| Revision as of 09:20, 5 December 2014 editEdokter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,830 edits →Template:Irrational number← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 5 December 2014 edit undoAlsee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers9,123 edits →Media Viewer RfC close: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| :::::: It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) ] (]) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::: It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) ] (]) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of ] cost over $1000!) <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 09:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | ::::::: Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of ] cost over $1000!) <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 09:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == == | |||
| A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. Please either do a full close or withdraw your partial close. (Or better yet withdraw the partial close and list yourself as a first name for a panel of 3 to do a full close, as multiple people have said this warrants.)<P> | |||
| Note that Part 1 issues an ''immediate call to implement''. A "No consensus" result on part two eliminates the 7 day bar against immediate implementation. As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. ] (]) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 5 December 2014
| This is Edokter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | If you leave me a message, I will respond here. |
Question at Village Pump
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#AfC_Invite_Template_Questions
Template:Tag/sandbox
- (That doesn't work; messes up parameter count.)
Seems to work fine. What incorrect output did you see? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you use "plain" as first unnamed parameter, all other parameters must be named; that can't be right. The first param is reserved for the tag name. So in its current state, it cannot go live. Also (doc related), {{\sandbox}} is defective.
-- ] {{talk}}15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)- I don't understand why "all other parameters must be named" etc; please demonstrate/explain. Same also, please, as regards how {{\sandbox}} is "defective". Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sandbox template failed to show the tag tamplate properly on the documentation page. The testcases page shows that when you pass "plain" as first parameter, all others no longer work, and the template does not even show. You cannot replace an unnamed parameter and get away with it.
-- ] {{talk}}18:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{\sandbox}} : Will check this.
- Tag testcases : I edited the page so that the sandbox tests mirror the examples used in the documentation. Here's what I see:
- The sandbox template failed to show the tag tamplate properly on the documentation page. The testcases page shows that when you pass "plain" as first parameter, all others no longer work, and the template does not even show. You cannot replace an unnamed parameter and get away with it.
)_testcases_page.jpg)
- This seems to be as intended, i.e. the same as the documentation examples apart from the lack of border lines around the outputs..?
- Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- PS Please do not think that I'm trying to "get away with" something. ("AGF", yes?)
- What happens if you remove the "tag=" parts? That is what I mean when I say the first two unnamed parameters are already reserved; your addition forces the user to use the named tag parameter instead of the next unnamed parameter. That I consider "broken". In this case, adding a named parameter ("plain") is the better option, so one can use
{{tag|div|plain=1}}, or maybe use the third (not a fan) unnamed parameter, so it becomes{{tag|div||plain}}. Short version: you cannot use the first unnamed parameter.-- ] {{talk}}21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)- "What happens if you remove the "tag=" parts? ..."
- What happens if you remove "content=" and/or "params="?
- No parameters need be "reserved" and if adapting {{{1}}} to handle an option "forces" the use of something else (in this case, "tag="), then there are many templates<aside>perhaps most</aside> "forcing" syntax onto users. No, what's "broken" is elsewhere and, I suspect, the source of the "forcing" that's going on. Why isn't "tag=" (and, for that matter, something like "type=" for {{{2}}}) required? (Or perhaps "state=", "expanded=", etc elsewhere aren't so requirable?) Short version: it's not that {{{1}}} cannot be used; it's that you think {{{1}}} should not be used.
- Here's another possibility: thinking of templates such as {{str letter/trim}}, how about Template:Tcplain (and so Template:Tcplain, etc)..?
- Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- What happens if you remove the "tag=" parts? That is what I mean when I say the first two unnamed parameters are already reserved; your addition forces the user to use the named tag parameter instead of the next unnamed parameter. That I consider "broken". In this case, adding a named parameter ("plain") is the better option, so one can use
Courier
Re Special:Diff/632014896/632022519, true, it's used once in core. So is "monospace, monospace", and the latter was added more recently. We've also got the latter in two WMF-deployed extensions (Translate and SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi), while "monospace, Courier" has 0 there. Anomie⚔ 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Further, your partial revert left the text not really making sense. If you're going to insist on "Courier", you should revert my whole edit. Anomie⚔ 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
dan clark
whay are you deleting my work m8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorwhogeak (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are using copyrighted images on Commons, which are not allowed there. They will be deleted, and hence they are removed here.
-- ] {{talk}}18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Doctor Who
Hi, just wondering what "accessibility issues" you're talking about when you removed the "colspan" attributes in the List of Doctor Who serials article? This is simply a question of curiosity, given that both "colspan" and "rowspan" are used throughout the article. Thanks! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Spanning data cells over multiple rows or columns may throw of screenreaders. Using row-and colspans on header cells is a different story though; these can usually be left in place.
-- ] {{talk}}10:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)- Thanks for the explanation! Should we then be removing spanning cells from tables such as this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, they span an entire row, so no confusion there.
-- ] {{talk}}11:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, they span an entire row, so no confusion there.
- Thanks for the explanation! Should we then be removing spanning cells from tables such as this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Being verbose
It is probably a good idea to be more comprehensive when replying to peoples' questions. At least link them to the relevant documentation. Gryllida (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
common.css border-spacing
The border-spacing that you added to the navbox class in common.css has altered the appearance of all the car timeline templates. Before they had small gaps between each row/col. Adding in style="border-spacing: 2px;" to each template would fix them but there are a few to do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ugh... all hand-build tables suffer this. I'll revert that for now.
-- ] {{talk}}23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Module editing
Hi Edokter, Can you please update Module:Navbox on hiwiki? I am trying to edit it from many days but because of little understanding I couldn't do this. For this I think we need some other modules also! But I don't know how can I manage all these. In present case Navebox template don't work with Moudle. I have tried it at hi:template:Navbox/sandbox but it is giving only borders.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I myself am not very good with modules yet (as opposed to templates). So I'm afraid I can't help you.
-- ] {{talk}}08:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)- It's ok.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Large
- (Undid revision 634081632 by Sardanaphalus (talk) Incorrect use: don't transclude throught the content= parameter.)
Why not..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Because it does not show the links in the top right corner.
|content=is for direct text only.-- ] {{talk}}20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Resize shortcuts documentation
Please supply a copy of this template as it was when deleted.
I believe normal practice is to advise people who've made significant edits to a template of its impending deletion. Is this incorrect?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Moved to User:Sardanaphalus/Resize shortcuts documentation. I should have done that instead. However, note that this mechanism you use completely breaks {{documentation}}.
-- ] {{talk}}12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm puzzled, though, by your last sentence. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- When you add a layer of transclusion to display the documentation using an in between template (or any other means), all functionality of the documentaion template is lost. If I click on some template documentation, I end up on your template instead of /doc. This is the same mistake you made when you used the
|content=to transclude the documentation.-- ] {{talk}}09:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- When you add a layer of transclusion to display the documentation using an in between template (or any other means), all functionality of the documentaion template is lost. If I click on some template documentation, I end up on your template instead of /doc. This is the same mistake you made when you used the
- I don't recall the detail as regards Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf, but, if Template:Tnf was (part of) the documentation for a template and I clicked on to edit that (part of the) documentation, then editing Template:Tnf seems exactly as desired..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't test the section link, but the top link went to Template:Tnf instead of the actual template documentation being displayed.
-- ] {{talk}}22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)- If Template:Tnf formed (part of) the template's documentation and Template:Tnf was what was opened for editing when someone wanted to edit that (part of the) documentation, what's the problem ("mistake")..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't test the section link, but the top link went to Template:Tnf instead of the actual template documentation being displayed.
- I don't recall the detail as regards Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf, but, if Template:Tnf was (part of) the documentation for a template and I clicked on to edit that (part of the) documentation, then editing Template:Tnf seems exactly as desired..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm puzzled, though, by your last sentence. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Dating Timeline Correction of Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter
Just want to relay that Cumberbatch and Hunter have been seeing each other since late 2013 contrary to "early 2014" which the Daily Mail and other rags are reporting and is currently indicated in his personal life section.
- It's indicated in his profile for Elle UK here: http://www.elleuk.com/wedding/benedict-cumberbatch-engaged-sophie-hunter-november-2014-confirmed
- It's also indicated in his latest profile for People magazine. Scans of print interview are here as there are no digital copy available: http://cumberbum.tumblr.com/post/103576341571/69shadesofyou-okay-i-did-some-scans-at-work
NOTE: I know the Daily Mail is not reliable source that's the very reason why the info should be amended because that "until early 2014" was actually information from them. The scans are from People magazine where it says they got together late last year and have been together for a year now before getting engaged. He was even featured on the cover in this week's issue: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/news/141208/cosby-cover-768.jpg. One can always reference a print article here and in this case scans of the interview are available to prove it. That's already two non-tabloid publications referencing the "late 2013" timeline.
Thank you for improving both Hunter's and Cumberbatch's profiles! 109.175.76.84 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Irrational number
- (Revert per BRD; this is an accessability nightmare.)
And you don't regard small symbols clustered together among potentially confusing dots/interpuncts as an accessibility nightmare..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. Dispersing the links over two table rows however, is.
-- ] {{talk}}08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all..? That's... interesting. (Do you have any vision impairment?)
As regards the "dispersing" of links, the intention was to maintain a distinction between these numbers' particular names and symbols whose reference can change. Perhaps, though, you'd accept links that included the symbols..?
- Would you object to the use of e.g. Template:Tnf to give this template's contents some room to be seen more readily?
- Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a list of links, so it should be formatted as such. Any other structure for the sake of presentation is hurting accessability. I see no benefit in using columns either.
-- ] {{talk}}20:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)- When you refer to accessibility, do you have something like screen-readers in mind..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps WP:ACCESS is a good read.
-- ] {{talk}}23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)- It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of JAWS cost over $1000!)
-- ] {{talk}}09:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Accessability is not an aption. It is not something to let go in favor of prettyness. Rest asured that screen readers are constantly being upgraded, just ask User:Graham87, who is using one. (One copy of JAWS cost over $1000!)
- It's something to read if you haven't done so. I also wonder if you have accessibility as regards editing in mind. Perhaps, from time to time, too much is relinquished for the sake of making something "accessible" to screen-readers and/or editors over non-editors and/or those without (visual) impairments. (The subtext, in other words: screen-readers etc also need to develop; and isn't, ultimately, the point of an encyclopedia to be presented and consulted more than edited..?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps WP:ACCESS is a good read.
- When you refer to accessibility, do you have something like screen-readers in mind..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a list of links, so it should be formatted as such. Any other structure for the sake of presentation is hurting accessability. I see no benefit in using columns either.
- Not at all..? That's... interesting. (Do you have any vision impairment?)
Media Viewer RfC close
A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. Please either do a full close or withdraw your partial close. (Or better yet withdraw the partial close and list yourself as a first name for a panel of 3 to do a full close, as multiple people have said this warrants.)
Note that Part 1 issues an immediate call to implement. A "No consensus" result on part two eliminates the 7 day bar against immediate implementation. As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)