User talk:Davidgothberg/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


{{nowrap begin}} – {{·wrap}} – {{nowrap end}}

I moved this discussion to the talk page of {{Nowrap begin}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Some time ago, I wrote an essay over at Swedish Wikipedia. I have since moved it to my user space, and am now in the process of making it that personal and catchy text it was originally intended to be. It is far from finished, atm it is probably rather boring. However, I included something that someone recently told me. Feel free to correct and brush up the details. sv:Användare:Habj/Mallsjuka

P.S. This talk page says on top you are till on wikibreak. // habj (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read your essay. It was a thought-provoking read. And now that I am an older and wiser Wikipedia editor + template programmer, I think I agree with most of your conclusions there. And yes, I might take the time some day to look over the fact details you are referring too.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard spaces, again

Hi David. I see that you have been actively working on the nowrap and hard-space issues, around the place. Your contribution a while ago at WT:MOS was very useful indeed, thank you! Please see my new subsection there. I do hope we can work together to implement the ,,-solution, which appeals to anyone who thinks dispassionately about it. I have yet to see a reasoned objection to it that would not also apply to existing markup.

Best wishes to you.

¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree, I too have not seen any good arguments against your proposal. So when will you move the proposal to an official page so you can get this thing rolling?
If I had the time and interest I would be inclined to simply kidnap the idea from you and create Wikipedia:Wikimarkup for hard spaces myself. (Well, I would credit you on that page.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, David. We have no real issue between us, I think. I hope we can work closely on this. Are you happy to wait ten days, since I unfortunately have to? After that I'll be free for this. Don't discount the work that has been done so far! It has been a hard job of educating ourselves and others about this knotty problem, and the radical solution that we have arrived at. You have great expertise, and with all of that diverse background our team may well succeed – if we are coordinated, which is the single biggest difficulty.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, we have no real issue between us. I really like your hard spaces proposal. I just wanted to push you a little in the direction I think you need to take to get this thing rolling. And I have no problem "waiting ten days" since I am way to busy with other things anyway. Actually so busy that it is not likely I will have time to help you with your proposal no matter how long you wait.
I'll respond here regarding the things that you wrote at the MOS:
The very reason I have not read up on "all of the dismal history of this matter" is that it seems to be spread out over many different pages. There is no one stop official permanent place to go to to read up on and discuss this proposal. (Well, that and that I really am supposed to be on wikivacation or perhaps even wikiretirement.)
Note that as far as I know it is normal procedure that proposals make their own Wikipedia:Something page already at an early stage. And your proposal is way beyond any such point now. Besides, if you are going to get anywhere, be bold!
And look at us, our discussion has already been spread out over several different pages, again because there is no one stop official permanent place to hold this discussion.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say...

...I haven't lost sight of your continuing efforts to document and promote good (template) formatting practice. I in the meantime have been implementing {{nowrap begin}} etc where it seems needed (i.e. most everywhere in Templateland). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I just took a look at your user contributions and yeah you seem to be working hard in Templateland.
Oh, and I just noticed you have created {{\wrap}} and {{\w}}. So I'll add them to the documentation at {{nowrap begin}}. If you create any more such templates feel free to add them to the helper templates list at {{nowrap begin}} yourself. After all, this is a wiki.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to do that. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates and protection tags

Hello. Generally, it's best to keep protection tags on the page that is actually protected to avoid bots and silly users removing them. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

250 GiB file size

David, please see this post in response to your recent proposal on Talk:MOSNUM. It pertains to a different issue. Greg L (my talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • David, see my latest at Talk:MOSNUM. Regarding the “GiB” issue, there’s no need to jump into that holy war and fight any battles. If you think the use of those IEC terms is ill-advised, it would be nice if you’d let me know. I’ll contact you when it’s time for an up-or-down vote. You might also be thinking of any like-minded editors. There is a small, but very vocal and intransigent, group of editors who like the IEC units and that’s the only reason one sees them used here on Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ehm, by now you have probably seen my answer at WT:MOSNUM#Standardisation is a good thing, and I bet you will not like what I wrote there. Since I like the new unambiguous unit GiB. And don't worry, I am not going to fight any battles over it, I have stated my reasons and my opinion.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on talk:Key strengthening. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I asked you what you specifically did complain about in the article, and you did not answer. And now you slap me with some template produced "assume good faith" notice? I think you should start editing articles, program templates, document templates or write how-to guides or other constructive work, instead of spending your time complaining about the work others do. Since I do the kind of work I just listed I don't really have the time to chatter with people like you.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I answered on the talk page of the article (No footnotes). You'd be better off sticking to the subject matter, rather than making unsubstantiated personal attacks on other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted censored your recent edit

I have reverted your recent edit because it contains misrepresentation and an attempted personal attack. If you want to add back your oppose without any personal attack then please do so. I remind you to be civil. Fnagaton 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't state what this is about then I assume this is about the MiB+Gib vs MB+GB discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
And I have to remind you to not censor parties in a discussion that happens to have an opposing view to yours. Mind you, "Wikipedia is not censored" and that applies even more to talk pages. Your the one on attack, not me. That was only the second time I wrote anything in that discussion, while you have filled many pages with judgements about others. Your not the sole judge of what is the right or wrong points of view and what sources are valid. And you seem to have a total lack of humour and no understanding of irony whatsoever. (Don't you see the irony in what I wrote over there? I know you are British and that Greg L is from the US. Now that you know that I know you might be able to reread that sentence in a new light.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not censorship because I told you why you were reverted and it is because of your personal attack. I remind you it is also against policy to use your talk page to misrepresent other editors. That includes changing the title of this section to push your point of view. Fnagaton 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And I repeat: You are not the sole judge of what is right or wrong. And most of us think censoring the additions to discussions of people with opposing views is just that, censoring.
And I reserve the right to correct the wording in any section titles on my own talkpage. I even followed Wikipedia standard in over striking the old word and underlining the new word, thus showing the title has been edited. So I don't hide things like you do.
Now get of my talk page, I don't have time to talk with you. I have widely used templates that needs documenting.
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I am having a problem with the images (and I saw that you may have some experience with it), so if possible may you fix my Images in Browse Bar. Thank You (I have tried to no avail).--TrUCo-X 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, I assume you meant the "image overflow" problem? It was the "pxpx" bug, I fixed it. The problem was that when calling your ImageLink from Browse Bar you were sending the parameter "size=75px", but inside ImageLink you were then doing [[image:{{{image}}}|{{{size}}}px]]. That meant you caused the image size to be "75pxpx", like this: [[image:Example.jpg|75pxpx]]. But since 25 March (two days ago) MediaWiki does not accept "75pxpx" anymore. So I simply changed the code in ImageLink to be [[image:{{{image}}}|{{{size}}}]].
Hahaha, how did you know that I could fix it? Did you already suspect it was the "pxpx" / "clickfix" bug and had seen I was active in working with that at Wikipedia:ClickFix?
Since you seem to be a hard working editor and like images I think you will notice that images are now too large in all kinds of templates here at Wikipedia. Now that you know about the "pxpx" bug then you might want to read up about it so you can help to fix templates, see {{px}} and Wikipedia:ClickFix. We certainly need more editors who understand this new "bug".
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I've changed to protection level temporarily on {{drugbox}}. If it's not too much to ask, can you please apply your recommended fix to the template? (I'm not 100% sure if I could do it right myself, and I'm afraid of messing up a template that used on thousands of pages.) Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – And the test cases at Template talk:Px looks fine so seems to be working. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{·wrap}} to {{·w}}

Glad you don't mind -- I was hoping the "(a shortcut to {{·wrap}})" would be enough to clarify it. I've begun pointing people toward the page, so thought it may as well use the shorter version. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that addition to the sentence should make it clear. Only problem is that the sentence now has too much information for one sentence. But I can't figure out how to break it up in a good way, so I'll have to look at it some other day. Or perhaps we can just sit back and watch when others improve it, the wiki process is nice. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


We seem to keep bumping into each other, and almost every time it's because you seem to want me to use my admin tools to do something fantastically constructive that you can't do yourself because you get nasty messages whenever you try to edit the templates that you created. Have you considered running for adminship yourself? You seem to be a committed, respectable and constructive contributor, so if you're interested I'd be delighted to nominate you. The only catch is that if you don't decide in the next three quarters of an hour I'm going on holiday, so you'll have to wait a week :D ! Give it a think and let me know if you're interested. Happymelon 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! "Fantastically constructive", gotta love your way of putting it. Yeah, I like to build things, for instance software or templates, that solves problems.
I would sure have good use of being an admin when working with the templates. And yes, I have been thinking about it since sometime last summer when I started to run into the problem that the templates I make get too popular and thus locked. I just hesitated to nominate myself, especially since I probably will not do much regular admin work. I am not that good with handling people and are more specialised in doing technical work. So yes, I'd like to be nominated. And don't worry, I have been here at Wikipedia for several years now, waiting a week doesn't matter much.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Awl... - beaten to it. Came here to enquire, as you are such a template wizard, why not seek the mop handle to brush away spillages yourself rather than having to direct others to the broom cupboard of updating protected templates. If Happy-melon does not mind, I'ld be happy to co-nominate you :-) Would need to be careful on how the RfA proposal is worded, for as you note above, you are not involved across the wide spectrum of administrative areas, nor have a hughly high main-space edit (see your Wannabe Kate values) given your other areas of assistance. Of course there is no requirement for any Admin to be active in all aspects, and as it is an all or nothing granting of the mop tools, the only issues are that you have a need for at least one of the tools and have peoples' trust not to abuse the others. David Ruben Talk 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I add a co-nomination? Nihiltres{t.l} 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are asking Happy-melon and David Ruben. But just in case: I of course do not mind. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Double thanks! "template wizard", he, I am almost blushing. And yes, I think a co-nominator or two would be a good thing. And Happy‑melon seems to be the type that would like that. I was actually thinking of asking around among the admins that have been working with me on templates lately (like you) in a couple of days or so when Happy‑melon is back.
This is going to be a long answer, but I want to "sharpen my arguments" for the RfA anyway:
It is very tiring to have to program the templates "by remote control". And I guess a waste of time for the admins that then has to try to understand the code and then copy and paste it for me.
And yeah, I know that most people over at RfA want "a well rounded admin candidate" with lots of main space edits. But personally I think we need more specialists too. After all, specialists usually are or become experts at what they do, and their work means that other admins get more time to do other work.
One reason I don't have such a high main space edit count is that I am not a native English speaker. Thus I do not do much "grammar and spelling fix" edits and similar. And when I do major article work I do it off-line in my word processor where I have spell and grammar checking. Still I prefer to work in the English Wikipedia since it has a higher reach. I have noticed that some of the images and several of the templates I have created have been copied to several other languages. I don't think that would have happened if I made them at the Swedish Wikipedia. And many people in my country (Sweden) anyway speak good enough English that they prefer to use the more complete English Wikipedia.
And it is easy to explain why I have such a high edit count in my own user space: If one looks closer at my edit stats one can see that most of my user space edits are on my test pages. See, I code and test the templates carefully in my own user space, then I copy and paste them into the actual template. Thus even when I make an intricate template it often only has one or two edits from me. The next edit often is from an admin locking it since it has become high risk...
And I spend a lot of time documenting the templates and answering questions about them. After all, software without documentation and support is not very useful.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be delighted if you'd co-nom, Davidruben, - the more the merrier! I've uploaded my first draft of a nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidgothberg - suggestions welcome. I tried to keep it lighthearted but any comments on the tone would be appreciated. If I've got any facts wrong, Davidgothberg, please let me know (here, preferably, the RfA talk page is usually for incivil argument over the candidate's suitability :D Happymelon 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Happy-melon you're almost too good with words. I just read what you wrote in the nomination over at RfA and wow! You even gave me the biggest laugh I had for some time. So I love the nomination text.
And about the facts: Yes I made {{•}}, but there is also the older {{·}} which wasn't created by me, and that is the one mostly used in the lists at Wikipedia:Featured articles and other dotted lists. So the text in the nomination should perhaps be changed from "which displays the dots between entries at" to "which displays the dots between some of the entries at". But I have been pretty involved in {{·}} too. (We tested and modified it, and I wrote the new documentation for it.) So perhaps doesn't matter.
And I didn't create {{notice}}. But I gave it a total make over some days ago so it currently runs on "my" code and has "my" documentation. So I think we should perhaps instead mention {{nowrap begin}}.
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added my co-nom. Also covered issue that you have good need of at least one mop tool and that alone should be the issue provided people do not doubt you would not misuse/abuse other tools. (so much RfA debates seem to expect a fully rounded editor already at the top of the experience/learning curve with a full range of prior administration involvement which flies in teh face of adminship supposedly being "no big deal"). David Ruben Talk 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
…And you now have a third nomination, from me as a second co-nom. Hopefully this will go through, you could really use the editprotected right well. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read both of your co-nominations. They are just way too extravagant! Something must be fishy. I think I know what this is, it is an evil plan to lure me into working even more for Wikipedia. And the worst thing is that the lure perhaps will succeed. Oh dear, my girlfriend is going to kill me. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Nihiltres and Davidruben. I've transcluded the RfA: you're on! Good luck - there's no reason why you shouldn't easily make it. Happymelon 09:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Few quick points - you should, especially as an RfA already have a strong password, it is customary (but I can't, now that I've tried to look, find anywhere that says it is obligatory) for admins to permit email contact (you have none specified, is this a deliberate decision ?). Finally, take care with answers such as Q12 - yes admins like everyone else probably could do with guidence and improvement in template usage (at a later date I'll pick your brains over some nested templates I'm contemplating at {{drugbox}}), but just don't seem too smug about it and risk wind people up at the RfA :-) David Ruben Talk 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the multiple head ups. Right, it is time I change to a new password, I have had the old one for perhaps a bit too long now. And yeah, I might have sounded smug at Q12. I tend to get too enthusiastic when I realise I have some knowledge to share. I usually do state both what I am good at and bad at, but people mostly react to me "bragging" about the good part.
And yes, the setting to not allow email is deliberate. I have had email since 1989 and am very tired of it. I only check my emails on average once a month. Instead on my user page I link to my web site where I have my phone number on my contact page. Today with services like SkypeOut and VoipCheap it doesn't cost much even to phone across the globe. I am a very public person, perhaps I should state my phone number on my user page? I always unplug my phone when I sleep so doesn't matter when people call. (A habit I acquired since I grew up in a "locally famous" family. It also made me immune to prank calls.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair replies, but if you do in the future undertake admin actions against users, registered or anons, for flagrant 3RR or widespread vandalism, you might wish for the filtering that email provides, vs the directness of having a displayed telephone number. However it is a difficult issue; at the time of my RfA I tended to think that in hindsight (I never knew I would get so hooked when I signed up to wikipedia) I might have been better to have choosen an anonymous username. Yet since I tend to think openess has its virtues too, and for the most part I'm happy I used a real name.... PS like your website :-) David Ruben Talk 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, for exactly the reasons you list, for the first time now I have been thinking about if it was a good or bad thing that I choose to use my real name. But as you seem to state too, there is at least one good thing with it: That I use my real name shows to everyone (including myself) that my intentions here at Wikipedia are honest. I know at least that I tend to feel more respect/trust for admins like you who use their real name.
And considering the amount of threats and serious attacks me and my family have experienced over the years I think that if an angry editor calls me to complain or even threaten I would probably consider it silly.
And thanks for your comment about my website.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA time nearly up, when it is you need do nothing but wait for a bureaucrat to come by and make a decission based on the strength of points at the RfA (it is not a vote as such). Yours has been a most unusual RfA: editors seeking access to the lesser mop tools and without experience in the more "mainstream" administration areas are generally very tough RfA debates. Your outstanding technical expertese and engaging approach in your wikipedia dealings have resulted in a really rather special nomination process. Anyway I'm off to bed, and I'll catch up with you tomorrow :-) David Ruben Talk 03:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys. I was just made an admin! See below. And yeah, I have the distinct feeling that I might be the first user specialised in template programming that has become an admin here on the English Wikipedia. Now I gotta come up with a name for that, perhaps "template specialist admin" or "admin specialised in template programming" or perhaps just "template admin" or "admininistratorious templatius"? #:))

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot! And yeah, now I got some serious reading up and testing to do.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Glad TRM closed the RfA correctly ;) Just work on that brevity! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Few additonal links for you if required: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. David Ruben Talk 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick congrats from me too, admininistratorious templatius! I have a sneaky suspicion that although you will specialize in templates for now, that, if/when you ever decide to do anything else with your shiny new buttons, you'll do it with expertise and precision. A couple of other Outside Views (I read your thread above), you are not required to have email as an admin (I don't - never have, never will for similar reasons as you stated), and I would strongly recommend you not putting your phone number on your userpage. Having a link to your website is probably "close enough". Typically, admins' userpages/usertalk get quite a bit more "traffic" than other editors', risk/reward says not worth it, which is just my opinion of course. Congrats again! Don't break anything;).  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Happymelon 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done! You'll do us proud. Rudget (review) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too, David. All the very best to you.–¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations David! I'll be sure to send some editprotected requests your way soon. --CapitalR (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change image sizing guideline

Hi, I noticed that you weighed in eloquently in a debate concerning this issue some time back. I've made a simple—and deliberately modest—proposal to change our Manual of Style directive from "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended" to "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary." Perhaps you would like to weigh in on the MoS talk thread here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I don't remember where I did "weigh in" before but thanks for the heads up. I did take a look at the new thread and wrote a piece there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments at Admins' noticeboard

For future reference: This is about the article Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California) and the AfD by Mr Senseless and a discussion at Admins' noticeboard.
At Admins' notice board David Göthberg wrote:

I took a look at the matter. It seems that Mr Senseless is a rampant deletionist that nominates articles for deletion within literally one minute from their creation and then goes on to even close AfD debates with "delete", in spite not being an admin. I see no article building and no other constructive work from him. While Cbl62 on the other hand has built a pretty nice article that Mr Senseless now is set on having deleted, using any means available (such as advanced wikilawyering). Since I am not experienced in handling this kind of things I suggest some experienced admins take a look at Mr Senseless and see what they can do to mitigate his disruptive behaviour here at Wikipedia. Yes, I use strong words here, but this is the impression I have gotten after taking a look at the matter.

  • How is taking an article to AfD or trying to civilly defend my viewpoint disruptive?
  • I resent the accusations that I haven't built any articles for two reasons, for one did you actually look at my contributions because I've put my fair share of time in to Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Driver's license in the United States, and Image copyright (Germany), as well as copyediting and wikifying on countless other articles, developing images, and more. I've also proposed an inclusion guideline. (See here for evidence.) Secondly why does it matter, we need contributors on Wikipedia to deal with reverting vandalism, tagging obvious CSD candidates, New Page Patrol and dealing with technical issues just as much as we need editors creating content.
  • Regarding the fact I'm a deletitionist, its a viewpoint I hold from having been involved with NPP, everything is still subject to community consensus, so why should it matter.
  • I do understand the need for articles to have a chance to grow and flourish, but at the same time, there is also policy that states that articles should be created with their references already in place.
  • I resent the accusations that I made nominated the Church in question for AfD out of bad faith, I had genuine notability concerns, and I already withdrew the AfD in question as a gesture of good faith. I also had genuine concerns that proper procedures weren't being followed, which was why I went to the notice board.

Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 15:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion literally one minute after it is created and opening an AfD ten minutes after its creation is really bad form. And from what I see, this is your usual way of doing things.
So, as I have told you before: You need to read WP:INSPECTOR, then take a break and ponder it. Then read WP:CHANCE and take some time to ponder that one too. Until you have read and understood those two documents there really is no use in discussing with you.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just commented on the Noticeboard about this, posting friendly advice that everyone needs to move past this. It was a good faith nom, and good faith Wikiproject post, the AfD is done, and everyone needs to go back to business. I also came here to say, David, that I found your tone/language to be a bit harsh for a moderator of a dispute. Admins are exactly that, moderators. A lot of hurt feelings could be avoided with gentler language. Flies/honey/vinegar. Just some friendly advice. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read both those documents some months ago. I more or less completely agree with WP:INSPECTOR, but its not relevant to the article in question. "Building inspector" deals with articles lacking content, and argues that they should be marked as stubs, this was an example of an article initially not asserting notability, violating WP:N, which is a valid reason for deletion. I can't completely say the same for WP:CHANCE, on one hand yes articles need to have a chance to grow, we're here to build content, and in questionable cases that's what the watchlist, and {{sources}}, {{notability}}, and {{unsourced}} are for, but on the other hand there are times (above and beyond obvious CSD candidates) when (IMO) it is very appropriate to PROD or take to AfD an article soon after its creation, among those are likely vanity pages. Unfortunately, this turned out not to be a clear-cut case, my quick Google News search didn't turn up with anything, but the sources proving notability came through in part because of the AfD process. A good faith nom is never POV or disruption. Also important to note are that WP:INSPECTOR and WP:CHANCE are essays, opinions of the author that wrote them, and not policies. I personally think that if a web search doesn't turn anything up, being required to sit on a vanity page for a week is absurd, especially if it is a clear-cut case. Speedy delete? No, but the PROD and AFD processes allow for the community to comment and form consensus as a check and balance. If sources are found and notability is proven, great, withdraw the AfD and move on! Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 05:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace

Hi David. Thanks for your efforts on this. I found all those images at Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright, which I was going through to populate Category:Wikipedia image placeholders. (I think 96 images at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders to show that an image is missing in the article is too many images and needs to be standardized. I asked SMcCandlish to follow up on the Wikipedia image placeholders). As for Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace, there likely are many more, but I can't think of how to find them. My interest actually is WikiProject state image requests for articles, so I kinda got side tracked a bit. I'm happy to see that you've carryed the ball a little further on the "Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace." Best. GregManninLB (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my accidental inclusion of useless code! My previous attempt was an even worse misstep (as it would have generated nonsensical dates during the last week of every month). I'm glad that I realized that in time.  :-) —David Levy 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed your earlier date code and thought that it probably would cause some laughs or confusion: 35 april 2008. #:)) But I didn't come up with any simple solution for it so I let it sit there. And then you came up with the nice fix you now have added! Those examples turned out very well with your help.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox actor

I've responded to your comment on the talk page. Regards. PC78 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered questions in talk pages


Hi, I saw you are in several template discussion pages so I think you might be a good person to ask. In the discussion pages I find often good queries or advice that people have ignored as other people just posted something and it is hard to tell notice that it has been answered (I am not sure if this is more predominant in the articles I edit (molecular biology) as it is said that doctors and scientist never listen...). so I though that a tag requestion an answer might be a good idea and gave it a try[1], as it is visible and prompts someone to read it and answer. I do not think it can be overly abused like the dreaded cleanup template, but instead it may actually be a bit annoying to type. What do I do about this proposal: Do I use it on my posts with a subtitle "this is a prototype, please comment on it in its talk page" or is there some supreme commitee approval process? Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay. But I'll answer in full at the talk page of the template {{unanswered}} after my dinner.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: You got mail

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll go and fix the situation straight away. --ais523 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


This discussion moved back to the talk page of Darwinek. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Location_map_polarx maps Sweden

15-April-2008: Hello, Wikid77 here. Thank you for helping to move Infobox_Country_styled, but I knew the color-border debates would be long-term trouble. Meanwhile, my real passion is the map-marker Template:Location_map_polarx that I developed to place markers on conic-projection maps, especially for typical maps of Sweden (see: Template:Location_map_SwedenCIAx/doc). I wanted to port that mapping template, via interwiki, to an equivalent Swedish template (mall?), and I have a user-id on the Swedish WP. However, my knowledge of Swedish language is limited, basically: "Swedish is like short German words with English word order". Being from America, I have traveled to Sweden only once (to visit cousins near Göteborg), so I don't know the attitudes among the Swedish Wikipedia users:

  • Would a conic-mapping template be useful on the Swedish WP, or are they content just placing labels on maps by hand-editing rather than using latitude/longitude coordinates?
  • I suspect the template parameters (such as "width" or "float") should be translated into Swedish words, or would English-word parameters be accepted as readily by Swedish-wiki people?
  • Do you know map-people on Swedish WP who could help translate the template documentation into Swedish? I can make a rough translation, but would need help to smooth the final phrasing.

Currently, Template:Location_map_polarx is fully tested, even mapping cities all across the polar regions of Canada, but I wondered if the Swedish Wikipedia really needed such a mapping template. There's no hurry on this, if you want to think about the issue for a few weeks. The mathematical coding within Location_map_polarx is vastly complex, although based on simple quadratic formulas, so I doubt there is anything like it in any other Wikipedia language for placing latitude/longitude markers. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Short answer since I am in a hurry to meet some friends: I haven't worked with templates at all on the Swedish Wikipedia. And I don't know any map-people on Swedish Wikipedia. But I know that most people in Sweden read and to some extent even write English without trouble, and that is likely especially true for geeks like Swedish WP map-people. So no worries, you can simply communicate with them in English. And I think it is likely they might even keep the English parameter names. And since electronics like GPS navigators are commonplace here and Sweden is THE map country I bet there are people on Swedish Wikipedia that like to be able to do such map conversion. (Map reading such as finding your way across the wilderness with only a map or map+compass is part of Swedish school education.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Your recent edits to Template:Shortcut have left it with a spare signature at the end, unfortunately after the </noinclude>. Would you mind removing that (I figured this should be faster than using {{editprotected}})? Algebraist 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this, fixed while I was typing. Algebraist 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed it too. Very very very embarrassing. I must have clicked the signature button by accident. I just showed my signature on 11,042 pages. I bet this talkpage will be flooded with questions now. --David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious inclusion of your signature

David, I don't know why but for some odd reason your signature has appeared right at the top of a draft article I was writing in my sandbox. The link is here[2]. What gives? -- Low Sea (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See previous section. Sorry about that.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And about your prediction of a flood, you might want to temporarily archive this page for a couple hours. :) -- Low Sea (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CapitalR's RFA

Hi David, User:Balloonman has just nominated me for adminship and I'll be filling out the questions over the next few days and then getting it into the live RFA queue. He mentioned that you recommended me (thanks, much appreciated) and said that you might interested in writing a co-nom. If you are interested and have the time, please feel free to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CapitalR. Thanks for the recommendation, and I hope mine turns out as well as yours did! --CapitalR (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to co-nominate you. The reason I haven't gotten around to nominate you myself was that I was worried that I wouldn't be able to write a "good" nomination since I am not experienced in these matters. But as co-nominator it wouldn't matter as much if I miss out on some details in the process. So I will give it a shot and write up what I honestly think about you, I hope it will make you blush! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for the great co-nomination and recommending me to Balloonman for the first nomination. I've answered the original 8 questions I received, so I'm going to post my RFA in the live queue soon (probably within the hour). Thanks again and I'll be talking to you soon about more ambox/navbox related updates. --CapitalR (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. We need more admins, and we need more admins who knows how to code templates.
I don't know that much about RfAs, but it seems to me you wrote some very good answers over there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he did : ) - At first I thought I was just going to read some summaries, but he definitely "hooked" me about half way, and the last two were clinchers. jc37 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Images needed template in article space

Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I took a look and as you'll see there I suggested an alternative solution.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, David! You're doing a very nice job with this!

I performed some edits in anticipation of the actual template's update:

  • Replaced the "notice" icon with a native 40px version (to improve the sharpness)
  • Replaced the "content" icon with one that matches the "notice" icon's style
  • Replaced the "delete" icon with one that differs from the icon used in block templates (though this doesn't appear to be widely used outside the example)
  • Added a "move" type as a more accurate alternative to "merge"
  • Alphabetized the parameters

I also switched to sandbox-specific documentation to demonstrate the differences (though I omitted the "speedy" example because it shouldn't be used yet).

If you have any comments regarding the above, please let me know.  :-) —David Levy 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#New ambox version.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More article space stuff

Hi David. There are a huge number of artice space place holders that are used on article space. Your thoughts at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders on this would be most appreciated. Also, if you know of others who largely are responsible for the appearance of article space, please let them know about the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders discussion. Further, is there a top level WikiProject that deals with article space appearance? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I better stay out of that discussion since it makes me way too upset. Those placeholder images are ruining those articles, and those who coded that system are either lying through their teeth when they say that it can not be done in another way, or they have very little knowledge about image handling and template coding. And I am too busy in other areas.
And I have no idea if there is any wikiproject that deals with article space appearance.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about parser functions

For reference:

Ok, that's most of them.

My question is simply: Does the use of parser functions affect the servers (or the queue, or whatever else tech-side) in any way? if so, how, and how much? (If it has to do with certain circumstances, what would they be?)

(I've also heard/read some already about #ifexist, but besides that.)

Asking you because you seem to be "smarter than the average bear" concerning templates : ) - jc37 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Yeah, I guess I am becoming somewhat experienced in template coding.
Yes, parser functions do cost a lot of server load when (re)rendering pages.
The docs say that using the MediaWiki variable default pipe trick causes less load. That is: {{variable name|default value or default text/code}}. But that isn't at all as flexible as parser functions so they really are not an option.
One reason that parser functions are so costly is that (as far as I have understood) during page rendering MediaWiki loads ALL the templates that is pointed to in the code, no matter #if they will be used in the rendered page or not. That is, both the "then" and the "else" cases are loaded, and only later discarded in the parsing process. And that means that all templates that are pointed to in the code has to be fetched.
However, there are some things we can do about this:
  • One very good solution is to use the doc page pattern. That is, to move the documentation of the templates over to a /doc subpage. The first reason for that was that when you updated the /doc page MediaWiki was smart enough to understand that the template code had not changed and did not re-render any pages that depended on that template. From what I read MediaWiki is even smarter now. Now it doesn't re-render any dependent pages even if you do changes between the noinclude tags. But the code between the noinclude tags still costs size to load when the rendering is done. And of course some CPU work to parse over a long noinclude section to find the end noinclude, since there might come more code after the end noinclude. (And remember, all #if cases are loaded and checked during rendering, so if every sub-template have a long noinclude section to parse over...) So it still pays of a lot to move the documentation to a /doc subpage. Besides, /doc pages are neat in many other ways.
  • Another is to use a /sandbox. (The doc page pattern actually supports this. If you make a "/sandbox" and perhaps a "/testcases" then they show up as links at the top of the green doc box. See for instance {{ambox}}.) The great thing with a /sandbox is that you can test all your code properly and do many edits without causing lots of pages to re-render. Then you can insert the new version of your template with one single edit.
  • And a third thing is to not use silly transclusions. Like people transcluding very simple templates repeatedly that could just as well be coded directly in the template code. Like today I saw someone change code from using <br clear=all> to use {{clear}}. That's just silly and not clearer anyway. Another example is HTML tables versus wikitables in template coding. When using wikitables you often have to resort to using a lot of {{!}} transclusions, so I think the HTML table probably is more efficient. And I find that HTML tables cause clearer code anyway, it is hard to tell apart all the different meanings of "|" in a template with a wikitable.
And regarding #ifexist. That one of course costs at least one extra database lookup. But probably costs much less than a transclusion.
And regarding the often quoted quideline "Don't worry about performance": Well, if a template like for instance {{ambox}} is used on 343,000 pages, then we actually do need to worry about performance.
But there is another case where I think we do not need to worry about performance: Image sizes. People often re-upload optimized images that are smaller. But that does no difference when the images are rescaled to another size and shown on Wikipedia, since then it is the MediaWiki re-rendering of that image that is sent over the wire anyway. And an optimized image costs as much RAM and CPU to unpack into memory and rescale to a new size than a non-optimised one. Well, if the image has more pixels then it costs more, but an image at the same resolution costs about the same no matter its file size.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
First, thank you for such a well-thought-out and rather informative answer. (I'm sure I have a barnstar in my pocket somewhere...)
Second, what you just described scares me quite a bit. Take a look at this:
  • {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|[[Category:User eo-1|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}
The only reason that the parser is being used, is to prevent a template which would apply this category to any page it's transcluded to, to not apply the category when it's transcluded or even subst to another namespace (such as in the intro to the category in question).
And... There are (at least) thousands of such templates, with quite likely over a million transclusions.
I know personally that when I've removed a fairly decently populated category (which was populated by the template) from that template, it causes slowdowns.
So how bad is this?
(And my next question is: Does that mean the millions of transclusions of such templates, since you said that that is actually worse than ifexist, is "even worse" of a "bad thing"?) - jc37 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not really sure what you are asking here. But let me answer several of the things you might mean. But note that the #ifeq in your example above is not a problem. Instead, what you experienced seems to have been one of these cases:
1: If you delete a category page of a category that is used on MANY pages (for instance since that category is populated by a widely used template) then all those pages have to be re-rendered since the link to that category at the bottom of all those pages has to be changed to a red link.
2: If you remove that category code from that template it has about the same effect. Then all those pages have to be removed out of the listing on the category page, but that is a low priority task in MediaWiki so no problem. But all those pages also have to be re-rendered with the new template code and without the link to that category at the bottom. And ouch, that goes straight into the job queue. See also Help:Job queue.
3: The millions of transclusions of such templates that auto-categorise pages is only a bad thing if you change them too often or rename/delete their categories too often. Again, using a sandbox to do most of ones edits and testing and then pasting the ready made code into the actual deployed template saves a lot of load. And saves us from looking unprofessional, since if you do a mistake directly in a deployed template then it will immediately be visible on all pages that use that template. Like the other day when I must have accidentally clicked the signature button while editing a template. My signature was visible on 11,042 pages for 8 minutes before we discovered it and fixed it. Very embarrassing.
By the way, edits to the category text on the category page does not affect the pages that "link" to it at all. Just like edits to a normal page does not affect other pages that link to it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot here. The short, quick, answer is that I'm not sure I understood it all (and I do want to), so please be patient with me : ) - jc37 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(de-dent) - Ok.
1.) When we delete a category as a result of WP:CFD or WP:UCFD, it's "depopulated" first. (We often get help from those with tools such as AWB, or bots.)
This, however, is not always true. (In the past, there have been cases of some admins who have (in my opinion, carelessly) speedily deleted categories without fixing the links. But that isn't the "norm".)
So, at the moment of deletion, no pages would need "updating" except the deleted page?
Also, related to this, if a template is deleted, but the transclusions of it are not "fixed", does that do the same thing?
2.) Well, wow and ouch. So the adding of a category to a widely populated template is just as problematic as removing that cat from the template?
And in addition, any edit to a template causes a need to re-render all transcluding pages? ye-ouch.
3.) How often is "too often? (For example, I've removed a category from a template, only to notice after I saved that the template had a link to the category within the template, so I re-edited to also remove the redlink. so does that cause a need for double rendering?
And further, does editing the text within noinclude "count" as editing the template? or is the system "smart enough" to know that it doesn't need to re-render all the transcluding pages?
And thanks for being patient : ) - jc37 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All this is of course about extremely high-use templates and high-use categories. Low use items is of course not a problem.
1: Right, if we first delete the category and then run a bot to remove the category tag from all those pages, then they are re-rendered twice. If we first run the bot to remove the category tags and then delete the category then those pages are only re-rendered once. And yes, the same is true for deleting a template. That is, all pages that use the template will be re-rendered at the moment you delete it. And then later again when you remove the template tranclusion from the page code. So kind of better to first run a bot and remove the template transclusions. But note, all this is just one shot events, so not that bad. Much worse to repeatedly edit a high-use template since it causes repeated re-rendering of the pages.
2: Correct and correct.
3A: Well, if we discover a mistake we have to fix it. So we can not refrain from edits just because it causes load. But when we know we are going to do more than one edit or do a complex edit that should be tested before deploying, then use a /sandbox.
3B: Well, I don't know if WikiMedia is smart enough to see if a page is already in the job queue and thus only re-render it once, but I hope so. Problem is that we humans are pretty slow. It usually takes say 5 minutes for us to discover a mistake and fix it. So when we do the fix many of those pages have already been re-rendered. That is, we have already made Wikipedia slow for everyone for those 5 minutes and then we make it slow again... Well, some really high-use things seem to take several hours to re-render.
4: Nowadays MediaWiki is smart enough to understand that changes to only the noinclude section in a template does not need any re-rendering. But as I wrote before, there are other good reasons to keep the noinclude section short and instead use /doc pages.
5: No problem. :)
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3B.) Now we get into the question of "cache", I guess? (I'm not sure.) Let's say I remove the category from Template:Categoriser. Now I randomly check members of that former category, and their pages show (accurately) to no longer be members of that category. But when I open the category, the pages still show as members, and in some cases (and not even large categories, sometimes even those with merely one member) for several days, or longer. I've heard others say that this is a result of the "cache". Rather than make a semi-educated guess, I'll just ask: What does this mean? And how does it relate to the things we've discussed do far (if at all)?
And what would you consider "high-use"? - jc37 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, the listing on the category page can take up to a week before it is updated, but normally it takes less than an hour or so. This is because it is considered less important than page re-rendering and serving edit pages to editors like you and me and so on. So updates of the category lists is run as a low priority job. That is, the servers only do such updates when they have spare time. So in software engineer lingua it isn't about "caching" but about "job priority".
And the relation to the other things is: If we load the servers too much with repeated edits of high-used items, then the servers get too busy to handle the category list updates.
And what is high-use? Well, hard to define. I still don't know how much work the servers can handle, but you have probably noticed that some days Wikipedia is slow. Like slow image loading, template pages don't update when you update the /doc page, category listing taking several days to update, and so on. But within some day I am going to update the {{ambox}} and I will be watching closely what happens. And the maker of the even more high-use {{navbox}} is going to update that one some days later. So I think we can look forward to some days where many images won't load again. Seems the servers stop serving images and only serve text when they are way too busy. Which I think is a correct priority setting. Although some claim it was coincidences that the images didn't load well during the last few major template updates. We'll see within some day. Of course, Wikimedia has bought more and faster servers since the last time so this time might go better.
Note that much of this is qualified guesses based on my experience with Wikipedia and my knowledge as a software engineer. It seems to me they have built Wikipedia and set the job priorities just as I expect them to.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't thought of job priority.
Thanks again. I'd like to continue this discussion, but later. (And I may link others to it in the near future.) Anyway, per your edit summary, have a good night : ) - jc37 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Since this discussion probably is of interest to more people I have moved it to Category talk:Wikipedia shortcut box first parameter needs fixing. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. : )

I saw this on your userpage, and decided to investigate. Incidentally, while I'm also interested in the answers to the questions, they're also there as a summary (and since these days, apparently there has been a rash of not-so-neutrally-worded questions). - jc37 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I assume you are referring to my formatting fix of your questions at the RfA for CapitalR?
But what did you see on my userpage? Or is that a typo and you really meant that you noticed my edit in your watchlist?
Anyway, what I meant in that edit summary at CapitalR's RfA is that your questions over there are pretty tough and kind of covers much of the admin area. Remember that CapitalR is not a regular admin candidate. He is a template programming specialist, just like me. (But hey, I seem to be the first or second template specialist ever to become an admin, and that was just some week ago.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Davidgothberg#My_to-do_list - Yes, I actually do read people's userpages : )
And from there, I started investigating the editor. (I was impressed by you, I wanted to see if I would also be by him : ) - And found the link to the rfa.
And I realise that, but these questions are pretty basic to being an admin. If he doesn't know the answers now, he should as a result of some basic reading. (The pages I did and didn't link to were also intentional.) Please feel free to help him at his talk page. Essentially if he knows, that should be fairly clear by his answers. If he doesn't, he'll hopefully learn in fairly short order, so either way, by the time he becomes an admin, he'll know the answers to those questions : )
(Incidentally, I've saved those questions to a sub-page. I'll likely post them at any RfA I intend to be involved in. See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria.) - jc37 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you found the sentence "Nominate CapitalR for adminship." on my talkpage! Yeah, I have felt bad for months now that I didn't get around to do that. I am so happy that it is finally happening. And yeah, I often read people's user pages too.
Haha, okay, thanks. People are all too nice to me lately. Almost feels like something fishy is going on. And if you are "impressed" by me, then CapitalR is going to blow your socks off! I am actually a little ashamed that I became admin before him.
Ah okay. But I hope that he will not need any help with those questions. He will probably easily read up on them, considering his capacity.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and check out (the now retired) User:David Kernow. He was an admin who was, I believe, a "template specialist". I was very disappointed to discover he's indefinitely on wikibreak from Wikipedia. (And what's with all the davids in templates? You, him and David Levy... grin) - jc37 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah yeah. There are many admins who are expert template coders. But I have seen some of their RFAs (including David Kernow's) and it seems I might be the first one to get the mop almost exclusively because of my template work.
And the reason there are so many David's working with templates is probably because there are so many Jewish software engineers, and they tend to be named David. But I don't know why there are a so many Jewish software engineers in the world. Funny thing is that my name is David Göthberg, I have dark curly hair and a big nose (pretty unusual here in Sweden) and I am a software engineer, but I am not Jewish at all. Thus the Jewish girls at my university used to hit on me since they thought I must be Jewish. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks are indeed in order for "the chuckle of the day" : ) - jc37 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking templates

Hi again David. As a now-official template guru (congratulations!), here's something which I hope has an easy solution that I'm overlooking. Linking a template, such as Template:Nobel Peace Prize, is straightforward, but how do you link to a template and pass parameters to it at the same time? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Or perhaps it is a curse...
Short answer: Well, you can't.
Long answer: Well, linking to a template and using a template is two very different things:
1: When you link to it you only point at it and say "the template is over there, if you want to take a look at it go there". And that is done by writing [[Template:Nobel Peace Prize]]. But then the template is not executed, the template is in fact itself in no way involved in that link. Except for that MediaWiki is smart and shows a red link if the template does not exist. But if you click the link and go to the template page you might see the template since then it is run once to render itself on the template page. But then you are on the template page and that has no relation to the page you came from. So there is no way the other page can feed any parameters to the template then. But the template code itself can contain default values that it can use if it doesn't get any parameters, like when it is run on its own template page. Often good for demonstration purposes. There are several ways to make default values. Perhaps it is default values you are asking for?
2: When you use the template you transclude or substitute the template onto a page. That means you actually fetch a copy of the template and run it, right there in the article. Transclusion is done with the code {{Nobel Peace Prize}} and then you can also feed parameters in several ways: {{Nobel Peace Prize|parameter one|parameter two}} or {{Nobel Peace Prize|color=blue|size=big}}. And the other way, substitution, well I don't recommend using substitution since that usually is a bad thing™ so I think we can skip the explanation of how that works.
3: But could you describe more in detail what you want to achieve?
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive response, as ever. It looks like what I'm after isn't possible (and probably for good background reasons) as I don't think your point 1 above is what I'm heading toward. The current {{Nobel Peace Prize}} is one of a number of award templates I've seen that have separate smaller templates for each group of years -- e.g. see Nobel Peace Prize navigational boxes, Academy Award for Best Actor templates, etc -- so, in the case of {{Nobel Peace Prize}}, I made an amended version of the template (here) that should remove the need for the smaller templates (and then serve as a model for converting the other award templates similarly). I was hoping the new design would extend to the links provided in the below section of the template, which is where template links that also pass parameters seem to be needed. I think, though, I may've overreached myself, or maybe I'm overlooking something simple. Hope so and hope all this makes some sense. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh! Now I see what you are after! Man, you ARE smart! This is a problem that has been discussed hundreds of times all over Wikipedia. And you actually have the solution right there. You cracked it! Apart from a last small technical thing but that one I know how to solve for you! You and me are going to make the best navbox of that type ever! (And to 99% it was your idea.)
So, ideally what we want is to have a smaller variant of that navbox in each article, say one that lists some years before and after the "current year" for that article. But we don't want to have to manage one template for each year. (About 93 years so far in the Nobel case...) And that is why people instead have made a handful of navboxes covering some fixed time ranges instead. But that is not so nice for the articles that is in the first or last year of such a smaller time range.
But you pointed out that we can use parameters, and I know the technical details how we can do that. There are several ways we can do this, here is one way:
1: We can make one single huge navbox with all years and with the full names of the laureates. But it should have no year range groups in it. Instead it should take the "year" for the article as a parameter and then simply display some years before and after that. So in the articles the full template will never be shown, just a smaller view of it.
At the footer of the template we should have the "complete roster" link, but I think that one can simply link to the template page, since that means the template will be run without the "year" parameter and then it should display all years. (Or perhaps to a special page that displays the full template but doesn't display the template documentation below it.) We won't need the range links you have now at the bottom of {{Nobel Peace Prize}}.
That's how I see it. And that I know how to code it up. What do you think?
2: We can also do a slightly different variant, but I think this one will display less good in articles and it takes more template pages to manage:
We can have year groups in the big template like you have now. But the big template should display the full names of the laureates. The template should take a "year" parameter and then it will just display that year group when shown in an article. (And perhaps not show the group header then.) This will of course be slightly bad for articles that is in the last or first year of such a group.
At the footer of the template we can have the "complete roster" link, which will go to the template page that will display all years. Or perhaps to a special page that displays the full template but doesn't display the template documentation below it.
We can actually also have range links there like you have now. (But I don't really see any point in them.) They can link to one template page for each range. But those template pages will not need any managing, since all they will contain is a view of the bigger template with the year as parameter.
--David Göthberg (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I had no idea I'd stumbled over and found a solution to something that's been bugging people. I almost didn't bother you (or myself) with it as it only seemed to apply to a few award templates. I can see now, though, how it may be appropriate to use in templates with many and/or lengthy subsections. I'm also glad you realized the intention behind User:Sardanaphalus/Template workspace#Template:Nobel Peace Prize with parameter as I realize I forgot to explain it above!
Your point 1 is what I had in mind and I agree that the solution to trying to reproduce the range links is not to try -- if someone wants to see more years, they may as well go straight to the overall template. So a single '''[[Template:Nobel Peace Prize|Complete list]]''' link should be enough. Once I had a solution to this situation, I was planning to let AWB work through a list of all the articles transcluding the various smaller templates replacing e.g. {{Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 1901-1925}} → {{Nobel Peace Prize|1901-1925}}, etc. If all that needs to be done is to replace the range links with the single link, I could do this and move straight on to AWB.
However, if you think the bigger picture means something like your point 2 is worth pursuing, naturally I'll wait until all's ready. But if the only difference between the point 1 and point 2 approaches is surnames vs. fullnames, I'm wondering whether it's worth the extra work..? (But perhaps you're seeing that it'd be useful elsewhere.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, this can be used on many sports templates and so on. Even in cases where the range number is not shown. In such cases we can use the numbers internally in the template code anyway, but perhaps (optionally) show the numbers on the template page so it is easy to see which item has which number.
I think it was pretty clear what you were after once you written your second section above and I looked at the template. After all, I have worked with this problem several times in the past together with others, without coming up with a solution. Now that you presented the idea of feeding a parameter to the template it suddenly was "obvious". (And the "obvious" solutions are usually the hardest to discover.)
Right, solution 1 is by far the best. I just mentioned solution 2 as a comparison since that one is more similar to today's solutions.
Well, since I will be doing calculations on the year parameter (using #expr:) and comparisons, then the parameter has to be a number, or two numbers. So I was thinking it would look like one of these:
  • {{Nobel Peace Prize|1913}} – In this case the template will have code to decide what range to show. That is, the template programmer will decide how many years (or what years) to show before and after 1913.
  • {{Nobel Peace Prize|1901|1925}} – In this case the article writer decides what range to show.
The {{Nobel Peace Prize}} is a very good template to start with since it has gaps in the years, thus we have to take that into consideration too. This makes me lean towards letting the article writers set start and end year since then they can handle the gaps and they can choose any size of the template they like in their article. Like in an article with many other navboxes they might choose to show a smaller range. But on the other hand letting the template programmer handle the gaps is nice to, since then the article writers just have to give one year and not think about the gaps.
Much to think about for us...
I will code up a meta-template that should handle most of this so it will be easy to do inside the navboxes.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds like what you're thinking of is a whole dimension beyond what I had in mind. Anytime you have something to try or introduce, I'd be glad to know/contribute. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have built a first working version. Check out {{range}}, {{range/testcases}} and {{range/nobel}}.
While I was at it I threw in nowrap handling in the {{range}} template so we save some code in the Nobel navbox. And that happens to solve the Firefox nowrap bug at the same time! Wasn't even my intention. Sometimes life is nice.
There is one issue left: Currently there is a trailing dot after the last item when showing a subrange. I think I know how to fix that and will code that up later.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Have just had a look at {{range}} and the examples and think I understand the machinery (and probably how you might sort out the trailing dot). Clever stuff. I hesitate to add the following, because I'm aware I'm coming from those award templates, but: Do you think it might be over-engineered? On the other hand, you may already know that broad fixed ranges like 1901-1925 might be fine for award templates and their articles but too chunky for sports and other templates you've seen. Just thought I ought to voice what crossed my mind. I'm not sure and may well have changed it a few minutes from now! Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it might be over-engineered. Personally I like the fixed ranges since I have no problems with handling a couple of navboxes for one big list.
But I have seen over and over again that many other editors do not like that and I have had lengthy discussions with them. They resort to things like the {{Navigation bar}} in-spite that it seriously breaks some browsers, or they simply make humongous navboxes but perhaps set them to default hidden. Both those "solutions" also mean the whole list gets loaded even though it isn't shown, which makes page loading very slow for modem users (and costs bandwidth for Wikipedia). Our new {{range}} solution means the list first gets shrunk at the server end before sent over the Internet.
So I think we should continue work on {{range}} for a while and see how it feels. I hope it can be an alternative for those editors who refuse to use fixed ranges.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly think {{range}} should be useful, if not very useful. Would you say the editors not happy with with a few fixed 20/25-year ranges are those into sports templates? I don't know as I haven't seen many of these templates yet. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the ones that I immediately remember I have talked to are makers of sports navboxes, but also of cities and towns navboxes (both in Britain and I think in Asia). Then I have talked to many others that I don't know or don't remember what kind of navboxes they were doing.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added "trailing dot" handling to {{range}} now. See examples at {{range/testcases}} and the change in the code that use it in {{range/nobel}}. The new code for {{range}} is slightly large but seems to work very well.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm impressed because you seem to be busy in so many other places. I haven't tried testing {{range/nobel}} "to destruction" but agree that the code looks sound. I hope the awards and sports folk appreciate and adopt your work. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for being so patient and helpful with my questions about image space templates! Kelly hi! 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I just answered some questions. That was nothing. But well, as I think is the right response in English: You're welcome.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CapitalR

Cheers for that, it did look a little odd when I added my very brief comment. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


You're welcome. I came across CAT:SHORTFIX totally by accident, and had nothing else to do at the time. Do you know of any other Wiki maintenance that can be fixed by a non Admin? -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have two other such lists that I am responsible for:
They are a bit more tricky than the {{shortcut}} fixing. But if you read up on them you will learn some useful stuff at the same time. And of course, an easy way to see what needs to be done is to take a look at the diffs for some of the items in those lists that have already been done.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I'll take a look. Thanks! -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Underlining changes in diffs

Hello Davidgothberg:

I saw a note about the new code and it sounds like a very useful thing to me. I waste too much time looking at diffs, wondering what is different. However, when I copied the code into my file User:Wanderer57/monobook.css nothing happened.

Probably the problem is that I am missing other code that is required, Because I do not know the syntax of the css, I am stuck. I would appreciate if you would take a quick look and then tell me if there is an article that i should read to learn what I did wrong (or did not do)

The problem was solved after I logged out and back in.

Please what would be the code to make links more prominent. So that for example, I would see Adam instead of Adam?

What I should really ask is where I can find basic instructions about CSS coding in Wikipedia.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the normal W3C standardised CSS since that is what the web browsers understand. So you can learn more at Check out their menu on the left side. There you have "CSS" which points to a page with another menu with "Learning CSS" and "Specs 2.1". One of the best ways to learn CSS is to code your own web pages locally on your hard drive. Since then you don't have any of the caching problems. Just change the code and reload the page from disk. You will have good use of the "CSS Validator" (W3C main page left side menu again). If you don't already know much about HTML coding then you need to start with that. See their main page, left side menu again: "HTML" goes to a page with a menu to the right with the specs "HTML 4.01" and "XHTML 1.0", and learning stuff below that. Also check out the "HTML Validator" (main page left side menu again).
There are several ways we code CSS for Wikipedia. The easiest one is to use CSS in the style="" tags of things, especially when we code templates. Another is to create CSS classes that are used in class="" attributes. Or even to code CSS code for classes and situations that already exists, like for what you asked above to make all links bold. Then you often have to view the source code of a page (using "view - page source" or so in your browser) and study what markup and what classes MediaWiki produce so you can write the correct CSS code for that. Thus you need to be able to at least partially understand the XHTML you see there.
If you are seriously going to code this stuff for Wikipedia or for your own web sites then you also need to install several different web browsers so yo can test that what you create works in most browsers.
Expect this to take some months of study.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will set limited goals and hope to make some progress.

The .diffchange code that I put in my monobook.css to underline the changes works fine. Am I correct in thinking that that code is overriding other code stored elsewhere?

If that's the case, where is the "other" code? Are there multiple locations? (I understand that I should not even think about editing that code. It might be informative to look at it.

One more question, then I'll go away. What does "monobook" stand for?

Thank you very much. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer this in backwards order compared to how you asked, since that is a better order:
MonoBook is the default skin for Wikipedia. Look in your user menu (usually at top of page) - "My preferences" - "Skin". There you'll see the default skin is MonoBook. Try some of the other skins and you'll see what "skin" means. And prepare to be somewhat chocked at first.
Those skins are mainly specified as different .CSS files. But there are also a little Javascript involved.
First a number of MediaWiki default CSS pages are loaded, those can only be edited by the MediaWiki developers or so. Then MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css are loaded, and those can be edited by us admins and thus we can override and extend the default MediaWiki CSS. And last your own monobook.css is loaded where you can override all the others and add your own new classes. That means you can customise your skin and test new classes.
If you look at the top of the talk page MediaWiki_talk:Common.css there is a box listing the CSS pages for the different skins, and a link to Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes. That catalogue is not complete, but it covers most of the files and classes involved.
The same system applies to the javascript pages, they are also listed in that catalogue.
The default .diff classes are specified in That CSS file is only loaded when viewing diffs. (I just discovered that file was not listed in the catalogue, so I fixed that.) And you are kind of right that the .diffchange code you have in your monobook.css "overrides" the .diffchange code in the default diff.css file. But since the default class specification did not have any borders you are technically not overriding but instead adding to or extending that class. That is, the diff view will still have bold red text.
If you use Firefox you can get the add-on named "JSView" from the Mozilla website. (Firefox menu - Tools - Add-ons - lower right corner: Get extensions.) It is a tool that gives you a little status bar icon where you can click to see and list all active CSS and Javascript pages when you are looking on some web page. Very helpful. I think there are similar tools for other web browsers too.
MediaWiki adds a class name to pretty much every object it renders on the pages. Not all those classes are used in the CSS files and many are not yet listed in the catalogue. So do view the source code of a page to see what classes are on what objects. And off course, different kinds of pages on Wikipedia use different classes. For instance the .diff classes are only used in diff views.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Template:Shortcut

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Thanks for fixing the {{Shortcut}} template list subitem bug. --Teratornis (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you!
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidgothberg/Nowrap problems

I have completed every entry in the list, except for two that are too difficult for me. I won't be around after today because I'm moving out of my apartment tomorrow. I was supposed to move into my new one on Wednesday, but the old tenants trashed it so the landlord has to put in new appliance, carpet and paint and it won't be ready until May 12 now, so until that time I'm living in my truck (!), and don't have internet access. When I return though, I'll be more than happy to continue with some wiki maintenance. Cheers! -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And you are crazy, you should not be editing Wikipedia today, you should be packing. I'll already taken a look at those two and I know how to fix them, will do that later. Hope to see you soon.
Cheers! --David Göthberg (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything's packed except for the desktop! :) -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A strange float problem with Template:Shortcut compact

Hello, I started the {{Shortcut compact}} template which we discussed here:

I thought my problems were over, but not so fast. For some reason, the template does not want to float to the right correctly on the WP:EIW#Editor's index, so I did not commit my use of the template there yet. I illustrated the problem by copying the WP:EIW#D section to:

If you scroll down a bit on the page, you will see four subitems that have {{Shortcut compact}} templates. When I view the page, each one of the templates only floats as far to the right as it can without moving under the {{Shortcut}} or {{Shortcut compact}} above it. Needless to say, this is annoying. I saw the same problem on my smaller test:

although the problem is not visible there just now, after I monkeyed around with things a bit. I tried reducing the margins and padding in {{Shortcut compact}} as that seemed to matter, but even after I reduced them all to zero, the refusal-to-float-right problem occurs on my excerpt from the Editor's index. If you could look at it, I'd be thankful. --Teratornis (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As you probably have seen I did spend some hour experimenting with it. It seems it is a trickier problem than we thought. The same problem seems to occur no matter what code we use and also with the old shortcut templates. And I think we'll see it with any kind of object using float:right such as image thumbnails. I will investigate more in some day.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


David, is it all right to start converting boxes to the {{imbox}} format, or should I wait until work on the template is done to reduce server load? Kelly hi! 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, the code there is currently just a mockup. It can not be used to make message boxes yet. We should probably state that on that page.
I hope this won't scare you off: Since this is a major standardisation thing we first need to announce it at the village pumps, then discuss it at the imbox talkpage, then deploy the CSS classes for it in MediaWiki:Common.css, then wait a month for the CSS caching in people's web browsers to time out so they get the new CSS code, then we can start converting templates to use {{imbox}}. Though we can speed it up by hard coding the CSS into the imbox so we don't need to wait the month for the CSS caching. (That will be some dirty coding, but I guess I'll do that.)
I suggest we announce the {{imbox}} and {{catbox}} at the same time. Coloured borders and coloured background have been the two main suggestions in the past, if people can see that both are needed but for two different namespaces then the discussion will be much simpler.
Could we wait some day to announce this until the new {{ambox}} have been deployed? That also gives us some time to fix the code for the {{imbox}} and {{catbox}}.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'm in no rush. God knows there is plenty of image work to be done aside from this, and it's worth waiting to make sure it's done right. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. Kelly hi! 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are some things you can do now:
  • Checkout the first section of the {{imbox}} doc. I added some text there but left your signature since you started it out. Check if you still want your signature there or modify the text in such a way that you still want to sign it. That means you will be seen as the "manager" of the standardisation of {{imbox}}. If you remove your signature I will add mine there instead. If you like both you and I can sign both imbox and catbox?
  • "Respond" on the talk pages of imbox and catbox to get the "discussion" started. Say what you think of the designs I suggest there and perhaps code up your own suggestions. If you look at the source of my examples on the talk page you'll see how to do it. Or ask me there if there is something unclear in those examples, since others are likely to wonder the same thing.
  • Add anything else that you think of.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by all means take my signature out of there. I only thought of the name and wanted to "reserve" it, you're doing all the work. I guess another thing I can do is to start drafting a proposed MoS page for image boxes, and to start compiling a list of templates to be converted. (This will be a job, as the image templates are not well-organized right now.) I also have to cross-check the templates for compatibility with the Commons versions to ensure they're not "lost" when images are transferred to Commons by bots. I'll also check to make sure there are no categories of image templates that won't fit into the organization scheme we have now (and might possibly need a new class) - nothing comes to mind right now but you never know. Kelly hi! 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Really, take your signature out of there? Ah well, I had hoped someone else would take care of managing the about 100 Wikipedians that will be frantically discussing this when we announce it. I am still recuperating after the ambox standardisation last summer...
But still, I would love your "response" on the talk pages of imbox and catbox. It will help when I/we announce this.
Ah good, the Commons stuff is very much not my area. Good that you take care of that.
MoS page? If you are going to do that then use the Wikipedia:Article message boxes as a starting point. And that gets us into the all important naming: Should we call it "Image message boxes" or the longer "Image space message boxes"? So will your guideline page be Wikipedia:Image message boxes or something else?
I think "catbox" should be "Category message boxes". So I could have named it "cambox" but I think "catbox" is clearer and funnier.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Image message boxes and Wikipedia:Category message boxes is the way to go...and, yes, 'catbox' is funnier than 'cambox'. :) Kelly hi! 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some template help

Hello, a user wanted to make an edit to an editprotected template, and added the request. But many admins seem wary of editing these scary things and it has not been fulfilled yet. I wondered if you can help, make the edit and sanity check that its is OK. Details here Template talk:Geobox image GameKeeper (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am currently a bit stressed since we are doing a major template deployment tonight. (344,000 pages involved.) I will take a look in some day. Sorry.
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi David, thanks for your co-nom and support during my RfA, which just passed. Good luck on your upcoming ambox 2.0 rollout, and let me know if you need any help or testing done. I'll be in touch with information regarding the upcoming navbox 2.0 upgrade. Thanks again, --CapitalR (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I just noticed. And as expected you sailed through your RfA with more support votes than I got during my RfA! So now you are the second ever "template specialist admin", or as we call it jokingly "templatius administratorius". :))
And the new ambox was deployed an hour ago, without any hiccups from the servers at all, as far as I can see. So all is well.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding link in word wrap

When an anonymous user blanks something without explanation, it's usually considered vandalism. You also blanked the same content, but you're not anonymous, so if you had done it not as a reversion I would have just let it go. As a reversion of my own (admittedly COI) edit, I'd appreciate a little more thought: it's not enough to say that it's COI and therefore bad. I want to see an actual explanation for why you think the article is better not having that link. I'm sure it can be justified but you haven't even attempted to do so, and neither did the anon. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I see you go around adding your name and links to your websites to lots of articles. I suggest you stop doing that. It doesn't matter that you happen to be an active Wikipedian and even an admin. Actually, that just means you should know better and that makes it worse. If you think a link to your sites and your name belong in an article you should suggest so on the talk page of the article and let others decide.
Personally the one time someone added a link from the English Wikipedia to my own research site with a somewhat misspelled version of my name, instead of correcting my name I removed that link and explained on the talk page.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Someone else added that link, here. I was merely undoing an anonymous editor's unexplained blanking of content.
  2. We're not here to be doling out punishments for imagined crimes, we're here to build an encyclopedia. I asked for, and still haven't received, some evidence that when editing mainspace content you have in mind how your edit helps towards that goal. If you don't have that in mind, you shouldn't be editing here. So, please: come up with an explanation for why removing that particular link is an improvement. Better, come up with a story about how you had that explanation in mind the whole time and that preventing conflicts of interest was only secondary in your mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I started pulling together imagespace templates at User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates so you can see the hodgepodge we have now. (The job is just beginning, there are more out there.) Also pulling together license templates at User:Kelly/Image license templates, but that's for a future project...they will not be suitable for {{imbox}} and I think standardization with Commons will probably be the best thing for them. Kelly hi! 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! That is a staggering amount of templates and a zoo of different designs. As it was with the ambox, it will be hard to decide on which "urgency level" (which colour) to use for many of those templates. Thanks for making those lists, they will help a lot during the standardisation discussions. I think you should add a link to User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates under a new separate section in Template talk:Imbox.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning ambox

Though I've been following this somewhat for quite awhile, I'm not sure if I know all the opposition.

Hoping that maybe you know : )

What are/were the concerns about using ambox in category space? - jc37 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main reason was that people wanted to have distinct styles for different name spaces. So that it would be clear what kind of page one is viewing.
The distinct styles on the message boxes also serve as a signal to the editors about on what kind of pages a certain template should be used.
This of course creates problems for the message boxes who actually are meant to or happen to fit to be used in several namespaces.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing besides that? - jc37 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, now I remember one more: The ambox styles of course would clash with the already existing de facto styles for the other name spaces. Well, that was what I remembered of the top of my head. There probably were more reasons. It was last summer so I am starting to forget. You have to look in the archives over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(smile) - I'm feeling the same way. Just was hoping you could recall more.
The main reasons, as I recall, all stemmed in one way or other from colour/shading concerns.
In addition, there are no technical concerns? - jc37 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically we can serve up any colours and patterns a computer monitor can handle. Want a pattern with Norma Jeane Mortenson in the border? No problem! (Well, apart from copyright.) And yes, I just read that article. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(de-dent) - Ok. SO it seems to me that the only differences between the templates will be border and shading.
I'd like to start a discussion "somewhere" to see if we can standardise these to all namespaces. Or (at worst) allow for an exception for imagespace (image pages are notably rife with templates).
Would be willing to help with the creation of such an mbox? (While knowing that there is a chance it may not gain consensus.) - jc37 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There already are standards and CSS classes for message boxes in all the non-article name spaces. Just that people lately have been ignoring those standards for image and category space so much that we now have new de facto standards for them. See this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Ambox limited to article space?
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nod, was following that discussion.
In my opinion, ambox/messagebox/and all the rest could be merged. Especially if the only difference between them all will be the border and background.
Surely there should be a way to do that (besides using if|namespace). To use a sort of pseudocode:
(on "namespace" do x where x = whatever the border/background standard is for that namespace)
Though to be honest, I think we have mainly 2 (3?) options:
default (white?) background or colour scheme
default (black? grey?) full border or colour scheme
And if colour scheme, either left side only (current ambox convention), or fully enclosing (proposed imbox convention).
And for all deletion boxes, a pink background, with encircling red border for speedy.
So this could be easily implemented as a simple switch in the single template. - jc37 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it might sound easy, but it isn't. I have worked with namespace detection since last summer for exactly the reasons you state above. I ended up creating {{main talk other}} and its sister templates. Also take a look at the CSS magic in the last section of its talkpage!
One of the problems is that for many of the templates we don't want them to automatically change appearance since they are only intended to be used in for instance articles. And if we make one such meta-template it would be very complex and not many editors would stand a chance of editing it correctly. Many admins who have edited {{ambox}} have broken it instead of improving it so they were reverted.
So after working with it for many months I decided it was easier to first standardise each style and code up each box by itself. Then to make things easy for templates that are going to be used in several namespaces we can make a "multibox" that detects namespace and calls the appropriate meta-template for that namespace. And that is the master plan I am working by now. (And now that you know my evil scheme I have to eliminate you if you don't promise to work with me. :// )
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning. Having several boxes just seems too redundant to me.
Maybe the way to go would be to just have ambox coincide with mbox. ambox for mainspace, mbox for elsewhere. Then the (optional) switch could be whether the colour scheme would be indicated in the shading or the border.
For that matter, instead: Colour scheme=border or background or article
I would presume it would be a simple optional addition?
(This seems too simple, I feel like I must be missing something.) - jc37 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see what you mean. You and I think it is enough with one style for message boxes in article space and another style for all other spaces. Problem is that other people don't think so. Now we have the following styles:
  • Article style (ambox).
  • All talk pages style (brown).
  • Image space style (de facto, some kind of coloured border).
  • Category space style (de facto, some kind of coloured background).
  • Other spaces style (old grey Wikipedia standard).
See? That is five main styles already. Each having a bunch of colours for different urgency and move and protection and so on. Getting all that into one meta-template will cause very nasty code. I promise, I have tried.
Ambox, imbox and cambox don't only handle the styles, they also have lots of code to handle proper flowing and margins etc. too. That adds to their complexity. I have been playing with different ideas like making a meta-template that only supplies the border and background, and letting another template handle the flowing, size and image parameters and so on. But that didn't work since the flowing, size and colours have to be specified in the same line of code, that is in the class="" and/or style="" in the table header.
The only approach that came close to solving it is the CSS only namespace detection method that I explain at the talkpage of {{main talk other}}. However that approach has two closely related problems: There is no way to have a demo mode for it, so we can not on a template /doc page test or show how a template is going to look in other namespaces. And we can not lock the looks of a template to a specific namespace since the CSS automatically will make it change appearance.
If you have a simpler approach, by all means code it up and test it and show it to me and every one else. If you make something better I will support it. But don't ask me to do it, I have already tried and failed since last summer.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I dunno about better. Personally, from what I've seen you and the others seem to be great coders.
I really just think this is a case where we need to make it first, and then present it to the community for dissection : )
If I start a sub-page somewhere, would you be willing to help? - jc37 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, if you have an idea of how to do it, by all means code it up somewhere and test it. And sure, when you have something I'll be willing to take a look. Personally I have asked my subconsciousness to work with the problem, since I could not crack it yet. (That's how I often do in my day job as a researcher, and my subconsciousness is ridiculously good at cracking tough problems. Seems it is slower but way smarter than my conscious part of the brain.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Navbox upgrade soon

Hi David, I'm about to do my {{Navbox}} upgrade within an hour. There will be a few known side effects to some templates, but I plan on going through and fixing them all as soon as possible within the next few hours. After that, let me know if you see any that look funny so I can fix them, and look for others with similar problems. --CapitalR (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to stay awake for an hour more then. I really want to see what happens when you update that one.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Monobook CSS

I have undone your last edit to Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes because it was demonstratably accurate before, simply by viewing any page source in monobook (note that I've removed <script> and <meta> tags in this snippit):

<title>Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>
<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection">/*<![CDATA[*/
	@import "/skins-1.5/common/shared.css?141";
	@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?141";
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="/skins-1.5/common/commonPrint.css?141" />
<!--[if lt IE 5.5000]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE50Fixes.css?141";</style><![endif]-->
<!--[if IE 5.5000]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE55Fixes.css?141";</style><![endif]-->
<!--[if IE 6]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE60Fixes.css?141";</style><![endif]-->
<!--[if IE 7]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE70Fixes.css?141";</style><![endif]-->
<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/
@import "/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&usemsgcache=yes&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400";
@import "/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.css&usemsgcache=yes&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400";
@import "/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&gen=css&maxage=2678400&smaxage=0&ts=20080501205637";
@import "/w/index.php?title=User:Splarka/monobook.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css";

I have also removed diff.css because that is a page-conditional css (only shows on diff pages). There are many other page-specific CSS and JS, such as on any page with a <source> tag, blocking pages, etc. The list had none present before, but if one is to be included, then most likely all should be included. --Splarka (rant) 07:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon reflection, that last paragraph may have seemed a bit rude. I simply meant that your addition of diff.css threw a lot more confusion into the list than necessary. In order to list diff.css there next to the monobook skin, we should be adding it to all the skins' lists (which involves testing which skins include it, and where). However, if we do that, we should include all conditional css and js files, which include most of the ones listed here (which is over 20) as well as the GeSHi syntax styles, and accurately position them for every skin they appear in, as well as annotate which pages they show up on. It would probably make much more sense to simply list them once in a separate section on Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes like conditional styles and scripts, and indicate which page-types they appeared in. Thoughts? --Splarka (rant) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I received questions from editors where the .diff classes were declared so that's why I looked up and added .diff.css. I didn't know there were any other conditional CSS files. And sure, since they are many it would be a good solution to put them in a separate table in the Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes.
Oh! I was wondering about the slight discrepancy between the source code and the tool I have in Firefox that shows what CSS files and .js files are active. I thought I misunderstood something in the code. Now that you have pointed it out I looked again. Silly me, the darn tool in Firefox lists the files in alphabetical order. Ouch! I had not noticed since that order happens to look right, for instance my user/monobook.css comes after the global mononook.css and so on. So seems you are right. Thankfully, with many eyeballs all bugs are shallow. Thanks.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've started adding the conditionals at [3]. --Splarka (rant) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Understatement of the Year Award

Hello David:

I left this page on my watch list to try to further my education.

After watching for a few days, I'm nominating you for the "Understatement of the Year Award" for this sentence:

Expect this to take some months of study.
--David Göthberg, 28 April 2008

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't want to scare you too much. And besides I don't know what your web knowledge is now. Here's a more true estimate, based on doing it as a hobby say 10-20 hours a week:
1: Learning to code HTML fairly well: 1 year.
2: Learning to handle images for web pages: 1 year.
3: Learning to code templates for Wikipedia: 6 months - 2 years depending on if you have programmed in other computer languages before or not.
4: Learning to code CSS for Wikipedia: 1 year.
Of course, the time it takes to learn each step varies a lot from person to person. But I can tell that I had fun along the way so it can be worth it even if you have to start from scratch. Besides, much of this knowledge is reusable for all kinds of publishing on the Internet. So it gives you the full freedom of expression that the Internet has.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Imbox question

Hello, David! I'm just wondering why we're using a different background shade for the license tags. Is this to match the license tags used at the Commons? If so, I think that it might be better for us to match the other imbox variants instead. —David Levy 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, both Wikipedia and Commons have used and still use different variants of boxes with grey background for licenses. Currently here at Wikipedia a bunch of coloured ones are used too. The grey nuances that you see in the imbox license type is one of the license styles that are currently in use here at Wikipedia and at Commons. This variant was suggested by Kelly and I and it seems several others instantly recognised it as a license template and it fitted well with the other imbox types so we choose it. Without a grey background it didn't feel like a license template and on image pages the license template is very important, so we allowed it to be special and have a shaded background.
By the way, I have noticed you have worked your background magic on the cmbox icons. Thanks a bundle! I checked them in my old IE 5.5 and they look fine. Except for the Image:Cmbox_protection.png that has a very light blue background, instead of the dark yellow-grey background that the protection type cmboxes have.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! Also, thanks for pointing out my error with the cmbox protection icon (which I just corrected). —David Levy 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And it was all yellowwwwww

Ambox warning yellow.svg
ViperSnake151 13:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, perfect, thank you! Now we can make the docs for {{imbox}} complete.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

Seems that those who want to get involved have. Any objections to removing the watchlist notice? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, might to be time to remove it. Although we were planning to announce that we now are deploying the new standard. But guess that doesn't need to be done via a watchlist notice.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Disabled. By the way, I also disabled the Wikimania sitenotice for anons today. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Hey. Is it time to remove CAT:SHORTFIX from Template:Shortcut? --- RockMFR 22:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we haven't received any old pages in CAT:SHORTFIX for some days now. (Just pages with fresh mistakes.) So in case you don't know already: I have updated {{shortcut}} and its sister templates with the new anchor functionality and removed the old detection that made it so one could feed the first parameter in two ways. If anyone now tries to feed the first parameter in the old ways it looks very ugly since it breaks the anchor code which causes a visible error. (That's why we first had to run CAT:SHORTFIX before we could add the anchor functionality.)
But I left the CAT:SHORTFIX detection in it just in case. Partly so we can help out, partly so the users get some kind of explanation when their box breaks, and partly since I have heard that pages are only re-rendered when visited and that might mean that some rarely visited pages might still be out there with old shortcut errors in them. I would like to leave the CAT:SHORTFIX detection for some weeks.
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my addition to the See Also section of Template:Imbox/doc

It's an entirely new template, using code from imbox. I added the original feature to imbox, but it was reverted. Then I made a new template, that is almost identical to imbox minus 95% of the style templates. Can you please elaborate further on why it is not relevant? I don't understand. Thanks. CompuHacker (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of the discussion at Template talk:Imbox#I added the "seetalk" param? Since you did not comment on the further discussion there it seems you did not.
Your template doesn't seem to be a meta-template to be used to build many different message boxes, instead it seems to be a single message box. There are literally thousands of such templates. We can not possibly list them all in the "See also" sections of ambox, {{imbox}} and cmbox.
Such message boxes are instead listed in other places, like in a subpage of Wikipedia:Template messages. But before you list your template there I strongly recommend that you advertise it on some talk pages, like for instance in the discussion I linked to above. That means other people can come and have a look and help you iron out the bugs. Because if you list an unfinished template on such official template lists then you will be reverted there too. Then when your template is finished, tested and documented you can list it in the proper subpage of Wikipedia:Template messages, which in your case would be Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<br> or <br />?

This was written by David on Remember the dot's talkpage. Remember the dot then copied it here.

I noticed your edit to Template:Imbox/doc with the edit comment "XHTML compliance". I think an explanation is needed:

Which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Let's examine this step by step:

1: Writing the XHTML code <br/> without a blank is even against the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium, instead it should be written as <br /> since then HTML parsers can understand it too. HTML parsers will simply regard <br /> as a "br" with an unknown parameter "/", while they will regard "br/" as an unknown tag name. So we should definitely not teach people to write <br/>, but possibly <br />.

2: The "HTML" codes we use here at Wikipedia are not XHTML markup nor are they HTML markup, instead they are "HTML wikimarkup", since MediaWiki processes them just like wikimarkup.

3: Wikipedia mainly uses wikimarkup. The reasons for that is simple: Most people that edit Wikipedia are people who never have made a web page, so they know nothing about HTML, XHTML or CSS. So for them (and even for us old webmaster geeks) it is easier to use wikimarkup.

4: As far as I have seen the documentation for MediaWiki talks about "HTML in wikitext" and never mentions "XHTML in wikitext". Also up until recently all documentation listed <br> as the code for forced line breaks. But some months ago some XHTML enthusiasts went around and edited a lot of the help pages to show the <br /> or even the <br/>.

So which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Well, let's first ask another question: Which markup should we use for bold text?

  • '''Bold'''
  • <b>Bold</b>
  • <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span>

I think we all know that the wikimarkup '''Bold''' is the recommended one. Mainly because it is simpler to use, especially for the majority of editors that don't know HTML and CSS.

The same goes for <br> vs <br />. The HTML wikimarkup <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

Sure, we have a "teaching opportunity" to teach people to use the <br />, but there is a very high risk that they instead will use the <br/> and that would be a bad thing. And believe it or not, many beginners have problems telling "/" and "\" apart. So they might even try to use the <br\>...

So again, the <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<br>, <br/>, </br>, and <br\> are all automatically converted to <br /> on the way out, so there's no danger of bad markup showing up to the outside world. I actually find <br/> more understandable than <br> because it clarifies that there should not be an ending </br> tag. It also helps teach good web design practices, namely XHTML, by example. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So you seriously mean that Wikipedia editors should start using <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span> since that is what W3C recommends, instead of '''Bold''' ?
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. That's no more consistent than '''Bold''' and much more complicated. The whole point of the / in <br/> is clarity and consistency. Using <span>s instead of wikimarkup is neither more clear nor more consistent. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All your hard work

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
You deserve a lot of credit for working on {{ambox}}, {{cmbox}}, and {{imbox}} then you give yourself. I hope you realize what a great contribution you are to this project, although you probably will never admit it. Thanks again, and remember, standardization! -- penubag  (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work!

Oh, thanks Penubag. I am just doing it for fun you know. Well, at least most of the time it is fun. But yeah, now that "my" templates are used on at least 1.2 million pages I am getting a slight feeling of megalomania. Or perhaps that is not megalomania? After all, that is 1.2 million pages on one of the worlds most visited websites. A decent chunk of the human race is every now and then seeing "my" boxes and your icons! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I know how you feel exactly! Makes me put the extra effort in those icons! :D -- penubag  (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A little help (again) please (linewrapping in templates)

Hi again. Sorry for any déjà vu, but I'd appreciate your counsel here. (It's just to indicate whether I've misunderstood when and where the {{nowrap begin}}...{{·w}}...{{nowrap end}} makes a difference.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, déjà vu indeed. I have responded there. I hope that will clarify things.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, David. Malyctenar's comments suddenly prompted me to think I'd been using {{nowrap begin}} etc unnecessarily, so I'm glad to be reassured otherwise. Ironically, I just passed by an example of the problem, so have added it to the thread on Malyctenar's talkpage. I've also made a permanent link to the thread in case I query my understanding again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Gimme more work!

Hi. I've come back to Wikipedia, and just thought that I'd let you know to feel free to pass some monotonous background stuff onto me, as you did with CAT:SHORTFIX, {{nowrap begin}} and {{documentation}}.

I thought I'd let you know about something I noticed before I went away, and that is that the list at User:Davidgothberg/Nowrap problems isn't complete. I now take a look at the templates on any page I visit and check it's okay, but there are so many that need updating! Can a hidden category be made such as the one at CAT:SHORTFIX so that it becomes easier to find templates in need of fixing?

So yeah, anything else that doesn't need an admin to do let me know, or if there is one, point me in the direction of the relevant Project or whatever otherwise I might just keep bugging you! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hi Matthewedwards! I am happy to see that you have found a new place to live! I hope your new "dwelling" is to your satisfaction?
Right, User:Davidgothberg/Nowrap problems is in no way complete. That is just a list of cases which I could easily detect through correlating the "what links here" for the different nowrap templates. Those cases are likely to be the worst cases. But as you noted the nowrap templates are used in MANY navboxes and other kinds of templates, and the number of templates using them has increased a lot since I made that list. So I am not surprised that you see a lot of other templates that use them in the wrong way.
Unfortunately such cases can not be detected from within the nowrap templates themselves, so we can not do as we did with CAT:SHORTFIX. To make a more complete list we must ask for someone to run a robot or database search to find the cases. And if they anyway run a robot they might be able to configure the robot to also fix the cases. Although nowrap usage is a little tricky so I am not sure they will be able to do it properly with the bots. I haven't got around to discuss this with people running robots over at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
So I don't have any fresh lists for you to work with. But since you are a native English speaker and I am not, and you are not me and thus might see things I have missed: I would like some help to check and correct the text of some templates and their documentation that I have created lately. And if anything in their explanations is unclear ask me and I'll explain and thus I will know what might need a better explanation.
  • {{high-use}} – I think this one should be pretty straightforward to understand, so mostly a language/wording check.
  • {{main other}}, {{talk other}}, {{image other}} and {{category other}} and perhaps even {{main talk other}} and {{namespace detect}}. Some of these ones have pretty complex explanations and might only be really comprehensible for those that need to use them and thus have a feel for the usage situations. But would be interesting to hear how easy or hard they are too understand. Actually, once one have understood how they work they should be very easy to use since in a way what they do is pretty simple. So the tricky part seems to be to explain what they do.
  • You're right these are a little complicated. {{main other}} seems to be transcluded on a lot of image pages, but a look at those pages doesn't reveal anything useful. I think it may be used on {{to commons}}, but I'm not sure. If you could explain in more detail how they are used, I may be able to help in some way. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking forward for your comments on this!
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your rewording of {{high-use}}. I think we should use your rewording pretty much as is, except two details: I think we should keep "server load" instead of "server bandwidth" since it is not about connection bandwidth but about CPU load. That is, every time you change a template all pages that use it has to be re-rendered. And perhaps (but just perhaps) we should say "please discuss any changes" instead of "please discuss any major changes" since for the really high-use templates I think even tiny changes should first be discussed. Put perhaps people will think it is too much to ask that? Or something like this is perhaps in between: "please discuss your changes". Or would that sound weird?
I wasn't sure if "Bandwidth" was correct, but I wonder if the majority of users will understand "server load" and what it means regarding every page being re-rendered? Personally, I don't like second-person usage, so instead of "your", how about "please discuss any changes"? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as I thought. The documentation for {{main other}} and its sister templates are too bare bones. I was hoping that the "Basic usage" examples should do the job of telling what the template does, but now I remember that most editors don't know what things like "namespaces" mean, so more explanation is needed. And you are right that {{main other}} is used in {{to commons}}, or rather the template that that name redirects too: {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. And that template is in turn used on a lot of image pages.
Have you looked at {{main talk other}} ? That is the first one I made and it has more extensive documentation, but probably too messy and confusing documentation.
I have taken a look at that, and it does give a usage example, which helps, but for me there needs to be more explanation about why these templates should be used. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I will try to extend the documentation for one of them and then you can have a look at it. Instead of trying to explain it here. Or well, I need to get to bed so I'll get back to you on this.
Thanks for taking a look and for the improved {{high-use}} text!
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have copied the {{high-use}} part of this discussion to Template talk:High-use#Wording and continued there, since I think our conclusions here will be relevant for future discussions about that template.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


There are several infoboxes which do essentialy the exact same thing, and have nearly the exact some entries. They typically only differ in the addition of 1-3 "extra" optional entries, and in colours.

In thinking about the mbox family of templates, and how they work, I'm wondering if something similar could be done for a certain type of Infobox.

To see some of what I'm talking about, check out: Category:Fictional character infobox templates.

Any thoughts/suggestions would be welcome : ) - jc37 19:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, for once you ask something that has a simple and short answer. Check out the new standardised {{infobox}} meta-template and its talk page.
I don't do any work with infoboxes for several reasons, among other things since I never really used them and other things are keeping me way too busy.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I hadn't realised there was a "new" version of the template.
That said, even if that is used as the "base" template", I think it could be useful to have an intermediary infobox for ease of useability.
All infoboxes look like "x". All character infoboxes then would "call" Template:Infobox, and in addition, would have at least a certain set of specific fields, with the possible individual usage additions of up to (let's say) 3-5 more.
Is such a thing doable? (And yet still be somewhat user friendly : ) - jc37 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very doable. Check out {{Navbox Musical artist}} which is exactly such an intermediary box, but in this case a navbox based on {{navbox}} instead of an infobox based on {{infobox}}. The same people seem to have made {{Infobox Musical artist}} which at the moment do not use {{infobox}} but perhaps will be changed to that if someone suggests that to them. But as I said, infoboxes are not my cup of tea, so talk with the people over at those templates.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but you would seem to be a great link/reference resource : )
And if I haven't said it yet, Thanks much : ) - jc37 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article series#Merge proposals

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Article series#Merge proposals? --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will take a look. Might take a day or so since I have been a bit busy lately.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Near-native English?

Oh, I just noticed your edit to my userboxes! Thanks for "nominating" me to the "near-native" English userbox! I am very honoured.

But I have to admit, I am cheating since I use a spell checking plug-in in Firefox and occasionally a dictionary. If you heard me speak you would notice my accent, my grammatical errors and my problems to find the words I need. Come to think of it, if you are curious you can watch my p2p talk at the Berlin Congress. There I pronounced "98%" so badly that most of the audience heard "90%" which caused a lot of confusion and weird questions afterwards. I really have to work on my pronunciation.

But again, thanks!

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not how good you are in meatspace, it's what level you can contribute at ;-)
And don't worry about having to use Firefox spell check – I have to too. I did look at your Berlin Congress talk and your accent is understandable, though if you went to the United States you would of course want to learn a slightly different-sounding one. Anyway, you're welcome for the well-deserved userbox promotion! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, so I changed to a hard coded en-4 box with better wording. That is: "able to contribute with a" instead of "speaks at a". Just like the other English user boxes. And yeah, when non-native speakers like me travel we tend to adapt to the local dialect after some days. You should have heard me the last day when I had spent two weeks in a family in England. It was weird to hear oneself speak upper middle class British English. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Your talk contribution to Quinzhee was great. Why did you put it all on the Talk Page? May I move some of it to the article (e.g. the idea of piling the snow over something removable)? HLHJ (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Well, I did add similar text to the Igloo article long ago before the Quinzhee / Snow house article was made. But the text was removed since some editors think that giving out advice is unencyclopaedic, even if the advice might save lives... So on the Quinzhee article I added the text to the talkpage since there it doesn't get deleted, partly in the hope that people would add it to the article (and re-add it if it gets deleted). So yes, feel very free to add it to the article! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)