User talk:Crissov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

General templates[edit]

{{Frac}}[edit]

Hi there! First of all, I wanted to thank you for the great job you did on {{frac}}—it was a relief to find out that I did not need to write something like that myself :) The template is now called by {{dec to frac}}, which, in turn, will be called by a number of conversion templates (currently only {{m to ft in}} relies on it).

I do, however, have a question. I was thinking of improving the template so it would return Unicode fractions when it's possible, but I see that you have already tried it and chose not to implement them. I am curious what went wrong.

Again, thanks for the great template! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t remember why exactly I finally decided not to implement them, but I think it was the inconsistent looks, lesser searchability and poor font support. Christoph Päper 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Christoph; I suspected it'd be something along those lines. Anyway, I hope you won't mind if I try re-introducing this feature as optional (with current output still being the default)? Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. — Christoph Päper 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics, scripts, writing systems, typography[edit]

ISO 9[edit]

Hello, I don't exactly understand your concern with the Tables (not systems!) A and B. The ISO 9 is adopted in East Europe in a form of verbatim translation as a state standard GOST 7.79 (targeted, primarily, for bibliographical use, just as the GOST 7 series itself). And it's the Table B that actually gets used because the Table A proved too hard to memorize and to use. And no, I can't provide any refs on that right now, unless you count as such that one has quite a hard time trying to find the Table A layout in the copies of GOST 7.79 scattered everywhere. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read the standard (ISO, not GOST) once. If I did I would remember seeing two transliteration tables, of which one is not reversible. Perhaps I haven’t read ISO 9 in its officially published form at all. I can’t check the the local library before Monday (and its standard collection has gaps).
Does B really use i` and the like, not ì? Christoph Päper (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember nothing of the sort in the Table B. I guess you're thinking about "è" (or in fact "e`") for "э". And GOST is translated copy of ISO. Table A is reversible but hellishly hard to use, in fact, impossible. Table B is specific for each language an not reversible, but much more reasonable in use, as there're only two diacritical signs, non-combined, "`" and "'". But I'd have to check all this and not write off the memory, really. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Christoph Päper 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IPAr[edit]

{{IPAr}} currently has over 25k transclusions, which is more than AWB can handle, so it won't be possible to maintain Japanese articles that use it. You might want to think about a dedicated Japanese template, analogous to {{IPAc-hu}} for Hungarian. (Also, if enough languages are added, it might be possible that the template will exceed the capacity of the server.) kwami (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Font & "clip font"[edit]

Thanks for getting rid of "clip font" there. On the one hand, I am familiar with clip fonts and understood where the contribution was going (although it certainly needed some grammar and wording work, and the writer confused "font" and "glyph" which I've never seen done before). But it sure as heck didn't belong in the introduction to the article, and probably not in the article at all. It should probably be its own entry and have a link from "font." Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it actually makes sense with glyph. Although I hadn’t heard it called clip font yet, I know what the author was getting at, but it was really hard to understand even for someone who knows what was meant. I agree that a separate article is the way to go. — Christoph Päper 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
After the text reappeared I moved it to a new article: clip font. It’s probably the worst one I’ve ever created. Hopefully you or someone else can make it “keepable”. — Christoph Päper 09:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts however unpalatable may be, must be mentioned here so that no wrong details are given. I see the editor (Crissov) is insisting for the international concepts but I must tell him that in India these international standards are not valued as they are in other places. I feel Wikipedia is a data bank, and so all true things must be recorded for the information of the readers. Any deleting of my sentences may please the editors but it is like misinforming the readers. I am only recording facts as they are, may be hack or whatever, they are facts. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the problems I raised in my post above. If you can rewrite it so as to be accurate, and integrate it into the body of the article (not the introduction), perhaps it would stick. Of course, there are dozens of other concepts of equal relevance to the topic that are not yet present in the article. Thomas Phinney (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Katakana table[edit]

I like what you did adding the "Inventory" section. Will you be doing the same for Hiragana? Joeinwap (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

于 is not a katakana figure. It is a kanji/hanzi/hanja. Just because it can be approximated with this figure does not mean it should. And you should definitely not create a link to wu (kana) because there is no wu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the references you use for this are not suitable reliable references. One's a Geocities page and the other is an equally poor choice in someone else's homepage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not include the character nor the references, just restored them after you removed them. But you’re right insofar as we shouldn’t use similar looking characters. I got WU mixed up with archaic WE/E, new in Unicode 6. — Christoph Päper 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, the inventory section is entirely unnecessary. It duplicates the information in the larger table and does not provide any other additional or useful information that would require a summarization. In addition, it's entirely unsourced. I will start up a discussion on Talk:Katakana so it's more than just you and I arguing over it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop putting the smaller table back in the article. The larger table is not just a transcription thing. It provides all the information necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Gojuon[edit]

For accessibility reasons, this template should not default to using Japanese text. Just because we can use the Japanese text does not mean it is good for Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, we utilize the Hepburn romanization system for all purposes regarding the transliteration of the Japanese language into the Latin alphabet. As such, your moves of Fu (kana), Chi (kana), Shi (kana), and your cut-paste move of Tsu (kana) have no consensus whatsoever. The fact that you have unilaterally performed these moves and done so against the general consensus of both WP:JAPAN and WP:MOS-JA is the last straw. Do not utilize the Kunrei-shiki system ever again. I don't care if "Hu", "Ti", "Si", and "Tu" are systematic names. That is not what modern linguists use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you a linguist, modern or not? I, kind of, am. Last time I checked, the guidelines were intended for manga/anime, martial arts, etc.pp., not for linguistics (and were probably written by people who care about that cultural stuff).
This, however, is not about transliteration! Describing scripts (even writing systems) is not an area where linguists use romanizations. They use character designations, names or whatever you want to call them, since phonemics are hardly relevant, especially in a diachronic and translingual view. For kana this means Hepburn transcriptions are inappropriate, not least because of We, Wi and Wo. — Christoph Päper 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines are for everthing Japanese. The English Wikipedia uses Fu, Chi, Shi, and Tsu and using Hu, Ti, Si, and Tu is against consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kana is not Japanese! The script evolved in Japan for the Japanese language and is almost exclusively used for it, but, still, when we’re dealing with a script and not a writing system, language (and therefore any language-dependent transcription) is completely irrelevant. — ChristophPäper 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Color, image, video, resolutions[edit]

subscripts[edit]

I'm doing my best to revert all your subscripts, after verifying again that I can't find any such in books wherever YPbPr and YDbDr are mentioned, just like YCbBr. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really a bad idea, against normal wikiquette, to make wholesale changes in the face of opposition, without seeking a consensus. If you did start a discuss where you thought you got consensus, you didn't tell me about it, and since I'm in opposition, I would need to know about that. Please don't do this again. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

After you disregarded Rec. 601 I didn’t bother seeking consensus with you any more. No one else opposed the edits, AFAICS. — Christoph Päper 23:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Since that document doesn't use any name related to YCbCr, you can't really rely on it to rename that space. If you'd like to just copy their variable names I would not object. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you reverted those as well. — Christoph Päper 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I took the lazy way and reverted instead of trying to repair everything to the way you might want it. If you had listened and discussed and sought consensus we would not have been in that situation. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

H.264/MPEG-4 AVC[edit]

You added the Fully supported profiles table in section 9. However, for the Main profile specifically, it's not clear whether "Yes/No" implies that it's supported for "Encoder/Decoder", "Decoder/Encoder" or something else. Could you clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsylvest (talkcontribs) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You could probably translate “Yes/No” to “partially” or “almost” or “depends” here. The reason for the entries is interlaced coding which those products only support using MBAFF according to the table above (and I didn’t know whether that qualifies them for a “Yes”). — Christoph Päper 21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolutions Image[edit]

First, thanks for updating this! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg) The latest you added created a black background which makes it difficult to see the lines (it's not black when at full size). Would you mind editing it to the white background? Thanks. cipher_nemo (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As you’ve noticed the background is correct (in “full size”, i.e. when your browser and not the WP software renders the SVG image). I tried to work around the bugs, but I’ve given up, hoping someone else would do it. It shouldn’t be that hard, if one knows what exactly the renderer does not support (correctly or at all). You may revert it, of course, for now. — Christoph Päper 13:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. I've reverted for now. Sorry I can't help bugfix it either :( -- Quiddity (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

X11 color names table[edit]

I left some comments over on the talk page with my suggestions for that table. What do you think?–jacobolus (t) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Nice work on that table of features. It used to be far tougher to read than it should have been. I spent a lot of time finding a way to make thicker vertical lines work without breaking the templates; the result was more readable, but it looked weird and out of place. What you've done since makes it very pleasant to the eye indeed. Thanks for making Wikipedia look a little nicer! Chris3145 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Display resolution#Computer monitors[edit]

Just because the default order of the table (under Display resolution#Computer monitors) isn't clear or immediately understandable, doesn't mean it has to be replaced with another one that's equally unhelpful. At any rate, I've edited the table so that it's now ordered from smallest to largest, which matches the other lists/tables of resolutions on Wikipedia. The four unlabelled (and, I suspect, non-existent) resolutions are at the bottom. I hope you can agree to that being the best default order.

On a related note, when you say you're "reinstating previous order", please make sure you don't accidentally revert other, unrelated contributions in the process. For instance, your latest revert of that table also destroyed some of my other changes (fixes to some of the abbreviations and improvements to the table headings). Indrek (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Any presort is better than none. The other reverts, of course, were not by accident, but I considered them minor enough to not be explicitly mentioned in the edit summary. — Christoph Päper 08:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Any presort is better than none." Debatable.
As for the other reverts, they were most definitely not minor and thus should have been explained. See here for more information. Indrek (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Measurement, systems of units, calendars[edit]

Table data - EN 13402[edit]

Hi Crissov,

Thank you the updates to EN 13042. You clarified a few points. However may I note that you rearranged the raw data for the tables, placing many items of data in a single line whereas previously they were arranged as a single data item per line. As a computer programmer of many years standing, may I draw to attention that doing this adds nothing to the article and makes maintenance more difficult. Martinvl (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the contrary, that it makes maintenance easier, because the sequences of sizes are no longer split into two separate tables at an arbitrary point. — Christoph Päper 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

English length units[edit]

English length units graph.png

I've spotted a spelling mistake in File:English length units graph.png which you created: it should be 'nautical mile', not 'nautic mile'. Any chance you could correct this? Modest Genius talk 17:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not today, but I will try to remember to do it soonish. If you have LaTeX you can do it yourself, since I posted the source. — Christoph Päper 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you get around to it, you might want to clear up the discrepancies between the feet-nautical mile and feet-yard-fathom-cable-nautical mile. Also, for consistency, I would consider re-orienting the finger/inch relationship - it's the only one where you move your arrow down in size. VIWS talk

In English usage the geographical mile, i.e. a minute of arc, is usually termed nautical mile and most often – when not using the international definition of 1852 m exactly – is approximated to 6080 feet (1853.2 m), but sometimes it is rounded more heavily to 6000 feet (1828.8 m). The nautical mile article currently gives several synonyms for the latter one: sea mile, data mile, tactical mile and radar mile. For this reason, the diagram takes some freedom in that the two alternate paths from foot to nautic(al) mile don’t result in the same number. It may also show what a mess this “system” is.
I thought about the connection between inch and finger, too, but found 87 too uncommon to use in the end and settled with that one upward arrow. Ideally, for the sake of that diagram at least, there had been a unit of 18 or 116 inch. I could leave it out altogether, of course, and have people figure out 636·12 themselves.
I intend to correct the Mu in the micrometre symbol, for what it’s worth. — Christoph Päper 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Leap Week Calendar[edit]

Why rename Leap Week Calendar to Week Calendar? Victor Engel (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no week calendar article and leap week calendar seems like it could easily be reworked into one. I just forgot to do just that, and don’t have the time right now. — Christoph Päper 08:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the need for a week calendar article? Maybe I'm missing something. Victor Engel (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There are week calendar( proposal)s that solve the gap between 364 days and the solar year length with a leap week and others that use days outside the week cycle. I don’t think that’s enough a difference to justify two different articles, i.e. they can both be handled in week calendar. — Christoph Päper 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we please come to a consensus of what to do on the talk page before a wholesale change from a long stable article is made? Victor Engel (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Such calendars have been referred to as leap week calandars on the calendar discussion list CALNDR-L and on some web pages. I have not seen any usage of the term week calendar anywhere. Try Googling 'Leap week calendar' and 'Week calendar' Karl (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

{{GravEngAbs}}, FPS[edit]

please discuss[edit]

Please discuss your edits to Template:GravEngAbs and Foot-pound-second system on the appropriate talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That’s what I did (or tried to) in Template talk:GravEngAbs and in the first respective edit summary for FPS. — Christoph Päper 13:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:GravEngAbs". Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


Your {{Diagram requested}} requests[edit]

I have moved your diagram requests to their talk pages. (Also, a parameter could be provided to specify the type of diagram wanted, but I did not do that.) FYI the pages: Talk:Warnier/Orr diagram and Talk:Thinking Maps. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

English Brewery Casks[edit]

Why remove Tun and Butt? both are relevant to the article/chart. I understand the removal of Gallon though. a 'Pin' could be added though (4.5 gallons) thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebuild (talkcontribs) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Katakana table[edit]

Hi, regarding your recent changes to the above, please see section "New parameters" at Template talk:Katakana table. 86.179.112.252 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TOC template[edit]

I added a different approach to the TOC template we've been playing with. What do you think? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your approach makes a lot of sense, indeed. It’s also more versatile. — Christoph Päper 22:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Crissov

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 9#Comma below, Cedilla or Ogonek[edit]

Hi Crissov, I've proposed a compromise at Talk:ISO 9#Comma below, Cedilla or Ogonek. --Moyogo/ (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Chg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Unified table cell templates[edit]

Hi Crissov, I meant to come here to ask you what the "Unified" means in Category:Unified table cell templates. But now that I'm here, I see you deserve the following as well! — Scott talk 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Crissov,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott talk 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Katakana table[edit]

I see that you have put back the absurdly over-complicated changes to this table that I removed a while ago. When I get time I am going to revert that again. Please will you STOP putting it back. Your changes are totally unnecessary, making maintenance much more difficult for no purpose at all, and do not even seem to work properly. Please do NOT put these changes back again once I have taken them out. Unfortunately you have made a lot more work now because I need to check for other unrelated things that may have been changed and need to be retained, so it is not just a simple revert. 86.160.86.68 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Katakana table is designed in a way that it can be used in different articles, i.e. Katakana and Transcription into Japanese currently. The article context results in slightly different needs, e.g. some distinction by background colors may not be helpful in one article but the other. Therefore background colors are customizable, among other things. Please do not mess with that without a good reason. It’s okay if the template is a little harder to maintain if that results in the articles being easier to maintain. — Christoph Päper 19:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)