User talk:Edokter

Column-width, default

The template you recently created, {{Column-width}}, says in its documentation: "The default column width is 30em." While I agree with you that 30em is a good choice, I think you should explain your choice here. —bender235 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty old discussion. My choice was based on the most prevalant value used in {{reflist}}. Also, most opinions seem to revolve around 30em. I honestly cannot provide an exact reason why 30em is the best choice. — Edokter • Talk • 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the discussion is old, but it is still open. I think we should use 30em column-width by default, but there is no consensus thus far. You could help establishing it by uttering your preference for 30em there, too. —bender235 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice explanation. Thank you very much. —bender235 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now let's hope there is some response. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Greyhound: Madden reference

There are a host of references and links on Wikipages to information that are not free but require a visit to a library or some purchasing power. Viz on the Greyhound page alone:- 5.^ Snow, D.H. and Harris R.C. "Thoroughbreds and Greyhounds: Biochemical Adaptations in Creatures of Nature and of Man" Circulation, Respiration, and Metabolism Berlin: Springer Verlag 1985 6.^ Snow, D.H. "The horse and dog, elite athletes - why and how?" Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44 267 1985 7.^ Curtis M Brown. Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis. Wheat Ridge, Colorado: Hoflin 1986 ISBN 0866670610 // 10.^ Livingood, Lee (2000). Retired Racing Greyhounds for Dummies, p. 143-144. IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., Foster City, CA. ISBN 0764552767. 11.^ Branigan, Cynthia A. (1998). Adopting the Racing Greyhound, p. 17-18. Howell Book House, New York. ISBN 087605193X. So please desist from deleting the reference to Madden's recent paper on the absurd pretext that it is SPAM. Read the abstract available through the link, and if you have any further comment please discuss it. Met vriendelijke groeten--Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope Edokter doesn't mind me chiming in here, but I wanted to point out to you, Richard Hawkins, that quite apart from the issue of the "required reading"-ness or spamminess of your link, our external link guidelines explicitly say that "Links to be avoided" include "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation."

You may be conflating sources and external links, Richard. Books, scholarly articles, and the like which may have required payment to see are perfectly acceptable as sources, providing they meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, but in the case of external links, which are intended to be accessible further reading for article viewers, pay-per-view, buy-this-article, or subscribe-to-read sites are not acceptable. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. You said all i wanted to say. — Edokter • Talk • 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please try to be more constructive, and think of valuable content. Your advice came after two, or was it three deletions (called spam!) pity about the waste of time.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Error on my part. — Edokter • Talk • 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

recent change in monobook.css

Your recent change in the monobook css has caused issues with huggle, do you know of a way to fix this or is it possible that the update was not needed?--Jab843 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC) please ignore the above, problem fixed --Jab843 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment at WP:Huggle/Feedback#The main pane has the edits messed up, that hopefully explains the situation a little better??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsorted

Though your addition to Template:Wider attention is technically correct, I had long refrained from adding a template example for Unsorted because technically, there are infinitely many ways to get something sorted into Unsorted. There's {{rfctag}}, but then there's {{rfctag|unsorted}}, {{rfctag|misspelledcategory}}, {{rfctag|ionlywanttoseeyoulaughinginthepurplerain}}, and so on until the end of time. That being said, I don't disagree with your edit either, so I'll let it stand. harej 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I only did it because even I was slightly confused, thinking "what am I going to put in there?" — Edokter • Talk • 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Which makes sense. Though ideally, there's nothing in the Unsorted category. I view it more as something that needs to be emptied when something ends up there somehow. harej 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe adding 'Technical' is an idea? — Edokter • Talk • 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles Deleted

Hello, I'm hoping you can assist me. Two articles written were deleted for I assume "copyright" material but I am not certain. I have no idea why exactly these articles were deleted and would like the opportunity to revise and repost correct versions.

Article 1: The Urban Shopper Article 2: Urban Consumerism Article 3: Urban Market Basket (not deleted, as yet)

by Currieus currieus@optonline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Currieus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Of The Doctor

You undid the formatting I had made to this page regarding the names of former Doctor Who companions noted in this programme. The formatting is correct in terms of how the characters were named in the show. No last names were given. It is obvious to any DW fan who the characters are, but it is incorrect to name them in the manner you formatted. I noted that in my original edit. TVArchivistUK (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? They link to the same character names, so it is appropriate to format them in the same way. The quotes are unencyclopedic, and we should craft the text that is understandable to all readers, DW fans or not. — Edokter • Talk • 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because in the show itself, the character of Sarah Jane just says (and I'm paraphrasing), "there's a 'Tegan' somewhere in Australia and a 'Ben' and 'Polly' in India". Nobody in the programme identifies them as Tegan Jovanka or Ben Jackson. It's a clear reference to former characters, which is why it should link to their pages, but they were not named as such. Thus it is incorrect to identify them by their full names. TVArchivistUK (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're just ignoring me and making the edits the way you want them. I have never entered into an edit war on this site and I won't start now, but you have made the article incorrect. Surely that's not the aim of wikipedia. Have fun! TVArchivistUK (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding the edit request here, yes there is no secure version of the prototype wiki. However, because of that, the secure server should bypass any Wikimedia links that start with "prototype" so that it doesn't link to the secure Wikimedia. Therefore, the edit should be made. Also, the same thing was done with status.wikimedia.org; see this edit. I think you misunderstood the purpose of the requested edit. HeyMid (contributions) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. HeyMid (contributions) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Bold_row_headers

Hi. This and the prior change need deeper solutions. I would really prefer a generated solution for the scope attributes, as it will never happen consistently on a manual basis. And the CSS needs some serious thought without being driven by a few stakeholders such as FLC and DISCOG. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Description duly attempted...

...though as I say, I nevertheless feel that a visualisation of the Source is not at all necessary for readers' understanding of "The Doctor's Daughter"
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doctor's Daughter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.png is now a Valued Picture

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Acather96 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivegotbellyfur

Moot point now, put those barnstarts were nicked from my user page. I've had a troll infestation recently, to the extent that I've had my talk page protected; this might be a continuation of sorts. HalfShadow 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've seen his edits. It's a continuation from here HalfShadow 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If he is a sock, shouldn't he be blocked indef? — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Already brought it up with the blocking admin. HalfShadow 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflist changes

OK, so I supported the change to column-width, but I'm on a widescreen, and for articles with {{reflist|2}}, I'm getting multiple columns spreading the refs thin so it's harder to read (because they're not meant to to be three or four columns, only two). It would make sense (to me) to use column-width:50% rather than column-width:30em, but it doesn't seem to accept percent values. Is there any way around this, or could {{reflist}} use column-count if the parameter is |2 but column-width if it is |3? I know the goal was to let the refs adapt to whatever size screen people have, but for people with larger screens, like me, it's getting kid of annoying when trying to read refs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too late to turn back, but there is another solution. Reflists that use column-width or column-count have a CSS class assigned, so you can customize it. If you want to force two columns is multi-col is used, put the following in your vector.css file:

.references-column-count, .references-column-width {
    column-count: 2 !important;
    column-width: auto !important;
    -moz-column-count: 2 !important;
    -moz-column-width: auto !important;
    -webkit-column-count: 2 !important;
    -webkit-column-width: auto !important;
}

Hope this helps. — Edokter • Talk • 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it fixes it for all but the pages with the most refs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Do you have examples? — Edokter • Talk • 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a different screen now, but I'll get you a screenshot later. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is on 1366x768 and this is what I expect user with even wider screens would have (I don't have a Mac, but I imagine 2560x1440 would look like that). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems about right, without any custom CSS that overrides the default 30em. Are you seeing this even with the CSS in your Vector.css? — Edokter • Talk • 11:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the custom css fixes that, although now when I go to a page with lots of refs, it becomes really long in 2 columns only. But that can't be helped, so I guess I'm good now. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Well you deleted my contributon because you said inexplained reasons in the doctor who compnion article ! How can i explain them ?Mehdioa (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Below the edit box is a field called "edit summary". It is always a good idea to summarise your edit in there. — Edokter • Talk • 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

thanksMehdioa (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But what you present are not sources ! we cannot relie on it ! Mehdioa (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)