Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at BugZilla.

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

« Archives, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Italics in ToC

Has anyone considered using italics in the table of contents, for cases when the section headings (or part of them) are titles which should be italicized? I note that we now allow italics for article titles, so perhaps we could do it for the table of contents as well. Unlike the article title, this should be possible to do automatically, by simply not stripping any italicization when generating the ToC. Thoughts? Has this been discussed before? I tried searching but couldn't find any previous discussions about this. --Mepolypse (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? To clarify, I'm proposing that MediaWiki be changed to do this automatically. --Mepolypse (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We apparently already have something to pass through the <sub> and <sup> tags. Anyway, you (or something else) should filing a bug in bugzilla. — Dispenser 21:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I think it's a really annoying asthetical oversight, myself. --Dorsal Axe 21:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<sub> and <sup> were passed through after bugzilla:8393. It could be reopened with an italics request. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't reopen bugs that are fixed. Open NEW bugs please. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds like this should be filed as a new bug in Bugzilla. Apparently you need a different login for Bugzilla, and the account creation page warns that this will expose my e-mail address, which I don't want to do. Does anyone with an existing Bugzilla account mind filing a new bug with a link to this thread? Thanks in advance. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite this being a rather loud complaint there are no bugs for a Bugzilla SUL/CentralAuth/Unified login system. — Dispenser 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So what we want now is for someone with a Bugzilla account to file two bugs. :-) --Mepolypse (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping. --Mepolypse (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping. --Mepolypse (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, see bugzilla:14487. ―cobaltcigs 09:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Bugzilla is, as the name suggests, a Mozilla product, not a Wikimedia project. It expects people to be registered via email, and I doubt any of these will happen:

1. The developers fork or patch bugzilla to avoid the email thing (unrealistic, effort required is way out of proportion)
2. Mozilla adds such capabilities itself (who else would use them?)
3. Wikipedia starts handing out @wikimedia.org email addresses (even just forwarding addresses) to users to conceal their privacy from bugzilla.

So unfortunately, I can see no way the developers will fix this. The other problem (italics in ToC) can be filed by anyone who is willing to (optionally) get a free email address and sign up for bugzilla. Gmail and Hotmail both hand out free email addresses, so why not get one? --NYKevin @974, i.e. 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Those services expect the user to provide their real name, forcing the user to either expose their identity, or lie and fill in bogus info. Couldn't we just create a single e-mail address like anon-bugzilla@wikimedia.org that can be used as a shared login? Users using that address wouldn't get the benefit of e-mail updates from Bugzilla, but they would be able to file bugs. Or even better, some sort of web front-end to Bugzilla that filed bugs using such a generic e-mail address but noted the Wikipedia username in the bug summary. --Mepolypse (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, submitters that cannot be contacted, are not available to additional questions from the developers. The email address is requested for a reason, many people don't know how to write understandable requests and thus need to be contacted. I'm personally totally against the whole idea of using italics in MediaWiki titles and headers, so I'm not personally filing this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Before a feature request is made you should try using a template in combination with a style rule in MediaWiki:Common.css. Look for <table id="toc" class="toc"> when viewing the source code of this page. – Allen4names 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a template how exactly? To clarify, what I'm proposing is that MediaWiki would recognize the italicization in subheadings such as ==''Lost'' episodes== and automatically italicize that word in the ToC, making it say Lost episodes rather than Lost episodes (which has a different meaning). I don't see how a template could do that. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, this never did get done, now submitted as bugzilla:26375. GDonato (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Super, thanks! --Mepolypse (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages redlinks and actual content

See also: WP:BOTREQ#Deleting old Wildbot pages Yobot blanked

You know what would be great? It would be great if it could be made so that a link to a talk page remained red if the only content was those wikiproject banners. Then you could tell at a glance when looking at, say, an npov template, whether actual discussion was going on or not. It would be more accurate, more helpful, and in general great. I'm not sure whether this could even be implemented, but if it could, that would be great. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 02:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps even something else, as red would probably get people to check if there IS a banner... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You could write a Javascript gadget to do that I guess. It would double your pageviews, but if you have the article assessment script running, then that does a similar thing, so perhaps build it into that. The Mediawiki software itself cannot do this. It is content agnostic. A banner is content, wether or not we agree with that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Best if we could show the total number of section and their average size. Unfortunately, all section features in MediaWiki are hackish. — Dispenser 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it couldn't be implemented into MediaWiki, it would still be nice if there was a script for it that could be copied and pasted. Or even better, a gadget that could be disabled if, say, one was working on bannering talk pages. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 20:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One method (that is hackish, not reliable and has side-effects) would be to set the stub threshold in your preferences (on the Appearance tab). This causes all links to pages with less than $x$ bytes to appear differently. Svick (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

External links not indicated

Resolved

Is this a glitch, or should the external links in the following templates be indicated? I haven't really looked to see why they're not (probably class/css "mbox-text"), but is this the expected behavior...it seems it could cause some security issues?

^[2] Main Page Main Page Google Microsoft

Smallman12q (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

{{dmbox}} and {{imbox}} both have the plainlinks class on them, which suppresses external link icons. So yes, this is expected behaviour. Happy‑melon 00:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that they could be suppressed. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

PDF Crop

• 
  Health insurance coverage type in US
• 
  Poverty demographic in US

Why do the thumbnails for the cropped pdfs in Commons:Category:P60-238 appear like this? When you click on the pdf, the crop appears fine. (I tried converting in inkscape to svg, but it kept giving me a malformed xml file so I just cropped the graphs out of the pdf.)Smallman12q (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug filed Template:Bug.Smallman12q (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle not recognising user talk page redirects

See this diff. Twinkle ignored the redirect, adding the message to the wrong page. Can Twinkle be fixed to stop this happening? DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template help (dabbing)

{{Infobox minister office}} is causing problems when the jurisdiction field has an ambiguous value entered. I've noticed it with Victoria, which I am trying to disambiguate to Victoria (Australia). Now, while entering Victoria (Australia) in the jurisdiction field produces the correct link, it displays in the infobox as Victoria (Australia), which is not ideal. Adding wikilinks and a pipe looks even worse (the square brackets shew up in bold in the infobox). Can anyone help fix the template? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• You can see what I mean at User:DuncanHill/sandbox. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about this:

|jurisdiction=Victoria (Australia}{{!}}Victoria

Make sure you set |minister=prime, and leave |border= blank (or at least, anything other than |border=parliamentary). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Have put it in your sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't planning on doing anything to the minister or border fields, just trying to fix dablinks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My editnotice

I recently modified my editnotice, and it displays correctly on that page. But when I go to edit my talk page, the entire page is displayed in Mistral. Is there anything wrong code-wise, or is it a bug? I'm using the latest version of Firefox with the latest version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard. ~NerdyScienceDude 18:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It has a similar behavior with MobileSafari on iOS version 3.1.3. It probably isn't a browser problem. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a MediaWiki or browser bug: it's an imbalance in the HTML markup. For every opening tag, there must be a matching closing tag (except for certain self-closing tags, the only one of which you have used is <br>). Further, they must nest and not overlap: that is, <span><font></font></span> is permitted, but <span><font></span></font> is not. Disregarding these overlaps (of which there are, I think, three or four), I count the following imbalances:

• <div> exceeds </div> by 1
• <font> exceeds </font> by 1 (what might have confused you is that there is an additional </font> hidden inside a comment tag <!-- -->)
• <big> exceeds </big> by 1
• </code> exceeds <code> by 1

The last one won't show up: closing a tag that was never opened has a do-nothing effect, but it's not clean HTML. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With the help of the W3C HTML Validator, I was able to fix it. Yes, the problem was the nesting, and it seems that HTML Tidy (that tries to "clean up" the invalid HTML) is run after the editnotice is inserted into its proper place on the edit screen rather than before. Am I correct? PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit more, the HTML was hurting me physically. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

{{W3C validation}} can be handy for this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks for fixing it! ~NerdyScienceDude 00:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, could someone take a look at the Christmas message on my talk page and figure out why it's breaking my colored background? ~NerdyScienceDude 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Done... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Books Ngram Viewer

The dataset compilations backing Google's Ngram Viewer are freely downloadable into Wikipedia and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.[3] Ngram Viewer's output phrase over time graphs and phrase comparisons over time graphs would make great additional to many Wikipedia articles. For example, if I were to add the template {{Ngramviewer}} to the Macedonia (terminology) article, the graph now at here would appear in the article by using Wikipedia's dataset. Wiktionary probably could use such graphs as well. Would someone please download the datasets backing Google's Ngram Viewer into Wikipedia and write a script that mines the data to output a graph for display in an article? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem much point, as we can link to the graphs just as you have done and take screenshots if necessary. It's also not of much encyclopedic value, as the corpus is only those books that are on Google Books, rather than any standardised set. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Essay on tiny 40 expansion depth limit

I have drafted an essay, "WP:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit" to begin dealing with the MediaWiki (1.16) severely restricted limit of 40 levels for nested templates and if-else nesting. That essay begins to explain the problem for a wide range of readers, as a desperate effort to handle this unbelievable, miniscule limit of 40 levels of nested if-else logic (which restricts the nesting of templates). While it is occasionally good to dwell on extreme efficiencies of markup coding techniques, the creation of that essay is just a last-resort effort to defuse the problem. Limiting conditional logic to 40 levels (in this century) is just mindboggling ("Someone please update the 1970s punchcard which has limit=40, perhaps having dimpled chad "0" at 400, and re-submit the MediaWiki software to the cardreader"). I am still hoping someone, anyone, can "bump" the expansion depth limit to 100, or at least 60, levels of nested if-else logic. Naturally, many major templates on Wikipedia have been written with no clue that a totally debilitating limit existed (who would even imagine 40 pitiful levels), which can make templates simply generate incorrect results, with absolutely no warning to the readers (see essay examples about: {str_len|123456789...} ). I have already begun notifying some major template talk-pages about the depth-limit problems, and rewriting those templates. I think this will be an easy crisis to avert. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The MediaWiki software is, otherwise, very powerful: a single #switch can have more than 1,400 branches (as in Template:Convert/date which checks 4 formats for each of 366 days in one #switch). Also, when {Convert} is modified, then over 325,000 articles can be reformatted within 5 hours (while also recomputing measurement conversions in each of the 325,000 pages). The limit of 40 if-else nesting is the Achilles heel in the vastly powerful preprocessor for the MediaWiki markup language. -Wikid77 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that a depth of 40 nested if-else conditionals is not really "tiny", right? That's potentially 2⁴⁰ parse tree nodes, which is quite a bit. Moreover, even though it would be rare to actually generate so many parse tree nodes from real code, there are WP:BEANSish reasons why the parser has to assume that the worst case scenario is a real worry. To be honest, the long-term solution is going to be adding Lua scripting to MediaWiki as a replacement for the current half-baked ParserFunctions. Until that happens there will always be problems. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, 40 is small for our users. On the surface 40 might seem like a lot: a teenager probably thinks a 40-year-old has lived many years, but at age 39, then 40 years doesn't seem like the end of life. In real-world applications, a guarded command structure of 40 levels would be very limited, such as when implementing a decision tree using simple, nested if-else-if-else logic. Not all branches are full: some decisions could require checking 35 "pre-conditions" before processing a 6-level result (total: 41). Several of us had abandoned hope of creating "super-smart" templates, due to fears they could not be used without exceeding the expansion limit. Now we realize when if-logic is not deeply nested, then a super-smart template could make 250 clever, rapid, if-then decisions and keep running; part of it could check dozens of values in a #switch as incurring only +1 level of nesting (regardless of total branches in the #switch). Please note that some template editors have even selected nation codes by comparing nations as flag-image templates (rather than comparing names of nations!). I was stunned that nations had to have the same flag+width+height+name structure to match. The actual complexity of Wikipedia's real-world applications has been a challenge for keeping templates simple. That is why I suggested an expansion limit of 60, for now, to see if any other problems are released. Meanwhile, people need to avoid problems by reducing the if-else nesting. -Wikid77 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also commented, but at WT:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am creating some non-nested utility templates, for use inside large templates, where typical templates such as {{str_len}} would add too many levels of nesting. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On wiki google book referencing tool

I've long wished for something this tool http://reftag.appspot.com/ in which you can paste the url of a google book source into it and it immediately provides you with a drawn up tag in whichh you can paste into the article. Given that the wikipedia designers change to vector was based on "useability" and the increasing discussion about the importance of adding more reliable sources to wikipedia I wonder why the wiki folk didn't think of that one. Yes they thought of the individual entry paramters but not an automatic one like this. Any editor newbie or advanced should be able to access this tool to increase the rate and efficiency in which they can improve wikipedia. I think this is an extrmeely important tool, but I'm used to getting my head buried in the sand by the people who have the power to makes things happen on here and my ideas pushed aside. I do hope somebody will see this and try to get it introduced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe its in the wp:RefToolbar wp:gadget. I also wrote a similar tool for about a dozen sites called autowikicite. Nobody seems interested, so I'm not doing much with it atm.Smallman12q (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also another such gadget called ProveIt, which has been recently added. But as for something automatic, I think the WMF developers would be reluctant to implement it because then we would be dependent on Google's servers. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also User:Citation bot which expands {{cite doi}}. This could be another interesting project for that bot, say changing a dummy {{cite isbn}} to a full book reference. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is these tools could really go great lengths to improve wikipedia. I added much more sources than I'd normally have time for to expand Saukorem yesterday. It is a massive help to me and it may encourage people to add more references. But these tools wer enot even apparent to me let alone casual wikipedia users/newbies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Limit sources or get a book: Try to list a small variety of sources per article, then edit the next article: few articles really need many sources. In fact, they are a grave danger: when the Amanda Knox case got "solved" with "200 sources" then the article attracted deletionists to hack the text. After checking numerous sources, our legal experts (now gone) found no credible forensic evidence against Knox, and no sober eyewitnesses, and also refuted 30 tabloid rumors of suspicion. Several sources even confirmed, due to lack of evidence, the case could not have gone to trial in the U.S. (all done, end of story?). Well, when people saw the huge article with massive sources, they were able to argue "article-too-big" as inspiration to a gang of deletionists, who began a massive year-long hatchet job removing sources and all related details until the article became mush: "Some claim there is no evidence, but several others disagree" as if it were a mere matter of opinion, rather than a true lack of evidence and zero eyewitnesses. Legal experts had thought if every phrase in the article had 3 sources, anyone could see there was no real evidence against Knox (or her boyfriend Sollecito), while 99.9% of evidence and witnesses pointed to the other guy, and hence that explained why some Americans are outraged she is still on trial in Perugia. To lawyers, it seemed the perfect article: all issues clarified, all rumors refuted. However, a huge list of sources inflames some people to hack an article down to a stub. Instead, perhaps collect a separate list of sources, then make it a subpage like Talk:Zzzz/sources. If people claim the article text cannot be verified, then point them into the "/sources" subpage, but keep the article limited to a fraction of the total sources.
  For a Google Books entry, all a reader typically needs is 5 items: title, author, date, pages & weblink. Trim a URL to just id, pg (or lpg), as follows:

"Save the temples of the Nile - Apr 1961", 1961, p.95, web: http://books.google.com/books?id=et8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95.

In the Books.Google link, the "PA95" refers to page 95. Also, beware those massive {Cite} templates which use the gigantic {Citation/core}: some articles code all references as {cite} templates with the result that the article content is 95% huge {citation} template coding and perhaps 5% real text! All those sources should instead be listed on an external talk-subpage, such as Talk:XX/sources, not bloating an article to be 10x-20x times larger than the actual text. One editor was even frustrated when I tried to reduce a source with 7 authors to 4. At some point, address the question: "Is this article so full of ultra-detailed sources that the readers should just get a book?" Think in terms of page-edit-logistics: all the conniptions about the sources often create massive overhead in Wikipedia, when a simple, separate page summarizing the key sources would provide answers to the minor few who care about sources. Don't just take my word for it: read template {{Citation/core}} and see all the 25kb of rabid, technical busy-work to merely list a title, authors, date and page. Meanwhile, many important articles have almost zero sources listed. -Wikid77 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Referencing is essential to verifying material in content disputes. References are the basis of Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a tool that would trim this stuff automatically. On a related note, we often cite search results on talk pages, and for some time, they are commonly broken in MediaWiki (see for example the broken links here). Any ideas how and when this can be fixed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry template

I have discovered a serious problem with Template:Chem, it is providing the WRONG chemical formulas to those using IE6. This is not just a simple "doesn't look nice". For instance

{{chem|SO|4|2-}}

should render to show the "2-" as a superscript, but instead does not show it at all.

SO²⁻
₄ - how the template renders in your browser

SO₄^2- - what it should show

SO₄ - what it shows in IE6

Thus, wikipedia is showing the wrong chemical formulas to a large number of readers. Of course, I have reported this on the template's talk page, but this was originally reported April 2010 and it is still not fixed. In my opinion, this is a major error affecting hundreds (if not thousands) of pages and must be fixed.

Apparently, this was broken in Template_talk:Su in 2008 and never fixed.Q Science (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. I have worked on {Convert}, so I was able to decode the multi-nested, hash-named subtemplates under Template:chem (without lapsing into "template-psychosis"). The superscript output for parameter {3} is supposed to occur in Template:Su as parameter {p}, but only the subscript output for parameter {2} as {b} is appearing as "₄". As a quick fix, I can edit Template:Su to display parameter {p} as a superscript in typical wiki-format:

^{<span style="font-size:98%">{{{p|super}}}</span>}

Using the font-size as 98% will match the font size of the subscript "4" which seems like a logical fix. The result will appear as: SO
₄^2-. Does that seem reasonable? WAIT, see below. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Someone else has devised a way to get vertically-aligned superscripts & subscripts, in all browsers, as developed in Template:SubSup, using a <br> line-break with up-down vertical alignment:

{SubSup|x |4|2-} → x  2-
4  -or- {SubSup||4|2-} → 2-
4 

The markup coding for up-down alignment is the following:

<span style="display:inline-block; vertical-align: -0.4em; line-height:1.1em;">{{{3}}}<br/>{{{2}}}}}</span>

I can change Template:Su to use that type of logic, and provide support for both IE6 and the newer browsers. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my support, but just be sure it works everywhere :) (It does work in my IE6) Q Science (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tested OK in IE6 & Firefox - I was able to confirm that the superscript "2-" from {su} appears in both browsers, but IE6 does not shift the text for options to align at right or center, while Firefox handled all options. Within 45 minutes, Template:Su was hacked by inserting newlines and incorrect parameter names, but some re-hack fixes were made. This is a danger in changing a Wikipedia page: (let sleeping dogs lie) a page can be left unchanged for 4 months with errors, but when someone corrects it for a 2-year error, then others might decide to start hacking and cause numerous other problems. Typically, we wait to see how many people will hack a changed page, and then wait for activity to settle, when we might perhaps start a consensus debate (with other active editors) if the latest changes are incompatible with expected results. Hopefully, the hacking will soon subside, and the template can be tested further in the illusion of being a "stable" template. If disputes arise, then we could stop using that template and just hard-code the superscript logic where the template had been used. Trying to create a variation of a template to allow major improvements can awaken a dreadful "forked-template-deletion" debate, where the forkers typically win the argument and get the massively-improved template exterminated in favor of preventing changes to the original erroneous template, and hence, the hard-coding of results (where the template was formerly used) is typically the best option. It is easier to hard-code results into 500 pages, than trying to explain how another template (even used for 10 months) has better features to survive a deletion debate: WP:TfD discussions are too nebulous and cannot focus on each sub-decision which proves the better overall decision. This inability to weigh the rational benefits of new templates could escalate to all related templates, so in the end, you might need to just hard-code the correct chemical formulas (like "SO₄^2-") and bypass formula templates which cannot be fixed in the wiki-bureaucracy. Hopefully, disputes will not reach that level, but that is a plan to get the formulas corrected (which was your original concern). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• The current version of the template is broken in Konqueror. X^b
  _a shows as Xa (with almost no shifting of the subscript) with b displayed way above them (it's roughly as if b was on the previous line).—Emil J. 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the results. Let's continue this at Template_talk:Su to modify the template with a solution which looks balanced in more browsers. Perhaps we just need to slightly shift the alignment now. -Wikid77 15:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What's going on with this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quantumor&oldid=403342350 I ran into this while dealing with an SPI I have no idea why this was caused, shouldn't it only deal with the wikitext area. Anybody else have ideas as to how this kind of disruptive page could be stopped? I had to edit it by manually editing the url. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the fixed positioning combined with a high z-index, which allows divs to cover the entire screen. I don't know of any way to easily fix this (even the CSS div#bodyContent * { position: static !important; }, which breaks templates, can be overridden.) I suppose you are asking for position: fixed; to be blacklisted in MediaWiki? PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Just haven't ever dealt with position :fixed so I didn't know that was what was causing it. My css skills are lacking. I don't think there is an inherent way to fix it, but you really ought to be able to edit a page such as this by clicking a button... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not the solution; many templates rely on fixed positioning. It may be annoying, but it doesn't warrant blocking fixed positioning alltogether. — Edokter • Talk — 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Same thing I was thinking: that any such drastic change would break templates. So if one doesn't want to type in the edit or history page URL manually, there's always alt-shift-h (or its equivalent in browsers other than Firefox)... PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was able to get around that just fine with accesskeys. I'm on Safari for Mac, so a simple control-option-E got me to the edit screen and control-option-V got me to the Show Changes screen. (the last step isn't necessary if you have the "Show preview on initial edit" preference turned off) Wasn't hard. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter to detect instances of people adding divs with a large z-index and position:fixed? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to edit the page like this, you should simply disable CSS in your browser. In FF it is View -> Page Style -> No Style. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Updating search index" out of order?

Every search result is dated to the 18 December 2010 or older. Is it possible, that somebody check the bot??? THX --Pitlane02 (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing table sort order

Hi, I'm trying to fix the first table in Protestantism by country. The final column, a list of numbers, seems to sort alphabetically, so 80 comes after 800 and the feature is useless. According to Help:Sorting, this ought to sort numerically because it contains only numbers, spaces and a comma. Any help would be appreciated. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The question marks (e.g. in the row about Bahrain) are causing the problem. Either remove them or use {{Number table sorting}}. Graham87 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Use {{sort|080|80}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those. That's given me a much better idea of how this works. The {{Number table sorting}} and {{sort|080|80}} templates don't seem to affect whether the top row is classed as alphabetical or numeric, only how the thing is sorted. The sort routine considers what's actually in the top row at any moment, which changes with every sort and isn't affected by those templates, so initially the table sorts numerically, but the Bahrain row comes to the top and it switches to alphabetical, then alphabetical again for "unknown" and finally numerical again. Doesn't seem ideal. Is there any way of simply inserting a hidden number before the question marks, which would be much simpler, otherwise I'll try the {{Number table sorting}} method? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Done it. I used <span style="display:none">...</span> to add an invisible row. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely it would be more practical to write better javascript which can ignore punctuation if so instructed (and apply other sensitivity rules corresponding to sub-classes of table.sortable). Or at least store the sort-key as some attribute of the table cell rather than as invisible text. ―cobaltcigs 09:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you delete your wikipedia account and images you have uploaded

I joined wikipedia in around 2004?

I made up a profile and made a couple of edits. But I made the mistake of using my email handle as my username on wiki. Now, when someone googles for my email id, my images and information comes up. How do I prevent this?

Thanks, Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.225.50 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it deleted, but you can have it renamed to something else. Anomie⚔ 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CHU for that. And you can request your old userpage be deleted with {{db-u1}}. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:RTV may also be relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only way to completely fix the problems with the images would be to delete them and re-upload them under a different username, AFAIK. Graham87 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Does a rename not take care of it there too? It seems to, judging by the fact that an arbitrary user was renamed on 2010-12-06, and a file uploaded 2010-05-17 is attributed to the new username. Or are you referring to something else? Anomie⚔ 03:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A rename would be sufficient to take care of the images. If they're on Commons, however, a separate request would need to be made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, you're both right. Graham87 07:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So I think meta:Steward requests/Username changes would be your best bet if you simply want a rename, or WP:RTV if you want to disappear forever. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That Meta page is only for renames on projects without bureaucrats. Assuming the IP editor is talking about enwiki (hence bringing it up here), the Meta page wouldn't apply. WP:CHU/S is the way to go, as renaming would be sufficient at RTV is overkill for the core idea of what they're asking for (just to not have their email address associated with the edits). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Website accessibility outside United States

An editor claimed that a particular website is accessible only to US servers. See discussion here (section CBS Express as a source). I'm in the U.S. Is there a way to verify this assertion?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Something like that seems to be true, at least. I get a 403 error when attempting to access http://www.cbspressexpress.com/ directly (with my UK IP address) or via a Canadian proxy, but can access the site via a US proxy. Algebraist 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Any idea how this works technically? In other words, what about the CBS server causes this problem?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been poking around the web on the issue, and it appears that many of the American entertainment sites prevent users from other countries access to certain content on their sites, in particular datastreaming. The website here, which is actually CBS PressExpress, not CBS Express, is apparently not intended to be viewed by anyone, even Americans. I looked at their Terms and Conditions (not something I usually do), and it says that the website is intended only for "authorized" users, apparently CBS employees and pre-authorized press. I guess they don't enforce the authorized part, at least for viewing some things, but they must block non-American IP addresses. Of course, I'm not sure why they do this, but at least I think I understand who's doing what to whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Being inaccessible from outside the US doesn't invalidate any web site as a source. We happily accept references to books or journals that are only held by libraries in one country. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with an SVG picture

See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Problem_with_svg_picture". To my understanding this must be a WIKI software bug!

Stamcose (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Try bypassing your cache, then give us browser/OS details. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 10:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed it about 15 min. ago, see the difference at File:Catenary 4.svg#filehistory. rsvg can’t handle trailing spaces in the fill/stroke color attributes, so they had defaulted to black. ―cobaltcigs 10:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now it is fine. Thanks!

Stamcose (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Padleft problems with star/colon

I just noticed the {{padleft:}} parser function is treating a leading star ("*") or colon (":") in a string, as being bullet-indent and colon-indent markup triggers. A value of "*aabb" is interpreted as bullet-indent of "aabb". Does anyone know how to turn-off the indentation of star/colon within padleft (or in padright)? They are generating a newline before the output text ":*ddee". Examples:

1a. "{{padleft:|4|*aabb}}" → "

• aab"

1b. "{{padleft:|5|:wwxx}}" → "

wwxx"

1c. "{{subst:padleft:|4|:*ddee}}" → "

• dd"

1d. "{{padright:|5|:*mmnn}}" → "

• mmn"

1e. {{nowrap|"{{padright:|5|:*mmnn}}"}} → "

• mmn"

There's no hurry on answering this, just curious. -Wikid77 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is Template:Bug, which is directly caused by the "fix" for Template:Bug. There is no way to turn it off. It happens with basically every template or parser function. Anomie⚔ 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This strikes me as worthy of a bug report, if there isn't one already. In the mean time, you can use &#42; for * and &#58; for : to prevent the indentation triggering. Dragons flight (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Change the style of the list in page history

I would like to change the list in "page history" from an unordered list (ul) to an ordered list (ol), by using javascript in my vector.js page. To be more specific, I want to replace <ul id="pagehistory"> and </ul> with <ol id="pagehistory"> and </ol>. Unfortunately I failed to do so after several trials. Can somebody who knows javascript help me?--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Use pure CSS:

#pagehistory { list-style-type:decimal; list-style-image: none; }

You also might add margin-left:2.75em; to allow space for 3–4 digit line-numbers. ―cobaltcigs 17:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives to Template:Str find

I am looking for a better alternative to {{Str find}} which allows the search of the entire string and doesn't explode the post-expand include size and template argument size limits to kingdom come. Unfortunately, even using this template a to check for invalid infobox parameters is causing some pages to break, like Naruto. —Farix (t | c) 14:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bug. You're already looking at the best currently-available system for string examination. Happy‑melon 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I decided to eliminate 3 of the 7 checks. However, looking at the code for {{Str find}}, it makes repeated calls to a sub-template, which could be eliminated by incorporating the code directly into {{Str find}}. This will drop the post-expand include size and template argument size tremendously each time {{Str find}} is called. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Page title bug

The above displayed on User talk:Hell in a Bucket. ~NerdyScienceDude 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's because the page contains transclusions of Special pages. That generally messes things up quite badly (I don't know why it isn't simply forbidden, since it's known not to work).--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

iOS edit toolbar issue

The old edit toolbar is displaying instead of the new one. I'm using an original iPhone with iOS 3.1.3. ~NerdyScienceDude 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)