No edit summary |
(Don't nuke until conversion to facts page) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:Current Defaultsort is so randomly applied that we are better off without them. [[User:Rtol|rtol]] 20:51, November 11, 2009 (UTC) |
:Current Defaultsort is so randomly applied that we are better off without them. [[User:Rtol|rtol]] 20:51, November 11, 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::We are NOT better off without it. Pages that have it (and presumably those that have the new SMW thing) are properly listed. That will include future imports from Wikipedia until they get adjusted. Articles that don't have it should, until there's a genuine SMW replacement working on those pages. — [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] [[User talk:Robin Patterson|(Talk)]] 13:11, January 26, 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:11, 26 January 2010
Forums: Index > Watercooler > Should I nuke Defaultsort lines?
Bergsmit seemed to be putting in random default sort statements.
EG: DEFAULTSORT:Willem Van Oranje-Nassau (1840-1879)
showfact templates set the defaultsort as last name first name middle.
Shouldn't the scanner be nuking Defaultsort lines in favor of the showfacts line? If I do nothing, Red text will warn of the error. Alternatively, I think I can have wikia turn off the defaultsort error message.
If no one expresses an opinion to the contrary, I will nuke any defaultsort line found in an article being converted from info page use.~ Phlox 19:48, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- Current Defaultsort is so randomly applied that we are better off without them. rtol 20:51, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
- We are NOT better off without it. Pages that have it (and presumably those that have the new SMW thing) are properly listed. That will include future imports from Wikipedia until they get adjusted. Articles that don't have it should, until there's a genuine SMW replacement working on those pages. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:11, January 26, 2010 (UTC)