Wikipedia talk:Lua

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
WP:Lua (talk) Help To do Resources Reference manual
Shortcut

Rewrite backend of Template:Afd-merged-from

[edit]

Thanks to Tule-hog's work at Template talk:Copied#Backend rewrite, the backend of {{Afd-merged-from}} can be rewritten to invoke Module:Copied, much like the rewrite at Template talk:Merged-from#Backend rewrite. Because I have zero experience in such matters: is this a bad idea? If potentially controversial, would I ask VPT or some other venue? FWIW, consensus for rewriting {{merged-from}} was assessed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 12#Template:Merged-from (no consensus against rewriting the backend of the merged-from template, so long as it doesn't affect functionality). Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would make it potentially a bad idea? There's no issue with using one module for multiple templates, which is the only concern I can conceive someone potentially having. Izno (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Less concept- and more implementation-wise: I just don't know how much Module:Copied would need to be changed, and if adding to the module to minimize changes to Afd-merged-from is a good idea.
When I copied merged-from's code to Template:Afd-merged-from/sandbox and changed it, the results at Template:Afd-merged-from/testcases (unsurprisingly) look like {{merged-from|...|afd=...}}. This brought up three questions:
  • Should I also change Module:Copied to keep the original wording of Afd-merged-from, especially The discussion was closed on {{{3}}} missing from the merged-from lookalikes?
  • Invoking the module allows the template to fail more gracefully.
    • At the moment, omitting the AfD page name from {{Afd-merged-from/sandbox}} documents a normal merge unrelated to a deletion discussion. Should it instead assume the AfD page name and the merge source are the same? That is, adding {{{1}}}} to form |afd1={{{afd|{{{afd1|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}}}?
    • Or should it instead not fail gracefully if that parameter is missing?
If I need to clarify something, please feel free to let me know. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change as little as possible and see how it goes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Hello, I'm hoping I'm posting in the right place. A very new editor just created Module:RandomWikiverse and I'm not sure if it's valid or just some sort of experiment because I know nothing about modules. Can someone who does know something review this page? Thank you, in advance, for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it returns a randomly selected phrase from its list of phrases but seems otherwise pointless
{{#invoke:RandomWikiverse|random}} → Rise and Fall of Emperor Quack (refresh this page to get another phrase)
Nothing in it seems valuable to me so can probably be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Module:Random could do the same thing trivially. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was created on 28th June, and remains unused. Editor hasn't edited since. Looks like a test that has been completed. It should be deleted or moved under Module:Sandbox. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regex help

[edit]

Any LUA Regex experts who might be able to help me? Trying to write a regex with an or statement in it but my understanding is that LUA doesn’t support or statements in their regexes. So for example if I’m trying to detect a month in a date I would normally do something like: 

\d+\s*(Jan|January|Feb|February|…)\s*\d{4}

How can I achieve the same result with a regex in LUA? —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first idea that comes to my mind is just using a regular (%a+) catch and then manually checking the content of the group in lua code to see if it matches a known month, since lua regex is far more simplistic than standard regexes. Aidan9382 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As did I:
string.match ("17 September 2025", "%d+%s*(%a+)%s*%d%d%d%d") – validate the returned value as a next step
Or one of these:
mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("M", "17 September 2025") – returns Sep
mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("F", "17 September 2025") – returns September
mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("m", "17 September 2025") – returns 09
mw.language.getContentLanguage():formatDate ("n", "17 September 2025") – returns 9
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!! —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]