aggregate. However I don't see any indication from Herby or the FGMEMBERS organisation that they have given you permission to be the official catalog gatekeeper of their hangars. I would highly recommend you discuss this with them before doing this, and have a public record of that conversation. As this could be a source of conflict, I am considering temporarily removing your catalog.xml links.
Bugman (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2018 (EDT)
For reference, this discussion is about the FlightGear hangars page.
Bugman (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
Hey! HerbyW was with me on mumble when I set all this up so I definitely have his consent (albeit vocal only). From what I understand, FGMEMBERS is also just aggregating hundreds of Git repositories anyways which on what I probed looked like all based on GPL or similar licenses so I hardly see any license issue. I don't object if there is some kind of "official" catalog.xml for any of those - I'm not making any money of it, nor am I using it to advertise or otherwise generate any value off of it (or, in fact, flagged my catalog.xml as "official", hence having them under 3rd party). Seeing the fact that however it creates a couple of GB of traffic every month on my server it seems there are at least some people using this feature so removing it might not be in everybody's best interest. If anyone steps up to fill the gap I'm more than glad to stop hosting them on my own but until that happens, removing the (as far as I am aware) only catalog.xmls out there kills a useful feature for little to no merit. DJGummikuh (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
One addition: I'm scraping openly available github repositories and re-distribute them unaltered (except some minor adjustments to prevent name clashes and allow to see which hangar a plane comes from, since Flightgear does not show this on its own). Since I'm not compiling anything (all changes are made in human-readable text files) I'm automatically distributing the license file (if present) and all changed code to anyone. So I'm really pretty damn certain that no matter WHAT licens any of those planes is under, the mere fact that it HAS to be an open-source license (since we're talking about open github repositories) AND the fact that I'm not using their work commercially eliminates issues with any license I could possibly think of. DJGummikuh (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
Could you ask HerbyW again to be sure? I am just trying to minimise the potential for conflicts. I don't think it is a bad thing, you creating the catalog URLs. This is simply about avoiding the all-to-common inter-personal conflicts - it has nothing to do with licensing. Herby and the FGMEMBERS organisation might have different ideas about how their catalog.xml files are created. For example with the zip files, different development branches, versioning, etc. So if you label your file as the HerbyW catalog and the FGMEMBERS catalog on the Flightgear hangars page, then they should know about it and agree to you being a public face of their hangars.
Bugman (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
I've also noticed that your zip files are being indexed by search engines. You may wish to add a robots.txt file there, so that you don't get GB of downloads from web crawlers.
Bugman (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for noticing. I actually have no idea how they managed to get the folders, I have folder listing deactivated for the root folder. Strange. Anyways, I got written permission to host HerbyW's planes for flightgear. Didn't contact FGMEMBERS yet. DJGummikuh (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2018 (EDT)
I added the permission as screenshot to my user page. Also asked for permissions for FGMEMBERS and will add it as well. DJGummikuh (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

Can these template link sandboxes be deleted

Can I assume that the link template sandboxes {{github url/sandbox}}, {{fgaddon url/sandbox}}, {{gitlab url/sandbox}} and {{fgaddon aircraft source/sandbox}} safely can be deleted?

I found these when going through uncategorized templates.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 07:45, 21 June 2019 (EDT)

Of course, please delete away. I should have deleted them along with other testing/experimentation/stability templates. I don't know why I forgot about them, but I would assume that there are others to be deleted as well. Just look at the history as I tend to write the purpose of the template in the first revision and indicate if it should be temporary.
Bugman (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2019 (EDT)
Done Done
Johan G (Talk | contribs) 08:38, 21 June 2019 (EDT)