::But again, even if this looks terrific, I oppose the idea of using code for the purpose of generating a style difference in some browsers. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
::But again, even if this looks terrific, I oppose the idea of using code for the purpose of generating a style difference in some browsers. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
==Awesome work on [[Help:Contents]]!==
I really admire what you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help%3AContents&diff=35096905&oldid=34915071 done] with [[Help:Contents]]. Between the graphics you made and the hassle of making a new page, I'm tempted to just move Help:Contents to [[Wikipedia:Help portal]] and forget about a redesign. And to think, I helped come up with that idea! (scroll down a little from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trevor_macinnis/sandbox/community_portal_fixup/Two pages? here]). Anyway, great job.[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]]) 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am inspired by your username. I went for it. I have already merged Art and Arts into Art. "Fine arts" is a very specific list. All other distinctions are hair-splitting. Architeture is hard to pigeonhole and can live in both Art and Technology w/o the user feeling imposed upon. -- Fplay10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go for it. Please, if you don't agree with something I do, talk to me, and don't complain to Fplay. You can try to guess which of the two will be more constructive. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Question on passing variables
Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable in this area at all -- just lucky. I work by trial and error, without much knowledge of what it is I'm doing. So far its worked! But I really must sit down and read up on all the technical stuff so that I can answer questions like this. So...I'm not really sure what your asking.--cj | talk06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just want the navigation stuff to be all the same. Changing the Main Page to add Art and Philosophy is now the easiest solution so I support expanding the navigation to the Top 10. I am not so sure about your new layout for the Main Page. The list of 850 words is probably overkill: there are too many non-encyclopedic "concept" words. E.g. prepositions should not, in most cases, get articles. -- Fplay09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if you meant to or not, but you added discussion topics to my main userpage.. not my user talk page. I wasn't notified of them because of this.. and they aren't supposed to be there in the first place. I figure you might know this since your page is so .. complex. mm. drumguy8800 - speak?06:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main page draft
Thanks for your feedback. I'm quite sure that POTD is semi-automated, with the help of templates, but not 100% automted. The process is explained at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Generating_POTD_entries. I'm sure the POTD process and templates can be modified to suit the main page layout. Solipsist seems to be handling the duties each day, so I'm sure asking him, we can get this worked out. I wouldn't bother him yet, until we get good consensus from users on the overall design. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current draft is a big improvement, though I've made a bunch more suggestions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft. To help illustrate these points, these ideas are mocked-up at User:Kmf164/Main_page_draft. It incorporates something from Tom's original draft (the second search box), the subsequent drafts you have worked on, some from the Italian Wikipedia main page, the current main page, and user comments. Feel free to take any of this to use. Thanks. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Draft 5
Thanks for alerting me to the fact that draft #5 was altered. I like the colors you use better than the cyan, as well as the community portal feature. I'll edit my comments on the draft talk page to reflect that. Thanks. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking in to their use of .css. The big thing I've found out thusfar is that the rounded corners effect only works for those using Firefox (or other Gecko/Mozilla browsers). So, it doesn't work for the poor souls still using Internet Explorer (see right). We can still try for the rounded corners effect, anyway. I'll keep looking into it and get back go you soon. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find exactly where the .css is that the Italian wiki uses, that specifies the rounded corners. I can keep looking. Though, I have figured out the specific code to put in the style inline attribute for <div> tags: style="-moz-border-radius-topright: 1em;-moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em;". For Mozilla browsers, this makes the corners rounded. I tried it: User:Kmf164/Main page draft2. As for the rounded corners in the skin, you copy my .css at User:Kmf164/monobook.css to User:Go for it!/monobook.css, you'll have the rounded corners in the top tabs and left column. I think the Italian Wikipedia has incorporated this .css code into their Monobook.css
Anyway, the div box .css attribute only seems to work for div boxes and not as a table attribute. Using div boxes then gets back to the problem of the columns and boxes lining up at the bottom. On the Italian wiki, once you go past the main page, the boxes are all square. If users overwhelmingly want the rounded corners, we can do it. Though not as elegent, it would also be possible to use a background image in the table or div cells to give the rounded corners effect on the main page. Though, I personally don't like that inconsistency from their main page across to their other pages. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the monobook link. I see the style="-moz-border-radius-topright: 1em;-moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em;" code in the italian monobook, but not the en. monobook. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already had, but I can't see the changes. I noticed everyone raving about rounded corners, but for some reason, they don't appear such (for me). Do you know why this is? It sounds like a nice format, --cj | talk06:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gotten myself Firefox and am looking at the rounded corners presently. To be honest, whilst it looks okay, it's not as fantastic as I had hoped or as people had made it seem (although it does work particular well for Portal:Philosophy). I prefer the square-edge borders that appear for users of IE. By the way, what do you think of adopting Image:Nuvola apps mycomputer.png to replace the current Technology icon?--cj | talk15:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
class defintion
Yes, class definitions are maintained in a CSS file. A class for a specific element is defined like the following, which is a cut from my own website's CSS file:
When a div is called, you can type <div class="object"></div> and its style will be defined by the class above.
To explicitly define a specific div's style in a css file, you do the following:
div #ent1
{
background: transparent url(collection/02210502s.jpg) center no-repeat;
text-align: right;
left: 0px;
}
And it can be referenced with id:
<div id="ent1"></div>
You'll note that the only difference is the "." in the class definition in the css file and the "#" in the id definition in the css file. Also in the div declaration in the HTML, the only difference is referencing "class" or "id". hope this helps..
Fplay was running an unapproved bot. I blocked it until he discussed what he was doing, but instead of adressing the bot, he used a sock puppet, User:Emact, to go to WP:ANI to attack me for making the block. When somebody else (I can't remember who) called him on talking to himself on Fplay's Talk page and making comments as if he were a different person, he started making attacks on me as being "of a certain demographic", which I finally figured out means he has a thing against women. It turns out, in the meantime, that he is the banned user User:Amorrow. Amorrow definitely has a thing against women, especially Elizabeth Morgan. User:Zoe|(talk)04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I'd prefer if you'd raise it first on the talk page. Part of the reason pages are protected is to ensure that changes are first discussed. Oh, and I'm fine with you using my user page format - your not the first, and mine was original derived from others. Although it'd be good to retain a certain uniqueness, the layout is exceptional.--cj | talk16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touch bot
User:Commander Keane bot uses the python wikipedia bot. The pywikipedia bot has a function for touching the "What links here" for a page. So, for your template problem (which is a common one), you could run a bot to clear out any of the false postives that were troubling you. Incidentally, for bot or human, touching a page should not leave an edit in the history (I wish someone could have told Fplay that a couple of weeks ago). You can run your own python bot, and I'll help you set it up if you like.
The python bot has lots of other features, but I'm not too sure if any of them cover the other things you want to do. My knowledge about bots is rather limited.
I don't have any idea about creating classes, MediaWiki:Monobook.css appears to list them all though. Its seems an admin can edit the page, which I'm guessing creates a site-wide class than anyone can use. Maybe stike up some discussion there, or at the Village Pump.
One other tool I know about is AutoWikiBrowser, talk to the creator to see if it can help you out.
To garner all the bot related info you can (eg, how to solve your points 1,2,3,5,6,7), you might try posting the points at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Quite a few bot operators watch that page. Maybe even a general question like:
What (other) resources (pages, bots, utilities, etc.) do the power users / most prolific contributors of Wikipedia use?
Try the inline style="border-bottom:0px", or you could put this into your .css and associate this style with a particular class of h2 headings. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you like rounding ;-)
Heh, hi there. I love the new design for the main page! however, i think that you should make the tables fixed height so that they line up with eachother; because the way it is at the moment, the height of the right column will change depending upon how much , or how little news traffic there is that day. Similarly, i don't think that there should be a search box at the top, because there's already one at the side, which is always in the same position. Still, apart from that,fantastic!The magical Spum-dandy21:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what element you are talking about. I think the bottoms of the columns line up. Do they line up on your browser?
If you are referring to the second headings ("On this day" and "Did you know"), it wasn't clear in your post. I'm not sure how to make those line up, but I can work on it, if that is what you were referring to. I've updated the news items, and the second-headings currently do not line-up. Take a look. And thank you for the feedback and words of encouragement. Go for it!22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you've been adding code that generates rounded edges only in Mozilla-based browsers. This is fine for user pages and user talk pages, but I believe that it's inappropriate for use in the encyclopedia proper. Aside from my personal opinion that it looks bad, I don't think that we should deliberately create major browser-based style differences. I feel that we should strive to provide as uniform an appearance as possible among all of the graphical browsers. —David Levy00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for code for round corners for the other browsers, but haven't been successful finding any so far. I'm not sure any other browser supports round edge rendering. If you are aware of any code, let me know so I can expand my experimentation to include the other browsers.
Is there a feature of wikimedia that counts hits per page? Or, are there records of hits kept in the sql database that drives wikipedia? It would be useful to know how many people are seeing the changes. Failing that, are there any statistics on the proportion of readers to editors? So far, the only feedback I've gotten (on my talk page or the various edited pages' talk pages) is a handful or two. They seem to either really like the style or really dislike it, and so far run about equal. Any assistance you could provide for digging for statistics would be most appreciated. --Go for it!03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any code that can be used to accomplish this in the other browsers. (In fact, I wasn't aware of the Mozilla code until now.) My understanding (based upon what I've been told by SoM) is that this feature has not been widely implemented.
I don't know the answers to your other questions, and I suggest that you attempt to contact one of the MediaWiki developers.
As for the rounded corners, I'm afraid that I belong to the "really dislike it" camp. (I use Firefox, so I noticed the difference.) The appearance is extremely jagged.
But again, even if this looks terrific, I oppose the idea of using code for the purpose of generating a style difference in some browsers. —David Levy03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
