User talk:CsDix

This user may have left Wikipedia. CsDix has not edited Wikipedia since April 18, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi CsDix! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

I want someone to come up with a decent category name, a specific one too. Like Malaysia's infobox Category name: "Recognized" for English (see it --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia ), can you come up with one Csdix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirAlexOreo (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please make sure the view/edit/talk links actually go to the template, and not a redirect or a redlink. seems like the default should be country topic, rather than country? Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrg, you're right... How do I ensure this -- can you show me where to look, please? CsDix (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...It's okay, I think I figured out what to do. Thanks for the heads-up. CsDix (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

|image= only works in {{navbox}} if |list1= is defined. it's due to the fact that the image is part of the first line. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hack to make it work. the hack does not include all the possible cases, but will make it work if both history and list1 are blank. if history, list1, and geography are blank, more hacks are needed, but this will work for the current cases. I am wondering if this whole thing isn't too complex, given the simplicity of the standard solution. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'll take a look at it anon. No, I don't think it's too complex, as (1) the simplicity of the standard solution (just use Navbox itself?) isn't necessarily that simple; (2) I believe it should make things easier for people using country-topics templates in future (but not necessarily those writing/maintaining a country topics metatemplate!); (3) I also believe it's one of those "fix once, sorted out for a long time" things; and (4) it automatically includes links that have otherwise been overlooked (outlines, indices, books, categories, portals, wikiprojects). CsDix (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the place to add this usage note is in {{collapsible option}}, not in the transclusions, especially if you plan to add this to many different templates.

as for the fixes to

in other words, if you check the HTML source for

you will see a proper sublist. on the other hand, if you check the HTML source for

you get something with no semantic meaning. if you would like other editors to comment, I can post a note at

I have made an edit request to add the feature to collapsible option (see here). Frietjes (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a Commons link below? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 19:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please conduct tests on a sample in a sandbox. You have broken the Anhui topics navbox. See the bottom of Anhui. Thanks Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It looks like you've broken a few templates such as this and this. I've reverted these two to an unbroken state and will check the rest of the templates you've edited just to be on the safe side. Please check that each template is working before moving on to a new. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would get rid of this feature. yes, it is possible to write something that crops both 'File:' and 'Image:', but there is still 'File :' and 'Image :' and this starts to get expensive to process. if the image isn't showing up, editors will figure out why and fix it. it's better to just rely on editors to figure this one out (in my opinion). by the way, a more robust way to handle the imagesize is to use {{px|{{{imagesize|}}}|80px}}, which works even when someone includes |imagesize= but leaves it blank. otherwise everything looks good. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's fast. "str crop" doesn't crop the "File:" or "Image:", however, so I'm not sure what problem you're foreseeing -- or have I misunderstand your observation..?

Thanks for the px tip; I'll now examine. CsDix (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay, you are correct, I read the chunk of code incorrectly, you are trying to automatically set the value of |imagelink= if it is not specified, by stripping the (typically four characters) from the end of the filename. I would still say remove this part, since string processing templates are relatively expensive. this one uses both str left (not that expensive) and str len (more expensive). it seems like a lot to go through to just get some 'hover over' text for the image. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another wrinkle is that if the image is GFDL or CC-BY-SA, we are not allowed to remove the link to the actual image page (see for example this revert). Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, especially if string processing has more impact than I guess I'm assuming. I'll remove the autogeneration bit. CsDix (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

any particular reason for replacing this template with <div class=hlist>? it makes it harder to track the uses of this construct, and is equivalent in function. also, it would be great if you could avoid adding background color statements to the below (or any section), since they don't work with CSS classes. for example, I (like many other visually impaired users) have redefined the values for the navbox colours in my Special:MyPage/skin.css file. otherwise, everything looks great. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Frietjes -- thanks for your message:

• any particular reason for replacing this template with <div class=hlist>?

I think it's because {{flatlist}}, being a template, needs at least one pipe symbol and I sometimes lose sight of it when code is dense or spaced with carriage-returns. Is it still possible to track the divs?

• also, it would be great if you could avoid adding background color statements to the below (or any section), since they don't work with CSS classes.

Is there / are there ways to make them work? (Not that I'm adamant they should remain, but to keep learning.)

CsDix (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's possible there may be a way to track the <div class="hlist">, but not very easily. another option would be to create something like {{

ubl

}} but for flat lists. although, this works

another option would to be to ask for a carriage return before the various {{{groupX}}} fields in {{navbox}}.

as for the colouring of the below section, it could be possible to make |belowclass=navbox-title work, but it would require extending the definition from just impacting <th> to <th> and <td>, which would require a change to MediaWiki:common.css. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas. The | groupN = {{ubl ...}} looks like the solution for flatlists as group names. As regards the below line, I think I only changed the background so that it didn't look like an expandable section, so it's no great loss to discontinue -- but I suppose an enquiry about |belowclass=navbox-title at MediaWiki:common.css as well as that other MediaWiki:common.css suggestion you made (must find that again) might be worthwhile? CsDix (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's possible they might add it to common.css, although my experience has been that there is only about a 50% chance, unless some admin gets excited about it. if there are enough editors asking for it, then it's more likely. as far as I can tell, it would just require removing the restriction to "td" from the line with ccccff, but I would have to do some testing to make sure (I don't regularly program style sheets). Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will see what happens. Time now to check my latest tweak to the {{whisperback}} template. CsDix (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the view/edit links go to the redirect, rather than the template (part of the reason why I had added a feature to override the |name= value). Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. I'd forgotten the point of template_name and mistakenly removed it. Now restored and {{

Burma (Myanmar) topics}} amended. CsDix (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks perfect on the blank template page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Country_topics

In operation though, I can't see the faint zebra-stripes/watermark (gray, white, gray, white) in the white-space background that helps people visually keep track of what sub-section they are looking across.

For example, on the Ecuador topics page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ecuador_topics

I can see one grey-shaded bar at the bottom (across the culture subsection), but all the rest of the background shows up white.

(also posted this on the template talk page)

Love your work.... 0Juniper56 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this report and your generous praise, 0Juniper56. As regards the latter, what I find I'm able to do is only because of all the work others (probably many others) have put in before me – plus people like User:Frietjes helping me get to grips with it. Thanks also for posting your report on the template's talkpage; that's where I've responded to it, hopefully with success! CsDix (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a mistake with the template, please read the request. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria (Johann Orth) → Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria" is what I proposed and people supported not "Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria (Johann Orth) → Archduke Johann Nepomuk of Austria (Johann Orth)" which is what you did.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? The arrow points from the old time to the newly proposed title Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for just improving the Gibraltar topics template! looks much better Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Victuallers. It just seemed to me that there were enough links there to justify the alternative format – or, to put it another way, too many if an open template is what's desired. But {{Gibraltar topics |all/abbr}} can be used to expand everything or a chosen section. CsDix (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - looks much better - maybe the versions in other languages will follow your lead. I am looking for a template expert. At present we have a Gibraltar and a Gibraltarpedia template. Do you know anyone who might help? Its a gnomish task so it needs the right person. Anyway - thanks again Victuallers (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty green here, but I have seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, so I'd say that's probably a good place to ask. CsDix (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tip! Victuallers (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see here. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe User:HIDECCHI001 doesn't feel comfortable with the new template. The only real difference I've spotted on first sight is the "above" line replaced with the "Overviews" group. If so, perhaps leave as is (at least, for time being) and see what happens? CsDix (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you check this user's edit history, you will see edits to other topics templates (e.g., Australia topics) with no problems. I will ask if there was a particular reason. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, after 3 days, no response (see here). it appears the editor is not interested in explaining the revert. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that their userpage says "I AM A JAPANESE" so perhaps they're not confident about producing an explanation in English. I'm happy to let it be for now and convert it back when I next happen to pass by it (if that hasn't happened already by then). CsDix (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit request at {{Collapsible option}} — although it's clear what text you want to be added, I'm not clear if you want any to be removed, and I'm quite confused by the issue of where to put the code you've written. Could you please create a sandbox (or some other subpage) of the entire code of the template as you'd like to see it? That way, I could simply copy/paste the entire contents into the template itself. When you've done that, please leave a {{talkback}} at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I really don't understand enough to give an informed judgement on whether or not you've gone too far (that's related to the fact that I didn't know how to implement your changes without being given all the code), so I'll not offer an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created the template's testcases page to give some idea. If / once the update's occurred, I'll update the documentation page. CsDix (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already updated the template. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you have. Thanks. I'll now update the documentation. CsDix (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your last changes (like in {{

Thanks for the alert and apologies for the oversight. It looks like User:Frietjes has fixed whatever I left undone – is this correct? CsDix (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted this template again. All four links to disambiguation pages were back after your edits. Before you revert again, please check if the links to "Culture of Georgia", "Geography of Georgia", "History of Georgia" and "Outline of Georgia" point to the relevant articles about the country. You don't want the links pointing to a disambiguationpage (as you did) or to Georgia (U.S. state), when you are talking about Georgia (country). The Banner _talk 22:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert and apologies that the template still wasn't working. I'm hoping the version I've just left in place does finally sort things out. CsDix (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per someone's request at WP:AN, I'm going through the editprotected requests, including the discussion in which you participated at {{

Thanks for your attention. I believe the current sandbox version [1] (removed special padding for heading1/content1) should be okay, but, yes, Plastikspork hasn't (yet) responded to it in the related talkpage thread (

Template talk:Sidebar#Edit request on 4 December 2012). I'll give him (her?) a friendly prod to see what s/he makes of it (i.e. hopefully confirm it seems okay) then report back. CsDix (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I prodded Plastikspork one minute before I prodded you. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I've just discovered! Thanks. CsDix (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Official webpage icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joy,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AYugoslavia_timeline&diff=531931803&oldid=531919540

The "{{{1|...}}}" meant that the parameter name "state=" needn't be included. Okay to put back? CsDix (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've used the old syntax already in a transclusion, and I don't see any point in breaking it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template talk:Navbox#a fork. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I'm reaching the limit of my know-how... In what way/s does {{{1|...}}} "break" the template..? CsDix (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Have visited Template talk:Navbox#a fork – thanks for pointing out – and left a comment.

It doesn't break the template, but it renders the transclusion {{Yugoslavia timeline|state=something}} pointless, instead one would have to change it to {{Yugoslavia timeline|something}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just put the version that includes the full {{{state|{{{1|<includeonly>collapsed</includeonly>}}}}}} ([2]) in the template's sandbox, then tried calling it with

{{Yugoslavia timeline/sandbox |expanded}}

{{Yugoslavia timeline/sandbox |state=expanded}}

and

{{Yugoslavia timeline/sandbox}}

The first two produced the expanded template, while it remained collapsed with the third – which seems to be what's meant to happen..?

Is the problem the Navbox that was on the sandbox page previously?

(I hope I'm not missing the point, although I sense I might be...)

CsDix (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I re-read the code, and what I found wasn't what I thought I had found :) I had misread the old diff. Previously it was:

{{#if:{{{state|}}}|{{{state}}}|autocollapse}}

that meant that the parameter was state=something, otherwise autocollapse. The new code is:

{{{state|{{{1|<includeonly>collapsed</includeonly>}}}}}}

That is more convoluted than the old if - it uses the state parameter if defined, else it uses the first unnamed parameter if defined, else collapsed. My bad. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's nothing more than an oversight, as I have made mistakes with the more convoluted {{{1|}}} addition (e.g. not making sure the opening or closing three curly brackets are the right side of an includeonly or noinclude tag). So there may yet be cases where your suspicions turn out to be correct. Best wishes, CsDix (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements/cleanup done to {{Dacia topics}}. Very much welcomed. Best. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but I wonder, why is the Language section not showing up anymore.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found the glitch.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure, Codrin. It looked an intriguing topic. Thanks for fixing the misnumbering I overlooked. CsDix (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the moves you asked for, are you doing to run AWB to fix up the location/links?--v/r - TP 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks – I was hoping all I'd need to do would be to check/update the templates' name parameters..? (I don't have "AWB".) CsDix (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that needs to happen, yes. But the now "sidebar" was at the top of all articles using it. Now that the template name has changed, the navbox is at the top of some 200+ articles. See this for example that I already fixed. So someone needs to go through and fix that. I thought you were volunteering since you tagged the move. Would you rather I changed the names back?--v/r - TP 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohh, I see what you mean. Apologies. I would volunteer, except 200+ articles does seem a lot. Is there a "rename update" bot that could be commandeered for the job..? CsDix (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A bot would take about 30 days to get approved and I doubt it'd be approved for only 200 articles. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser can do it in short order. I am working on it with AWB.--v/r - TP 18:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) 30 days? Ouch. I'd've thought there was a bot that did this kind of thing (not that I assumed so; I hadn't spotted the consequences of the sidebar-to-navbox name-change). It looks like I need to ask you to undo your work (apologies) while I sign up for AutoWikiBrowser and learn how to use it, yes..? Thanks for taking on the extra work. The upside is that I'm now aware of AutoWikiBrowser, so will sign up and learn how to use it. CsDix (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I fixed all of them, you can check the remaining, but there are now fewer than 75 left. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Frietjes. I'll start looking through the list now. Meanwhile, I've just requested use of AutoWikiBrowser so I'm ready if/when this situation arises again. CsDix (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now looked through that list and can confirm no Bahá'í sidebar/navbox misplacements. CsDix (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted the change to Template:United States topics as per all that was said about it. Pls stop these templates conversions to collapsible lists.Moxy (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to notice that WP:USA has decided (after seeing our debate I guess) that Outlines - Indexes etc... should be seen first as they are overviews (as seen here. I was not involved with the talk but there conclusion was "they provide a bird's eye view of the subject" and should thus be first.Moxy (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder – I hope it's all as should be in the template's current version. CsDix (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls do not take the conversation at

Template talk:People's Republic of China topics to mean others can be changed to that odd format. Template:United States topics is the normal format used by all Category:United States templates (this is the main example for the project for format). WP:USA follows the format set out by Template:Navbox that has a proper relationship with other Navbox templates it may incounter. Meaning its not colored funny - its not a different format then all the others on the pages (thus presented neutrally with other templates). Its the project main example of what things should look like to conform to the rest of what the project has done. Moxy (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case, how do both templates look to you now – and, if they're both fine in their own ways, which should I take as (more) standard..? CsDix (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean

Template:Health in the People's Republic of China. I am simply not convinced that a template that takes more coding and takes up more space on a page will ever be the norm Moxy (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll get back to you a little later with (more of) my take on this issue. In short, it's this: I think I agree with you, until a certain "critical mass" of links is reached in a template – at which point I can see why people have started using subsections, subgroups and collapsing things. I think it's about trying to avoid information overload when a template's first seen while still retaining a (relatively) large amount of information (i.e. links) in the template. CsDix (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Hello again. To take an example of what I'm talking about, here's a screenshot of the current United States topics template as it appears on a 1024 by 768 screen (full width, but not full height, shown). Notice how (1) the template easily fills the entire screen; and (2) how far the subgroup names extend across the screen (nearly to the middle) and so how much space they rob from the template. CsDix (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:United States topics template on 1024x768 screen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at

Hello, CsDix. You have new messages at Michael Bednarek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For your many edits relating to templates. Your efforts are appreciated!  HueSatLum 02:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice what you did to the Angolan history template. I myself don't know how to... :=) Thanks.

• Thanks for your kind message! The secret is using {{Infobox}} inside the template in a particular way. If you want to experiment, paste the following into your sandbox page, put a country's name after "country =" and then try adding things after the "label="s and "data="s:

{{Country history
|country = 
|width = auto
|bold = no

|content1 =
 {{Infobox
  |bodystyle = {{infobox subbox bodystyle}}
  |labelstyle = padding-right:1.0em;font-weight:normal;
  |datastyle = text-align:right;white-space:nowrap;
  |label1=  |data1=
  |label2=  |data2=
  |label3=  |data3=
  |label4=  |data4=
  |label5=  |data5=
  <!--and so on-->
 }}

}}

CsDix (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I get the time and the courage, I'll try... --Againme (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only edit I've seen a problem with. The exact problem with that edit was that when you changed things the way you did, what you were really creating was sublists, when those particular links are plainly not sublist items. My formatting has a similar problem with the insertion of the div element, which creates two separate lists, which is plainly not desirable either (but more desirable than multiple sublists, in my opinion). (I was simply trying to preserve formatting prior to conversion to use the more semantic lists.) Anyway, for the definition of semantic which I'm using, see

Thanks for the elaboration. I would use {{·}} to produce the dots, except (as per Accessibility#Lists) I've learned that this is no good for accessibility. Hence the sublists. CsDix (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...because, in a way, they are sublists – as sidebars tend to fit two or three links per line, it seems to me that what's needed is some inherent way to specify these links without leaving those unsightly hanging dots at the ends of lines. CsDix (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the unsightly hanging dots are intentional; that behavior is how hlist works. The use of hlist within a sidebar might not be, however. And no, they aren't sublists, and neither is the dot template a good alternative. I however see no reason not to use hlist in sidebars. If you feel you must use anything similar, I would advocate total conversion to plainlist. --Izno (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plainlist alone would produce sidebars that were either too narrow or waste too much space (either side of the one link per line), while the hanging dots seem to be a symptom of something whose primary use is horizontal (strings of links) not being accommodated or adapted elegantly for use vertically, no..? So, if the hanging dots are to be avoided, are there any alternatives to using {{hlist}}s within plainlists? CsDix (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(...and should "plainlist" really be "vlist"..?)

The issue of a template being too narrow is an issue whether hlist is used or not, so you have not shown there why one is preferable to the other. Wasting too much space I don't see as an issue. (I see the use of sidebars as wasting space and duplicating other navigation, but that's a polar opposite to what I'm arguing here.)

I might agree that hlist is not well-adapted to vertical use, and so it probably should not be used. There are no alternatives, but that's not a bad thing because you still end up breaking the semantic list component. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue of a template being too narrow is an issue whether hlist is used or not, so you have not shown there why one is preferable to the other."

This sounds circular to me, but maybe I'm missing your point... unless you're saying that (aversion to sidebars etc aside) you reckon people wouldn't mind sidebars with e.g. wrapped titles and/or (much) greater height, due to the use of one-link-per-line plainlist (vlist) formats..? CsDix (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I may be "AFK" for a while.

You moved it, once to an unwise name, once to a hugely long name, and had no consensus for either move. Please would you justify your actions on the template talk page? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure – just done so. Incidentally, if you browse Wikipedia's template categories, "September 11 conspiracy theories" doesn't rank as a particularly long name. "September 11" appears to be used rather than "9/11" as the latter includes the forward-slash computing character. CsDix (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello CsDix. A request to move this template back has been opened at
  WP:Requested move on the template talk page. Unless there is a formal move discussion in progress, an admin may go ahead and move the template back. There are arguments on both sides, but note that the template has been at its current name for five years. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for your message, Ed. I'm happy to let the process take its own course. Just seems a bit odd to have templates with cryptic names such as "911ct" when there are others such as "September 11 attacks" (rather than "911a"). CsDix (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, you can remove the exclude in print category after a sidebar has been changed over to use {{sidebar}}. by default, sidebars do not appear in print (check the printable version). Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood – will try to remember and get into habit. Hope all well with you. CsDix (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop replacing instances of {{Unbulleted list}} with {{vlist}}; the latter is a redirect to the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies – I'd got the idea it was the other way round, but didn't check. I'll request a rename. CsDix (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you have thought it was the other way around when you created the redirect?[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably simplest if I may answer the question with a question: Why do people sometimes confuse left and right? Apologies for any harm caused. CsDix (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Hello! CsDix (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cost in server resources and clogging up of editors' watchlists by making trivial changes. Using AWB to perform such changes is expressly forbidden, even if vlist were the template and ubl the redirect. To change multiple instances of a template to a redirect is the height of irresponsibility and you need to stop using AWB until you understand what it is to be used for. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this is what's introduced us to each other. Thanks for letting me know how you feel. Yours, CsDix (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this isn't personal and it's nothing to do with how I feel. I'll be just as happy to work with you in the future; and I met some of my best wikifriends through giving them a bollocking (Andy/POTW above is one of those). I just want you to stop using AWB to make minor changes, for your own sake not mine, as you will annoy a lot of people if you do that. There's a good reason why

WP:AWB tells us "Rules of use ... Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits." We all make mistakes and the trick is to make sure we learn from them. Looking at your contributions, I'm reassured that you'll be able to do that. Happy editing, --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your message – and thanks also for your advice. Worry not, nothing was taken personally. Here's to the future, CsDix (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please do not add hardcoded colouring to try to match the group labels. use css classes instead. it looks horrible if you aren't using the default stylesheet. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies – I was just trying to follow the (default) colo/ur scheme already in use there. CsDix (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing a {{

Hadn't seen that yet, so thanks for pointing out. Yes, I'd overlooked that both bulleted and unbulleted lists are vertical lists – but, rather than delete {{vlist}}, I suggest it's renamed to include its two elements: verticality (if there's such a word) and unbulletedness. Any suggestions (that aren't too lengthy and/or cryptic)..? CsDix (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the redirect at Template:Vlist, not the template at template:unbulleted list. The redirect name "vlist" is ambiguous. So renaming a redirect still leaves a redirect behind at the wrong name. You don't need to rename redirects if you want to create a new redirect. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR do you mean you want to rewrite the redirect into a template that takes a parameter to choose bulleted or unbulleted list? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just yet to think of a replacement name for {{vlist}} that indicates its unbulleted as well as [v]ertical nature, that's all... unless the absence of any such indication could be taken to mean that {{vlist}} is vertical without bullets... What I'm looking for is a short name for the second of the two kinds of list that characterise the two basic kinds of (navigational) templates: the horizontal Navbox (featuring dot-spaced lists, i.e. hlists) and the vertical Sidebar / infobox (featuring vertical non-bulleted lists, i.e.... "vlist"s? ..."vublist"s?)

CsDix (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't enter the discussion about what to do with {{vlist}}, which is ambiguous, so should be deleted. If you make it {{vublist}}, it still makes {{vlist}} ambiguous, so whatever you do with a new redirect, the problem still is {{vlist}} -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, then, by the same token, isn't "hlist" also ambiguous, as not all horizontal lists need be punctuated by dots..? One way or another, "hlist" and "vlist" seem a natural pairing – it's just what that way best be – and I suppose I'm taking unbulleted vertical lists as the default that "vlist" best use. (I'd say most vertical lists in Wikipedia – especially within templates – aren't bulleted, no..?) CsDix (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most (vertical) lists in templates are unbulleted, but the vast majority of (vertical) lists are the kind you see in see also sections: bulleted, and thus they use the normal list syntax. I would tend to agree both with Andy and with the IP that vlist should be deleted. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, for the sake of consistency, how about advocating the deletion/renaming of {{flatlist}} and the hlist class too..?

Instead, using both "hlist" and "vlist", terms that are short and only moderately cryptic, seems a good idea – and it seems that their most common use is / would be within templates, with dots assumed in hlists and no bullets assumed in vlists. CsDix (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The

• This looks a very useful pointer – thanks for taking the trouble to post. I can see I'm starting to tread a path that, thankfully, is very well-worn. CsDix (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On template Template:Shrimps and prawns, why did you replace

state = {{{state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>}}}

with

state = {{{state|<includeonly>{{{1|autocollapse}}}</includeonly>}}} ? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. It's to permit the following (for example):

{{Shrimps and prawns |collapsed}}

...as a (more succinct) alternative to...

{{Shrimps and prawns |state=collapsed}}

Hope that's okay. CsDix (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does {{Shrimps and prawns|state=collapsed}} still work? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should do -- have you found somewhere it doesn't..? CsDix (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That fine then. There's no issue :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great – thanks for confirming. CsDix (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you need to adjust your regexp, since this is clearly wrong, since {{world topic}} doesn't have a "default =" parameter. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for spotting. I think I should be able to amend / add a condition to be that bit more specific. CsDix (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel a little guilty when I revert some positive edits along with negative edits (one reason why some editors make a number of edits per page). I'm not sure I agree that there were many positive ones in this case.

The width change I don't see as a good change, because if it is really a problem for narrow screens then that should be changed at Template:Sidebar and not elsewhere. A mass change to templates, without editing the templates themselves can be construed as somewhat disruptive. (On a side note, I would personally require that all sidebar/infobox/navbox templates use the default styles and not allow non-default styling, but that's just my opinion and it is unshared by a significant portion of the community I imagine.)

The expanded parameter change isn't a good one either. We should try to avoid having multiple inputs for the user in templates like these. I suspect you may have picked that up from navboxes where that usage is a legacy artifact from when not all navboxes were standardized. Having less parameters also makes it easier for bots to maintain. Standard usage is also of benefit so that editors can move from one template to another easily (in fact, this is the reason navbox, sidebar, etc. exist).

I think the liststyle and contentstyle changes were unnecessary and to me they fall in the line of the width change.

I completely disagree with the use of bigger and the div with padding. I have no opinion on the use of divs to divide the sections; I just might advise that you be careful with them. (Consider this revision's sparing use of divs, which was primarily to maintain the styling introduced by earlier editors when I converted the template to use T:Sidebar.)

I'm not sure about the use of longlink, but it would seem that's on a per-item basis (I would try to keep it to the exceptionally long items; non-breaking spaces in links is a default behavior for a reason which obviously doesn't translate well to sidebars).

Thanks for asking questions and expecting me to answer. It helps rise me out of relative complacence. :) Expect another topic below this one soon. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through the code for / appearance of Template:Calculus as it currently stands and add comments below as I go.

(Why {{sidebar and not {{Sidebar..?)

Different default for overall template width

(e.g. 18.0 or 20.0em rather than 22.0em) See

Template talk:Sidebar#More sophisticated default width setting?

.

{{{1|}}}

i.e. in |expanded = {{{expanded|{{{1|}}}}}} and the like: I'm not (yet) sold on your observations above. Surely having two ways – one a simplification of the other – hardly makes life more difficult, whether for bots or humans..?

title

"Topics in [[calculus]]". Sounds like "Meatballs in gravy", etc. Lose the "Topics in"; it's redundant, no?

"above" section

{{plainlist followed by pipe-symbol followed by... nothing (i.e. {{plainlist|) looks odd to me. I think I'd use {{vlis – apologies, {{unbulleted list}} instead.

Ditto {{flatlist followed by pipe-symbol followed by... nothing

list/contentstyles

Amended so the starts and ends of sections made clearer, especially in lieu of headings with backgrounds.

list1title, etc

Expand more than one section – expand them all. See how easily the titles of each section can disappear into the same-sized links surrounding them? Hence the {{

bigger

}}s.

No <div>s (i.e. subsections) within sections

Taking list1, the use of the semicolon to embolden subheadings such as "Definitions", "Concepts", "Rules and identities", etc, but leave them in various positions just looks... poor, uncoordinated. And, as "Rules and identities" is also a link, see how easily it disappears into the lists of links around it. (I'm not convinced it's differentiated sufficiently in the version I left. Apologies for the unintended math/s reference there.)

longlink

Yes, on a per-item basis.

Enough for now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. CsDix (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit. There are a few problems with it, besides comments I've made elsewhere:

• Not all uses of <br> indicate a list; see for example the national anthem which you put into a list with its own sound file.

  I'm under the impression that in contexts such as this, <br/>s are (for the sake of accessibility) to be avoided.

• There's that funny regex failure in the |native_name line.

  Nothing seems amiss here – please elaborate..?

• You may want to check the use of cardinal numbers at
  WP:MOSNUM
  . "34th" (for example) is incorrect in dates at the least, so that may be something to be concerned on.

  I try to follow what's in use wherever it happens to be, although I don't recall amending a date here..? (Do you have the ranking ordinals in mind..?)

• Try to avoid the use of small. I realize you probably didn't add them, but I've removed them where I've seen them, as they can inhibit
  accessibility
  , especially when used in the standardized templates, which tend to have smaller font to begin with.

  A momentary {{

  smaller}} or {{small

  }} font, often in parentheses, is a (very) neat way to e.g. indicate, in passing, clarifications and/or more minor (but still useful/appropriate) information as such. I'll happily take on an alternative that I feel is equivalent.

Thanks for listening to me moan and groan. :) --Izno (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and thanks to you for bearing with me as I learn more about "the Wikipedia style".

CsDix (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The national anthem you listified when it isn't part of a list. <br> is actually almost appropriate here, if not the best item to use (the best would be sitewide CSS, but we can't have everything on a wiki...).

After <!-- in that particular parameter you added a "[?:]". I assume that is a failed regex of some sort.

I was just throwing it out there (and yes, the ranking ordinals). I didn't check to see myself what the rules on cardinal numbers are in this context.

I'm aware that it is neat, but realize that you are stacking a size reduction of 1em*85% (from use of small)*88% (or 90%; from the use of infobox) to create text which is 0.748/0.765em in size. There isn't really an acceptable alternative for that. Most people with bad vision start having difficulty at 88/90% discerning the information in an infobox... If it's important enough to be in the infobox, then it shouldn't be downsized without great thought on the matter. --Izno (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I realize you're trying to keep this navbox at 18 em in width and only reluctantly removed the hlists, but could you put them back? Done your way, this becomes very long and narrow, and will become prohibitively so as the theoretical approach section is fleshed out. Would an extra 5% width be that much of a problem? The extra long box moves images far from their context as well. Schrauwers (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've increased the width to 20.0em (compromise between 18.0 and current default 22.0em) but haven't replaced the hlists – if I did, I suspect it'd only be a matter of time before they were removed. I'm now going to request that the Sidebar default width is decreased to 20.0em. CsDix (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the end product is fabulous. Thanks. Makes formatting pages much easier and visually pleasing. Schrauwers (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was only a small change but I'm glad it helps. The thanks should really go to you, as I've noticed the work you've been putting into this template and the anthropology articles. So – thank you! CsDix (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when I check the html source for the last section of Template:Monarchism, I see

<div class="hlist">
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Aristocracy" title="Aristocracy">Aristocracy</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Autocracy" title="Autocracy">Autocracy</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes" title="Thomas Hobbes">Thomas Hobbes</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Oligarchy" title="Oligarchy">Oligarchy</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Republicanism" title="Republicanism">Republicanism</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Royalism" title="Royalism" class="mw-redirect">Royalism</a></li>
</ul>
</div>

if I remove the spurious : symbols and replace them with newlines, I see the exact same html source. so what is the point of adding the spurious : symbols? Frietjes (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, they plug the gaps between the lines (the newlines) visually, making it easier to see the starts and ends of sections in the code (especially in lieu of any comment dividers). Or is this yet another thing that "accessibility" frowns upon? CsDix (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since they are stripped by the wikitext to html parser, there is no difference between the newlines and the : symbol plus a newline. the only problem for accessibility is that the single list is broken into multiple lists, which can be a problem if all the items are supposed to be in one list. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time someone with the know-how fixes this accessibility stuff so that readers of the encyclopedia, impaired or otherwise, don't have to parse things like lines with one item and a hanging dot on them in every other vertical template. I'm genuinely surprised I haven't chanced upon more comment about this, but, then again, I haven't gone looking for it. There should be more than two ways – hlists and hanging dots or one-item-per-line plainlists – to make things "accessible". CsDix (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you understand what accessibility means here. If you have a list of elements, then presenting it as a proper HTML list indicates to screen readers that it forms a single coherent list. In edits such as this one, you've mangled the lists for what appears to be your own personal aesthetic belief that line breaks make the template prettier. Could you please stop doing this? A significant amount of work went into most of the organised labour templates that you've worked on recently in order to correct this problem and it's not at all obvious that your edits are improvements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your message. Yes, it's not at all obvious that the edits may be considered improvements as they involve the psychology of perception. (As does effective aesthetics. "Prettiness" may or may not be involved.) My question is: can the hanging dots that presently mangle vertically-orientated templates be by-passed / switched off / over-ridden? Since I imagine the software needs to handle linewraps, I'm thinking this must be possible – it'll be the programming equivalent of the option "if there's a linewrap after this dot, remove the dot, or at least make it invisible". If you're a programmer with experience of Wikipedia's innards, do you feel able to accomplish this – or know someone or some people who are, please? CsDix (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS What do you make of this..? CsDix (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging dots are a symptom of a misunderstanding of list markup. Either two elements are part of the same list or they are not. In {{sidebar}}, the latter is supposed to be accounted for by the new elements being added to a new content or list entry. That is entirely what I'm getting at: you're taking contents which are broadly linked in a semantic sense and, for what I assume to be perceived minor differences, splitting them up into different sections and thus mangling the semantics that the list markup affords them. With regard to the {{collapsible list}} code, while it would indeed override definitions made beforehand that is not proven to be a negative, as per the general understanding that the point of code like this is to enforce a degree of consistency; making declarations after the style variables is a sensible way of overriding potentially unwanted manual declarations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hanging dots are a symptom of a misunderstanding of list markup" -- this is entirely what I'm getting at: I wonder why they've been allowed to occur (and continue to be tolerated) in vertical templates' frequent linewrapping. Since they have, however, can you see how the option to remove or render them invisible may be implemented..?

Regarding the collapsible list template, I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say, but it seems to be "one size should fit all" (at least, in the NavContent case, as regards the content's font-size, top/bottom margins and line-height). If so, however, it shouldn't take long to see that that isn't the case (or, at least, is unwise), e.g. in the variety of {{Infobox country}} parameters that use the template. But have I misunderstood what you're saying here..? CsDix (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view it's beneficial for there to be visible artefacts like hanging dots when people are misusing list markup: it ensures that it gets noticed and fixed. If you can point at cases where there's an unexpected result with a properly-used list, I'll be happy to demonstrate a workaround or attempt a fix. The same with {{infobox country}}: if you can point at an example of where the inability to override these values causes unwanted issues with the template, I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer. Right now, though, I realise I don't want to spend any more time/effort on this and become invested (although that doesn't mean I no longer believe the removal of hanging dots in vertical templates would benefit Wikipedia's presentation). On the other hand, I suppose that if other people had also felt (or do feel) similarly, the dots' appearance would've been addressed and/or I'd've chanced on some other discussion about it by now. CsDix (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CsDix. Would you mind taking another look at this template? Somehow your recent edits have resulted in every page that transcludes it being logged at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but I can't see how that could have happened. I don't have sufficient knowledge of template coding to understand the problem; if you could lend a hand it would be appreciated. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds very odd. I've just made a small change (reverted the template's "name" parameter) but can't see anything else amiss. Any improvement? CsDix (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no change. Weird. I've also listed this at

WP:PUMP/TECH, just FYI. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• For the sake of consistency, I asked a little earlier (via {{db-move}}) for the template to be renamed "Independent production", but this was declined. Perhaps what's happening is the aftermath? CsDix (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, could be - I've seen cases before where nominating a template for deletion caused its transclusions to invisibly carry the same tag, but if the tag's been removed, there shouldn't be a problem. Still, this gives me something to go on, thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like that's what's happened here. Curious. CsDix (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's it - all the affected pages transcluded {{

Independent Production}}. Okay, problem identified - now to see if we can't fix it. This may simply be a case of server lag; I might leave it for a bit and see if it corrects itself - certainly I can't see any reason for the deletion category to still be in place. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This morning you did a series of edits to movie and similar articles. Firstly these edits were totally unnecessary: {{

• It sounds like this may be related to the thread above (#Template:Independent Production)..? Thanks for alerting me to the seemingly insubstantial edits, as there should've been other (more substantial) amendments made that I missed (updates to template names and/or parameter names). I'm guessing its the combination of these that somehow caused the mass CSD categorization, although if so, I too don't (yet) see how or why it should. I missed the insubstantial edits, though, so my apologies for whatever role they played. Sincerely, CsDix (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you That was very well done. Thanks. Any chance you can port Template:Longitem over to the Simple English Wikipedia? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind thank you! If you mean you'd like to see Template:Longitem at the Simple English Wikipedia, I've just created it there – hope that's okay. CsDix (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what I was hoping for! Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* ... so then I could port over the improvement on the Jewish Holidays template, as here: simple:Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays. ---- StevenJ81 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. But all those red links look like a lot of work – do you use rewrites of articles here to start turning them blue..? CsDix (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and I don't know. I'm new working in simple:, and I'm still not entirely clear just how much length and detail we really need on these subjects. I turned all the red links in the row and column headers (except "High Holy Days") to blue by pointing them to other places (e.g., [[Jewish holiday|Jewish]] in en became [[Jew]]ish in simple. I could see covering Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah within Sukkot there. And there might just never be an article on Sigd in simple. But the red links will at least give a roadmap for things to work on. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know even less of simple:, but if you're ever short of feedback on something you've put together there, feel free to leave a pointer to it here. CsDix (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you an example, look here: simple:Shabbat. I separated it out from this, which was (amazingly enough) the previous Shabbat article there: simple:Sabbath. I've also got a sandbox working on it here: simple:User:StevenJ81/Sandbox. So you can see what the English level requirement is. But just how detailed it should get, I don't know. You can write a pretty detailed article on a not-too-technical subject using Simple English. But will anyone really using the Simple English wiki really want that much detail? That's what I don't know.

Anyway, many thanks for your support. Stay in touch ... StevenJ81 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, but according to the

I wanted to let you know that sometimes your edits to articles move hatnotes below maintenance templates. A recent example is this edit. According to WP:Hatnote, "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the alert and template work acknowledgement. I confess I assumed that maintenance templates would "trump" hatnotes, but I'll now strive to keep the hatnotes on top (even, I suppose, when the hatnotes are part of the article rather than about it). Sincerely, CsDix (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop editing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain such edits [4]. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike "hlist", "unbulleted list" (or "plainlist") doesn't indicate the essentially [v]ertical nature of the list involved (also [unb]ulleted). CsDix (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One: That's an inappropriate change to make per

WP:AWB rules (please read them). Two, that's an inappropriate change for the sole reason that you are changing it to a redirect. Please stop making similar changes. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• One: I read something somewhere about ignoring rules. Two: What's wrong with redirects? CsDix (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please re-read the first line of this thread? Materialscientist (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please stop asking me to stop editing. I have already stopped renaming the list template. CsDix (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Provisional replies: editors should not make edits changing direct links to redirects, especially if they spend an edit solely for this purpose, using the AWB browser ("Rules of use" in

WP:WIARM. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. I've just posted some explanation there. CsDix (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my closure of your request here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As it happens, I've just responded to it, including a query. CsDix (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not continue the discussion here. At present there are two admins (myself and Materialscientist) who are concerned about your usage of AWB. At some point you might be able to convince us (or a larger group) that these issues have been overcome. I would welcome any evidence that you can edit steadily without encountering these issues. This might require a change in your approach, and it might need some time to pass. Since you work on templates I assume you have technical interests. There should be ways you can contribute to Wikipedia in areas that need technical ability, without making large numbers of changes that might be controversial. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) How may I at some point convince you / Materialscientist / anyone that issues have been overcome if I no longer have access to AWB?

(2) The evidence is in my editing history – look for edits that include the AWB suffix "using AWB" made at times other than the two occasions already identified.

(3) I'm sure there are other areas where I might contribute, but templates and categorization is where I've found myself. I'd like to feel able to contribute somehow wherever I might be – and to believe there is sufficent good faith out there to (1) accommodate my finding out how; and (2) to recognize worth as well as worthlessness in contributions I have made.

Sincerely, CsDix (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with AWB is that it assumes a high level of judgment and experience. The steady stream of complaints suggests you are not quite there yet. I had occasion to handle the move of {{911ct}}. In that case you were very confident that your move was a good idea but it turned out that nobody else agreed. Some of your AWB changes seem to fit that pattern: they look good to you, but not to anyone else. Why not build up a record which shows that your judgment can be trusted. Working in other areas (e.g. making requested changes to templates, making uncontroversial moves that others have requested, copy editing, disambiguation) would allow you to increase your Wikipedia experience. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assumption of suitable judgement and experience is a strength rather than a trouble, though it may mean occasional trouble with "teething" users such as myself. What concerns me more, though, is the undercurrent of good-faith-not-assumed that I've been sensing around this situation. For instance, you have pointed out those times when people have left messages on my talkpage challenging actions I have taken, but have you noticed anything else there? Curiously, it seems that the more benefit that might be delivered by small but numerous edits, the less likely anyone might feel moved to acknowledge them. If, on the other hand, they're viewed as not beneficial... CsDix (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to appeal elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, thanks to you, I now have more insight, so isn't my best appeal an appeal to you – on the grounds that it's only with access that I'll be able to convince anyone I'm not using AWB improperly..? If, say, a week or so needs to go by, then so be it – something like the temporary blocks I've seen on other users' pages..? CsDix (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the main problem is that you haven't recognized any valid issues with your edits. It is rather expensive to the project to allow you to make 500 edits a day while 'teething'. Since huge numbers of edits make many watchlists jump, this activity can't go unnoticed. Unfortunately you do fit a pattern that is sometimes seen, where a well-intentioned editor who has a lot of technical skill will have a tin ear for feedback. There are two arbitration cases where that pattern was seen. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't recognized any issues with these edits, why have I apologized for them and pledged not to repeat their kind..?...! Please don't jump to conclusions about what kind of ear I may or may not have. As I've just indicated, I've already gained more insight from your comments here and I appreciate your discussing what's happened with me. I just hope that I'm permitted to give some feedback too, without the conclusion that I don't recognize doing anything improper appearing to be drawn. CsDix (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need AWB? Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, it was to add parameters to collapsible-list or collapsible-section templates to indicate which list/section should be shown by default. Secondarily, to update template names. There's probably a thirdly and fourthly, but I can't recall right now. CsDix (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I suppose that isn't "need" but rather "see the use of for". CsDix (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need AWB for these tasks? Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can semi-automate the processes – I imagine you see that already. CsDix (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aim for a large number of edits that bring minor changes to articles. (Note that the mere presence of many of those templates (like bulleted lists) in some articles is insignificant and even unnecessary, and editors keep adding/removing them, which is unconstructive.) I oppose the use of AWB for such tasks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some people like navbox / sidebar / etc templates in articles and some don't. I don't have an impression of where the majority may lie (at least, not yet). I guess I think these templates are fine, so long as they function well. Whether involving templates or otherwise, though, isn't making repeated small edits one of AWB's very "raisons d'être"..? If it isn't, then, yes, I've made (another) mistake. CsDix (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWB is designed for helping with routine operations, not for high-frequency minute changes that have little visible effect, and the operator should have a sound judgment of whether the edit is worth saving. A simple example: adding/removing a character may break an article or have no effect on it; such edit may restore a highly visible page, or it may cover up past vandalism, cause an edit conflict to someone, clutter watchlists, etc. Some minor edits, like an edit that (un)collapses a list, may have a significant visible effect, but this may be a matter of editorial preference, screen settings, browser, etc. AWB is hardly a good tool for such edits, unless a prior consensus has been reached elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where an article is linked in a template that features collapsible lists/sections, isn't the idea is to have that list/section expanded on that article's page – to give some context at a glance, no..? Also, I'd hope Wikipedia would benefit from templates (sometimes with many instances) that have less cryptic and/or ambiguous names, no..? CsDix (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but renaming may cause much trouble (mostly related to the network of interlinks and database refreshing - you likely know that as a template programmer), and thus it is often better to bear with the old name, which is invisible to most readers anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't cause trouble when only the names within the curly brackets are updated – i.e. at the ends of the interlinking / database lines – rather than names-as-links (e.g. on talkpages)..?

Meanwhile, using AWB to insert collapsible-related parameters would seem a worthwhile use – but, okay, not all-day every-day – ? CsDix (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And aren't the perils you list the same regardless of what worth the AWB edits are deemed to have..? CsDix (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perils are the same, but high frequency of minute edits, manual or AWB-assisted, is discouraged. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you are trying to fancy up the navbox, but we have to keep it accurate. The White and Pinto fixes are OK but the cream gene one is not. Cream is one of several dilution modifiers, along with pearl, silver dapple, etc., but it is unique because it "causes" several different colors... so I don't know how you want to fix that, but it has to be equal to the others in that category (not broken out) AND note that the palomino, cremello, etc. are all influenced by it. Similarly, we have separate articles on Dun and grullo. Sooty, Liver and Seal brown are not necessarily related, they are all just ways horses get darker than their base color, need to remove the and/or slash. But three different things. The footnote on Leopard complex doesn't work at all, we need those two breeds right up there, not in a footnote at the bottom (a lot of people think the leopard complex is called "Appaloosa"). Basically, we liked it the way it was, it was accurate in the way it structured the info, so why does it need to be changed? I'm not opposed to prettifying things, but this isn't quite there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not so much trying to "prettify" the template, but make more sense of it for the sake of someone interested in but not informed about equine things – someone such as...

So, I don't mind if you (have) restore(d) the template once again, but I do find it a bit confusing. CsDix (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Ok, so help me know what is most confusing and maybe we can improve the structure? What the deal is, put simply, is that all the horse coat colors were named long before DNA testing. Then DNA testing revealed some interesting things that connected some colors genetically. On top of that, US and UK English have different terms for the same thing (for example, piebald/skewbald are UK terms), plus a few European terms get translated into the mix also (like "Isabelline" for "Palomino" in parts of Europe, or "Grullo" for "blue dun" in parts of the USA Southwest where the Spanish influence is strong). So, I'll acknowledge up front that it's a total clusterf**k, but with that, help me see where the non-horse person gets the most confused and maybe we can clean up further from there. Montanabw^(talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Going by your explanations here – thanks for these – how about this..? : [......] CsDix (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. The dilutions produce differently named colors depending on the underlyng base coat color. i.e. even though the double-dllute creams look practically identical to a layperson, DNA tests will show that the cremello has a genetic base of chestnut, the perlino, bay and the smoky cream, black. The pinto situation is a particular custerf**k because of modern DNA turning old categories upside down, complicated by the differences between US and UK English. The word "overo" is an old term for "anything that isn't Tobiano" but in the modern world, has no DNA type attached to it, as sabino, splash white and frame are all created by different genetic mechanisms (and Sabino may have multiple ones). A "tovero" is a horse with both Tobiano and one of the overo patterns visible. Let me take a whack at what you have below and see if I can clarify what's iffy; what I can't figure out, I'll insert hidden text to explain what I'm fretting about. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, here's my next parse – it makes sense to me, so hopefully it's officially okay too. (Maybe the links within the brackets shouldn't all be {{small}}..?) : [......] CsDix (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that not all links in the brackets should be small; essentially, all colors are equal, it would be like putting pink and magenta as subsets of Red. ;-) Also, I don't like the footnote at all, I feel the bottom of the navbox needs to be for important things. (Really really hate the footnote). From my own perspective, I could separate out markings from patterns, but the line between them is controversial... (horse people are nuts, I include myself in that accusation! LOL!) Let me tweak, you may have to fix my syntax. And no, Appaloosas, etc., have ALL the leopard complex patterns, not just varnish roan ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bearing with me – this template has me intrigued. I agree that the footnote should be avoided. From the way you left the "also known as Isabelline", it looks like it's meant to follow Palomino in similar fashion to the "(also known as Sorrel)" that follows Chestnut, but I'm not 100% sure. Also, for the sake of smaller windows/screens out there, I haven't let the main group names grow too long (group4). Finally, I've decided to keep the {{small}}s for the "see also" parentheses, otherwise their size may appear to overpower their preceding (and supposedly overarching) link. So, how about this..? : [......] CsDix (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Isabelline is a word the Europeans use for what English speakers in the USA call "Palomino." I like playing with this over here, and it IS improving. I think I screwed up something, wasn't the "White" and "Pinto Patterns" sections once colored in light blue? They should be, as in the pinto section, it isn't so obvious now that Overo, etc. belongs there. Can you fix that bit? I'm wondering if the markings and patterns section needs better overall organization, but not sure how to get there. Here's the deal: Stuff like Bend-or spots are rare and minor, stuff like the Leopard Complex and roan are major coat colors just like the pinto stuff. Point coloration is something seen in Bay horses, and Primitive markings are a characteristic of Duns, but have a separate article for a number of good reasons. Brindle is just. plain. weird. So though the alphabetizing we have now isn't ideal. But the problem is, the line between a "marking" and a "coat color pattern" can sometimes be a fine one, (hence the article cropout, which explains it a little bit, but also proves how crazy horse people are). So, while it makes sense to group markings and patterns, I wish we could find a way to distinguish the major coat color articles from the "here's another weird thing horses' coats can do" articles. Any ideas? Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"White" and "Pinto patterns" are on light-blue backgrounds here. Following your latest, I've now placed Leopold complex, Roan and "Rare" subgroups on the same footing as the Pinto subgroup in the markings/patterns group. That leaves Cropout, Pangaré, Point coloration, Primitive markings and Rabicano in their own (unlabel/led) subgroup there -- is that correct/okay? I'm afraid I'll have to leave it to (someone like) you to make the distinctions between major and minor issues, but what I can do -- if you think it'd help -- is say how the template reads to me (and probably most folk used to Wikipedia navbox templates but without equine knowledge). (So, for instance, I'd say that the formatting of the markings/patterns topic in the version below is telling me that this topic has five areas, of which three are probably major (Leopard complex, Pinto patterns, Roan), one less so (Rare) and a "catch-all"/"grab-bag" consisting of Cropout, Pangaré, etc.)

[......]

CsDix (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are solid, I made a couple tweaks. I like the hidden text breaks, helps a lot. Last problem to resolve: I don't know what to do with the Appaloosa and Knabstrupper. They are breeds that also happen to mostly be leopard-complex spotted, yet that is not the name of the color, but a lot of people in the USA think that "Appaloosa" is the leopard complex color, which is why I want it in there, but the terminology is incorrect to call breeds a color. Am I making sense? (that's why I liked the parenthetical). I wish Varnish roan wasn't a solo article (but it's a weird color to explain in a paragraph, hence an article) but it is just a color variation within the leopard complex. Kick around a solution that doesn't mislead the reader into thinking that "Appaloosa" or "Knabstrupper" is a color, and we'll be good to go, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 14:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry I somehow lost the blue backgrounds again... Montanabw^(talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not, perhaps, the most elegant solution, but, as regards Appaloosa and Knabstrupper, how about the following? : [......]

PS No backgrounds seem to be missing here...

CsDix (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the layout now. On my computer, there is no light blue background the word "pinto patterns" and "white" , which, at one point, was there and looked good. May be my machine & browser (Mac running Safari). Anyway, because of that, the Overo stuff looks kind of like it's part of the Leopard complex stuff, even though we know it isn't. Any way to somehow make that pinto section look more distinct? I'll try flipping the sections and see if that works. Can we make lines appear between the main sections or something?? Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're seeing a background behind the "Leopard complex", "Roaning patterns" and "Other" labels but not behind "White" and "Pinto patterns", then, yes, that sounds like something odd happening at your end. (I'm using a PC here with a Firefox-based browser.) It's certainly possible (if unorthodox) to place lines between sections, e.g. by adding a groupstyle and liststyle parameter, although I'm not sure if I'm keen on the result: [......] CsDix (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the problem, I'm NOT seeing a background behind White and Leopard Complex (or the others) the whole section is white, which is why the pinto patterns section is hard to group. The only light blue shading is the top, the bottom, and the main topics on the left. Seems like there once was a background behind only the "child" sections (White and Pinto, especially)? it would be the most elegant solution if possible to do ... I agree that the lines solve the problem but also look clunky. I originally had pinto and leopard split off as "patterns" from the "markings" section, but the geneticist in WPEQ (no longer active) pointed out that a lot of "markings" are actually subtle manifestations of certain patterns, so hard to genetically distinguish one from the other. But maybe we could somehow cook up a separate group for those. Oh geez, what a pain I am!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't understand why you're no longer seeing the light-blue background behind all the subgroup names – all I can say is that everything here seems to work as it should. I'll ask someone to pay a visit and see if they spot something, although I don't know what (if any) experience they have using Safari and Macs. As regards "markings" perhaps being "patterns" and "patterns" perhaps being "markings", that suggests to me that it might be best not to try to discriminate any further between them, i.e to leave the section as it is. In the hope that the disappearing backgrounds can be found, I've disabled the groupstyle and liststyle entries that produced the lines between sections: [......] CsDix (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now the backgrounds show. Go figure. I'm happy with it now, and will move this draft into the template mainspace. If something is screwy there, Ibeg you to fix it, as you are a lot better at this than I am! Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine here. I've amended the state parameter handling so that it's not necessary to include "state=" and the last point in the "How to manage this template's visibility" notes to indicate that "expanded" is the default state. Thanks for the introduction to horse colo/u/ration! CsDix (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a problem at Template:Infobox political party! for example in political party article Golden Dawn(Greece) there is a gap beetween "greek parliament" and "Municipalities" can you please help me to remove that? Peterzor (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peterzor – the spacing around "Greek Parliament" and "Municipalities" looks fine here:

Is it okay now where you are? CsDix (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks Peterzor (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sidebar subsection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to say hello in the heading using my elbow, anyway have this, lol

Hello CsDix, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's gone wrong, and I don't know how to fix.

First of all, you have error messages at the end. Secondly there are four boxes showing per row. I'll leave it with you.

Hope that's okay, CsDix (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, User talk:Thomasmeeks asked that we reduce the width of this box to 18em, which was the standard you wanted as well. I had asked for 20 em to prevent the navbox becoming overly long. I think I've resolved the length issue by substituting a collapsible navbox for the original. Should I go ahead and reduce the width?Schrauwers (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello – I think you mean "sidebar" rather than "navbox", yes?

In any case, feel free to change the width – and be prepared for someone to pass by sometime and reset it to the default width (currently 22.0em, if I recall it correctly. I've suggested that this is a little wide, but there wasn't consensus to reduce it, whether to 18.0 or 20.0em).

Best wishes, CsDix (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Alliance (Spain) it is called Alianza Nacional (España) in spanish wikipedia Peterzor (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Peterzor – I think I've made the link by adding [[es:Alianza Nacional (España)]] to the very end of the article. CsDix (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS This (and this) might be useful in future.

Hello, CS.

On

On the other hand, maybe it's not so easy as I might think (really, hope). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On the last point, I note per the above diff that a recent edit restored the current Template:Sidebar-subsection solution here, among other changes. But the question remains on whether a simpler coding could achieve the same look as the current Template:Sidebar subsection does. And it looks like only one additional step would be necessary for that (& fully consistent with the objective of Template:Sidebar subsection). Whether there is such a step is another question. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Thomasmeeks – thanks for your messages. I've tried "rationalizing" what's been tried, but, per the edit summary there, I reckon it's probably best to stick with Sidebar subsection (or something like it) throughout. CsDix (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As to my question (4T) on the Talk page there, your line padding before By era was removed in your new edit here relative to templates (A) & (B) on the Talk paga there (leftover }} at the top left as well). The alternate new padding statement for the next subsection (By century), however, left the spacing intact. Thank you for your comment. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now do see the point of your "here" linked Edit. It's following IMO an interesting "visual logic" in dropping the little extra horizontal line space after the headings but not between subheadings. That's less tidy relative to sole use of Template:Sidebar subsection, but it makes sense. Thanks for your comment. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Cs. The latest collaborative Edit here of the above Sidebar might be a useful example of how to adapt Template:Sidebar subsection so that is not so much an override as a supplementation of CSS styling. Would you be interested in revising Template:Sidebar subsection in line with the above Edit (or my doing the same thing)? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your recent work on the philosophy topics template! It looks great. - Atfyfe (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your acknowlegement – it's much appreciated. I admit, though, that I think the template is on the large side and probably leaves too much space unused, so I may yet revisit it. (Perhaps it'd be better as a "Navbox with collapsible sections" template?) CsDix (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I was wondering if you, as the creator of Template:Hlist, could look at the infobox in Commonwealth of Nations? The list of member states cuts off at Uganda, although there are others that can be seen in the edit screen. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to make main color of the infobox itself white instead of grey, if so please help me Peterzor (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see here. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banding has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a good idea. The phrase "In group theory" obviously does not tell the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wisconsin Green Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"Photovoltaics" template on 1024 by 768 screen.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:"Photovoltaics" template on 1024 by 768 screen.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in

The redirect Template:IsaacNewtonSegments has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7 § Template:IsaacNewtonSegments until a consensus is reached. Artem.G (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]