Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 9 June 2010

User talk:Jack Merridew/Notice

Coding help!

Hey Jack. I was wondering if you could help me with something. How simple would it be to make {{Multiple image}} allow up to seven images, instead of the five it currently permits? ÷seresin 06:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks quite straightforward; want me to just do it? Anyone gonna get bent? Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be great; thanks. If anyone gets bent I can just move it to a special template. And, with respect, has "anyone getting bent" ever really been a big consideration? ;-) ÷seresin 06:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Give it a whirl. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you see here, there are some extraneous texts in the rendering. A similar thing happened when I tried to do it. Also, it seems that broke all the transclusions. If you're still feeling helpful and want to work on it, would you mind using a subpage, so we don't break the whole wiki? tx. ÷seresin 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed some detail; will look further and run a test somewhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, initial expression needs attention, too ;) Jack Merridew 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See: Template:Multiple image/test and new examples in you sandbox. I believe it's now properly extended to seven. There's an issue with both old and new; see the latter examples where it's vertical and the widths are individually specified; the container's with is set to width1 + 12 even if the others are wider. A huge, nasty expression could find the max-width, but I'm not going to try that. I'll ping Chris for input, though, so... we'll see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It works for what I needed it to, so I'm happy. You win a hundred internets Mr Merridew. Thanks very much. ÷seresin 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paste it over if you're happy with it (mebbe you did, will look); revert my last on the /doc, too, to get the 7 and example back. I'll be sure and bank those, right away. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

and I see where you're using it, too ;) Jack Merridew 07:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, actually, what I'll do is just make it a separate template that I'll use instead of merging it back to the main template. As you said there's something hairy about clipping in it, and if that can't be fixed I don't want to break all the templates out there. It works for the specific use I had in mind, so it's all good. So you don't really need to do much else to it, because I don't anticipate anyone using it. Thanks again. ÷seresin 08:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The clipping issue is in the original, too; it's a limitation of the design and may be intentional. The fellow who wrote it is years-gone, so we have to muddle along. See what Chris says; I'm thinking it should go back into the current template. I've also not looked at any of the usages ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the clipping is just caused by the template simply using width1 if it's specified. I've updated the sandbox to do a proper comparison, which seems to work fine. If you now want to increase the number of possible images then it should work.

You might want to also note that if you're going to add new images then you need to update the width code as well as adding new conditionals. The vertical one is relatively easy (I wrote it in five minutes) but the horizontal one is ghastly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that sandbox; I made my own at Template:Multiple image/test. I'll noodle through what you've done tomorrow and probably merge-in what I was doing. I see that it's taking width1 and was hoping for an easy way around it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's done; I've expanded the template to cope with seven images, and think I can expand it to cope with more without too much effort (so long as I can keep a grasp of the conditionals in my head). Seresin, can you check if the sandbox code works okay for you now? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just caught me; looks good at first peek. Thank you.

seresin, thanks to you too, for bringing this here; I should be doing more of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice work ;) This should become the live version; better in multiple ways. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Regarding that last sock report you wished help with. I did originally look at the case, but I didn't know enough about the situation/case to make an educated guess, and I didn't wish to shoot in the dark. I'm sorry that I haven't gotten back to you sooner about the matter; life has been rather busy on my end. I've been spending less and less time on wikipedia. Again, sorry for not contacting you sooner about this.— Dædαlus 07:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was Gabi/Sami, right? I archived that and have not looked much at them. They quack loudly and she'll get dinged one of these times; simply does not get the wiki. Jack Merridew 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a bunch of IP socks if I recall... can't remember though, been distracted with 3d and mirc scripts. I can't remember the name of any suspected master. And again, I am sorry for not getting back sooner.— Dædαlus 08:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to look; the one I was thinking is User talk:Jack Merridew/Archive 5#Sami50421/Gabi Hernandez. Jack Merridew 08:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Musca vetustissima

On June 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Musca vetustissima, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Musca vetustissima

It's weird that you were the first one to notice the article on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. It took me a long time to translate the article using a trick that I taught myself for Google Translate. Joe Chill (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the bot tag the article here with an es-iwlink, and clicked over and fussed a bit. I sussed out their orphan template to help our amigo's notice it. Nice work, Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

I noticed you de-tabled the theater section, which makes sense because it was just one line, but if it isn't going to be tabled, should it be removed because it's already mentioned (and sourced) earlier in the article? Or do you think it bears repeating the information?  Chickenmonkey  05:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd not seen that it was mentioned elsewhere; I was not intending that it be a dupe. Feel free to merge/cut it, as you noticed it. I'll look and see, and if you don't choose to act, I may. Thanks, Jack Merridew 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I just cut it ;) Jack Merridew 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it might be a good idea to still include it in its own section, but I don't think that would be a good idea since it's just the one role. If it were more, it might be worth duplicating it -- as with films.  Chickenmonkey  06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lines

Howdy. How do you get thin lines to appear between each parameter? see Parthenon? Can you add lines to the infobox building? Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I missed this earlier, today. I've quick-peeked and didn't see an easy option. I'll look again after I deal with something else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

Come on, how does pasting in that "template" at Talk:Scarlett Johansson help anything? And why does it really matter to you whether the table is blue or green or grey or sortable or not? Please take a step back from this, you seem to just be involved in this dispute for the drama. Fences&Windows 17:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine, really. I'm not in this for "drama". I've been trying to address a huge coding mess in however many thousands of article for more than three months now. Problem is, they revert just about everything. In February or so, I was reverted on a bunch of articles with reference to WP:ACTOR's "authority" and some characterization of it as a 'governing' body. This is a ridiculous assertion of ownership. I've done a huge amount of clean up on hundreds of actor articles, all of it appropriate and clueful. I'm quite good at markup and styling. As I've explained many times, this is not about "blue vs grey", it's about poor coding practices and a few who claim a false consensus re their articles. The template is humour and was pointed out to me by someone last month; it's in my archive 5. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright good, then we can all take care to keep this drama-free. Markup and styling matter, sure, but take it slow and keep the humour to a minimum. Humour often doesn't translate well on the web and Wikipedians can be a humourless bunch when stuck in the middle of an edit war. Misplaced humour can just come across as snarkiness. If a group of editors are trying to assert a "local consensus" against style guidelines and consensus established elsewhere then the overall consensus will usually win through, especially if wider involvement is encouraged via WikiProjects or an RfC (rather than it appearing on people's radar via AN/I!). And if the wider consensus doesn't prevail (as it didn't when there was an attempt to add infoboxes to biogs of classical musicians), what's the worst that happens? A few slightly non-standard filmography tables stay around, which I'm sure you can live with. Fences&Windows 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You do see that this is all over ANI and VPP the last few days? And that there was a huge RFC, already? And the whole mess last year, that I wasn't involved in, that damned this colour approach? There's talk on VPP and Moonriddengirl's talk about an RfC on colour usage at a site-wide level, and I'm willing to pursue that, too. The other party, however, is ignoring that and is in all-out wiki-war mode. The other option I'm considering, besides an RFC/U, is asking Ryan if this would be something MedCom would take on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries). You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Misplaced Pages. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)