Module talk:ja-ruby

It appears that there is something wrong with the processing of nakaguro, such as (at 電脳). (It appears that you've worked on improving the code. I don't understand the details, but it looks like a lot of work, and I take my hat off to you.) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is adding seperators an acceptable solution? . -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

『星条旗よ永遠なれ』→ 『 星条旗(せいじょうき) よ 永遠(えいえん) なれ』 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fixed. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

mod:string utilities
An old version of this module which tried to replace all mw.ustring manipulation functions in the code with the ones in mod:string utilities, actually increased Lua CPU time usage from 0.872 seconds to 1.124 seconds in the page 菩薩. mod:string utilities did not meet its goal of making string manipulation more efficient. Generally I don't think blindly imposing mod:string utilities on every other module is a good idea. I believe module editors have their own discretion that can better deal with this matter. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Huhu9001 You cannot use a datapoint of one page to say that a change was counterproductive. Sorry. My own test of exactly the same page yielded 0.783 seconds for the current version, and 0.776 seconds for the version you reverted, too. Rerunning it several times showed there to be no obvious advantage to either (which is still not much use, as this is only one page). Theknightwho (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeat, "Generally I don't think blindly imposing mod:string utilities on every other module is a good idea. I believe module editors have their own discretion that can better deal with this matter." -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huhu9001 See WP:OWN. Theknightwho (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. w:wp:OWN means you are not supposed to act as if you own all string manipulation functions by doing some "Great Unification". And you are to respect more the ideas of editors who are more familiar with the language and the infrastructure behind it. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huhu9001 I'm not acting like I'm owning anything. I'm pointing out that you're reverting on the basis that you think it should be at your discretion, despite the fact your reasoning was unsound. Theknightwho (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have expressed myself clearly that I am reverting on the basis that I am more familiar with the language and the infrastructure behind it, proven by the fact that you have broken Japanese templates several times recently. I have had enough of this futile talk. I hope you as a sysop could show more respect towards peer editors, rather than just "I am right you are wrong". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huhu9001 I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I have explained that your reasoning was poor, and that simply saying you're more familiar is not good enough. Your attitude is totally uncollaborative, as - unlike me - you've show no willingness to compromise whatsoever. It's a clear example of taking ownership. Theknightwho (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

HTML entities are broken again
Special:Search/32 hastemplate:ja-usex —Fish bowl (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)