Jump to content

User talk:Edokter/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

BBC HD/BBC One HD

BBC HD and BBC One HD are not the same. They are two separate channels. --94.11.105.196 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BBC One and BBC One HD are the same channel. — Edokter (talk) — 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I misread. I apologise. I thought you said BBC HD and BBC One HD were the same. But you say that BBC One and BBC One HD are the same, which is true. However, Wikipedia usually seems to list the HD simulcast variants too.--94.11.105.196 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CAPS

Concerning this edit, WP:CAPS is for article titles, not text linking to an article title (every wikilink would need capitalization if that were the case). Here are other Pictures of the Day; notice that the link to the main article is capitalized only if it is a proper noun, hence no capitalization on February 3, 11, 14, and 16. I6 is how that rule is expressed for Did You Know. Perhaps you meant to argue that "capture of Columbia" is a proper noun, but you didn't say so, and a Google Books search shows that others don't consider it a proper noun. Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a proper noun (name of historical event). Google is not leading in how we capitalize our titles, we have our own manual of style for that, just to resolve these kind of issues. — Edokter (talk) — 11:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Google Books, not just Google. If there is a Manual of Style guideline, I would use it often. The "rule of thumb" given here doesn't help because there are almost no mainspace links to the article. Art LaPella (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at VPT!

Disable smaller font size of elements gadgets no longer works without javascript. Reordering the elements you gave me worked. Maybe you can figure out why. But as an end-user who's more of a reader than editor recently, I appreciate readable text and reduced clutter. I know to research further if I want to verify something, so I'm not led astray by the lack of visible cleanup templates. Thank you for your considerable tech help, and seeing your userpage, thanks for being a part of the Wikiproject Doctor Who. An excellent, fun series with excellent WP articles. TransUtopian (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my Vector.css !!

Did I remove those div tags, or was that part of the recent upgrade? Either way, thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Those divs were added during the upgrade. Glad I could help. — Edokter (talk) — 11:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

HelloEdoktor. Thanks for protecting NC's page until we learn more. Sad news if it gets confirmed later. Redrose 64 and I posted at page protection here [1] but I don't know if you will want to close that. On a different note I posted this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Picture question. I am still wondering of that pic is okay. If you don't know the answer don't worry about it. Cheers and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I alrady closed the request; 6 hours should give enought ime for confirmation. I'll answer the other question there. — Edokter (talk) — 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You were quicker there than I was here :-) Cheers and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you are still here but the page is now being inundated with edits by register users. No reliabel source has been provided as yet so the page may require full protection. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Courtney

I'm deeply suss about this alleged story; plenty of mentions of Nicholas Courtney on the BBC site, in any capacity except dead guy. I've written to his manager for confirmation. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Floating sidebar not working

Hi. I asked TheDJ (talk · contribs) 5 days ago if he could modify User:Omegatron/monobook.js/floatingSidebar.js to be compatible with the recent MediaWiki update because it is causing the vertical strip on the left of my page to be shifted down (screenshot; see also: WP:VPT#Interface issues). Since he hasn't replied and I understand that you are a script expert (if you're not, could you point me to someone who can help?), could you take a look and see what can be done? Thank you also for your underappreciated hard work at VPT. Goodvac (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. He did actually try to fix it, but he didn't complete it. I found the problem in the CSS that had also be uptaded with 1.17. It should be fixed now. — Edokter (talk) — 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with infobox?

Hi
I suspect that the latest changes in infobox template cause the font in those boxes to be smaller. See for example the right column in Portal: Current events/Sports.--Nitsansh (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so much the change in the infobox template, but the inline CSS added to Common.css, and this may indeed affect other templates. I've restored the fontsize in Portal:Current events/Sports/Sidebar. — Edokter (talk) — 02:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. However, that only affected one page... the problem seems to be universal to all templates that use the inline CSS (or whatever file went wrong) so the solution should be fixing the source rather than multiple pages...--Nitsansh (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I see. Are you sure .infobox is the right class to use in these instances? They're not infoboxes in a strict sense. — Edokter (talk) — 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. It's been used for years well before I started to edit these pages and there were no problems... if it ain't broken, why fix it?--Nitsansh (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I came to mention the same thing. All of the lines with center now were aligned left. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

hidden

Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cite references prefix

Looks like this is styling the reference list with a dot instead of the number. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This was definitely working for reflist/sandbox, but I don't think I checked any use of <references /> after you made the change to common.css. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It didn't work for <references />, but inherit did cause the references to show bullets instead. So that is not the way to go. I still have some ideas though. — Edokter (talk) — 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox airport again

You fixed {{Infobox airport}} the other day. I was wondering if you could fix it again? This time the maps are aligned to the left rather than in the centre. Thank. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked, but I can't find why the map is left-aligned; it should be centered. Perhaps it is caused by another template (ie. {{Map location}}). — Edokter (talk) — 17:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sculptor (film) formatting

Hi. A few days ago I believe you changed the template settings for The Sculptor (film). When I go to that page now (with any browser) it looks like raw text, rather than a Wiki page. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.154.157 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no changes, and the only template used is {{reflist}}, which seems to be working OK. — Edokter (talk) — 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound

I noticed that yesterday you edited a fully protected page. I remind you that per WP:FULL: Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). This full protection is currently a contentious sticking point and is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#78.155.239.29 - fake credits added to to "The Fox and the Hound" if you would like to chime in.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol Edits

Hello Edokter -

Stopping by here to discuss two areas of edits to the A Christmas Carol article.

First, regarding the 1901 film fragment and its title - while IMDB may (or may not) be unreliable - despite the fact that in the various film communities on Wikipedia it is frequently cited as a WP:RS - the BFI is beyond reproach as an accurate source, and its page on the film clearly indicates the use of a semicolon here [2]. If there is a more accurate source than the institute whose very raison d'etre is the preservation of the integrity of Britain's film heritage, I would be interested to see it and to see it vetted for its accuracy.

Second, regarding the Infobox and the title of the book - both by the conventions of publishing and the author's clear intent, the title of the book is and has always been simply A Christmas Carol. The editor who did the largest part of the rewrite about two years ago and who included the informational notes rephrased Note 1 to read as it currently does precisely because a number of journeymen editors were mistaking the title page material for the title itself. The note emphasizes "title page in its entirety" so as to distiniguish information on the title page from the title itself. You wouldn't consider "With Illustrations By John Leech" or the name and address of the publisher nor even the author's name itself as part of the title proper, though they too are on the title page. "In Prose. Being A Ghost Story of Christmas" is correctly termed a subtitle, this one being of an informational nature. Encyclopedia Britannica makes that clear here:[3]. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is unreliable; it is never cited, only used as an external link. And I merely followded the titleling style provided by the given references and the article's name. See http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/698299/index.html. The link you provided even provides a mix between the two spelling. That means we use the most common spelling.
As for the book title, it is listed under "original title", not mere title, so adding the complete title is appropriate. — Edokter (talk) — 13:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, but since two pages on BFI offer different titles, I'm not sure how one determines what is "the most common spelling." But "original title" still does not say "original title plus other title page material" or "original title plus subtitle." The "original" distinguishes between the author's intended title or first published one being altered subsequently by publisher or writer him/herself(e.g., Margaret Mitchell's Tomorrow Is Another Day changed by publisher to Gone With The Wind). No such situation exists for CC. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference groups

Hi, I like the new predefined styles for <ref>...</ref>, but I am wondering how to make lower-alpha work.[a][b][c] In my browser, the footnote superscripts are alphabetical above, but they are numeric in the reflist, or I am doing something wrong? It would be great if they appeared as a., b., c. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ First note
  2. ^ Second note
  3. ^ Third note
Never mind, I just figured out that the "group" in reflist is quote sensitive. I will tweak the code there. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

{{umbox}}

Ping. I've implemented a {{umbox}}; mind giving it a look over? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to this you actually become a Most Pluperperfect Labutnum sometime tomorrow... but close enough. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions to the the Wikipedia! Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) — Edokter (talk) — 21:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

problem in template

Hi sir. I guess there is a problem in Template:infobox television. It cant show pictures of posters of movies. you can see template of Wallace and Gromit's World of Invention. I fill parametr of image by it cant show in template. If you cant fix it, thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Some templates require the full file syntax. — Edokter (talk) — 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
GOT IT. THANK YOU.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken ref

See {{Broken ref/sandbox}}. I added class="brokenref"— if this is set to display:none in common.css, then editors can override it in css to show cite errors on all pages. Thoughts? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Is this behaviour documented? — Edokter (talk) — 09:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It is in sandbox and won't work until the rule is added to common.css. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Added. — Edokter (talk) — 00:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Now live, tested and documented. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal 2

Come on! I've been trying to fit that in for months. :( 194.17.116.224 (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a lame quote to put in Wikipedia. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. — Edokter (talk) — 10:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

CSS3 multiple column layout

Check out {{CSS3 multiple column layout}}. We have a number of templates using multiple column layout and I thought this would be handy on the doc pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice. — Edokter (talk) — 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

category:template assistants

Hello. I saw that in January 2011 you started Category:Template_assistants. If you check Category:Wikipedians, you might see that there are many categories for interests and hobbies but few categories for Wikipedians who are willing to be contacted to help others solve problems. I see this category which you created as being useful for putting people in contact with each other for help, and I am interested in talking to someone about creating more such categories.

Do you know anything about this? What inspired you to make this category? Do you know anyone else who has ever tried organizing this before? I have found Category:Wikipedians_by_Wikipedia_collaboration and it seems that your category may belong in this one, but still, this is not what I had in mind because most of these categories are of no use to people who are looking for a certain kind of Wikipedian to help them.

Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't remmeber creating it. It was probably after seeing a redlinked category and simply created it to add a description. I even forgot to add myself. But the concept is nice and it should be quite helpfull to organize wikipedians who are willing to help in any way. — Edokter (talk) — 10:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks just the same. I will look around elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

doctor who season six edit

Hi,

I'm confused about the whole Torchwood airdate thing... According to the List of Torchwood episodes Season 4 should start 8 July 2011. That would be the same time as the Who season 6 'gap' wouldn't it? That's why I put the entry back in... It seemed more than just a coincidence for a Doctor Who spin-off to interrupt the seasons run! Satoriforsale 21:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoriforsale (talk • contribs)

If it is a coincidence, there must be some proof of that. Otherwise it is mere speculation. While the shows are related, there is no relation between series 6 of Doctor Who and Torchwood. The air date is for the US only; the UK air date is still unknown. — Edokter (talk) — 22:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Regeneration

IE cite issue

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Non-breaking space between linked text and ref. Looks like adding a zero-width space &#8203 to MediaWiki:Cite reference link before the [[ would fix this. Please give me a sanity check. Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A zero width space will show up as a square on older browsers, so we'd be trading one glith for a (IMO) bigger glitch. If the cite link actually works, I see no problem with a misplaced underline. — Edokter (talk) — 10:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am going to pitch a solution to his CSS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
IE6 and IE7 would actually show a glyph (a tall skinny f); IE8 and above support the zero-width joiner. This isn't really a problem as IE6 and IE7 don't support the :before pseudo-element so that isn't parsed. Are there other browsers that would show a glyph? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But I do consider this too minor for a global fix. — Edokter (talk) — 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This has morphed into a different but related issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)#In-text cite wrapping. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who timings

I suggest that you examine all the other 150+ Doctor Who stories which precede Doctor Who (1996 film), all the way from An Unearthly Child to Survival - every single one has the duration given in minutes and seconds. Also, I provided a source for my edit, which both 78.149.228.253 and yourself have failed to do - see WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who The Impossible Astronaut.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doctor Who The Impossible Astronaut.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetured Sounds

Some of the back end is already done here by adam or myself. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. That will give me some leads. — Edokter (talk) — 14:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The code for that page has a fatal flaw but I don't know how to fix it --Guerillero | My Talk 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the flaw? — Edokter (talk) — 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry its the template. When backtracking to the last sound that appears on the main page it just subtracts a constant from the date.
{{#expr:{{CURRENTDAY}}-5}}
The flaw is that on the first of any given month the computer searches for the -4th of that month. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That should probably be something like {{#expr: {{#time:Y-m-d|{{SUBPAGENAME}} -5 day}}. — Edokter (talk) — 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Best way to proceed is to mimic POTD behaviour; I don't want to reinvent the wheel. — Edokter (talk) — 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I will go look at that --Guerillero | My Talk 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the one time that the back end has been utilized link --Guerillero | My Talk 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I am currently in #wikipedia-en if you would like to chat with me. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Main Page/sandbox/FSL

Sandbox pages aren't allowed to be in mainspace. If it's an incomplete project that you're still working on, then you have to do that in your own userspace, and if it's complete then you have to integrate it into a regular mainspace page — but either way, it can't stay where it is now. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the policy. The main page and its sandboxes are allowed in article space. We (not *I*) are currently integrating Today's Featured Sound/List into the main page, so it needs to stay whewre it is. — Edokter (talk) — 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ever since those weird technical changes to monobook in mid-February, the Wikipedia logo on my page would appear and then do a swerve to the right on every single page I opened, slowing down the page's opening considerably. Now there's also a grey bar that pops up every once and a while which I think is connected. That's why I was trying to finally get rid of the logo. However, the code you put in didn't apparently work... the logo is still there, still swerving, on every page. Any help appreciated... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you still using Monobook? In that case, it is not suprising the code isn't working; it's in your vector.css. It should be in your monobook.css. I've moved the page; the logo should now be gone. — Edokter (talk) — 20:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page sandbox

Hello! I strongly suggest that the gradients be presented via a separate proposal. Combining unrelated changes into a package deal rarely goes over well. —David Levy 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is labelled as a test... (granted, partly to see who would notice first). — Edokter (talk) — 22:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I realize. I don't mean to imply that there's a problem testing this now. I just mean that we should be careful to avoid creating the impression that the gradients are somehow attached to the addition of the featured list and sound.
And by the way, thanks for stepping up to handle this.  :) —David Levy 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ("Is this a personal attack?") ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for an excellent job! No worries about throwing out my code - it was originally only there to give the FL crew something to practise on while we waited for Adam, and to see what was feasible. I agree entirely with the manual requirement for "recently featured". If TFL ever becomes featured seven days a week, then automation is possible, but until then, it's no great burden. I should warn you (heh) that I expect there will be a request for two lists per week in the near future, so your skills are likely to be called on again! In the meantime, I wish you luck with Featured Sounds, and if there's anything I can do to help, you only need ask. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Query.

My dear sir,
The talk page of Cambridge.sukhwinder seems to be employed as a means of advertising. I was wandering if this was permitted on talk pages?
I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 08:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. Advertising of any kind on any page is not permitted. — Edokter (talk) — 12:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance sir. In future I shall handle such matters myself.
I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Paranoid"

Thanks for giving me a mental health problem. Pleased to say I have a clean bill of mental health, other than an obsession with Wikipedia perhaps.

I think Beans is entirely appropriate. All sorts of people, many of whom are not our best contributors, follow AN and ANI, either as contributors or lurkers. That one or more of them will think 'oh, that's a good idea' is not particularly far-fetched. Moreover, the thread has achieved its ostensible purpose - getting buy-in that the block was good.

I can't, therefore, think that there is any benefit to be gained from your reverting, with or without an inappropriate edit summary, and I suggest you revert yourself in turn, as I decline to edit war. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting. I didn't use 'paranoid' in any medical context, in fact it is a general term for being 'too carefull'. I really don't think potential pranksters need this thread to come up with ideas. Just let the thread be archived. — Edokter (talk) — 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What a disappointing response. When I tread on someone's toes, even if I do so accidentally, I like to apologise, rather than telling them they're over-reacting if they say "ouch". --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In no way did I mean to imply that you have a mental health problem. If you interpreted it that way, then I apologize. — Edokter (talk) — 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's Kill Hitler

Page for the Doctor Who 2011 series epsiode 8 titled Let's Kill Hitler has been deleted stating "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:42, 1 June 2011 Edokter (talk | contribs) deleted "Let's Kill Hitler" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax: Title is totally unconfirmed)"

Having just seen the preceeding epsiode (ep.6 A Good Man Goes to War) it states that the next episode is indeed called Let's Kill Hitler. Can this deletion be rectified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.223.150 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It has now been redirected. — Edokter (talk) — 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuts and bolts

I'm just working on the last few nuts and bolts for TFL, to ensure that there are no hitches when this is scrutinised for the final time. I've come unstuck on the following things, and was wondering if you could help?

  • {{TFLcontent}} Needs to be amended to make it possible to remove the "Recently featured" line completely (for instance with a |norecent parameter). I could probably figure it out myself, but it's fully protected. Admittedly we would only need that parameter for the first week, but it's better to have a parameter that we only use once than to create a duplicate template that we only use once.
  • Do you have a page with the exact main page source code? Obviously Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (visible) is a very important part of the proposal, but those who are more technically inclined will want to see the exact code, to ensure that it works perfectly seven days a week.
  • We're not using the points system straight off the bat. It just doesn't make sense to devise a points system off the hoof, or launch with a points system that we know is liable to significant change. Therefore, could you change the code in {{TFLempty}} to the following:

:''The [[Wikipedia:Featured lists|featured list]] for this day has not yet been chosen. The final selection is made by the featured list director. :''You can submit new requests, or comment on current submissions at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions]]. See [[Wikipedia:Today's featured list]] for full guidelines.''<noinclude> [[Category:Wikipedia administration templates]] </noinclude>

There will most likely be a few more things as the day goes on, as I will be going through everything. I want to make sure we leave no stone unturned. —WFC— 12:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

— Edokter (talk) — 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
That's brilliant. For the source code, would it be okay to create a duplicate, so that we have an example of the code without the sounds stuff there? Firstly because whatever disclaimers we give, someone won't read them, and will cause grief on the proposal because the non-operational sounds are in there. One or two users not seeing a disclaimer caused a lot of trouble when we first proposed Today's Featured List back in March. Secondly, if the proposal succeeds, you (or another admin) will then be able to literally just copy and paste. —WFC— 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, here it is: Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/TFL (live). — Edokter (talk) — 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant. I've slowed down a little, as I'm in the middle of a solving a semi-real-life (computer oriented) issue. Nonetheless the testing etc is looking very good, and I'll get around to finishing off the submission page later today. The only other thing I've noticed is that {{TFLcontent}} lacks a |rollover parameter. —WFC— 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You lost me there. What does the |rollover parameter do? — Edokter (talk) — 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It allows the addition of a caption, which can be seen when you hover over ("rollover") the image, and is a standard in other parts of the main page. For instance, if you hover over the image of today's featured article, you will see the caption "Graph showing a logarithm curve". In DYK, the image's rollover is "St. Denys' Church, Sleaford c. 1872". —WFC— 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
That's the |alttext= parameter. (Note that alt doesn't work in all browsers though.) — Edokter (talk) — 15:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, spotted an error. Should be fixed now. — Edokter (talk) — 15:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not quite right. Alt text and a caption are two distinct things. The alt text is what you see if you are unable to view the image. The rollover should be the sort of thing that would be a caption in a thumbnail image. This can probably explain the distinction better than words. —WFC— 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) It's how the other parts on the main page do it; alt-text is never shown as a popup, but Mediawiki always uses caption text as alt-text and as a popup (when not using thumb). — Edokter (talk) — 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Or do you want to use seperate text for the alttext and the caption? I haven't seen such use before. But I added the |title= parameter, and |alttext= is conditional (if omitted, title becomes the alt text). — Edokter (talk) — 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW. I changed some parameter names for {{TFLcontent}} to more established convention; they were a bit of an eyesore. I update all transclusions as well. — Edokter (talk) — 16:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, and I agree with those changes, even if they did catch me by surprise! I've added a couple of example submissions to WP:TFLS (one from The Rambling Man's list, one that I deliberately held back for this purpose). If the parameters for {{TFLcontent}} are now finalised, then in my opinion the only outstanding tasks are to create instructions and an editnotice for the submissions page (along the lines of those found at T:TDYK), and to write the formal proposal itself, making sure that what we write is right. Any other problems that you can see? —WFC— 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
(come to think of it, we can probably just copy and adapt the documentation for the instructions). —WFC— 17:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
No problems that I can see. — Edokter (talk) — 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've drafted the formal proposal here. Does the technical side look okay to you? —WFC— 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good! I added a small ammendum about inserting links to previously featured lists. — Edokter (talk) — 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good spot. I'll wait for a green light from either Dabomb or Giants. Once I've got that, it'll be up on the main page talk. —WFC— 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is now live. —WFC— 11:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Great. I've put up a notice on WP:VPR as well. — Edokter (talk) — 11:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

More nuts and bolts

(←) One other thing: I attempted to create an editnotice for the submissions page, at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions/editnotice. After wondering what I had done wrong, I discovered that only admins can create them outside of userspace. Any chance that you could fix it? I think it would be a very useful addition, and would really add to the user friendly aspect. —WFC— 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you should be able to create edit notices. (There is a link to create/edit one on each edit page.) The sub-page editnotices as you tried only work in userspace. I've moved the editnotice to it's proper place (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions). You should be able to edit it as it's in Template: space. — Edokter (talk) — 12:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was wrong. Only admins and accountcreators can create or edit them. — Edokter (talk) — 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The proposal is going better than I had expected. What a relief!
You probably already have this covered, but as a backup, I'm starting to keep track of main page templates that might need to be edited this weekend, such as {{Main Page toolbox}}, and listing them on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. Also, I did another check of the TFL subpages, and was wondering if you had any further use for Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011, Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 23, 2011 or Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 30, 2011, and if not, whether it would be okay to nominate them for speedy deletion? —WFC— 10:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, any page under the May archive can go. Thanks for listing them main page template; I almost forgot some of them. I'll add some more. — Edokter (talk) — 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds

Further to my comments at the main page talk, it might be worth having a read of Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#I'm going to oppose the main-page display of FSs. One of those editors is a featured sound director, and one of the other two directors hasn't made a sound-related edit since 28 March. I knew things were bad over there, but even I hadn't realised they were quite that bad. —WFC— 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask James what the plans are. i don't see it happening soon either. Meanwhile I'll concentrate on the TFL launch. — Edokter (talk) — 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

1. The #switch function is intended for use when more than two conditions are needed. What is the advantage of implementing it now instead of using #ifeq (which theoretically has less overhead) until such time as additional days are added?
2. I don't understand your statement that "dots should not be in header."
"Check back later for today's." is an imperative sentence (and therefore should end with a full stop). "Check back later for today's" is grammatically incorrect.
You removed the periods (present without complaint since January 2010), so it would have been advisable for you to have discussed my reversion instead of reverting back. (The same, of course, applies to your reversion of my change to the conditional code, which is why I've posted this message.) —David Levy 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal asked for a technical look-over before the code went live on the main page. Why didn't you pose your changes then instead of changing it now without any prior discussion? If it is changed, I have to yet again update all ten main page instances, so please discuss beforehand. I used #switch specifially and pre-emtively for the real possibility of TFL being expanded into more days, without having the pitfall present for wrong coding (like forgetting the empty default). Since the main page is re-cached only three times per day, I see no performance problems arising. As for the dots, many single sentences not part of a paragraph (like image captions) do not have full-stops. I believe this instance is one of such cases were omitting is is warranted. Nesides, why fret over something that should in theory never be visible? — Edokter (talk) — 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1. I noticed the #switch function today and regarded its replacement with #ifeq as uncontroversial streamlining (which both of us have performed without discussion in the past). When you reverted, I realized that I was mistaken, so I came here to discuss the matter (instead of reverting back).
I agree that no performance issues are likely, so if you believe that using #switch now will prevent problems from arising in the future, I have no objection. I sincerely apologize for failing to realize that this was a deliberate design choice.
2. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting of captions:
"Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
The same principle applies to the text in question (which forms a complete sentence). I'd very much appreciate it if you'd please restore the full stops (and initiate a community discussion if you still believe that they should be removed). —David Levy 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I'll put the dots back in. — Edokter (talk) — 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!  :)
And while I'm here, I want to compliment you on the terrific job that you've done with the featured list section setup. When everything hit the fan, I was worried about how things would turn out. Thanks for stepping in and getting things back on track. —David Levy 18:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hear here. —WFC— 18:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. :) But I have to share credit with Raul who provided existing code from TFA. I just puzzled it together. — Edokter (talk) — 19:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Main Page Barnstar
I hereby award you, Edokter, the Main Page Barnstar for your excellent work on WP:TFL together with User:WFCforLife and other persons and to adopt this suggestion after User:Adam Cuerden's retirement. Congratulation! ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding using IMDb as a source (for reference)

Hi,
I just noticed you mentioned IMDb as an 'unreliable source' for information , in your edit summary on the page for Cars 2.I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could please explain why do you think this is unreliable? This would help me better identify reliable sources for making edits!
Many thanks
Salil Jain 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saliljain25 (talk • contribs)

Sounds

Further to my comments at the main page talk, it might be worth having a read of Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#I'm going to oppose the main-page display of FSs. One of those editors is a featured sound director, and one of the other two directors hasn't made a sound-related edit since 28 March. I knew things were bad over there, but even I hadn't realised they were quite that bad. —WFC— 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask James what the plans are. i don't see it happening soon either. Meanwhile I'll concentrate on the TFL launch. — Edokter (talk) — 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

1. The #switch function is intended for use when more than two conditions are needed. What is the advantage of implementing it now instead of using #ifeq (which theoretically has less overhead) until such time as additional days are added?
2. I don't understand your statement that "dots should not be in header."
"Check back later for today's." is an imperative sentence (and therefore should end with a full stop). "Check back later for today's" is grammatically incorrect.
You removed the periods (present without complaint since January 2010), so it would have been advisable for you to have discussed my reversion instead of reverting back. (The same, of course, applies to your reversion of my change to the conditional code, which is why I've posted this message.) —David Levy 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal asked for a technical look-over before the code went live on the main page. Why didn't you pose your changes then instead of changing it now without any prior discussion? If it is changed, I have to yet again update all ten main page instances, so please discuss beforehand. I used #switch specifially and pre-emtively for the real possibility of TFL being expanded into more days, without having the pitfall present for wrong coding (like forgetting the empty default). Since the main page is re-cached only three times per day, I see no performance problems arising. As for the dots, many single sentences not part of a paragraph (like image captions) do not have full-stops. I believe this instance is one of such cases were omitting is is warranted. Nesides, why fret over something that should in theory never be visible? — Edokter (talk) — 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1. I noticed the #switch function today and regarded its replacement with #ifeq as uncontroversial streamlining (which both of us have performed without discussion in the past). When you reverted, I realized that I was mistaken, so I came here to discuss the matter (instead of reverting back).
I agree that no performance issues are likely, so if you believe that using #switch now will prevent problems from arising in the future, I have no objection. I sincerely apologize for failing to realize that this was a deliberate design choice.
2. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting of captions:
"Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
The same principle applies to the text in question (which forms a complete sentence). I'd very much appreciate it if you'd please restore the full stops (and initiate a community discussion if you still believe that they should be removed). —David Levy 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I'll put the dots back in. — Edokter (talk) — 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!  :)
And while I'm here, I want to compliment you on the terrific job that you've done with the featured list section setup. When everything hit the fan, I was worried about how things would turn out. Thanks for stepping in and getting things back on track. —David Levy 18:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hear here. —WFC— 18:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. :) But I have to share credit with Raul who provided existing code from TFA. I just puzzled it together. — Edokter (talk) — 19:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Main Page Barnstar
I hereby award you, Edokter, the Main Page Barnstar for your excellent work on WP:TFL together with User:WFCforLife and other persons and to adopt this suggestion after User:Adam Cuerden's retirement. Congratulation! ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding using IMDb as a source (for reference)

Hi,
I just noticed you mentioned IMDb as an 'unreliable source' for information , in your edit summary on the page for Cars 2.I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could please explain why do you think this is unreliable? This would help me better identify reliable sources for making edits!
Many thanks
Salil Jain 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saliljain25 (talk • contribs)

FL write-up in The Signpost

Hi, could you please check over what I've written? I've also asked the other guys to do so. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good. I fixed one small style error ("once a weekly"). The only other thing I see is... did The Rambling Man really say "stable for yonks"? — Edokter (talk) — 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably. —WFC— 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, he did say "yonks", and now I fear many won't understand it. So I boldly changed it to "a long time", alerting him to this in the edit summary. He won't mind.

On another issue, Edokter, your edit re-introduced the hyphen template. We used to do this until there were complaints that the not inconsiderable number of WPian readers who view on their full 27" monitor get the bottom pic under a huge white expanse. I've become increasingly aware of the compromises involved in accommodating the wide range of window-widths, pixel resolutions, and pre-set fonts and font-sizes on WP pages. Try moving your window from very narrow to very wide and you'll see what I mean. I will use the template unless you decide it's better without on the basis of what I've said. Tony (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a choice between having whitespace, or having the bottom image obscure the side images. There is currently no way around that using a centered image; it is simply too big to share horizontal space with anything else on non-ultra-wide displays. Call it a necessary evil or whatever, but I believe having content obscured (even on 1280px wide screens, like mine) is not acceptable. — Edokter (talk) — 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
To add, perhaps left aligning the bottom image would eliviate the problem somewhat. — Edokter (talk) — 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amy Pond. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that I made the first revert, which means discussion takes place after that. That makes you the one edit-warring. — Edokter (talk) — 12:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm the one edit-warring? I'm sorry. I must have made a mistake, because it looked to me as if you were repeatedly override another editor's contributions. I'll check more carefully next time. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't play innocent. 1) A sentence was added. 2) I reverted (with reason). 3) Discussion should have started at this point. Instead, you choose to reinstate a bad edit. BRD does not apply to only the same editors; it applies to all. — Edokter (talk) — 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It's interesting, because you claim to be interested in discussion yet label the edit in question as unambiguously "bad." Furthermore, you still seem not to understand that I cannot be the only edit-warrior because it takes two to edit-war. I would have thought this was obvious, but perhaps not. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And that would be your 4th revert. Care to self-revert that one? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a crap edit and you know it. — Edokter (talk) — 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That's completely beside the point, and you know it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No it's not. Bad edits (no offence to the orignal editor) need to go or be corrected... And I haven't seen anyone correct it, so I removed it. But since the discussion wasn't going anywhere, I corrected it. So that discussion is moot as well. — Edokter (talk) — 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

TFL edit notice

Hi, I can't see {{TFL-editnotice}} popping up when I edit Bodley's Librarian. Is there something wrong somewhere? BencherliteTalk 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Investigating... — Edokter (talk) — 15:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Although as it's been on the main page for 15 hours 23 minutes without any edits at all, the edit notice may not actually be needed... BencherliteTalk 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It should defenitely be showing. I don't know why it doesn't... — Edokter (talk) — 15:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Hello Edokter, and thanks for your ongoing involvement in WP:TFL, very much appreciated. You said at the submissions page that you hoped List of Doctor Who serials could be featured on the main page before episode 778, do you know exactly when this will happen? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011, but the exact date is not set yet. — Edokter (talk) — 18:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess that will come out with the BBC's autumn schedule? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Most likely. The september date comes from Doctor Who Magazine. They usually also have the scoop on aring dates. But what is certain that it will not air before september. — Edokter (talk) — 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay cool. I'll leave a note on the submissions page to say that, barring something bad occurring, we'll move it over to prep in August and expect a September "airing" date of our own. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :) — Edokter (talk) — 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Template assistants

Category:Template assistants, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

It's not often I'm impressed by your presence on-wiki so allow me to genuinely thank you for removing the inflammatory content from both my and Egg's userpages. Good call. ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, You're welcome. — Edokter (talk) — 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks in TreasuryTag's userspace

Your strong warning to User:Egg Centric is quite justified.

So why is the root of all this, TreasuryTag's attack on Basket of Puppies here: User_talk:TreasuryTag#Comment_regarding_Basket_of_Puppies still unaffected and still visible? Does this mean that this section now has admin sanction to support keeping this sort of attack on user pages? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that my comment about BoP (who, incidentally, seems to have left the project as of about ten minutes ago) contains diffs as evidence, and is not merely a threat of disruption ("I'd like to be an admin and block him lulz") I wouldn't have thought it fell into remotely the same category. That's what the ANI thread yesterday concluded, too. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The removal was on the basis of WP:BATTLE, not the amount of evidence or lack thereof available. It's hardly like accusing you of 'various civility infractions' is going to be difficult to prove. I think removing the drama-magnet 'thread' from your talk page is pretty much required per the spirit of this solution, especially seeing as BoP should be out of your hair now. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not withdrawing accusations of policy violations where those violations took place. My objection to Egg's comment was the "I'm going to become an admin and block you" thing; if he'd just said, "TT is incivil," then I would just have ignored it like I ignore so much other crap on this site. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I considered that. It is drama-invoking, no doubt, but it is basically TT just talking to himself. — Edokter (talk) — 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well so far it seems to have provoked two ANI threads, attempts at intervention by at least three users and (seemingly) been involved in causing one user to leave the project. On the other hand it of no potential or actual benefit to the project (frankly, its just a user sulking to himself in userspace that he didn't get his way at AN). Up to you I suppose. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

I'm not sure if you've noticed but The Big Bang Theory is now fully protected while the discussion is underway. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed. — Edokter (talk) — 14:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, TFL template question

Hi Edokter, any clue as to why Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 2011 isn't showing a 1 August entry? Also, have moved the Doctor Who list to the prep area, so will need to ensure it's top notch - any more clues on the schedule for episode 778 yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Investigating... No news on DW 778 yet. — Edokter (talk) — 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, It's fixed with a kludge now. I suspect a bug in PHP. Let me know when it happens again (ie, when the first entry is the last of previous month's). — Edokter (talk) — 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1/3

Template:1/3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

TfD closing

Miscommunication In closing this TfD, you may not have understood what I was saying—when I nominated that template, there was no WikiProject for South Sudan. I was not claiming that South Sudan itself doesn't exist (sure enough, there are WikiProjects for entirely fictional entities...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I misread it. When I closed it, the userbox was for editors "wishing to start" the new wiki-project. And in fact, the wiki-project has now been created. — Edokter (talk) — 10:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

{{fix bunching}}

Is it time to finally TfD this? The MediaWiki fix looks to be very stable now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Still an awfull lot of transclusions; they will ned to be cleared up first. I suggest emptying the template first to see if there are any breakages. — Edokter (talk) — 11:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you've just done it. :) I've added a comment with a bit of rationale pointing people to the talk page if there are any problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And all pages using the template will be listed in Category:Pages using Fix bunching template. — Edokter (talk) — 12:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove greetings!

Thanks for fixing this. Keep being great!

– Quadell (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Catherine of Alexandria

I've posted a question on ANI[4] regarding the restored information on Catherine of Alexandria. While NLT was certainly violated, it appears that at least some of the information restored is not adequately sourced for the serious accusations being made. Feel free to comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use issues should be discussed at WP:FFD

Since the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag is designed specifically for, erm, disputing fair use, may I ask the policy basis for your assertion that fair use disputes can only be discussed at WP:FFD? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 19:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

db-f7 is for images that are "tagged with a clearly invalid fair-use tag". That does not seem to be the case here; the appropriate tags are in place and a rationale provided. If you disagree with the rationale itself, it should be discussed at FFD. — Edokter (talk) — 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused. {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} explicitly says, "This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed," and then leaves a space for a reason to be inserted. Are you telling me that I was incorrect to use it to tag a file whose FUR I dispute? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically, that template is a stretch from the original meaning of "Invalid fair-use claims" as stated by CSD-F7, but I understand the confusion and I intend to bring some attention to it. — Edokter (talk) — 21:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Please could you let me know if/when/where you do raise the issue? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Images on Deletion list

Hi, Edokter i don't know if you have noticed but a lot of Doctor Who/Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures images have been tagged to be deleted. I was wondering if you agree or disagree with TreasuryTag's findings?

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Images on Deletion list

Hi, Edokter i don't know if you have noticed but a lot of Doctor Who/Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures images have been tagged to be deleted. I was wondering if you agree or disagree with TreasuryTag's findings?

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I gree with some, not with others; those have ended up of FfD. I can't give a blanket opinion as each image has to be regarded seperately. — Edokter (talk) — 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can i ask your opinion on The Doctor Wife Episode page image this is the third time it has been nominated for deletion, sure if it has survived the last two times it shouldn't have been nominated this time. Sfxprefects (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not the third time. It is the second time. (You may find our article on Maths instructive on this point.) The previous one time, two months ago, the closure was 'no consensus' and it is perfectly acceptable to re-list 'no consensus' debates after waiting a while. Please stop canvassing people and get onto something useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 15:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Template coding

I've had to temporarily revert your recent change to {{soft redirect}}, as it caused at least 100 redirected titles to become decategorized from Category:Wikipedia soft redirects, and thereby to get inappropriately picked up as uncategorized articles (which, needless to say, they shouldn't be.) Would it be possible for you to double-check the coding you used, so that your change doesn't conflict with keeping the pages categorized? I think the problem is that your {{ns:0}} = [[Category:Article Feedback Blacklist]] is blocking the later #default = [[Category:Wikipedia soft redirects|{{PAGENAME}}]], but I don't know how to fix it so that both categories can be applied properly. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems I didn't think that one through. Template should work as expected now. — Edokter (talk) — 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deprecated license PD

Template:Deprecated license PD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A Elbereth Gilthoniel

Well, I messed this one up. I moved the article to ''A Elbereth Gilthoniel'' thinking I'd get an italicised title (the phrase being in a foreign language) but got what looks like "A Elbereth Gilthoniel" instead--which, ironically, works as a poem title--but is not what I intended.

Given you are an admin and edit this page could you either move it to the italicised form or undo the original move? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. — Edokter (talk) — 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Hello Edokter. I've just listed the Doctor Who episodes list at WP:TFL for the 5 September, closest I could do without disrupting the process too much, I hope that's okay with you? I will, however, see what I can do about scheduling it a week earlier. Could you, in either case, ensure the blurb and list are up to scratch, it's seen a few edits lately and the blurb will be out of date come the listing on main page (778 episodes...)! Cheers, and thanks for your good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad we cannot maintian the 777 number. By september 5, 779 episodes will have aired (BBC confirmed 778 to be aired on august 27, so 779 will be september 3). I'll keep an eye on it and update the numbers accordingly on the preceding saturday. — Edokter (talk) — 12:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'm sorry about that. I don't want to get too dynamic with the whole TFL listing thing but I want to make sure we have some kind of stability and evidence that we can sustain the TFL process for the long-haul. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Scheduled a week earlier (so still 778 I'm afraid but closer to the air date) in place of the ancient documents FL. Hope that's a little better? All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Before Monday, could you update the tables so that they meet WP:ACCESS i.e. col and row scopes included? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Column scopes added, but row scopes need manual editing, which will be a mammoth job. — Edokter (talk) — 11:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. But it really should be done before main page Monday... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry for this. When I edit the page again and click "Show changes" without doing anything else, it shows those comments removed again, so I suppose I have something running (perhaps wikEd) that automatically removes them. Weird. Ucucha (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WT:WIKED#Removes empty comments. Ucucha (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Not your fault. — Edokter (talk) — 18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Listref

Would you please review and comment on {{listref}}? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd things...

Hello Edokter, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/November 2011 and tell me if you see what I see (i.e. an October list and no 7 November entry?) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it too. It's {{TFL archive}} acting up again. I can't seem to make it quite stable. I'll implement a workaround. — Edokter (talk) — 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued support. Without you we couldn't do this! Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I reverted an earlier 'hack' and added a workaround; if the first monday happens to fall on the first of the month, it will not show in the archive. In that case add |missing=1 to the archive (see Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 2011 for an example). — Edokter (talk) — 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thank you
for helping with fixing the BLP edit notice problem. These little things can be a great help in educating editors about one of the real problems here on Wikipedia. Regards, First Light (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Stack templates

I noticed your comments in the discussion regarding {{Fix bunching}} so I thought you might know the answer to my question at Template talk:Stack begin. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I overhauled the examples in {{Stack documentation}} to hopefully better explain why this template still exists. Please feel free to improve the examples if you feel they are not clear. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

CSS

Hi there :) thanks for your reply last night in regards to the CSS code in order to suppress the underlining of tabs. My only problem is: having copied the code to User:Jared Preston/vector.css, it doesn't work, despite clearing my cache, re-starting Firefox (3.6.23), refreshing, and logging out and back in again! Any clues as to what I might be doing wrong? Jared Preston (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong. I changed your vector.css to try and force no underlines. Can you see if it works now? — Edokter (talk) — 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It works, it works! Thank you so much! With your fix, you even made the underlining disappear from the "My talk", "My preferences", "My watchlist" etc. disappear too! Duizendmaal dank, Erwin! Jared Preston (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, would you happen to know if there's a similar tweak for Monobook? Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Try this:
div#p-cactions a,
div#p-personal a {
  text-decoration: none !important;
}
— Edokter (talk) — 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but it doesn't seem to work...did I input it right? (User:Elmer Clark/monobook.css) -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably needs the !important keyword (I've added it). Try again. — Edokter (talk) — 13:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That did it, thanks! -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Really good work on your first try. You sucessfuly tired to put in the TFL list on the main page. Good Work! Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. — Edokter (talk) — 16:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

River Song

Hi,

I'd like a bit of advice regarding my recent edit of the River Song page.

I posted a chronology of the character from Doctor Who this evening, which was edited out within two hours because it contains "Original research". Despite the considerable time I spent compiling that list, I can understand the editing out since original research does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. However, I still think the chronology would be useful to that page. My question therefore is this:

Given that the information I provided is correct (this can be confirmed just by watching the relevant episodes and occasionally putting two and two together), how do I turn the chronology into something that is valid by Wikipedia standards?

Many thanks, Chris

86.141.138.130 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still looking for an answer to my original research question. If you could give some guidance it'd be much appreciated. Thanks, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.36.89 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for MediaWiki:Gadget-ShowMessageNames.js. I have noticed it doesn't work when a section link is in the url, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter#As_an_editor where it gives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter#As_an_editor?uselang=qqx instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter?uselang=qqx or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edokter?uselang=qqx#As_an_editor (either would be OK to me). I know the section link can just be removed manually but others may not know. Can the gadget be modified to handle it? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thank for the report. — Edokter (talk) — 08:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. The anchor is now removed as it is subject to change after a page load. — Edokter (talk) — 09:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

An unrelated minor issue: The "Message names" link is not displayed when the user is at Special:Preferences. I can manually change the url to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?uselang=qqx. I don't know how toolbox additions work but if it's hard or impossible to display them in preferences then I can certainly live with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gadgets are not loaded at all on Special:Preferences. Perhaps as a failsafe in case one goes rogue, but it could also be a bug; I don't know, but I cannot fix it. — Edokter (talk) — 08:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed by design, see bugzilla:18186. — Edokter (talk) — 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. If the gadget had a documentation page then it could mention that the gadget doesn't work at Special:Preferences but clicking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?uselang=qqx will give the same effect. A documentation could also mention how to find the MediaWiki page for a given message name and how non-admins can request changes (clicking "View source" will give them instructions). And it could mention that all the gadget does is add ?uselang=qqx or &uselang=qqx to the url, and doing this manually without the gadget will also work at preferences, at other wikis (running at least mw 1.18 I think), and for unregistered users. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you could help me?

Hiya. I notice you use JavaScript and CSS here and in noticing was enlightened. I wondered how other people managed to make .js tools and now know. Awesome! However, I can't figure out how to get going (I would feel stupid but I don't). I set up a simple test by creating User:Fred Gandt/common.js and added a little test of it to User:Fred Gandt/sandbox#Testing JavaScript. Nothing happened. Can you help me get to grips with why, what, how, where etc. etc. please? I'm sure it's all very simple when you know how. When you don't, it isn't. -- fgTC 03:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The reason it doesn't work is because the mouse events are filtered out by the software. Execution of Javascript that could be considered unsafe is blocked as a security measure, meaning it is not possible to call any Javascript from a regular page. Hardcoding the mouse events in your script would work, but you'd have to know the element id in advance. Hope this helps. — Edokter (talk) — 07:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thank you very much. It would have worked otherwise then? That's great. I shall think up a more cunning test before cracking on with thinking up more useful gizmos than color changing divs Thanks again. If I run into any more problems I hope you won't mind me coming back for more help. -- fgTC 12:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
\o/ TYVM! -- fgTC 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/Facebook and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Facebook

You might want to check the content of both pages... Could you please restore it in Jimbo's userspace? →Στc. 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a fake Facebook page. You might want to ask Jimbo first if he even wants it back in his userspace. — Edokter (talk) — 07:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I found the above the other day, and think it's great. I also found the other version at Template:Gradient/testcases. I've looked closely at both, including a few edits. I'm not sure why the last two copies are identical (but no matter). I did re-add the border-radius on the list style, although this was before I saw your removal of it per "Radius on list is obscured by left cell border". I'm not seeing that in any browser (I'm not using the usual problematic one, though). And I saw the comment above the Gradient/ examples about "navbox leaks gradient to navbar" — which I'm not seeing, either. Is there any reason this can't be deployed? It would improve the user experience for a fair number of users and would degrade for the old-browsers users. The zebra striping would be more apparent to all, too. If there are any issues, lets work them out so this can move forward. I'd especially like to see the [collapse]/[expand] go live. I'm not sure if that's done with a script or a css transition, but it's nice. One Ton Depot (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The two identical copies are there just to see how the boxes look when when stacked. The list cells have a 2px left-border which you see as the whitespace between the groupcell and listcell. That causes the border radius to be partly obscured. I think the leaking navbar gradient is solved. As for deployment, consensus seems to be not to use any visual features in article space that depends on CSS3, and the styling is subject to personal taste; some love it, others hate it. You might want to raise the issue at the Village pump, but I fear the community will not be too enthusiastic. — Edokter (talk) — 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW. Thanks for fixing the link on my user page :) — Edokter (talk) — 09:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
no problem; I'm trying the scripts, and noticed the need (the FontSizer could do with a boost on the editbox size; have not look at them, yet). One Ton Depot (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, and thanks-back; I noticed the buttons finally started working while last posting here... One Ton Depot (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the browsers support most of CSS3 (which you surely know). I do know of one fellow who's really unhappy with this look (see here, and the talk page). Called it wishy-washy. And obnoxious (and called me that, too). FYI, I added a box-shadow example, and did preview a pair of them to see ho the abutted (just fine). There might be an issue with the right-side shadow causing a hscrollbar for some. I'd think a 1em l/r margin would fix it for a modest shadow. And a 2px left-margin on the listcells might solve the overlap you've described (and I see it now, zoomed to about 900%).
Sounds like there are a lot of sticks-in-the-mud. Many sites are moving this way; it's inevitable. I believe resistance is about personal colour preferences, and some hate the default. There should be user-skins for them. The default hues would seem to have developed as intended for the monobook skin, and when vector arrived, this remained. Maybe the current default colours could become monobook-defaults, and a suite of blue hues devised for vector? (the defaults look lavender, to me, but on some displays I've seen them look more blue).
It occurred to me to slip this in with this in order to get a lot of eyeballs on it. reined myself in, though ;)
there's a lot that could be done with transitions, too; and rgba. And really, all these navboxes are tables when they should be a list; probably a definition list. This would really be better for the huge number of mobile readers.
How about you propose this? I'd obviously support. Anyway, pleased to meet you. One Ton Depot (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is a community decision. That is why it hasn't been implemented yet. (It was just an experiment anyway). We still have to cater to old browsers. So best is to introduce it on a small scale, and not make wide-seen changes at once. Shadows should not normally cause scrollbars, but they sometimes do; that is why I didn't use them, the tables need to be 100% wide. Also, table cells cannot have margins, so that border-radius overlap cannot be fixed that way. — Edokter (talk) — 10:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I knew that (about table cells and margins; I'm tired). Have that many people seen these gradient versions? And I mean other than forced into articles via templates. A small scale introduction would be useful, maybe the headers on the some of the Wikipedia-space pages? or just pasted into a proposal as an example? I looked at this example in IE9, and it looked ok; better than the usual, really. No gradient, of course, but the radius works and the better contrast zebra striping helps, even full-width-grey. Everyone would get some improvement, and some would get a lot. A win—WIN, from my perspective. I know that hscrollbars can happen when they shouldn't; remember IE clipping when italic text hit a box-edge? These little things get fixed as new versions of browsers are release. Pace is pretty fast, now; how many weeks between FF6 and FF7? Best, One Ton Depot (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
clarification
I got ragged on by User:Epipelagic for the wishy-washy and obnoxious comment above; he's fine the the gradient look; it's the non-gradient use of that colour he feels that way about. On Template talk:Physical oceanography if you're interested. One Ton Depot (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

in a situation

Hi, im in a situation, my first account is named Brexx, i got blocked one of those days because i was not familiar with the rules of wikipedia, i was new, i didn't know much, but i meant well........now i am a very experienced editor and only add reliable information with reliable sources and revert vandalism from other users.......i asked numerous times in the brexx account to be unblocked, but nobody listened to me....i admit i should have not created a new account, but i did it only because i forgot my password for the brexx account, and it says here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/login_problems, that:

If you entered and confirmed an email address when you created your account, you can have a new temporary password sent to you using the "Email password" button on the login page. (If you happen to remember your usual password, you can still use it.)

Otherwise, you can create a different username with a new password.

But the second account i created, they also blocked me, so i created another one etc, and they keep blocking me again and again..........i beg to be given a second chance, i was never given one, it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GreekWarrior#Community_bans_and_second_chances that :

1) Users who exhaust the community's patience, repeatedly engaging in disruptive behavior, may be banned upon community consensus. However, banned users with prior productive edits who believably repent of their previous behavior and promise to edit constructively may be readmitted under restriction.


so, please....i do edit constructively now, but this user Kww is so stubborn and not giving me another chance........all what im doing now is correcting wrong information and adding sourcing them appropriately..........

For instance look at the some of the reliable info i added to some articles, and look, kww reverted all of them:

In Fireball article, i archived the All Access source, so users can see the radio adds date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fireball_%28Willow_Smith_song%29&diff=prev&oldid=457695520

and he reveted it....

In Y.U.Mad , i added the Urban and Rhythmic radio adds date with archived sources,

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Y.U._Mad&action=historysubmit&diff=457693669&oldid=457571972

and he reverted it.....

In Pass At Me, the radio release was pushed up, i updated and added archived sources..

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pass_at_Me&action=historysubmit&diff=457693676&oldid=457569189

he reverted it...

In You The Boss, i added the Urban radio release date, and added archived sources for both Rhythmic and Urban...

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=You_the_Boss&action=historysubmit&diff=457693764&oldid=457688087

he reverted it......

In Don't Waste Your Time, i added the earliest release date, which is November 16, 2007, and added sources for each country it was released in in......and i removed the false unsourced U.S. and netherlands dates......

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Waste_Your_Time&action=historysubmit&diff=457662659&oldid=457646496

he reverted it.....


So, as you can see my goal is not to vandalize, my goal is to make wikipedia a better place.........as you can see from the above edits, all im doing is contributing correct information and reliable sources...so, i don't see why i can't get another chance........i don't want to keep going from account to account, from ip to ip...........i just want a second chance...as i think Kww hate towards me is a personal attack ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.243.21 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to make PHP files here like JavaScript (common.js)?

Hi. You seem to know your way around so I ask you. Hope you don't mind. I see that there is a toolserver. Is that the only way to use other languages? If so, how does one go about getting use of it? Any advice or pointers appreciated. fgtc 09:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See meta:Toolserver for more information. — Edokter (talk) — 09:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
TY. fgtc 09:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug 20050

Would you take a look at T22050? See Help:Cite errors/Ordered lists in references, testwiki:MediaWiki:Cite references link one and testwiki:User:Gadget850/Ordered lists in references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I've added the linebreaks (one/many). — Edokter (talk) — 13:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No one is complaining, so we must not have broken anything today. :) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Knock on wood :) Actulally, I compared output in your tespage and could not find anything wrong, so I just went ahead. — Edokter (talk) — 16:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Always good to get a second opinion. Or, to have someone else to blame. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GLAMCamp Amsterdam?

Will you be at the GLAMCamp, which includes a developers' meetup? Sumanah (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

horizontal class

fyi, removing the horizontal class broke some things, like template:UF-hcard-person, where it was being used in a div to create a flatlist. I have alerted andy. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a thurough search before removing it. Easily fixed though. — Edokter (talk) — 16:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

centering

any idea why the title in template:Barack Obama is not centered in the same way as the line below? Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

it looks like they were using an undocumented hack to create an "id" for the navbox, which was then broken due to recent changes to navbox. Notice how the "hide/show" link is gone. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the "id"-hack is indeed responsible for the show/hide link to disappear. Also, I did move the bodeclass parameter to the inner box, which contributed to the failure. But why is an id needed in teh first place? — Edokter (talk) — 17:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
don't know, but if it is needed, we could add an id parameter to navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it's necessity. I removed the "hack", template seems to be working again. — Edokter (talk) — 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've not really looked at any of this, but an id would be about being able to #link to the box (quite dubious), and about being able to target it with user or local css. It would very likely often produce duplicated id, which is quite improper.
Alarbus (talk)
10:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Almaty

You fully protected the page here, but then http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Almaty&diff=next&oldid=460446061 made a revert] five minutes later. This runs counter to WP:FULL. Even admins are not allowed to edit fully protected pages without talk page consensus. Also User:Buckshot06 blocked a user who he was in a direct content dispute with. A smell something fishy going on here.--JOJ Hutton 15:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Page unprotected (editor was blocked). Restoring removed information is not contrary to WP:FULL, as removing sourced information borders vandalism. — Edokter (talk) — 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the unprotection. Thank You. Although I just reviewed WP:FULL and the wording seems to have been altered from the last time I looked at it. Uncontroversial edits, it says, can be made by admins. Still, making edits after full protection is installed for a content dispute, does not seem to me, to be an uncontroversial edit.--JOJ Hutton 15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

military navigation template

Hi, The {{military navigation}} is not inheriting the bodyclass=hlist on the title since it's wrapped in a <div> tag. Just wondering if you could take a look. See here for context. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiss
now uses an hlist in the below section, and the prior rev bolded it all with apostrophes, and I switched to passing a {belowstyle}, which didn't work. {{navbox musical artist}} needs to accept {belowstyle}, as well as {abovestyle}, {groupstyle}, and {liststyle}. I see that the intent there is to slam the door on external styling in order to 'protect' their non-standard colourings. And in a general sense I support encapsulation, but not that intent.
Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Styles are now passed. — Edokter (talk) — 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
and the template went bold:below. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Evgeny Stalev wiki

Hey thanks for having cancelled the old article of Evgeny Stalev, when i search on google the page is still indexed on "Evgeny stalev" and I receive the message "this page does not exist etc...". I think google will re-index the wikipedia page with "Evgeny Stalev". Is it correct? When it could happen? Bye --89Slh (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could take minutes, hours, or days, but ususally hours. Just be patient. — Edokter (talk) — 13:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for you reply. Six to seven hours have passed, but still the indexing is wrong. I'm waiting patiently.--89Slh (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, the page "Evgeny stalev" has been cancelled and now when you search on google you are redirected on "Evgeny Stalev" page. Thanks for the help.--89Slh (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I remembered only a little question: in most of the google searches the first or second result is wikipedia, why on this subject my wikipedia page is only in forth or fifth position?--89Slh (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. I guess because the article is new and other pages still have more links to it. — Edokter (talk) — 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For making nested use of hlist work really well; all the hlist work, really. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! — Edokter (talk) — 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You've earned it.

After reading: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New collapsible code, where Fred mentioned css transitions, it occurred to me that this: 

a:link, a:visited {
 -webkit-transition: color 0.5s ease;
 -moz-transition: color 0.5s ease;
 -o-transition: color 0.5s ease;
 transition: color 0.5s ease;
}

would improve the look of things in a manner all very consistent with what's being discussed at mw:Athena. Alarbus (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your work on MediaWiki:Common.css‎. I almost gave you the "Diligence" barnstar but that seemed a little patronizing.

For your technical skill and grand effort! Thanks for pushing for perfection.  fg 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't celebrate too soon. It's going back to the drawing board. But thanks. — Edokter (talk) — 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually I saw that while I was sending it. I didn't have the heart to cancel so, you'll just have to enjoy it later. Seriously you are working very hard and deserve gratitude and appreciation. fg 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css

Hi. I appreciate all the work you're doing at MediaWiki:Common.css. It looks great. But please try to keep test edits to a minimum there. We don't want users getting half-broken styles (cached for up to thirty days) or the page history to become unusable. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had to debug something which did not work only from common.css (I found out). I am always carefull not to break stuff (except that which I test), but I am now doing my testing from my own CSS page. Also, with the resource loader, updates takes minutes, not 30 days. — Edokter (talk) — 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, cool. I'm sure you're aware that there's test.wikipedia.org as well. If you (or anyone else) ever need flags over there to do testing, I'm happy to oblige. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that :) testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests/Permissions/Edokter has been pending for a while. — Edokter (talk) — 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I gave you +bureaucrat as well in case you know of others who would like to do some testing that requires +sysop. Clearly there aren't enough bureaucrats if requests are sitting around for a month. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. — Edokter (talk) — 17:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd level lists in below param in Navbox

The 2nd level lists don't have brackets around them if they are used in the below section of a navbox. Just wondering if you could take a look. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That is weird... Looking at the HTML, the 2nd level list isn't nested, thus causing it to displayed as a 1st level list on a new line. I have no idea what is going on. — Edokter (talk) — 12:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Even weirder :: and ## do work. — Edokter (talk) — 13:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is a workaround (see code). Still don't know what is going on though. — Edokter (talk) — 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I've patched navbox, that should clear the problem. — Edokter (talk) — 13:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

allow wrap

Hi. I see the technology report for next week. A couple of points; I created {{allow wrap}} for situations where a really long item needs an exception to the now-ambient nowrap rules, and {{flatlist}} is far less used than it was only a week ago: WOSlinker, Diannaa, I, and others (including several IP's I've noticed) are removing flatlist in favour of hlist. It won't go away, as mostly hlist is better, but some uses will remain. Alarbus (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Horizontal lists

Thank you for all the work you've done to make {{Flatlist}} and hlist work in all browsers; it's something I've wanted to see happen for 4.5 years and it wouldn't be possible now without your valuable input. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just luck that MediaWiki now comes with jQuery; without which support for older browser would be very hard to code. — Edokter (talk) — 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Err...

Regarding this revert, see [5]. Anomie⚔ 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm following that discussion. But how does that involve the {tag} template? — Edokter (talk) — 10:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See the bit in the middle of the diff I linked that looks like this?
<code style="white-space:nowrap;">{{#switch:pair
 |c|close  = <!--nothing-->
 |s|single
 |o|open
 |p|pair   = &lt;onlyinclude{{#if:|&#32;{{{params}}}}}
}}{{#switch:pair
 |c|close  = 
 |s|single = &#32;&#47;&gt;
 |o|open   = &gt;
 |p|pair   = &gt;...
}}{{#switch:pair
 |s|single
 |o|open   = <!--nothing-->
 |c|close
 |p|pair   = &lt;&#47;onlyinclude&gt;
}}</code>
It dwarfs the actual comment. At least <code style="white-space:nowrap;">&lt;onlyinclude&gt;...&lt;&#47;onlyinclude&gt;</code> would stay on just one line instead of wrapping across 15. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That is just improper use. It's impossible to hide all the code, so hiding parts of it makes no sense. Plus it makes the template code itself needlessly complicated. — Edokter (talk) — 15:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OTOH, there is a difference between including just the HTML necessary for display (which someone would have to type anyway if they don't want to use the template) and including 15 lines of unnecessary parser functions. Anomie⚔ 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Err ??

What happened here [6]? Edgepedia (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So sorry! Clicked the wrong talk page from the history... — Edokter (talk) — 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin alphabet template

Here's another hlist-related discussion you might like to look at. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Plainlist oddity

Any idea what went wrong in this edit (since reverted)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "=" in the irc link made the template ignore the list. — Edokter (talk) — 13:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
{opened [edit] link to say and find answer already here;} Alarbus (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; and for fixing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Row heights in navboxes

Side by side comparison
hlist no list

One thing I've noticed when using lists in navboxes is that the height is ever so slightly different compared to when not using a list. (I'm using Firefox 3.6 by the way). Just wondering if there is any CSS to add to make them the same? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of hacks out there about padding. Many forms of nav-list cause the generation of a paragraph element, and the top-bot margins that entails go around the span of text/links/dots. This can be done with divs or the {nowraps}. Other pages have their own padding and line-height. All evil stuff, really; people wanting the boxes larger. One common comment in the markup is about lists forming a continuous whole. People are not seeing the zebra striping due to low contrast. Adding a bit of cell padding on the table's list cells, padding: 0 0.15em; or so, would space the cleanly marked-up boxes a bit and cause the implicitly padded-up ones to get doubled-up padding (which would serve as motivation to remove the local stuff), and the explicitly done stuff would be an easy-remove with the backup .15em in-place. Once most navboxes are done, the padding could be adjusted to get the best look. Alarbus (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Firefox is at v8.0!
The narrower spacing is due to me trying to match up the line-heights inherited down the line between the various list types. I think I can add some minimal padding. — Edokter (talk) — 18:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
My suggested 0.15em was intended to mean minimal. I'd like to see as compact a result as possible, and see it as an interim thing. Alarbus (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The list itself is still as compact. The 0.125em adds an approximate 1 pixed padding. — Edokter (talk) — 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd not looked at the tweak. It should be "padding: 0.125em 0", as we don't want' any l/r padding; no one's doing that out there... (my bad, before, getting them backwards). Just add the {plainlist} css! Alarbus (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't forsee any complaint with the 1px padding; it even out the horizontal with the vertical spacing. I'll add the plainlist class. — Edokter (talk) — 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd really prefer to not introduce this anomaly of l/r padding. I've not see this done anywhere in templates I've viewed. It will result in hair-indents when lists contain plaintext (sans-'*'). There's already a <div style="padding:0em 0.25em"> in each navbox list cell; this is where I was intending the tweak to land, so it would become: padding: 0.125em 0.25em; ... Please?
I commented re plainlist at Andy's page: We do need to take the padding: 0px; margin: 0px; from {{ubl}}. I tried it and got messed-up alignment.
On {{Campaignbox Wars of Caliph Umar}}, the forms of list are mixed; the '*' should be ':', but this would entail a tweak to the DD-element rules in the context of plainlist, i.e. .plainlist dd { margin-left: 0; }. But this would only apt be in situations where the list is centred, so needs further consideration... Alarbus (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Can't do padding: 0.125em 0.25em; in the navbox, that would create extra padding in navboxes that don't use hlist. The plainlist class only resets those metrics that have been set up-tree in CSS. So I can't imagine the current setup messing up anything. Examples? And plainlist should only work on UL, as other types don;t have bullets. — Edokter (talk) — 09:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I *do* mean a hair's extra padding for all navbox list-cells. There are thousands out there that add 0.25em top/bot and line-height: 1.4em. It must have gotten started long ago and pasted all over. Such local fixes are bad and should be removed, but people *want* them spaced out more. If we add a minimal top/bot pad for everything, then it will go a lot easier cutting the local styling (then we reduce it in the css;).
The current {ubl} resets padding and margins, and I think plainlist should mimic that. It was some usage in a ship I was looking at and previewed a convert. w/{ubl} it looked fine, matched the other stuff in the infobox. w/plainlist, things looked off, dropped, gapped... I discarded the edit. I'll go look for another example or put something side-by-side together.
I see your point about Caliph Umar... I was hoping to match the ';' with ':'. Some mechanism to display DT/DD centred in an over/under manner would be nice.
re the padding, again; I'm not looking for double-padding; just once. The 0.25em for left/right is already present; I'm just looking to move the 0.125em (or even just 0.1em) for top/bot to 'above' hlist. In one tweak, it will make all the places that are 'adding' their own local 0.25em look a tad too tall, and then the removal of the local code will be much appreciated by the 'locals'. Alarbus (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
More. You know what I'm calling the div-trick? See the old version. What this does is cause the generation of a paragraph around the whole inline span of {nowrap begin}, links, {dot}s, whatever, and this gets it all top and bottom margin (0.4em and 0.5em). The other way this sort of extra space happens is explicit styling. Old side. The "padding:0.25em 0; line-height:1.5em; <!--otherwise lists can appear to form continuous whole-->" usually has a 1.4em (1.5em is the default, I believe). This is the really common hack. It expands the list cells vertically, and crams any wrapped lines a bit tighter. It's done to groupcells, too, sometimes.
When we hlist these, these local hacks are being cut. Frankly, I see all extra padding besides the div's 0 0.25em stuff as unhelpful. I'm only looking to quell those who might push-back against the deployment of hlist. Cartoon Boy, for example. He on hundreds of IPs from Milwaukee. Off to find a ship. Alarbus (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A better example of the local styling of groups and lists is Unification Church. Alarbus (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just remove those, as they serve no purpose. I'm not going to tweak anymore navbox CSS; with all the inline CSS present, it probably needs an overhaul anyway. The added padding was ment only for hlist anyway. — Edokter (talk) — 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I am removing that sort of thing as a matter of course. They *do* serve purposes (poor ones), but people get all OWNy about 'their' templates. I've put a lot of thought into this, so please don't be dismissive.
I've an example re ubl/plainlist that I'll be posting to the thread on Andy's page soon. Alarbus (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Margin

posting it here

See USS Mississippi (BB-23) gets a ubl. This is the "Armor" section at the bottom of the infobox.

I just converted it to plainlist. Notice how the label "Armor" and the word "Belt" no longer align; "Belt" has dropped by the 0.3em margin-top on the UL; there's also a 0.5em margin-bottom that is being added to whatever padding the bottom of the infobox has, to create a larger gap. If there were something else below this, there would be an extra bit of gap. Then I converted the "Armament" list, above "Armor". It was just done with BR-tags. This section has the same "drop" due to the margin and produces a wide gap between the two sections.

The short of this is that the ambient styling of the list-elements is inappropriate for the contexts that these will likely be used in. The inherited margins are intended for lists thrown-in with prose, and getting their usual ornaments. I see the future of most of this in blocky things like infoboxes, tables, and navboxes. With these, the structure is setting up padding for the contents and much of the stuff in them, like the labels "Armour" and "Armament", are just plain text sitting inside something like a table cell and they don't have anything like a paragraph around them to give top and bottom margin. When we mix these up, we'll get poor results, and people will end up using plain text and BRs to achieve the alignments they'll want. Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it. Fixed the margin (padding was already 0). — Edokter (talk) — 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I just cleared/purged and am seeing things align, now; two browsers. I wasn't much concerned with the padding on this one; just wanting agreement with {flatlist}, which may-well be able to lose that. Alarbus (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The margin: 0; is not working for margin-bottom. The rule div#content ol, div#content ul, div#mw_content ol, div#mw_content ul { margin-bottom: 0.5em; } has higher specificity and the plainlist-UL is getting the half-em margin at the bottom, anyway. It's still showing in the USS Mississippi (BB-23) infobox. This needs either !important or an adjustment to the selector to be more specific (I know, neither is really desirable, but neither is the unwanted gap). I also saw the l/r padding go away; thanks. Alarbus (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to change too much; it should still behave as a list. I did't see a particular problem in the bottom-border, ie. there were no alignment issues. — Edokter (talk) — 10:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
bottom-margin. All I'm asking is that the implicit bottom in the margin: 0; actually work; there are alignment issues, at the bottom. In cases like this, which is where I see these mostly being used, the separation of items is the responsibility of the containing structure, i.e. the table cell padding. In lots of sites using the various elements in different contexts (body, layout modules...) it is standard practice to zero-out all things like margin and padding, and re-style everything for the local context. This is a case of the ambient styling have been do with too high a specificity of the selectors (which is sometimes necessary and results in css with a lot high specificity selectors). Alarbus (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
An inline style-element has high-enough specificity to override the overarching margin-bottom. Having to fix this on a per-use basis is going to be omitted by most editors. Look at the vertical gaps between '34 officers' and '4 × 12 in' and between 'tubes' and 'Belt:' and between '(229 mm)' and the bottom border of the infobox; the separation is being taken care of by the structure of the infobox. Alarbus (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm /relaxed/, no worries. Thanks for taking care of it. I just added some plainlists to Confederate States of America. The intervening edit was some {ubl}s for contrast, now on to plainlists. I saw your last css change in Firebug; I expect I was seeing the prior css for the last bit on Mississippi.
The introduction of lists into the CSA infobox has brought forth another issue: line-height. That's an infobox.geography at CSA, and it has a line-height: 1.2em; as an ambient setting, while these lists are getting line-height: 1.5em; from a higher specificity rule targeting uses in the main prose. To play nicely inside such containers, the lists would need line-height: inherit; added. And probably some more stuff. I suppose things like that navbox have the 'right' to control the line-height of their content, and this would respect that. I've previewed the 'inherit' in Firebug, and it looks good; makes the lists match the rest of the infobox. NB: The very same line-height issue is occurring in {{Events leading to US Civil War}}, which appears just below the CSA infobox; here, the sidebar is specifying 1.4em and the list is using the on-high 1.5em. I think the 'inherit' should be added. Alarbus (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Issue recurs in the {{Confederate states in the American Civil War}} sidebar, used even further down the CSA page (and wherever else, of course). Alarbus (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the same line-height: inherit; should be added inline to the UL in {{unbulleted list}}. Currently, it's doing the same 1.5em in contexts where it shouldn't. Alarbus (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edokter/Archive_5&oldid=1150991856"