User talk:Happy-melon

The big yellow "you have new messages" banner was created for a reason. If you want my attention, edit this page. If I want your attention, I will edit your page. If I just want to reply out of politeness, I'll do it here and save interrupting whatever you're doing... if you're interested in what I said, watch this page and find out. If I'm keen to see your response, I will be watching your talk page, or wherever I suspect you might post it. But if you have something to say you think I need to read, the big yellow banner is kind of hard to miss...

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates

Yes that was what I meant and I've changed the wording to clarify it. Hope that helps. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance ratings for non-article classes

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Importance_ratings_for_non-article_classes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE discussion

Hello Happy-melon. I recently posted a question on WT:ACCESS regarding a discussion we're having concerning {{footballbox collapsible}} and it's apparent violation of guidance given in MOS:COLLAPSE. My WT:ACCESS question has gone unanswered for a couple of days now, so I decided to contact you directly for help/clarification. It appears that you originally proposed and added the prose currently in MOS:COLLAPSE, but there was very little discussion before it was added. I'm not saying the lack of discussion was any fault of yours. It seems that these types of tenets only recieve attention when there's disagreement. I believe that the advice in MOS:COLLAPSE is in need of some clarification and may even be outdated at this point. My reasons for this belief:

• This comment came shortly after the section was added to the MOS. It should alieviate any concerns about printer accessibility. I've discovered through investigation with LYNX that it also addresses the problem for text browsers and browsers which do not enable JavaScript.
• MOS:COLLAPSE states that collapsible tables "should not be used in the article body". In another part of the MOS, here, it gives more specific advice stating that collapsible tables "should never be used in the article prose or references". My thought is that collapsible content is acceptable for making significant amounts of data managable (as {{footballbox collapsible}} tries to do). I also agree with what appears to be the spirit of the MOS guidance, which is that collapsible elements should not ever be used in article prose or in the reference section.
• You started another discussion regarding application MOS:COLLAPSE over here but the circumstances were different than those surrounding {{footballbox collapsible}}. However, there was a comment made at the end which I found interesting stating that the JAWS screen reader (in versions as early as 2003) works fine accessing the show/hide content. I want to ask if there is any data backing up the accessibility concerns raised in the MOS regarding collapsible content.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I invite you to join the discussion on WT:ACCESS or the talk page for {{footballbox collapsible}}. I look forward to a good discussion and hopefully an improvement/clarification added to the MOS. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion. I'll try and remember to drop by and make a proper comment at some point. Happy‑melon 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you made this edit which changed the wording of the section. Based on the direction consensus is moving in the discussion I started on WT:ACCESS I would suspect that the "not in article prose" wording is very likely exactly where this is going to lead. Why did you change the wording? Was your change based on consensus in some other discussion I'm not aware of? Considering where the discussion is going, I think "not in article prose" is going to better reflect the appropriate usage of collapsible content. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was doing was to copy the spirit of the current guidelines to MoS; as it's clear that the justification behind them is no longer purely or even mainly for accessibility. I meant to leave a note to that effect on WT:ACCESS, but was unfortunately called away and then lost track of it; sorry about that. The sections on both pages should of course be appropriately updated following the outcome of the discussion there; that will probably result in the section in ACCESS being removed entirely, and the MoS section being updated, as you say. Happy‑melon 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Emma Watson Image

Hi,

I am not sure if it is worthy of reprimand but the photo in the Emma Watson article has been subject to some controversy. Baseball1015 seems to enjoy a different image than the one that should be properly used. I wish to respect the "three edit undo" rule but would also like to see the proper image size used.

Regards, Darkemagik —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

I'm watching. Happy‑melon 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

Hi there. Long time no speak. I hope you are doing well. I gather you don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, but I hope you'll have time to have a look at something.

On User:MSGJ/test I've put together a minimal example of what's going wrong with the collapsed tables in the B-class checklist. (You'll remember that it doesn't display properly on Internet Explorer.)

I've come across the same problem recently as I am trying to code a collapsed table into {{ArticleHistory}} to display the Did you know? hook. Any insight would be much appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed pretty busy, but still have time to drop in on a fairly regular basis. Most of my work, however, is Oversight and 'heavy tech'; I also spend much more of my wiki-time on bugzilla, wikitech and MW code development. I see you've done great things with WPBM, even if it did scare me a little when I first looked back at it! Good job, and thanks for essentially taking that over.

I'll try and take a look at your testcase. Do you have any thoughts yourself? Happy‑melon 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know much about CSS, but the definition for th.mbox-text and td.mbox-text appears to be:

border: none; 
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
width: 100%;

Since the width=100% on its own doesn't cause any problems, perhaps it is caused by the padding definition? If so, perhaps we could leave the padding on the left but remove it on the right. I don't know how to do this though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh of course. The IE box-flow bug is that "width:100" in IE means "make this box have the same width as the width= attribute of the parent element". In other browsers it means "make this box wide enough that it takes up all available space in the parent element". So on FF the inner table is made to the width of the mbox-text cell, minus 1.8em to account for the padding. On IE the inner table is made the full width, and is then shifted 0.9em to the right to account for the padding, pushing the right edge of the box out of the table cell (where it's clipped by the overflow:auto attribute). Happy‑melon 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So can anything be done? I notice that this problem doesn't seem to occur on IE6 but does on IE8. How can I change the padding on the left but not the right side? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bug

Is that fix (mentioned at User talk:Davidgothberg) going to do anything about the "'*' won't work after parameter name" issue? I mean the fact that this:

{{Archivebox|1=
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (2008)
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (2009)
}}

has to be done as something like:

{{Archivebox|1=<nowiki />
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (2008)
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (2009)
}}

It doesn't really seem to matter what comes after the |1= but before the first "*". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not directly; that's the way whitespace is stripped from around named parameters in templates, which is a separate issue. If I implement the fix to make the first line of table cells work correctly with linestart elements, that would resolve the issue.

{{archivebox}} in particular is actually deliberately broken wrt that issue, by the inclusion of the mysterious   character in the subtemplate call. You might want to look into why that's present, and if it's related to these issues. Happy‑melon 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)