Jump to content

User talk:Edokter/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Template:Stronggood

Can you un-protect that please? It's not a high-risk template, and there's no sign of editwarring (though the protection is causing some people to want to put huge high-risk template protection banners on the /doc page).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Template confusion

Hi Edokter. I saw these edits and wondered if there was any way you could simplify the tail of the ITN template, perhaps by creating a template of its own, e.g. {{End of ITN}} which would prevent people messing with the (complex for some of us) markup? Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. — Edokter (talk) — 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That'd be great, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Em

Why isnt safesubst necessary?. Before {{Subst:Em|abc}} gave <em >abc</em>, your version without safesubst gives <em {{#if:|class="{{{class}}}"}} {{#if:|id="{{{id}}}"}} {{#if:|style="{{{style}}}"}} {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>abc</em> Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

None of these HTML-replacing templates normally have safesubst, because they are never substituted. WHy would they ever need to be substituted? — Edokter (talk) — 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The cynic in me says that someone intends to do another of those "I hate HTML convenience templates" TfDs. Support would increase for killing off the templates if substituting them didn't require cleanup. Not necessarily Christian75's motive, of course, but I can see various people who categorically act against typing-aid templates, and especially the conversion of nerdy XHTML stuff to simple wikicode, to be all for such a move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not my motive, and in matter of fact I like the argument to remove the safesubst ;-) Christian75 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-reset

Shouldn't the value be list-item (has a dash btween list & item) as in 

/* Put ordinals in front of ordered list items */
.hlist ol {
    counter-reset: list-item;
}

I just noticed portions of hlist use listitem (no dash) and thought the css spec calls for 'list-item' is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It can be anything; it is the name of the counter. ('list-item' actually breaks in IE due to a bug.) — Edokter (talk) — 01:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. Thanks for answering. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit .php files

Hello, I want to ask you how I can edit this page, for example if I want to correct something wrong in that page, how can I edit it?.--ASammour (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You cannot edit it from here; it is part of the software. You can request changes to the software in Bugzilla. — Edokter (talk) — 23:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

GREAT JOB!

ORACLE
Hey that's a great job you have done! Mugdha Keskar (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Signpost tech news

I've just left a note on the Signpost newsroom page about MediaViewer - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Media viewer launching next week. It looks like publication is pretty imminent - would you be able to add a note about this before it goes out, as it's quite time-sensitive?

Happy to add it myself if you're busy, but don't want to tread on your toes so thought I'd ask :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I put it in. — Edokter (talk) — 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Edoktor, great pity you feel you're unable to continue. Your work has been very much appreciated. Will you reconsider? Tony (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

q

Would you care to inform us *what* is not universally supproted, and what is the W3C guideline for "not too small"? -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to be asked here, sorry. -DePiep (talk)

About Presidental elections in Ukraine

Hello dear user,

Since you are one of the active wiki Users, I am asking you to add an information in Main page's News section about Poroshenko's win in Presidental elections in Ukraine. Dont you think that information deserves to be on Main page? Thansk in advance. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You can suggest news items at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. — Edokter (talk) — 11:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Making some changes to Template:Infobox

Howdy!

We have some changes that we'd like to have made to a few of the more popular infobox templates - mostly adding css classes to various table cells that do not currently have them. This would allow for better customization targeting and allow for us to improve the overall experience with some ideas we have in the future. These would not create a visible change (at this time). Future beta features (like Winter) will want to target them, as well as other things (like right rail enhancements).

Since the templates are community owned, we'd like for this to be handled in the community. I don't want to just go and make edits, as it were. Could you help me with this, or point me to someone who can?

(I have already talked to our operations and performance team about the possible impact this may have.)

Thanks! --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jorm. That sounds interesting (it touches on my idea of a local CSS framework for templates to use, instead of template-secific CSS). The best venue(s) for discussing these global classes is WP:VPT and WT:INFOBOX. Is there a place where these classes are documented? — Edokter (talk) — 09:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Black Stalllion

If chormedomealone reverts you again, it's a 3RR violation, don't revert him, let me do it and you report him/her to the 3RR board. Montanabw(talk) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I just did it. Tired of this bullshit. Hope you are Ok with a drama board report. Montanabw(talk) 01:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't expect much drama here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Living in a necessary-only world

Maybe because wetware currently appreciates a little more presentation than software or hardware?

Not that the above would be my example of choice. This would be more likely.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Would love your feedback on a navbox question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Navbox#Navbox_not_showing_right Kentsmith9 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Asbox at Requested moves

Where in Wikipedia:Requested moves did you refer this proposal? I can't seem to find it... Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was merely pointing to the proper venue for a new discussion; I did not start one. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reflist/doc

   Tnx. Should i just forget that multiple instances of {{tl:Reflist}} on a talk page ever were a problem, or do i need doc'ntation about a nicer workaround? (My first stabs at research to catch up are fruitless.)
   And am i right that your summary implies we should annotate that doc'n's ref to {{Reflist-talk}} as "Obsolete, tho still supported"?
  (Looking here for response.)
--Jerzy•t 21:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reference lists are no longer a problem as each list is now closed automatically. {Reflist-talk} is still used for its different look, so it is not obsolete. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
   Oh, of course -- tho i'd have spent a long time puzzling out those now obvious answers. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tracking

Could you please restore that? I'm interested in more detail than just "total is X". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What more detail could you possibly gain from a tracking category? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have a category in place, you can use a tool like CatScan to find out what sorts of pages are in it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please get consensus on the talk page first before you fill the job queue with 2.5 million jobs again. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
2.5 million? Where are you getting that number from? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
here (look for jobs=). This is the most used template (3,000,000+) and any change should be discussed. Adding a category causes all pages the template is transcluded in to be added to the queue, as well as jobs generated to update all the link tables. So it could easily have crept up to 6,000,000+ and take weeks to complete. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Deep Breath (Doctor Who)

I have to respectfully disagree with you: when I highlight the title and paste it into text, the quote marks are carried over. Like this: “Deep Breath” (Doctor Who). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that you would not copy the quote marks as they are CSS presentation. But I can copy This is a quote and it pastes as "This is a quote" (Firefox 26.0). --  Gadget850 talk 19:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I notice that only Chrome behaves. However, the page is subject of a discussion regarding this feature, so please let it stand for now. You can always copy from the adress bar. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Okey-doke - I will say, it looks much more aesthetic this way. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: 23W has now removed the <q></q> tags. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion edit #618332486; WP:INDENTGAP

Hello there, Edokter! I'm writing in reference to your reversion of my edit on the "Idea lab" section of the Village Pump.

In the edit summary of the edit that you reverted, I wrote:

WP:INDENTGAP applies to lists, not discussions. The bullets increase readability, and WP:VP discussions are equiv to RFCs. Please note, most discussions on this page use bullets. Removing them is disruptive; please don't.

In the edit summary of your reversion, you wrote:

WP:INDENTGAP applies *specifically* to discussion.

Please consider the possibility that your interpretation takes WP:INDENTGAP out of context. The "INDENTGAP" shortcut targets a sub-sub-section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility labeled "Indentation". That paragraph is a subpart of the section labeled "Lists", which in turn is a subpart of the section labeled "Block elements". The entire page is discussing a DOM implementation method that is preferred for structuring articles for universal-accessibility purposes. The phrase "discussion threads" is mentioned there only in passing as an example of another common use of colons as wiki markup, whereas the use actually being discussed is for building list objects. This is not the context in which my edit took place, which was a discussion thread, not an organized list of information in an article. That's why WP:INDENTGAP doesn't apply to my edit.

I'm also concerned that you apparently reverted based only on that sole justification, disregarding the other valid rationales that I provided for my edit.

While I certainly recognize you as a valuable and dedicated editor, in this particular case I feel that your reversion of my edit was uncalled for.

Respectfully, — Jaydiem (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misapplied WP:INDENTGAP completely; that section mentiones the use of colons in a discussion threads as a common use, and your edit completely ignores that. Please do not try to change the way we have been conducting discussions since Wikipedia's inception. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Indenting lists

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160 you made a recommendation on indenting an unordered list.

Markup Renders as 
* First line
*: Indented line
* Second line
* Third line

  • First line
    Indented line
  • Second line
  • Third line

The problem is that it creates a definition without a child element, which is invalid HTML: 

<li>First line
<dl>
<dd>Indented line</dd>
</dl>
</li>
<li>Second line</li>
<li>Third line</li>
</ul>

--  Gadget850 talk 11:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It was actually advice for indenting ordered lists. I cannot think of any alternative way to achieve this. If that is 'invalid', then so is a table without a header. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking deeper, it is not the list markup. The indent markup now renders as a definition. A table with no header validates just fine. --  Gadget850 talk 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And once again I rediscovered an old bug. See T6521. --  Gadget850 talk 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gadget850: Yeah... That bug sucks. Helder 23:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been like this for ages. The error is only semantic. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Contentious

Re this edit summary: That was not me being contentious. Did you happen to read the edit summary where I did it? I was not pointing fingers, not saying you were inane. We were inane.—174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Either way, try to avoid contentious comments; other readers may not read the edit summaries and will not understand the context. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lost Boy

   You're right that my last revision is no better than the one that preceded it; in fact, it seems that it displays an additional error message. Perhaps i just screwed up (by getting distracted and then saving in the belief that i'd already checked that the error messages were gone?); that seems far more likely than any intervening change in template content having changed the effect of my changes! I'm going to poke at it again via previews, and not save without getting the pattern of italics that we agree on, without the error msgs. Sorry about that.
--Jerzy•t 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Doctor Who (series 8)#Individual episodes

Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Monk (Doctor Who)

Somebody's been messing with {{redirect}}, then. It always used to work; and it certainly did work when I set up that hatnote in the first place, because I copied the syntax from somewhere else (forget where), and tested it before saving. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius has turned the template into a lua module just weeks ago. Perhaps he can fix it. Preferably by means of a parameter, because those pipe hacks are ugly. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: This happens on all the hatnote templates that have been converted to Lua, because of the way the p._formatLink function in Module:Hatnote parses section links to display them as "Foo § Bar" rather than "Foo#Bar". I can fix Module:Hatnote to detect pipes automatically, but as Edokter says, the pipe hacks are ugly. If they are common enough then enabling the hack may be the best option, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, so what's the proper format for the hatnote? It needs to show that The Meddling Monk redirects to Monk (Doctor Who) and that if people want to find the episode of Doctor Who titled "The Meddling Monk", they should go to The Time Meddler, bearing in mind that Doctor Who episode head isn't a section title, but does exist as an anchor - it's on the episode list table. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think linking to the article suffices. But if you must link to a section... @Mr. Stradivarius:, would it be an option to detect a section link ("#") and disdplay that as " § " and link to the proper section automatically? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It's intentionally not a section link. The intended destination is that table, and the table sometimes gets moved around, as it did here. You can't guarantee that the immediately-preceding section heading won't be changed, either; but the anchor Doctor Who episode head is constant, because it's in the template {{Doctor Who episode head}}. Other than those episodes which shared a title with the serial that they were part of (e.g. An Unearthly Child), all the other 1963-66 episode titles end up at the episode table. Try The Cave of Skulls; The Ambush; The Brink of Disaster, etc. Curiously, the hatnote on The Roof of the World works just fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That template is still partly wikicode. I have to say, these links to tables are ambiguous. If those particular episodes are part of the serial, you should simply link to the article; that proivides the much better context for episode titles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what that function does, actually. For example, {{main|Example (musician)#Discography}} produces:
Main article: Example (musician) § Discography
I was saying that it's possible to extend the function so that it recognises pipe characters as well as hash characters. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not of much use in the context of template parameters, unless you want to maintain the pipe hack. Perhaps named parameters for hidden anchors (l1a, l2a)? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:WHO/MOS

Could you elaborate a bit more on your revert at Deep Breath (Doctor Who)? I'd just like to know for future reference. Also, if that format is incorrect, The Day of the Doctor needs rearranging too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Article pages should generally be sectioned as seen in WP:WHO/MOS#Episode pages. And yes, I think the Broadcast and Reception sections should be merged at DOTD. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:CSS image crop comment

I did not appreciate your comment on my knowledge of syntax in the change log of Template:CSS image crop. If you look back in the log to 2010, you'll see that it was I who designed most of the template, turning Mdale's not-quite-functional idea into a working tool using in hundreds of articles. I admit I don't remember all the reasons why I coded each part a particular way, but who can remember all the fine details after 4 years? Moreover, I might point out that many of the ways we can manipulate parameters today probably were not available when I first worked on it. Heck, the "glitch" in cropping images on the mobile version of Wiki wasn't even a problem back then because there was no separate stylesheet for mobiles! Anyhow, I think I finally fixed it... required me reading through over 300 paragraphs of CSS to find what were causing it... subtle little buggers... sigh... —CodeHydro 22:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I made that remark because you were introducing invalid template code (in parameter handling) and plugging leaks where there were none. If you were somewhat experienced with coding templates, I would not expect to see those errors. Also, it is always possible to test templates in their sandbox; just find a page, change the link to the template and use Preview. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it does seem fixed. But please, use the sandbox next time. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

About our Unicode charts

About Category:Unicode charts, e.g. Miscellaneous Symbols (& /sandbox). Over at this User talkpage, we started about presenting the whole lot a lot better. I'd like to hear you opinion in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talkback

Template:Talkback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 08:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks in display title

Howdy - I see you have reinstated the quotation marks in the displayed title of the article Robot of Sherwood quoting MOS:TITLE. I'd agree from reading that that episode title of TV series appearing in the body of an article should be surrounded in double quotes. However, Wikipedia:Article titles#Do not enclose titles in quotes is pretty clear that article names should contain quotation marks only where they are properly part of the subjects name, and Wikipedia:Article titles#Italics and other formatting (on the subject of display titles) reads "Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics). Quotation marks (such as around song titles) would not require special techniques for display, but are nevertheless avoided in titles; see Article title format above.".

Can I ask you to consider re-removing the quotation marks in the display title of this article please. - TB (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to let them stay for a while, becau this in uncharted territory. Just like italics for long works, I think quotes for short works are appropriate. Note that using <q> tags does not cause the article name to actually contain quotes; they are merely added as formatting (just like italics), so the above does not really apply. See also Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Quotation marks in article titles using <q> tag, which did not have a clear result, but also no clear objections. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but reading the discussion you mention I do see a few objections - and ones I agree with. Adding superfluous quotes to page titles breaks a useful feature; it no longer has a one-to-one correspondence with the page name, meaning you can't (for example) copy a page title into the search box to find an article. It also introduces another unnecessary complication to the system for minimal (if any) benefit. I really would strongly encourage you to try and gain consensus before making adding quoted titles to articles. - TB (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The copying issue has been solved. There is also nothing complicated about it; just like <i>, <q> is just another method of markup. The content of the title isn't changed. Either way, we need a test bed. So unless you run into some actual problems, please let it stand. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Typography

Hiya. You never responded here as to whether or not you wanted to continue discussing typographic convention and the pros and cons of different approaches. I’m still open to that if you do, since it seems rather important that encyclopedia editors discuss and agree in those areas. Also, I’m seeking input here on how best to display consecutive quotation marks in that article: spaced with {{"'}} or unspaced, or some alternative? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you don’t seem to have responded, I’ll take that as a no, so I’ll stop looking for a reply here. But if you do want that discussion, please post to my Talk page. I hope there’s no hard feelings from that debacle. Take care. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who Episode List Template

hey! i saw only now that you reverted my edit on doctor who:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who_(series_8)&oldid=621835505&diff=prev

can you explain to me why? the documentation of the episodes list template states quite clearly that the start date template should be used to indicate the OriginalAirDate field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritzikratzi (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Using {{start date}} is optional, and it produces US dates by default. If you must use the template, make sure to use |df=y. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, changing it and using df=y later today. Kritzikratzi (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have missed something

You claim that the dates presented at Doctor Who (series 8) are not supported by the source. I can see how you might think that from a cursory glance at the source, but if you scroll down to "Episode Guide", you will notice how under the "Deep Breath" entry it says "More episodes". If you click on that, it drops down to have a list of all the episodes with writers, directors, and dates. I already left this note in an edit summary, but thought I would post it here too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer@, that is very well hidden. Would you mind restoring all the {{start date}} templates for the episode dates? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done. I guess I owe an apology to TARDIS2468 for reverting them, because I though {{start date}} was only supposed to be used for, well, start dates. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Navbox with columns/doc

Re this (Fix your browser; these template hacks do more potential damage then they fix.), does the following match the kind of subscripting you see when viewing this page? :

Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, so there must be something else interfering. Your display of sub text is different. I tested all browsers and standard sub text looks fine. In any case, you shouldn't try to fix these kind of problems with templates that only seem to be designed for your display. Always test all browsers. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 05:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "...all browsers" – all...?...!
Thanks for the feedback. As I use Palemoon (the browser I use most of the time) without modification to its default display settings, it seems reasonable to me to take it as representative. I'll revisit its website, though, to see if does now include uncommon display settings as default.
If you feel {{semisub}} is more trouble than worthwhile, perhaps you should nominate it and other templates appearing in {{Sup/sub-related templates}} for deletion..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
PS Any thoughts re this?
Palemoon seems to be based on Firefox. When I say all browsers, I mean the major families like Internet Explorer (though I only have 8), Firefox, Chrome and Opera (<15). I will have a look at those templates and see if any of them are usefull. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Columns-list/testcases

Regarding your revert at Template:Columns-list/testcases: what exactly is the valid usage? WP:TESTCASES certainly seems to imply that before/after tests for a revision-in-progress are reasonable. Admittedly WP:TESTCASES is rather poorly written, so it may well mean something other than what I read. Rwessel (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's invalid use of the template parameters (none). And while testcases is for testing, one should not try to deliberately crash the template. It is impossible to craft all templates to be crash-proof. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't document such a restriction, and the underlying template (div col), when used in the "normal" way, is fine with an empty list. I could see a number of ways such a thing could happen in the ordinary process of editing (in this case the user built a framework that he intended to fill in later). And failing by sending your browser into a loop is a pretty nasty way to fail. Are you suggesting that the (proposed) test to eliminate the problem not be implemented? And if we do implement it, is a testcase not reasonable? Rwessel (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This scenario is just one of many that demonstrate bad use of templates; it should not be used like this, therefor it makes no sense in trying to 'fix' this use. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mattsenate/The Network of Global Corporate Control

User:Mattsenate/The Network of Global Corporate Control Article url: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025995 License: "Copyright: © 2011 Vitali et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."

Mattsenate (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

About my "category tag" to "Rcat tag" edit requests

I realize that you may be helping out with quite a few of the requests that I put in a while ago, and I thank you for this. I wanted to just sort of explain my reasoning behind these requests. I think that in the odd event that the category in the redirect gets renamed, rather than having to edit several protected redirects, the category can be renamed in the transcluded "Rcat" template instead, preventing the need for further protected edit requests in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, even though these maintenance categories are pretty stable. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox element

(Undo last two edits; introduces inline CSS that misaligns with certain fonts.)

If that's the case, why did you undo the edits rather than remove the problematic CSS..?  Which CSS is it – {{semisub}}..?

According to your rationale, how do e.g. the amendments to labels 24 and 160 qualify for removal?

(Do you realise just how uncollaborative / unwiki-like / unfriendly / etc your action is..?)

Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus, that would take me hours to analyze the template... and you cannot honestly expect me to do that. You are familiar with the code, so try again and then ask for review on the template talk page. My advice: do not rely on inline CSS; let the browser handle its own typesetting. Inline tweaks may look better on your screen, but may also be detrimental on other's. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you'd need to analyze the template – if you've spotted some unsuitable CSS, it should only take a few moments to identify where in the code and then remove (or comment out) accordingly..?
As above, I suspect it's the {{semisub}} in the title that was unsuitable where you are; for my part, I apologise for forgetting to avoid it (per #Template:Navbox with columns/doc further above). Will re-editing the template as before but without the {{semisub}} be acceptable?
Another problem, though, is that your undo also removed (in this case) a couple of corrections that didn't involve CSS.
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
PS I'm not familiar with Infobox element's code; if I recall correctly, the rest of those edits consisted of some (restricted) effort to make the code easier to follow.
If I need to comb throught the entire template to weed out the problematic parts, it costs a lot of time. {Semisub} is one of the problems, but also other inline CSS (especially margin/padding) added to the various style parameters are problematic, because they simply have not been tested on all browsers/platforms. Most templates already have the optimal CSS loaded through Common.css; there should be no need to add 'custom' margin/padding. Use classes where appropriate, but do not abuse them (ie. do not use use .abovebelow for group cells), or parts will lose their semantics. Inline CSS is a great tool, but should only be used when needed; not to style a template in general. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case of the MoS template's listtitles, I thought <div>s carrying classes might be preferable to e.g. a specified/fixed style="background:#ddf;...". Have you much experience of and/or any advice as regards software or websites that try to indicate how different browsers render a webpage? (My first, brief attempt at some (undirected) online research has taken me here, for example.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Christmas

Hey there, friend. Can you just confirm for me what date Christmas is on this year? Thanks! ^-^ AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Doens't matter, you need to cite the date. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
[Does this count?] AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No. You need to explicitly cite that the episode will be broadcast on 25 December. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not seeing any proof of accessibility issues? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:W3C standards

(|state should not be unnamed, headers should be bold.)

Taking the latter first:

  1. Those aren't headers (groupnames). They're subheaders (subgroupnames). So it makes sense, as elsewhere, that they're not in bold. Okay..?
  2. "|state should not be unnamed". Consensus? Discussion? Again, as elsewhere, removing the need to keep including "state=" seems well-established. Okay..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

PS Also, this and this.

  1. I follow standards as they are established over the years when these templates were built. The subgroups are table headers, so they should be rendered bold. I don't know what you mean with 'eslewhere'.
  2. Never introduce an unnamed parameter in an established template; they are named for a reason, the biggest one being to avoid any ambiguity in parameter handling. It only complicates code to handle parameters and confuses template coders. Unnamed parameter should be reserved for simple templates; in templates that support 20+ parameters, unnamed parameters are a nightmare. Why would there be a need to remove 'state=' from template calls. When and where has this need been established?
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. The context is a Navbox, not a table. Rendering subgroupnames as font-weight:normal has been a standard for years; examine the histories of templates you find using it. I suspect the story is more along the lines of "all things I consider "headers" should be in bold" (is this what you mean by "pushing" something?).
  2. I haven't introduced the use of unnamed parameters in templates, established or not. Most if not nearly all Navboxes I've passed by aren't used with more than one or two parameters; and many – probably most – aren't used with any. So why is there a need to keep including "state="? Like non-bold subgroupnames, using Navboxes without including "state=" has been standard for years.
Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Give me a few examples; I have not seen any except the ones you changed. And it is not wehter the templates actually use many parameters; it is wether they support them. I commented elsewhere that parameter use should be consistent and unified, not divers and 'foolproof', because it will hurt extensibility in the long run. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I doubt whether I'm the only person to use font-weight:normal for subgroupnames etc; even if I were, the consensus seems to find its use acceptable if not beneficial – and that, really, is the point, isn't it: why not use the normal-weighting to distinguish subgroupnames etc from groupnames etc? What should take precedence: computer-programming dogma or how the encyclopedia's material is presented?
Similarly, I doubt that allowing one parameter to be provided unnamed will hurt long-term extensibility. (If it did, I reckon that'd be a sign that something is too rigid elsewhere.) Not everyone who contributes is or thinks like a computer programmer, so why make them always include "state="?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The only consensus I'm aware of is the one when navbox was designed. Its default styling makes all group cells bold. If there were a consensus otherwise, then surely it would have been brought up on navbox' talk page, and its default styling would have changed in Common.css accordingly to reflect the new consensus. Perhpas you would like to bring it up there. Otherwise, it is best to leave navbox styling well alone in order to provide a consistent presentation to our readers.
As for named parameters, I think you miss the point; it is you who thinks like a programmer, asuming everyone else understands what these unnamed parameters mean. The same applies as what I said above; consistent use of parameter names are a lot less confusing and easier to understand for (beginning) editors. Navbox already has one unnamed parameter, border, to accomodate for nesting navboxes. Introducing other unnamed parameters in templates that use navbox creates ambiguity, which should be avoided.
So please, keep this in mind when you think about changing the default appearence and use of unnamed parameters, and bring any concerns you have to navbox' talk page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The only consensus I'm aware of..."
Isn't there more to consensus – and more kinds of consensus – than what appears in things like (in this case) Common.css..?
Why would "a consensus otherwise" surely have been brought up on a talk page..?
Do you understand "consistent" to imply "in one prescribed way only"..?
And, to return to the case in point, why not use the normal-weighting to make the distinction between groupnames and subgroupnames clear..?
As regards named/unnamed parameters, I believe you misinterpret my point and intention. Is there evidence for people being confused in the way you suggest?
You mention concerns I may have. Here is the most significant: continued easy, destructive and dismissive edits such as this.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
PS In addition to the normal-weighting question above, it seems you'd also rather not acknowledge/aid/discuss this or this. If so, I don't understand why..?
I don't think it will be fruitfull to continue this ono-on-one discussion; there are more appropriate venues, like navbox' talkpage, or the village pump. If I don't answer a question, I usally wait for someone else to answer (mainly because I hate to repeat myself). If you really feel subgroup headers should not be bold, then please raise this issue there. I do adhere to standards and I do revert edits which I consider 'too bold'; they either add too much inline CSS, which constitute a huge maintenance burden, add unnecessary complexity to the template or result in unexpected formatting. Either way, not to discourage your enthousiasm and appriciation of MediaWiki's flexibility, just don't overuse it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the two enquiries linked above was to yourself here, on your talk page (this one); the other was to yourself in the discussion we were having here. If you revisit these threads, I think you'll find that waiting for someone else and/or imagining that your response will involve repetition doesn't make sense.
As regards the formatting and parameter issues, I think I'll try a request-for-comment and see what people say, especially anyone not already involved with these templates. Thanks for your message.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
PS I found myself using {{cfr}} and {{cfr2}} recently, both of which feature the use of unnamed parameters. There must be many templates that do so, both within and outside articles.
An RfC sounds great. As for parameters; cfr only accepts two parameters. My point was to avoid them in complex templates that accept 20+ parameters; they are OK in simple templates. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm?

Hm? --Jayron32 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Page is screwed, comment marks unmatched. The duplicate code really needs to go! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Got it. Thanks for cleaning up my mess...--Jayron32 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'l see what I can do about future foulups by building a footer template. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 01:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Signpost quote template

Hey Edokter. You speedily closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote, from what I understand from your closing remark on the grounds that signpost related content is somehow exempt from MfD, which I disagree with. You indicated quite strongly that DRV is the only venue to further discuss it, but before I bring it there, I wanted to double check with you here if that's really your reasoning, and if you'd consider re-opening the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a specialized template, in that it only used on the Signpost for no other purpose then to conform to the Signpost design. That is also the reason it is not in Template: space, to prevent exactly this type of nominations. Since there (currently) is no other template that can act as a plugin-replacement, nominating it was counter-productive, and was quite disruptive as the MfD template leaked throughout the archives (and currect issue). The reason for nominating ("Redundant to other pullquote templates") was off the the mark for reasons.
I do not think it is exempt, but more care should have been applied when nominating special-purpose templates, especially not those in Template: space. Pigsonthewing is knowledgable enough about nominations not to be so procovative, as he later commented that *I* could simply have used noinclude tags in the template to clear the spilling, which indicates to me he left them out on purpose. That is why I regarded the nom as out of process. The only reason I emphasized that DRV is the only way to continue discussion is because Pigsonthewing simply reverted my closure. I welcome a review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the close. Andy and I disagree in general about what amount of courtesy is useful in conversation and process, and I agree with you here that as a "specialty template" it would have probably been better to get some input from the Signpost first (@Pigsonthewing: ping as I don't like to talk about people behind their backs). However, I don't see it as a strict requirement for an MfD, and I don't believe that even if I would have gone a different route, this MfD is out of order, but rather as a good-faith nomination done in a somewhat provocative and abrasive manner, but not as being WP:POINTy - and I notice some buttons being pushed that make people react a bit stronger than I think necessary. I also think that that "spilling" of MfD notification on the template is actually a good thing: if people get alerted to the presence of an MfD they possibly have an opinion on, it works as designed(tm) (this is probably where we diverge in whether the nomination was disruptive). Indeed I regard the speedy close as more out of process than the nomination itself. I'll set up a DRV when I get home in an hour or two if still applicable. Thanks again for explaining your reasoning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The DRV is now live at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 23. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible option

(Broken on mobile (table).)

Does this mean that tables don't work on mobile devices – perhaps just tables produced by wiki markup – ? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

PS The Navbox/Sidebar/etc request for comment is on its way. I've also been thinking about a proposal to harmonize the parameter names these templates use – would you be interested to hear more..?

Any table is problematic in Mobile, wiki or html. Unless there is a pressing need to present data in tabular format, do not use tables for layout purposes. As for parameters, I'm happy to hear more. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Column-rule

m (Edokter moved page Template:Column-divider to Template:Column-rule over a redirect without leaving a redirect: No ambiguity exists; named after CSS property.)

Programmer-think. This use of "rule" is uncommon in English (consider Rule, then wikt:Rule, then...) and, while "column-rule" might not be ambiguous in its CSS context, that doesn't mean it isn't ambiguous here: CSS ≠ Wikipedia. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't mess with this... This is a CSS template; plain and simple. It is also a cross-project template; your redirect breaks consistency across projects. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Courier

Re Special:Diff/632014896/632022519, true, it's used once in core. So is "monospace, monospace", and the latter was added more recently. We've also got the latter in two WMF-deployed extensions (Translate and SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi), while "monospace, Courier" has 0 there. Anomie⚔ 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, your partial revert left the text not really making sense. If you're going to insist on "Courier", you should revert my whole edit. Anomie⚔ 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

dan clark

whay are you deleting my work m8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorwhogeak (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are using copyrighted images on Commons, which are not allowed there. They will be deleted, and hence they are removed here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tag/sandbox

(That doesn't work; messes up parameter count.)

Seems to work fine. What incorrect output did you see? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you use "plain" as first unnamed parameter, all other parameters must be named; that can't be right. The first param is reserved for the tag name. So in its current state, it cannot go live. Also (doc related), {{\sandbox}} is defective. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The sandbox template failed to show the tag tamplate properly on the documentation page. The testcases page shows that when you pass "plain" as first parameter, all others no longer work, and the template does not even show. You cannot replace an unnamed parameter and get away with it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be as intended, i.e. the same as the documentation examples apart from the lack of border lines around the outputs..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
PS Please do not think that I'm trying to "get away with" something. ("AGF", yes?)
What happens if you remove the "tag=" parts? That is what I mean when I say the first two unnamed parameters are already reserved; your addition forces the user to use the named tag parameter instead of the next unnamed parameter. That I consider "broken". In this case, adding a named parameter ("plain") is the better option, so one can use {{tag|div|plain=1}}, or maybe use the third (not a fan) unnamed parameter, so it becomes {{tag|div||plain}}. Short version: you cannot use the first unnamed parameter. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "What happens if you remove the "tag=" parts? ..."
What happens if you remove "content=" and/or "params="?
No parameters need be "reserved" and if adapting {{{1}}} to handle an option "forces" the use of something else (in this case, "tag="), then there are many templates – perhaps most – "forcing" syntax onto users. No, what's "broken" is elsewhere and, I suspect, the source of the "forcing" that's going on. Why isn't "tag=" (and, for that matter, something like "type=" for {{{2}}}) required? (Or perhaps "state=", "expanded=", etc elsewhere aren't so requirable?) Short version: it's not that {{{1}}} cannot be used; it's that you think {{{1}}} should not be used.
Here's another possibility: thinking of templates such as {{str letter/trim}}, how about {{tag/plain|...}} (and so {{tc/plain|...}}, etc)..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Hi, just wondering what "accessibility issues" you're talking about when you removed the "colspan" attributes in the List of Doctor Who serials article? This is simply a question of curiosity, given that both "colspan" and "rowspan" are used throughout the article. Thanks! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanning data cells over multiple rows or columns may throw of screenreaders. Using row-and colspans on header cells is a different story though; these can usually be left in place. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! Should we then be removing spanning cells from tables such as this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they span an entire row, so no confusion there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Being verbose

It is probably a good idea to be more comprehensive when replying to peoples' questions. At least link them to the relevant documentation. Gryllida (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

common.css border-spacing

The border-spacing that you added to the navbox class in common.css has altered the appearance of all the car timeline templates. Before they had small gaps between each row/col. Adding in style="border-spacing: 2px;" to each template would fix them but there are a few to do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... all hand-build tables suffer this. I'll revert that for now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Module editing

Hi Edokter, Can you please update Module:Navbox on hiwiki? I am trying to edit it from many days but because of little understanding I couldn't do this. For this I think we need some other modules also! But I don't know how can I manage all these. In present case Navebox template don't work with Moudle. I have tried it at hi:template:Navbox/sandbox but it is giving only borders.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I myself am not very good with modules yet (as opposed to templates). So I'm afraid I can't help you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's ok.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Large

(Undid revision 634081632 by Sardanaphalus (talk) Incorrect use: don't transclude throught the content= parameter.)

Why not..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it does not show the [edit] [purge] links in the top right corner. |content= is for direct text only. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dating Timeline Correction of Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter

Just want to relay that Cumberbatch and Hunter have been seeing each other since late 2013 contrary to "early 2014" which the Daily Mail and other rags are reporting and is currently indicated in his personal life section.

NOTE: I know the Daily Mail is not reliable source that's the very reason why the info should be amended because that "until early 2014" was actually information from them. The scans are from People magazine where it says they got together late last year and have been together for a year now before getting engaged. He was even featured on the cover in this week's issue: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/141208/cosby-cover-768.jpg. One can always reference a print article here and in this case scans of the interview are available to prove it. That's already two non-tabloid publications referencing the "late 2013" timeline.

Thank you for improving both Hunter's and Cumberbatch's profiles! 109.175.76.84 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Resize shortcuts documentation

Please supply a copy of this template as it was when deleted.

I believe normal practice is to advise people who've made significant edits to a template of its impending deletion. Is this incorrect?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to User:Sardanaphalus/Resize shortcuts documentation. I should have done that instead. However, note that this mechanism you use completely breaks {{documentation}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'm puzzled, though, by your last sentence. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • When you add a layer of transclusion to display the documentation using an in between template (or any other means), all functionality of the documentaion template is lost. If I click [edit] on some template documentation, I end up on your template instead of /doc. This is the same mistake you made when you used the |content= to transclude the documentation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the detail as regards {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} and {{Documentation}}, but, if {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} was (part of) the documentation for a template and I clicked on [edit] to edit that (part of the) documentation, then editing {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} seems exactly as desired..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't test the section [edit] link, but the top [edit] link went to {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} instead of the actual template documentation being displayed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} formed (part of) the template's documentation and {{Resize shortcuts documentation}} was what was opened for editing when someone wanted to edit that (part of the) documentation, what's the problem ("mistake")..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Irrational number

(Revert per BRD; this is an accessability nightmare.)

And you don't regard small symbols clustered together among potentially confusing dots/interpuncts as an accessibility nightmare..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Dispersing the links over two table rows however, is. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all..? That's... interesting. (Do you have any vision impairment?)
    As regards the "dispersing" of links, the intention was to maintain a distinction between these numbers' particular names and symbols whose reference can change. Perhaps, though, you'd accept links that included the symbols..?
Would you object to the use of e.g. {{Navbox with columns}} to give this template's contents some room to be seen more readily?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a list of links, so it should be formatted as such. Any other structure for the sake of presentation is hurting accessability. I see no benefit in using columns either. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
When you refer to accessibility, do you have something like screen-readers in mind..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps WP:ACCESS is a good read. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of JAWS cost over $1000!) -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Prettiness..? Please don't confuse prettiness with presentation (more precisely, its Prägnanz). Accessibility of both output and code may be the ideal, but surely not the accessibility of editing code at the expense of the accessibility of its output..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
Great detective work. I didn't even realize the WW2 navbox even had those icons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tag and /doc

(Not an accident; these are superfluous and redundant.)

Like the state= in Navboxes etc..?

Also, why did you remove the correction to the code heading?

(Rv; tables are too wide, even at 1280px wide!)

What are you trying to view this on? No problems here, at whatever (reasonable) resolution tried. (Usual is 1680 by 1050.)

But if there is a problem, why didn't you try to fix it?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Where to begin...? I'm viewing this on my 1280x960 screen. 1280 is still the most common screenwidth used. If you think everyone sees the internet as you do on your screen, then you have a problem; Let's forget mobile and tablets! If your layout is breaking outside screens of 1024 wide, it is considered badly broken design.
I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits. You cannot expect other to clean up the mess. (Though I try to weed them out.)
The parameters again... In templates, there is no need to complement unnamed parameters with named one, and vice versa. If you pay a little attention to where each is used, you will find unnamed parameters are ususally ulilized for required and subsequent optional parameters where no ambiguity can exist. Any more complex parameter structure uses named parameters, or they are added as additional parameters where unnamed parameter already exist. But never should named and unnamed parameter names be combined to accept both. Your approach to provide maximum flexibility (at least, that is what I asume), only runs the risk of creating ambiguity, and locking up the code, blocking any future development (especially in core- and meta template). So I am keeping an eye out on your edits, and will revert (or fix when possible) if they cause any potential problems. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Where to begin...? Indeed. Before posting the above, did you read through it imagining it was directed at you?
"I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits ... (Though I try to weed them out.)"
You "choose not to spend time going through all the changes to weed out what you've decided are mistakes"; that is what "usually means a revert of most recent edits". Mistakes or not, if you did try to "weed them out", reversion wouldn't be your default response; nor would it be your default response – accompanied by a dismissive and/or patronizing and/or authoritarian comment or commentary (as, for instance, above) – if you did try to work things out with good faith and in collaboration.
You report that tables are "oversized" – as a result, I imagine, of how the page appeared on your screen/screens? – but give no indication or suggestion as to what may be amiss, even after a report that they seem fine at various resolutions (including, incidentally, 1280 by 960). As regards parameters, your attention may've been drawn away from situations that are already potentially ambiguous: {{tag|references|single}}, for example. You are mistaken if you believe I'm aiming to provide maximum flexibility – which, even if that were the case, does not necessarily nor "only" run the risk of creating ambiguity and "locking up the code".
Reversion and keeping an eye on someone's edits... Sounds miserable.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Deal with it... It may sou harsch, but we are all volunteers, and you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes. I give pointers where I can, but if you are reverted, the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here. You seem to take this too personally; it isn't. However, your editing style resembles a "do first, ask questions later" attitude, and that does not go well with other editors, including me. I watch a lot of templates, and I find edits that adds overcomplicated code/CSS while not providing any net gain, I will revert. So stop coming here, and discuss the issues on the apropriate talk page in the future. Again, this is nothing personal; your code just sucks. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. "...you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes." (Note authoritarian tone; not volunteer-like).
    Where is this demand?
  2. "...the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here."
    Have you considered – with good faith in mind – why I choose to make posts such as the above here rather than elsewhere?
  3. "...You seem to take this too personally"
    Given the manner of your interaction, you don't think that might apply to you?
  4. "a "do first, ask questions later" attitude"
    More accurately, a "do something, see what happens" approach, otherwise too much time disappears. It's preferable to a "revert, reprimand and dismiss under the guise of discussion" approach.
  5. "...while not providing any net gain"
    A net gain – according to whom?
  6. Someone's code might suck, but, sadly, rigidity and the need to be right suck far more fundamentally. It's not a black-or-white world.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion of my "choose not to spend time" implies a demand that I do. I fail to see how stating fact is in any way authoritative. If you cannot be bothered to make time to discuss your changes, then don't complain when you are reverted. Being bold never ensures your edits stick. My urging you to take it to the template talk page is nothing more reminding you of WP:BRD. If I do seem dismissive, it is only after having to revert multiple time for the same reason. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC close

A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. Please either do a full close or withdraw your partial close. (Or better yet withdraw the partial close and list yourself as a first name for a panel of 3 to do a full close, as multiple people have said this warrants.)

Note that Part 1 issues an immediate call to implement. A "No consensus" result on part two eliminates the 7 day bar against immediate implementation. As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss this with you in good faith, you have demonstrated bad faith by going actively non-responsive both here and on Administrator's Noticeboard. (I find it painfully notable you are exactly repeating MDann52 actively non-responsive behavior, and that it was a contributing factor in the case against him.) You leave me no choice but to file a formal action on Administrator's Noticeboard. ******** In the middle of writing this I see someone has preformed a close on the RfC just moments ago. Consider this a notice that I have a standing objection to your part2 close and I may still file a close review, but I am am going to examine this new development before filing formal action. Alsee (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How long are you going to badger me over this? I have closed the RfC (or part thereof) and you don't agree with the outcome. What "formal action" would you seek? That someone else reclose it until it agrees with your desired outcome? I don't think that os going to happen. If it was a bad close, another administrator would have taken some action already, but none have. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I have avoided "badgering" you. However I am required to notify you of WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose Alsee (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CSS image crop

Edok, you mentioned an editor introduced a bug into Template:CSS image crop. It's probably a good idea to summarize the bug on the talk page to hopefully prevent others from making the same mistake. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That won't help. A comment in the template itself may work though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you've notice the suppress output newlines button by now. You may also find enter "max" in bSize instead of a specific value to be helpful. Also fixed the "XXX>YYY" when scaling down. What do you think of the new buttons? Oh, and by the way, you're welcome to tweak the aesthetics a bit if you'd like since you've got much more skin making experience than I do. Just be careful about moving the crop image preview box because the click to crop lines may not line up properly if you change that. —CodeHydro 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

<q>...</q> in titles

Since there barely seems to be any interest in the question at WT:AT (which seems the logical place for it), I wanted to ask you if there’s a project page that does have discussion about it. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know. So by all means, post your thought there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cascading Style Sheets

(Table columns are Bad™)

What, then, produces an output along the lines of the previous version, i.e. with columns whose widths depend on their contents (or perhaps the widest content) rather than e.g. a (potentially very wide) screen width?

(And if table columns are "bad", why are they a standard, a staple?)

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The preferred way is using CSS columns (and {{div col}} is the only generic template using CSS columns). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps placing {{Div col}} within a width-limiting div will work. I'll experiment.
What problem/s do wiki/HTML table columns create that CSS doesn't..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: Table columns are for tables, not for formatting. They’re a standard because tables are a very good way of displaying tabular data. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Edit template-protected/editintro

(Undid revision 639370927 by Sardanaphalus (talk) ......

Were all changes I made here improper / unacceptable / not to your taste / etc ..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if there is a way to have co-producers added to the Template:Infobox-television page since some of the shows and cartoons have co-producers. Or is there another way to list co-producers? I'm just asking. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they can be listed under 'Producers', but maybe you should ask on Template talk:Infobox television or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who episodes

A working version of the use of sublists in List of Doctor Who serials is now viewable in my sandbox. Edits have included conforming table widths, all tables using two decimals for viewership, using one source for all viewership/AI sources instead of a mess of multiple, removing minisodes (these can be added to Other Stories, given that they're not actual episode that contribute to the television series), no double lines after each table, among others (available in the sandbox history). Your thoughts? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks great! But I thought the whole point was to transclude the series tables from their respective pages? Or are you planning to makes these changes there? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Aye, exactly. The edits I've done to the tables in my sandbox, I'll put these modifications across to the respective series pages (adding the summaries back in), then transclude the series table to the TV series list. So, all good to proceed? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Civil service

(→‎See also: Fix hacky dovs, list layout and bypass redirects)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the nocolbreak class. What makes it less "hacky" than display:inline-block;..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Inline-block's pupose to to display a block element inline. It only worked because the lists inside it were block element too. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I've made a note of nocolbreak. I'm sorry to see that you appear set against the point of "Start/End div col" and I'm wondering what you make of [1]. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to echo Redrose64's comments. The use of comment markers should be minimal. Although WediaWiki strips these markers, they are technically not allowed inside HTML tags, but are considered allowable (sparingly) inside parser functions. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not pre-empt the outcome of an "XfD" discussion

Please do not pre-empt/second-guess/presume the outcome of a "[something] for discussion" discussion by making edits such as these. At least one of them also involved removals that were not addressed in the edit summary. I have requested that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Template:Start div col is closed as subverted and will now restore the pages these edits have affected.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am merely preparing for a potential outcome. You reverting everything is quite disruptive, so I will roll back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Edokter, contrary to your assertion, it is you who is edit warring. May I suggest, quite strongly, that you desist? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now reverted your changes. Please wait for the RfD outcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the edit war. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:Episode list

Regarding your edit summary on this edit, I certainly was not "abusing" the template. In fact, I wasn't even calling for comments! If you read the entire thread, you'll see that Technical 13 invited me to reactivate my request once I'd fully tested my proposed change in the sandbox. I did so, and was merely reactivating the request per Technical 13's instruction.

While I readily admit that my proposed fix is not the most elegant solution, my last comment was, "...unless somebody else chimes in with a better proposal." Well, two weeks passed and nobody chimed in. Therefore, I was ready to press ahead with implementation of my proposed change. That is why I reactivated the request—to catch the attention of somebody who can help me with that (as I lack the proper permissions).

Again, I was not calling for comments. I would appreciate if you would assume good faith in the future. Thanks, and happy editing. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It was still used improperly... The protected edit request is there to call an admin (or template editor) handling these requests to make one straight edit, meaning it must be accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code. If there is any discussion still pending, or code missing, it should not be used. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Edokter, I'll note that tested code in the sandbox counts as "accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code". I've re-enabled the request because it looks like there is consensus in that discussion that the extra space in some situations is preferable to no space in others. I'd implement it myself as a  Template editor except that Lua makes me uncomfortable and I'd rather let one of our very talented Lua coders do it. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Hello again & Happy New Year.

Before the need forces me to "go formal", I'm asking a few folks ahead of time (you're the first actually) whom I've come to consider 'rather capable' & 'technically savvy' while I've been 'lurking about' Wikipedia to stop by Wikisource and report your findings to the points outlined in a quick and easy survey - well quick and easy if you get past my opening blatherings that is.

We're looking to see if further "development" is worth pursuing (even possible?) if a high enough percentage of contributors give us all positive results. Explanation, details, links, etc. all start here.

Thanks in advance -- pass this on to whomever you feel can build upon what I hope you found to be at least an interesting bit of new wiki-info if not an intriguing possibility to build upon somehow. George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template edit affects hundreds of articles, but nobody cares. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Campaighnbox

Here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi Edokter the cite button on right of RefToolbar (2.0b), is not working since last few days at Odia WP (or.wikipedia.org). Please help to fix the cite button bug. Thank you. --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you here. There have been no changes in our code for months, so the problem appears to be caused on or.wikipedia.org. Has common.js been edits there lately? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
common.js was last edited on 13 October 2014.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue. Perhaps asking on Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar may help. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday the bug was fixed. The culprit was a deprecated function live() which was finally removed a few weeks ago.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

template talkpage did not help

it is just a few replies and where the discussion stopped 7 days ago without any results and the user talkpages nothing was being done so can anyone please do something about the problem that the result bars and seperated to far vertically, if i knew how to do it myself i would but i cant so am asking you or someone else to help Dannis243 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is about Template talk:Infobox political party, I posted a comment there to indicate where the problem is. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

§ To do should link to User:Edokter/Archive 8#To do. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, because that section is not on my talk page, but my user page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [2]
  • You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [3]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
  • A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [4]
  • The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [5]
  • The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [6] [7] [8]
  • The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [9]

Future changes

  • You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Div col

(Not your call. Take it to his talk page.)

What makes it "your" call, then? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary. The chance of anyone else replying is zero. Redrose has already already expressed that he is ignoring the discussion. And one of my jobs is to prevent discussions from dragging on ad infinitum. The matter is closed, move on. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Where, before your action today – or on January 7 – did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Edokter. I monitored the discussion, but saw no need to interject. Please step away from the horse. --  Gadget850 talk 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Where, before your action today/yesterday – or on January 7 – did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I already answered that. I you can't bother to check the timestamps, I'm not going to continue this discussion either. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bulleted list/doc

(Final straw...)

Unlike yourself, I acted constructively and removed the Div-col columns. If the formatting available here is losing your straw, please campaign elsewhere to have it removed, not stalk people using it to improve this computing project's encyclopedia's presentation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Gap spacing on hatnotes

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place, but just today I noticed that there is no longer a "gap" between two hatnotes. I use Monobook and have found nothing on WP:VPT or any recent changes to MediaWiki:Monobook.css or Template:Hatnote, so it may just be something on my end. If it is indeed on my end, is there any CSS that I can use to make it look back to the same? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained what happened at Template talk:Hatnote#Hatnote issue. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 9 - Block One

Hello, my (and many other users) edits to this Doctor Who page over the past few days have been continuously reverted. It was confirmed last week by Doctor Who Magazine that Block One of filming consisted of episodes 3 and 4 (I happen to have the magazine myself and know this to be true). This information was fully sourced and nobody seemed to have a problem with it being included in the page. Yet on Wednesday, it was confirmed that Toby Whithouse, Daniel O'Hara and Derek Ritchie would be respectively writing, directing and producing this production block. We know (as stated by the BBC) that the episodes in Block One are written by Whithouse. We know that Block One is episodes 3 and 4 from DWM. Therefore Toby Whithouse is writing episodes 3 and 4. Is there something that I've missed or does this make complete sense? --86.134.246.132 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:SYNTH, which states you cannot take information from two different sources and combine them to reach a new conclusion. I don't ahve a copy of DHM at hand so so I tagged ot for confirmation to see if it passes SYNTH. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright I suppose this does make sense, thanks. Although surely both things cancel each other out? By this WP:SYNTH thing we can have either piece of information in the production box. It would still be correct if Whithouse, O'Hara and Ritchie were included in the Block 1 row without the note of "Episode 3 and 4", and yet it would still be correct if the info was reversed (i.e if "Episode 3 and 4" were listed without mentioning the production staff) as it is at this current moment in time. --86.134.246.132 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Edokter and 86.134.246.132 I think Edokter's interpretation of synth may be a bit too strong. Essentially Synth is a prohibition against doing OR and one important principle about OR is: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations "routine calculations do not count as OR" by routine calculations I would definitely expect basic minor logical inferencing as well as numerical calculations. If I'm understanding this that is the kind of synth going on here and if that is the case I don't think its OR or prohibited by synth. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't stating it was synth... I just liked some confirmation that others would find it acceptable. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vector-bullet-icon.svg

Hi the size of the bullet for vector in SVG needs to be bigger please. Please see http://simple-random-wikisaur.tk/index.php/Special:SpecialPages for size that it currently is in svg. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector-bullet-icon.svg 86.173.52.112 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I answered on Phabricator:T37338. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Slitheen

Redundant in that they were described as Raxacoricofallapatorians from Raxacoricofallapatorius. Britmax (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Britmax, the first is the species, the second is the planet. They sound alike, but that does not make it redundant. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Repetition switch on a hair trigger. Thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

“The Doctor” objections

I can’t help wondering, have you been objecting to the The Doctor redirect simply because of the way it was proposed, without investigating for yourself whether or not it had any merit? Because your objections seemed to be based on the fact that evidence wasn’t provided, not that there wasn’t any out there. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am opposed in principle. One of my objections is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC primarily deals with article naming, and which article can forego the (disambiguation) part in their title. Since Doctor (Doctor Who) already is disambiuated, it has no claim of primacy to begin with. And if it is made the primary topic, Doctor (Doctor Who) would have to be renamed, as does Doctor (to Doctor (disambiguation)), and all that to keep navigation consistent. So you see that this porposal has more consequences then a simple redirect. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If renaming were necessary, then Doctor (Doctor Who) would have to be renamed to The Doctor (which I would support), and the disambiguation page Doctor would remain at Doctor since there’s no conflict there and it still wouldn’t have a primary topic. But I’m not aware of any broad consensus against redirecting to primary topics; WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT advises to do exactly that. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The whole discussion is to determine if the Doctor is the primary topic. And your naming scheme introduce exactly the inconsistency I am talkiing about. "The Doctor" is not allowed per WP:TITLEFORMAT, as article names may not start with a definite article unless they are part part of a proper title (name of a work). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If I’m not mistaken, you’ve only addressed your own hypothetical renaming here. TITLEFORMAT doesn’t apply to redirects, and there’s no policy-based need to rename Doctor either way. So… I think that only leaves the argument that the Doctor is not primary? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken... if Doctor (Doctor Who) would be made primary, it would have to be moved to Doctor, and where does that leave the disambiguation page and its associated redirects? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If it were determined to be primary for “The Doctor,” then why should it be moved to “Doctor”? If articles were required to be at each title for which they are primary, we’d have a lot of duplicates instead of redirects; sometimes a subject has more than one name for which it is primary (e.g., Alecia Beth Moore is the primary topic for her full name, for P!nk, and for Pink (singer) [as opposed to the Pink Floyd character]), or sometimes the WP:NATURAL title is unavailable for some reason (e.g., Joker (comics). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The whole concept of a primary topic is that an article for a primary topic needs no disambiguation. Remember that the whole 'primary' concept stems from article naming policy. Redirects are secondary and are only there to aid navigation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Except in the last case I mention. Also, again, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is a thing that exists. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the RfC. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your move. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-06

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There was a security issue on Wikimedia Labs. Many Labs tools were down after the issue was fixed. [11]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 3. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 4 (calendar).
  • The "Save page" button in the VisualEditor toolbar is now blue rather than green. This is the same as on the mobile site. [12]
  • You can now edit pages on the draft namespace with VisualEditor on the Russian Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia. You can ask to get VisualEditor for a namespace on your wiki. When your community agrees, ask in Phabricator. [13] [14]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

q tag revisited

I’m afraid much of my responses to you at WT:WHO was more personal in nature than strictly on-topic. But I stand by it all. If no one (including yourself) took action on actually getting titles to use <q>...</q>, I was ready to remove the quotes from those DW articles to remedy this isolated inconsistency. If it becomes widespread (even if it’s only you spreading it), that excuse for removing them goes away, and it would spur some actual discussion. But leaving it as is means there’s no legitimate reason for the quotes to be on those few pages, meaning they don’t belong. So the way I see it, you’re either in or out, either you support and promote the practice—on more than a dozen articles—or you waive any right to object to those few getting reverted to standard. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied at WT:WHO. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I was making suggestions, not demands. If you’re content to edit a TV season’s worth of articles and then take no further action for your cause, that’s your call. That kind of hands-off approach just doesn’t seem like any kind of way to garner community support for anything. All I meant by my comment here was, It just doesn’t seem like it matters to you, or else I’d think you’d be doing more about it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC hatnote

I believe I explained the idea in my edit summary, but since those articles could potentially be edited at any time to render the hatnote’s claim untrue, a timestamp seems necessary. If you’d prefer, you could link to the revisions that introduced the quote tags instead of pointing people to the latest revisions. This way just seemed simpler. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is rediculous... will you please remove that lie? They have been there for over six months; you make it sound like they have just been added. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It’s not a lie. At that time, the tags were present in all twelve articles. Do you have an alternative solution? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice you reverted me again. There is no guarantee that those quotes will be there if someone goes looking. So what’s your solution? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I’ve attempted to address your concerns by also mentioning that they’ve been there for several months. Is this acceptable? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss this with you and to modify my additions based on your objections. Please do the same rather than simply reverting every single one of my attempts. Help me build a consensus about this rather than treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You reverted my last effort (and self-reverted when, I assume, you realized it was your third revert) and did not discuss it at all. What was wrong with that one? How can we fix it? What wording could we use instead of “as of” (which, you’re right, does imply a starting time)? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No feedback? So can I assume my latest revision (something like, “at the time of this writing, those articles use tags and have for months”) is acceptable? I hope so. If it’s not, then please give some constructive criticism or make your own revisions. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My last revert was too hasty and I reverted myself. The current wording is OK. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. It just seems a bit lengthy to me now. Any suggestions? Or is that just me? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's fine. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus to follow consensus

Also, please stop demanding consensus for their removal, as you did here. I addressed this earlier in that discussion. Since there is no consensus for them and never has been, you would need to obtain a consensus to keep them, not to remove them. I agreed to leave them be during the RFC, but there’s nothing to prevent any other editor from removing them, so if someone removes them and you want to revert, get consensus first. I’m not arguing that they should be removed; I’m just trying to get it through to you that they could be removed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am now thoroughly sick of this. STOP threatening to remove them. They ahve been there for six months! THAT MEANS REMOVAL REQUIRES CONSENSUS! If you remove them I will revert! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Once again… I am not threatening to remove them. I agreed to leave them alone. And that is still not how consensus works. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep arguing about it... that is almost the same! If you are not going to remove them, then why keep argueing about it? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote. I explained why already. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I can only see that one way; you still wan them gone (even though you agree with the quotes). If you agreed to let them stay, then let it rest. It is making me very uncomfortable. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don’t want them gone. I want them perpetuated, and I want consensus to be behind that. There isn’t and they haven’t been. The point I’ve been trying to make is that if anyone else wants them gone, then they’re gone, regardless of what you or I want. They’d have a right to remove them, and you or I wouldn’t really have a right to revert—not even if there were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for them, —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And for the umpthiest time... I DISAGREE. The fact that they have been up for six months (and noting reverts were rare), constitutes consensus. So stop agruing for the deletionists. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No. It implies a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And you’ve been demanding a local consensus to remove your tags because you think a local WP:NOCONSENSUS means you get to ignore overall consensus. So yes, we disagree, but at a fundamental level; you disagree with policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts

I ended the RFC (per WP:RFC) because interest in the discussion had died; the only participants in the past week have been the two of us, who have been there since before there was an RFC (which was started well over 30 days ago). If you believe that I wasn’t allowed to close it, please review WP:CLOSE; non-admins are allowed to even formally close discussions, and requesting formal closure is discouraged if the outcome is obvious. If you disagree with my closing rationale (or with my previous sentence), then please take it up at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE rather than taking it upon yourself to revert it.

In short: Stop reverting my edits simply because you disagree with them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under some misguided assumption that policy is somehow optional for you. Let me be very clear: it is not. Policy is there to guide disagreeing parties, just like this one. You do not get to unilaterally declare the discussion closed. You are correct that I do not agree with your closure, which is exactly why you should await a third party, or request closure pe WP:RFC. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What “policy” do you believe I’m violating? You haven’t cited any. RFCs run for 30 days by default, nothing more; see WP:RFC (which isn’t even an essay page): Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer [than the default 30 days]. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. Interest had waned, and no one else had commented for a week. WP:CLOSE is at least an information page, and you seem to think it’s optional for you—I explicitly asked you to abide by it, and you refused. Do you think that if you don’t revert an unacceptable close, then no one else will? Then maybe it was only unacceptable to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I still would like to know where you thought I broke policy, if it was something other than what I cited or if I misunderstood something that I cited (and assuming my final comment at ANI was mistaken). Or were you simply assuming bad faith on my part (and why)? Please explain, so I can avoid whatever the issue was in the future. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Other admins on ANI have explained it clear enough; The reason you should not have closed are:
  1. You were a active participant.
  2. There was no clear consensus either way; anticipated outcome notwithstanding, this mandated closure by a third party.
  3. Other participants (me) objecting to early closure.
Especially the last point should have told you that closure would not be uncontroversial, and thus negate any ground for you to close the RfC beforehand. Instead, you choose to ignore that point and rationalize that I broke policy by reverting the close. That is just reverse thinking. That is what I ment with you thinking policy is "optional". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And where are these things mentioned in policy? Or do you use that term to mean something different from what I understand it to mean? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It is procedure set by WP:RFC, not policy. That doesn't mean it carries any less weight, and it certainly doesn't mean you can safely ignore any rules, just because they're not set in policy. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so it was just the wrong word, like when I used “consensus” when I meant “outcome.” Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up! But there’s a fine line between enforcing proper procedure and crossing WP:BURO, especially when the pages don’t say what you think they say (e.g. 30 days are “required”). That was where the conflict came from. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Signpost quote

I wonder how many of the parameters in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote are used? Worth adding tracking, do you think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The template was created in 2011, and at the same time most of the unnamed parameters in {{pull quote}} were deprecated. I added |size=, but it's probably not used. You can set up a category. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

bullet-icon

Hi would 5x8 make the image smaller but the right size seems to be good on chrome now and seems to be shwoing correctly on ios. 86.135.251.240 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Answered on Phabricator. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-07

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

Problems

  • MediaWiki was reverted to the previous version on February 4. It was because of a performance issue. It was restored later. [16]
  • UploadWizard was broken on February 4 because of the revert of MediaWiki. [17]
  • All sites were broken for 30 minutes on February 5. It was due to a network problem. [18]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 11 (calendar).
  • You can have one user page for all wikis. Your Meta user page will show if you don't have a user page on a wiki. You can test this tool on test wikis. [19] [20] [21]
  • You can search for media files in VisualEditor more easily. Images are bigger and you see the size and license. [22] [23]
  • It is easier to review your changes when you save the page in VisualEditor. The window is wider. [24]
  • You can read the latest news about VisualEditor. You can now join weekly meetings with developers. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The first meeting is on February 11 at 20:00 (UTC).

Future changes

  • Administrators will soon be able to delete change tags used fewer than 5,000 times. [25]
  • In the future you will be able to have personal lists of articles on the mobile site. [26]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Squiver

good block. FYI, CsDix is almost certainly another sock, but is currently inactive. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • note that the Sardanaphalus account was inactive between late December 2008 and mid-January 2014, which suggests there may be other accounts. the CsDix account was only active during that period. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

big in Mediawiki namespace

If you are interested in removing big from the mediawiki namespace then this may be of interest. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:HTML5#big. --  Gadget850 talk 11:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

wikitable

I could use your expertise to understand wikitable styling. When I look at the first stylesheet that gets loaded,[27] I see two sections: "Table rendering / As on shared.css but with white background." and "wikitable class for skinning normal tables". Why are there two sets of rules? --  Gadget850 talk 12:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The first set aplies to @media print only. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I see it now. Thanks! --  Gadget850 talk 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lyon hackathon

Hi Erwin. Have you considered coming to the Lyon Hackathon ? You should :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to, but finances are unpermitting in any way or form. Maybe next year in Groningen? :) -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There will be grants available, you can always try to apply and see what happens. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edokter/Archive_8&oldid=1166683135"