User talk:Clindberg

"Edit Top" script

I had the same issues with the edit link showing up on diff and history pages. The elements that your script was looking for appeared to be there, so I don't know why your script didn't work, but that's the way it is :-) When I made other changes to the script, those changes appeared, so it's not a browser refresh issue. I actually prefer the mechanism used in recent change to Monobook.js to determine whether to show it or not -- it looks for other appearances of the [edit] link on the page, and only adds if one is found. That should respect the user's edit link preference as well. Also, you need to do a global replace of space to underscore -- your current replace() just does the first one. However, your method of actually adding the link appears to work much better than that one. You can see what I'm experimenting with at User:Clindberg/monobook.js if you like (I have broken things up into separate variables for experimentation purposes; not really necessary though). Carl Lindberg 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not the original author of "Edit Top," nor am I knowledgeable enough to perform a major rewrite. I simply made various tweaks to the existing code.

I agree that the other script's detection mechanism is much better, and I was ready to abandon "Edit Top" until the Safari problems surfaced. Indeed, combining the better detection mechanism (which appears to be Safari-compatible) with the better insertion method (which also appears to be Safari-compatible) is theoretically ideal. I've tested your code, and it seems to work perfectly. —David Levy 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying it out (and thanks for providing the script in the first place, even if you weren't the original author). I've made a couple of other tweaks, mainly to the hover label of the link,and also so that the /* Intro */ label gets inserted into the edit box when the link is clicked similar to what happens with the other sections (my changes broke that I think). I'll try it out for a bit more, then post this version over on the Village Pump discussion in case anyone wants to reinstate it. Obviously, it would be better to get this feature into the core software, but if and until that happens, this is a pretty good alternative. Feel free to insert any changes into your Edit Top script... I doubt I'll make a script page over there. Carl Lindberg 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! The "Intro" link is clever in the respect that it works correctly by technically not working. (No such section heading is found, so the page is loaded without jumping down—thereby displaying the correct section.) Only if there happens to be a heading named "Intro" somewhere on the page (fairly unlikely) would this fail.

I've changed the 47px top margin to 38px. This causes the edit link to be vertically aligned with the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (in my browsers, anyway). The 47px margin was an attempt to leave the same distance between the edit link and the title heading line as there is between a regular edit link and the heading line from its section, but I now realize that the latter sometimes varies.

I'm extremely optimistic regarding the possibility of implementing this code site-wide. —David Levy 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer the new margin; looks cleaner to me. The "Intro" bit was pretty clever... that existed before I got there though :-) It was just at the bottom of the script, so it was never executed when it needed to be.

However, my current version does not seem to work on IE6. Not sure why... investigating. Carl Lindberg 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, figured it out. IE6's innerHTML text had class=editsection instead of class="editsection" (i.e. without the double quotes) so I had to search either way. Once I made that fix, it seems to work fine on IE now. I tested on Safari (older 1.x version), Firefox/Mac, Opera/Mac, and IE6/Win, and it seems to work on all of them. The edit link is horizontally aligned with the "From Wikipedia" text on all browsers that I tested with, so that part worked well. Carl Lindberg 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation bars

Carl, you seem to be helpful testing other people's javascript. When you are finished with David's project, would you be willing to help a bit on mine? Gimmetrow 03:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could take a peek, at least. What problems are you having? Carl Lindberg 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to enhance the dynamic navigation bars. I have general questions about the best approach (ie, whether it's good to use these JS calls, and whether it should create a new class or replace the old one), and specific ones about performance. Ultimately, I need enough support to convince an admin to roll it in. See also here. Gimmetrow 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You've obviously been thinking about this for a couple months, so I may be missing some context. From what you're saying, you are trying to genericize the NavBox javascript so you can use it in other circumstances, such as packing a lot of information in an infobox by having expand/collapse sections, so not too much screen real estate is taken up initially?

I'm not too familiar with any utility functions the MediaWiki monobook.js has already, so I have no idea if something would already exist. I see that you probably need to work with spans instead of divs, and you probably want inline instead of block styles (sadly, inline-block is not very well supported among browsers). However, those are significant enough changes that I would probably not want to alter the NavBox code; that seems designed for that one specific purpose. It is also possible that NavBox requires a block display; IE in particular has some behaviors that depend on that. Unless it would make it less likely for an admin to accept, I'd probably go with separate functions / CSS classes.

The code doesn't look particularly efficient -- it is calling document.getElementsByTagName() every time through its loop -- but the current NavBox stuff seems to work fast enough. Which performance questions did you have? I'm not a big expert on that, but maybe I can answer.

Is there any way you could avoid abusing the title attribute? I'm pretty sure the HTML spec allows unknown attributes to exist, which are ignored, but should be available in the DOM tree. For example, if you add "expandtitle" and "collapsetitle" attributes on your outer div, can you access those values with hasAttribute() and getAttribute() in javascript? That would let you put "parameters" of a sort in custom attributes on the outer div tag, which you could use in the code. Maybe even a "block" versus "inline" parameter :-) Carl Lindberg 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for this was the Popes template. It lists some 260 names, but most readers probably only care to navigate to the few before or after. I basically wanted a structure that would allow a list of names with most of them "collapsed" and only a few (likely to be relevant) ones available immediately.

I copied the NavBox code from the standard monobook.js. Some of the code seems to be designed so as not to store values. My first version used more variables and it was rather slow. The NavBox is very specific - dynamic content is blocked, and it's hidden by default (in browsers that support the code). People complain about javascript bloat, so if it's possible to build functionality into the current routine and maintain compatibility, that would be great. Unfortunately, one particular behaviour is apparently used by some templates and I broke that behaviour trying to improve efficiency, so it would involve less testing to just have a new class. But repeating the NavBox code seems like bloat.

As for unknown attributes, on one platform (probably MacOS), the code simply would not work with non-standard attributes. (It's been a while since I worked on that issue.) Only the ones listed as officially part of each tag were recognized. For the div tag, I decided that "title" would be the easiest one for passing variable values. The other option would be to create my own custom tag(s) just to pass variable values, but that seemed to require more parsing, and more efficiency issues. Gimmetrow 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the unknown attributes strategy doesn't work, I'm not sure there's a way to modify the existing NavBox stuff without changing its current behavior... and I would definitely not want to change that. Maybe there is a way to insert empty spans with attributes that have parameter values. If so they could be put in by parameters to the hidden templates, and picked up by the javascript to alter behavior. Seems like a lot of effort though. May be a bit slower performance, but only for the setup javascript, not the toggle (where were the previous performance issues btw? setup or when the user clicked?) I'd really like to know which of the browsers did not include unknown attributes in the DOM tree though :-)

One option for the Pope template would simply to make the whole thing a collapsible navbox, similar to how the Presidents of the USA is done now. Since there are already "Preceded by" and "Followed by" boxes for the previous/next pope, I'm not sure you need to try to duplicate that in the popes template. Simply making the entire thing collapsible may be the best approach it seems to me; the user would not see the entire list unless they were looking for a pope other than the immediately preceding or following one. Carl Lindberg 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with using the title attribute? It seems to work for me, and it allows compatibility with the existing NavBox. The efficiency issue involved determining the hide/show text. In order to make that faster, I coded it as part of the botton html during page setup, so it wouldn't require further javascript calls in the toggle to collect the title text. This meant that the button calls become complex, and it was no longer simple to support the old behaviour that made all boxes hidden if there were more than N of them. It could still be done, I just haven't worked out the logic to do it. There are some templates which apparently assume N=1, so I can emulate that behaviour. Then I supported a default show option with an empty div/span.

The pope template was just the original idea. A box with 260 names is a little hard to navigate than a box with 43 names, and I thought having the 10-20 previous and 10-20 subsequent would make it more manageable. Even if this functionality is not useful there, it seems useful in other contexts. Gimmetrow 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title attribute is supposed to have a description of the element it is attached to. Accessibility software often uses it to aid blind viewers; having arbitrary technical content in there could prove to be confusing. Also, browsers can use that as popup text when you hover the mouse over the area (for example, Safari on your "sand" page over some of the text items). Additionally, it's not very extensible to other potential parameters... it would be better to figure out another way if at all possible... it's really a shame that arbitrary unknown attributes didn't work; that would have been best.

An alternative to passing parameters to the toggle function would be to declare global array variables with the title for each navbox at its index, allowing the toggle function to just reference the variables by index. I.e. have a NavBarShowTitles[] and NavBarHideTitles[] global arrays, with the strings at each index, so the toggle function can pull them out by index. This should let you support hiding the rest of the boxes again. Carl Lindberg 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your code

On your code, two things:

if the page has no sections, it still has a section0. Do you want to have an [edit] link ? It's the same as edit page, so it's not really necessary, but if you get used to the [edit] link it's nice to have.
the diff and history pages do show an [edit] link for sections when the page corresponds to the current page (ie, last diff or last history link); if those are shown, I think a section0 [edit] should be shown as well. (It may become possible at some point in the future to edit sections of older pages from history.) Gimmetrow 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a page has no sections, I was figuring the edit page tab would be enough. It's not all that far away, and determining whether to include it or not gets much more difficult if it is displayed when no other edit links are present. Maybe that could be revisited if the feature ever gets added to the base software directly.

I forgot about the diff and history pages when looking at the current edit; yes the section 0 link will show up there too. It's arguable that it shows up in the wrong place when looking at the current diff, but that is a lot of special-case code and I'm not sure it's worth it. If historical versions start having edit links, this script would probably need to be revisited to deal with that (if it's even possible). Carl Lindberg 06:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not a big deal, but currently I do not see section0 [edit] links in the diff and history pages, when links are displayed for other sections. Gimmetrow 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, it works for me, both with Safari and Firefox on the Mac. Which browser/platform are you using? I assume you mean when looking at a history page, clicking on the most recent "diff" or revision timestamp essentially shows you the current page, and all the edit links exist there. In my case, the section 0 link also shows up, albeit right under the h1 line (on the diff page, that is above the diff). Carl Lindberg 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that issue seems to be working now; there is an section0 edit link on the last diff or revision. At some point that was not the case with Safari. There is still a problem encoding &, however, see Robert_Randolph_&_the_Family_Band. Gimmetrow 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, good catch. I put a fix in. Hopefully that is only a problem with '&' characters... I tried a few articles with other odd characters and they seemed to work, but maybe there is one I missed. I'm leery of using the javascript escape() function due to purported Unicode issues on some browsers. Carl Lindberg 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyttleton

Nice pic of Lyttleton port. LW77 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Martin

Thanks for your work on Spider's wiki page. He was a one of a kind. Glad to have known him.

Thank you so much. Artsojourner 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I just was startled when I saw your name. I know someone very close to me with your name.--Filll 04:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MerionGolfClubLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MerionGolfClubLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about that one. It ended up scaling down horribly, so I scaled it manually, uploaded that version, and used it instead. This one isn't used, and can go. Carl Lindberg 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WALTER TRAVIS

Thank you for your recent correction of the date of Travis's use of the Haskell Ball to win the U.S. Amateur. Also,the images you have added to the article are terrific. I would like to change the notation for two of the pictures, one, to identify the ball in the 1901 picture as the Haskell Ball, and two, to change the date of the portrait of Travis sitting. We have that picture in our collection with the date of 1901 rather than 1909. Thank you again for your help. TravisSociety, 9 February 2007

Of course, go ahead. The article mentioned Haskell (several times) so I didn't see the need for the image caption to repeat it, but it's not a big deal. The portrait date was just a guess, since it was published in a 1909 issue in Travis' magazine. If you have a date of 1901, then I'll fix the commons image page as well. Good to know. Carl Lindberg 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. no need to make another reference to the Haskell. Thanks again. Travis Society 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies' British Open Amateur Championship

I think the article British Ladies Amateur Golf Championship needs to be changed to the correct title. Do you agree? On another note, I didn't re delete the prestigious sentence, but can you find a source for that statement for this and the US championship being the most prestigious/most important/highest level or any of that sort? C5mjohn 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It almost goes without saying -- In 1930, when Bobby Jones won the "grand slam" of golf of the time, the four "majors" then were the U.S. Amateur, British Amateur, U.S. Open, and British Open. Since women's professional golf barely existed in the U.S. and probably even less in the U.K. (the U.S. Women's Open didn't start until 1946 and the Women's British Open started in 1976), the two (by far) most important titles were the U.S. Women's Amateur and Ladies British Amateur, both started in the late 1800s. Here is an old Time article when Babe Zaharias became the first American to win it; the other "major British golf titles" referred to were the men's British Open and Amateur, both held by Americans at that point. Here is an older article, showing that the tournament got coverage in the U.S, pretty much the only women's British event to do so (the same was true of earlier golf magazines like The American Golfer). The U.S. Women's amateur gets an entry into to the U.S. Women's Open; and the past three British Ladies Amateur champions are exempted from much of the qualifying (similar situation to the men's side). It's the only foreign amateur tournament to have such exemptions.

As for the name, I'm inclined to agree. It's hard to find a "most common" usage, as you will find lots of references using "women's" instead of "ladies", with and without the "Open" word, and also various orderings of the words themselves. Even the lgu.org site isn't always consistent -- the history sidebar on this page uses "Ladies' British Amateur Championship". The "Open" is somewhat confusing (it means open to British and non-British, as opposed to the more common meaning of open to professionals and amateurs) so is often dropped. The original title didn't use "Amateur" since the distinction was unnecessary then. Still, using the current official name probably makes sense. Carl Lindberg 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of good research that you should put in the article. But I still don't believe that "prestigious" should be in either article. It is a subjective term that doesn't really mean much. Maybe something like important, rewarding, or highest level.Perhaps a comment like "along with the US championship, they are the only Women's amateur competitions to award qualifiying exemptions to professional association tournaments." C5mjohn 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prestigious does have a meaning :-) I agree it's very subjective and is often inappropriate in articles (and may also be an indicator of copied advertizing text), but at times there is wide agreement on the matter, so I would be careful about removing it from every article. The Nobel prize, for example, is highly regarded just about everywhere (the definition of prestigious) and so labelling it that way would be accurate. The four golf majors got that way basically because there was general agreement they were the four most prestigious tournaments. In this case, these two tournaments are essentially the two "majors" of women's amateur golf, and that part does need to be in the articles. It doesn't need to use the word prestigious; your current wording is fine. Removing the entire sentence was a bit much though :-) Carl Lindberg 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clindberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Good job on your edits on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 1950 as well. Chris 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for the belated welcome ;-) Carl Lindberg 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicklaus picture

Great work on the Nicklaus picture. Thanks very much for that! Grover 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The cropped version was already on commons though (I guess another wiki needed to do the same thing); I just noticed it when I uploaded the Medal of Freedom picture (was happy to find that). Carl Lindberg 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evian Masters

Thanks for your work on Evian Masters filling in most of the missing purse amounts and the additional years that were won in a playoff. I couldn't find that data when I created the table. --Crunch 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for ...

Thanks for uploading Image:1931RyderCupCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you...

		The Mullet Pierced
		Thanks for your help with the seals. Your knowledge really helped us out. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Thanks for the help with Image:OFCCP-Seal.svg --evrik ^(talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to golf tournament names

Hi, Clindberg - You and I both been busy reverting changes to Ladies European Tour and LPGA to the tournament names. This vandal has been at work on both articles as well as on individual player articles, changing for example, MasterCard Classic to MasterCard Classic presented by Nextel. (Nextel has never been involved in the tournament ever). And sometimes adding the "presented to" name -- sometimes the correct one, sometimes not. I traced the IP number all these changes and it comes back to the same ISP in Australia. I have reported this to Wikipedia admins to see if the page can be protected about IP edit. They denied the request for now but asked me to submit it again if the activity keeps up. --Crunch (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, The history of changes on the LPGA article is the same as on the Ladies European Tour article. Started about a year ago. The changes range from just adding the presented by name to blatant vandalism. Lately he's mixed things up and is changing things in different ways which show that he really isn't changing the names because he believes they should be changed, but just to make trouble. I'm convinced it's the same person who uses an ISP that assigns a different IP address each time he logs in. It's unfortunate Wikipedia won't protect the pages right now to prevent editing by people who just have an IP number, but they said they will look a it again if it keeps up. ---Crunch (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAG

Hi please revert your changes to the American golfers as MOS FLAG says a flag should not be in the infobox for sportsmen. To quote "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes." Please read policy correctly in future before reverting good changes.SitNGo (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've gone ahead and reverted myself. Next time make sure you understand policy before reverting someone's good changes. Thanks.SitNGo (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, to repeat:

As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes.

Can it be any clearer?SitNGo (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously for use outside of the infobox such as a table! The line I quoted you last time wasn't put there for fun, it is there for a reason. No flag icons in the infobox.SitNGo (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged means discouraged. Wikipedia does not want them there. Look at other world sports icons from other sports: Cristiano Ronaldo, Roger Federer, Brian O'Driscoll etc. No flags. There is no case to put them in the infobox as it says flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes.SitNGo (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]