Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 25 September 2012

Archives

/2007 •

/2008 1 - 3

/Archive 4

/Archive 2009 January

/Archive 2009 February

/Archive 2009 March

/Archive 2009 April

/Archive 2009 May

/Archive 2009 June

/Archive 2009 July

/Archive 2009 September

/Archive 2009 October

/Archive 2009 November

/Archive 2009 December

/Archive 2010 January

/Archive 2010 February

/Archive 2010 March

/Archive 2010 April

/Archive 2010 May

/Archive 2010 June

/Archive 2010 July

/Archive 2010 August

/Archive 2010 September

/Archive 2010 October

/Archive 2010 November

/Archive 2010 December

/Archive 2011 January

/Archive 2011 February

/Archive 2011 March

/Archive 2011 April

/Archive 2011 May

/Archive 2011 June

/Archive 2011

/Archive 2012

Question for the template guru

Hello Andy,

I haven't looked into Misplaced Pages template programming, but I wonder if there's an easy way of checking if the many language-related templates like template:lang and template:CJKV actually embed the W3C language codes in the page (without actually trying all the templates out one by one and looking at the page source code). As you know, in Europe—and in many countries outside Europe—there are accessibility laws that require proper semantic markup, but there seems to be little awareness of this on Misplaced Pages. People are very often not using the templates when embedding foreign languages in Misplaced Pages. Regards. LittleBen (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I know of no government or legal standards that require "accessibility" in a useful way. The UK DDA (1995) is pretty toothless, vague and technically inept. Certainly the idea of semantic markup as a requirement is just bizarre. If UK government ever did get to such a point, it would probably be some ugly bastard child of microformats and Microsoft, as re-invented by KPMG.

The technical aspects are part of MediaWiki, not Misplaced Pages. It has an extensive wiki and most things are discussed quite well there.

There are three "programming languages"

• Wikitext and parser functions

This is what you put in the Misplaced Pages edit box. It includes template calls, and the innards of templates. Mostly it's a twisty maze of curly brackets and intermittent whitespace sensitivity. One restriction is that you can basically only generate wikitext with it, which includes only some raw HTML, but does include any installed extension calls you want.

• MediaWiki extensions

PHP unfortunately. This is what MediaWiki itself is written in. It also has a rather neat, modular and well-behaved extension mechanism built in. If you can code it in PHP, you can add it to a MediaWiki wiki. There are many extensions already available and described on the MediaWiki wiki, however Misplaced Pages has almost none of them installed, for performance and (allegedly) stability reasons. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much, mostly I do corporate intranet wikis and these use a lot of extensions. There's also a 'skinning' process for MediaWiki that has its own set of page generation hook points. Most MediaWiki skinning is done through this, not just through CSS.

A useful extension is "Widgets". This allows HTML to be embedded into MediaWiki, without having to either pass through the wikitext parser (and its limited HTML acceptance subset) or to generate the HTML by writing a whole new PHP extension. It's particularly good for things like an embedded Twitter or RSS feed, as it allows pass-through when you already have HTML source (or are making it via pre-existing XSLT)

• Lua

The replacement for parser functions. Not one I know as yet.

So, language markup. Is this for HTML elements, or for HTML pages? If you're just doing elements (ideally small, but it could be near a whole page) then raw-HTML-in-wikitext route works. You can also simplify using this by using the templates

Raw Welsh

<span lang="cy" >Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân</span>

gives:

Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân

<span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy" >Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân</span>

Some Klingon:

{{lang|tlh|Hab SoSlI' Quch!}}

gives:

Hab SoSlI' Quch!

<span xml:lang="tlh" lang="tlh">Hab SoSlI' Quch!</span>

Japanese:

{{CJKV|j=石の上に三年}}

gives:

Japanese: 石の上に三年

<span xml:lang="ja" lang="ja">石の上に三年</span>

If you're trying to mark-up a page, then you ought to address the HTTP headers, not just the resultant HTML. You can do this from MediaWiki extensions or through the MediaWiki skinning process. Of course that also means that you need control over the MediaWiki install, so it's not possible for Wikimedia projects like Misplaced Pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Andy, many thanks for the detailed reply.
• I have done a bit of PHP programming, and reworked a couple of Expression Engine sites.
• The Misplaced Pages page on web accessibility says that the UK and Australia are particularly strict—particularly as regards sites run by public entities, but I think I read somewhere on Misplaced Pages that Target (a huge Australian supermarket chain) was prosecuted and fined over web accessibility. LittleBen (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is no specific UK law on web accessibility, it's just some overspill from the general DDA. So there's as much in there about wheelchair ramps as there is about accessibility techniques. There's also the problem that the DDA is largely unenforced. UK web is thus both vague and unimplemented. In the absence of concrete good advice, we see a fallback onto horribly flawed approaches like the WCAG, or defaulting to the US Section 508. This isn't helped by WP spreading untruths like, "If your website does not meet the Accessibility Guidelines, then the website owner could be sued for discrimination." This also leaves an opening for useless snake oil like BrowseAloud. Site operators (not unsurprisingly) expect a general legal requirement to be expressed as specific prescriptive instructions instead. So operators always look for the first instruction that looks like "You must do this", "You must pay your poll tax", "You must add a cookie warning pop-up to your site" rather than the more general and useful goal-centred requirement like "Don't snoop with cookies without explaining to your users just how intrusive you're being". So tell an operator anything that can be interpreted as "Here's a thing, it's a thing you must do." and they'll grab at it.

(Fortunately) there is no additional UK strictness on sites run by public entities. Why should there be? Do private companies get a free pass? If accessibility is good and is important enough to make a legal requirement, then we should require it wherever it's required, not just according to the site operator. As usual though, UK public web sites are over-complex, yet deliver little. Years of sweetheart deals with incompetent favoured suppliers, no feedback according to commercial success of "the business" (If Amazon have a site that can't be used, they die - a local council just spends even more money on it). Weak management in government IT leads to its seemingly inevitable waste and incompetence. The pressure on UK government web sites is to be seen to be _doing_ something, not to _achieve_ something.

I don't know Australian accessibility law. Closest I've come was New Zealand, which like the UK has more paperwork about minority languages (I was doing banking and debt control in te reo Māori) than it does about general markup techniques. Also the banking client simply told us to ignore the requirements anyway, if it was to cost them anything (Of course I ignored this - I'm a geek and it sounded interesting. Never tell me not to do something interesting). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quote: "I'm a geek and it sounded interesting. Never tell me not to do something interesting"—that's my problem too ;-) LittleBen (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision for Minecraft Talk Page

Well Hi!. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did atTalk:Minecraft, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.►Skyshadow382◄ 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshadow382 (talk • contribs)

Live eBay links? This is just spam, even on a talk page Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The links refer to Mincraft Merchandise, again this is a valid argument and Talk pages are ment to Talk about things like this. ►Skyshadow382◄ 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshadow382 (talk • contribs)

Notice

Whatever bot you're using to edit quick-firing gun (hist) - please turn it off, it's making the article look stupid. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, just stop trying to write France out of the picture.

Maybe the Russians had an early QF gun. Russian language sources, so I can't check this. However this article is not "Who invented it first?", so even if this is a Russian first invention, that's still no reason to remove the well-known and well-sourced French use of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nett/Net

Hi Andy:

I noticed you edited the Differential (mechanical device) page to correct the spelling of the word "net", meaning a total amount, to "nett". I've seen this word edited several times by people who think it should be spelled one way or the other.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, both spellings are acceptable.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Operating system shell

As the discussion on talk: Shell (computing) actually led to a stalemate, I decided to make an (almost) new, clean article. BTW there is a subtle difference between "OS UI" and "OS shell", IMHO, but these are very close, so I redirected Operating system user interface to Operating system shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would not object against renaming, although I choose "shell" because of numerous inbound links and also to preserve the continuity of edit history. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Stalking?

I chose to edit your articles to demonstrate my skills as a copy editor. If you'll look at my contributions, you'll see that most of what I do is copy editing. This is not "stalking" this is constructive editing. You, on the other hand, have a most unconstructive attitude towards other editing your work. Your attitude violates the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ¶ I'm willing to defend every single edit as simplifying and clarifying your prose. I would ask that you look at my edits as an attempt to help you produce better Misplaced Pages content and not as some kind of edit war. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I have another motive for editing your articles. You write interesting articles about the history of technology. Copy editing of articles I enjoy reading is always more fun. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with copy editing, no matter who does it. However copy editing is never an excuse for introducing basic errors of fact, such as, "Cast iron is easily bent". The stuff I write about is generally obscure (otherwise I don't bother) and contains many unfamiliar bits of technology. Copy edit by all means, this is the WP way, but please don't introduce inaccuracies like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I introduced errors. But the way to deal with that is to fix the errors, not just roll back the entire edit. In the future I'll edit your pages in small bursts so you can review them more easily.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades

Thanks! The article was really interesting to write. Pkeets (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Model T

I'm not the one being disruptive or trying to make a point, & I don't appreciate you making false accusations. So why don't you just shut up about it? TREKphiler 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plan 9 from Outer Space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vampira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V

Where exactly does this source state or imply anything unusual about the death? WP:V is very clear " any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" the claim of unusualness has been directly challenged and requires a source and WP:OR is equally clear "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Please revert yourself or provide a specific source that does not violate WP:OR / WP:V -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As this is an issue about the article, I suggest you raise this on the talk: page. You can see if you get any support for your repeated and obsessional deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, this is an issue of you not following basic policies, and I am allowing you to correct yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is a problem with your behaviour, Andy. WP:BURDEN applies to all editors, as does WP:OR and WP:V. Nothing in the source provided in the edit characterizes the death as "unusual" or any reasonable synonym thereof. Making disparaging comments about TheRedPenOfDoom in order to justify your violation of fundamental policy is grossly unacceptable behaviour. Don't repeat it.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)