User talk:David Kernow/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Your AWB Feature Request

Hi, Spent some time on your feature requests tonight.

Both are now fully implemented!

Just a few tweaks to make now =)

Reedy Boy 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow – with extra thanks, as the request list doesn't look that short!  Just hope no strange bugs arise when a new release is compiled and that other folk also find the new features useful. Have a (virtual) drink on me!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For the bug list and the request list, well, more for the request, we do them as we want, or unless there is something mutually agreed that needs doing. I've got a request on there that i just cant really be bothered doing, so its sitting there! Not all of the devs can do all of the things, so we do stuff as and when we want, it works pretty well, just deoes mean some stay for quite a while. Ah well... Should be having a major release soon, as we've got that GUI change, and a major change/implemntation of the logging. Reedy Boy 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"between 1 and 10 cubic kilometres (109 to 1010 cubic metres)"

Hi David. As you seem to be rather familiar with technically oriented Wikipedians, do you know anyone who might

• either be an expert on the rendering of WP:POP when enabled by monobook.js,
• or be accustomed to TeX in particular with the math expressions,

so as to find a solution for the problem I described at Help talk:Displaying a formula#Please, let us have math notation that works on all browsers !! ? Kind regards. — SomeHuman 6 Apr2007 10:40 (UTC)

My first thoughts were to look here and here, otherwise here and see if you recognize any names. Hope this helps!  Yours, David (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently unfinished business

re:

• this test edit in Metaphysics#See_also
• Template:Col-begin/doc(edit talk links history) (IMHO, unclear)
• Template:Columns-start [1], I made a trivial edit to this, but must spank you with a wet noodle for moving the page and then not moving the doc page. (Say ouch! <g>.)
• Template:Top(edit talk links history) && Template:Mid(edit talk links history) -- see my changes and refer to for compatibility of keywords and capabilities... my change triggered by desire to do much what you did with "transparent" vs specified bgcolor in Template:Columns-start, see Template:Namespace category(edit talk links history), for which I intend the three columns mentioned below...

---

Don't know whether you (or whomever) has considered it, but this seems a good place for a common usage page ala Template:Indent family usage, template:Lts/Doc, etc. (See the whatlinkshere's) as there is no reason to have separate doc pages for things which are interdependent and need to be explained clearly for the lay person.

Which is my bitch, actually, Template:Col-begin/doc appears with the bolding to perhaps suggest one uses the left column headers vice the {{top}}, or whatever, but it's not clear at all, and I submit it should be explicified as to what should not be used with which, so to speak, as well as which are needed with which others. (Ooops... belatedly, see you got there in part already--they are all using that same page which was not my impression, but you forgot the WP:DPP templates inclusions and such...
   I can get back and do that integration fixup if you like, I'm likely more experienced at THAT now, but recommend a page move to {{Column templates usage}} if you want to do that with AWB fixups and db-authoring as needed.

And Do please clear up the usage notes for dummys like me per your planning, and anticipated use behavior, even if it's not all ready yet! [I must be stupid, I've been spending hours this week teaching my youngest to drive! Can't be much more stupid, will give us more to worry about AND we have to pay for more insurance, ALL voluntarily. Makes no logical sense! <g>])
   Perhaps an X versus Y table??? (same templates listed along X and Y) ... with different symbols indicating OK and not OK, or something might be clearer. Perhaps... steal the images used in the Commons templates commons:template:Vk and commons:template:vd or some such small symbols???

I have a good use for a three by column template if that is ready, and since is outside article space, would be a good test bed. Let me know ASAP. Thanks. (And I thought you were off bouncing your nice niece on your knee and tickling her, and whatnot!) I think I'll go submit to more terror by passenger, and get back in a couple of hours for some serious template work. // FrankB 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank,
Quick reply to your latest, before my niece is back for supper (tickling, yes; but so far there's been more bouncing on my shoulders than my lap!):

• Template:Col-begin/doc(edit talk links history) (IMHO, unclear)
• Template:Columns-start [2], I made a trivial edit to this, but must spank you with a wet noodle for moving the page and then not moving the doc page. (Say ouch! <g>.) ["Ouch!"]
• Template:Top(edit talk links history) -- see my changes and refer to for compatibility of keywords and capabilities...

Yes, these column-related templates etc are a grab-bag (much as the various {{Navigational templates}} were/are) and that some kind of rationalization is probably overdue. It's another project to add to the to-do list, something that's beginning to feel encyclopedic itself...

(Commiserations... I know what you mean, alas! Without the admin status.)

...a ravenous stomach has just been delivered, so apologies while I abort here and [transmission ends]

Chuckle, David (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

<Chuckle back> ... Hope the tape worm isn't too bad... or at least hope dinner was great. Enjoy the family visits.

(I didn't get back tonight after all--blame James Bond--and the new family wheelman!) To clarify the above you'd made the last edit to {{Columns-start}}, or so I thought (?), and so I got the impression you were reworking the whole set taken together with the name change on columns-begin to columns-start. THAT template has this following big red disclaimer saying:

"Don't use this yet. It's for testing only.", which is obviously a problem, since it appeared to me (correctly?) that that template is needed to begin any use of any X-column by list schemed set in the whole collection. Bottom line, someone needs to finish things up, including the documentation fixups, and if you aren't actively working it, then obviously, you shouldn't be spanked with a wet noodle for the documentation either. Anyhow, that's the perceived problems from my quick look, and if you aren't any familiar with them than I, perhaps we can work them onto our to-do lists. // FrankB 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I give you

...permission to take two days off! Harumphff! <g> Ping Email on Template:Tracking_category... problem will likely jump right out on you! If you fix, believe {{Wikipedia category}} also needs same treatment, whatever it may be. // FrankB 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

Various repsonses interleaved // FrankB 19:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re {{col-begin}}, {{columns-start}}, {{top}}, etc, etc, I use the one template {{columns}} as a compromise between ease-of-use and flexibility (as you may've noticed recently here). It could probably be tweaked/improved, but I'd be wary of making it any more complex.

That whole html element 'set' is all pretty new turf for me, I was just trying to tighten up someone else's content in a see also (re: {{Merge}} family, et. al), and recollected it from Wiktionary stuff I've done. When I looked, found someone had already imported it. The little capabiility I added to make the default color change seemed/s sensible for here on wp, particularly used administratively, as I did. My look then unearthed in the rest of the category, and the page you altered therein, raising said concerns. Per WP:TSP I've always got documentation in mind, so concerns really solely in having some clear documentation setting out what goes with what, what options are available, what is necessary, and so forth.

Thus, that {{Columns-start}} carries that red ink disclaimer bears investigation and so does the questions of documemtation which is unclear, to say the least on that aspect. But for WP:Point, <chuckle> I'm tempted to nominate the lot for TFD to have someone take responsibility for cleaning up that and the documentation. Uunfortunately I can't bluster about and threaten dire consequences for some underling here as in my naval career. Volunteers, you know! <g> I'm a firm believer in "No job is finished until the paperwork is done!" (That and "No good deed goes unpunished!" <g>) Anyhow, now two of us are on alert for the unfinished nature, and can perhaps get things moved into better shape going forward. --FAB

• Re {{Tracking category}}, I'm not convinced of its use, especially given its opening sentence: "A tracking category is intended to build and maintain a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself." To me, this suggests the list provided by the category is simply for the delight of folk who like lists, i.e. not with any benefit to the encyclopedia – which is not what I think you intend!

Don't blame me... I turned it into a template solely because including Category:Tracking categories(edit talk links history) (heading) to provide text was so outre and non-standard... so mixed in with {{Wikipedia category}}, your/Mike's {{Template category}}, Shook it a bit (not stirred <g>), and has it's place on many an administrative page... Category:Categories for discussion, Category:Categories for merging, Category:Categories for deletion, to just begin naming a few unimportant ho-hummers (YAWN)... why is it you always think the worst of me? <g> Not my idea, unless you count making it a template I could nest beside {{interwikicat-grp}}. <g>

Humbly disagree with your take on list categories in general, as categories aren't any more encyclopedaic than indexes... errrr, organized lists (Ahem), but that's all wiki-politics I've stayed away from outside our Maps discussions on the commons, at least. <g> All those categories schemes and sub-schemes are is big lists by different sort criteria, so my suggestion is to realize that it's all in the definition. My suggested compromise on list categories is create a separate path to Category:Categories(edit talk links history) and stop wasting time with them. This tendency for one group of editors based on a flimsy 'consensus' which is almost always tenuous and debatable to spend time undoing what others have put in place always troubles me as you should know by now. That some find them useful and worth the time should be the end of it... Tag them as what they are, keep them in a separate scheme, and use cross links to 'Approved Categories' within this mythically blessed 'pure category' my mind can't seem to grasp in many ways... Both are useful in their own context after all, and even Bond movies set up an action scene in a context. Take away that, and the category is meaningless no matter what it holds. // FrankB 19:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours, David (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PS "My advice re trying to teach a relative to drive?  I wouldn't even risk trying!"

Real men don't leave instruction of their children to someone else, but make sure the important lessons are drilled home. They still have to take the mandatory instruction from an instructor, and this way I get to ensure he learns the important things. The older son started drivers training a week after I started with him, so began to argue with me almost right away. But then he's always been something of a know-it-all and too cocky for his own good! This time is more fun... the younger boy is listening and learning rapidly. We've probably put in 8-9 hours practice since Thursday, and he's coming along nicely. Ninety percent is really not letting bad habits take root I think, and the school can't invest the kind of time for that as is necessary. Cross your fingers! If I can keep his clutch foot off the brake, I think he'll do fine. Cheers // FrankB 19:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So what's up with the align or float HTML syntax that's preventing the centering? // FrankB 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template and |

Do you have some automated way to turn something like

{{SomeTemplate |
a = b |
cde = fgh |
}}

to

{{SomeTemplate
| a = b
| cde = fgh
}}

I have been doing this manually, and would appreciate much if you share your secret! And wow, there is a {{SomeTemplate}}, time for TfD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No secret, really; it's either by copy-replace in a word processor, by hand, or I've sometimes managed to coax WP:AWB into making these sorts of edits, although not consistently. Hope you're enjoying more non-Wikipedia time!  Best wishes, David (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Re that Navbox generic / Navigation templates thread somewhere, I meant to add that Navigation variants such as {{Navigation with columns}} would need converting into Navbox generic if Navbox generic were to become the standard. I haven't noticed any "official" discussion about Navigation vs. Navbox generic, however...

Templates lower and raise

Hi David.
This is the template map_caption:

Location of the David Kernow/Archive 18 (orange)

– in Europe (tan & white)
– in the European Union (tan)  [Legend]

This is the same passed to template raise (lower makes the same mistake):
{{raise|1px|{{map_caption |region=[[Europe]] |subregion=the [[European Union]] |legend=European location legend en.png |countryprefix=the}}}}
Now let's pass some standard text to lower:
test phrase
That's fine. Also raise does this well.
The problem is not in map_caption, because this is the template lower with a standard text as here above, now as a whole passed to template raise:
test phrase
Thus apparently, the syntax of lower and of raise does not allow a template as 2nd parameter.
An entirely different matter is that map_caption incorporates (and any other parameter might incorporate) a <p>-tag. Only the content before that tag gets lowered or raised. I assume in lower and in raise simply replacing the 'span style=' with a 'div style=' would solve that problem. I don't have the time right now to look into the first problem, but I assume this needs to become solved. Any ideas? The other problems assumed solution can very quickly be checked once map_caption would become passed properly through lower and through raise. Here's the code of lower, for your convenience:

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{2|}}} |<!--then:(offset specified)
--><span style="position:relative; top:{{{1}}};">{{{2|}}}</span>|<!--else:(offset not specified; use default)
--><span style="position:relative; top:8px;">{{{1|}}}</span><!--end #if:-->}}</includeonly>

Kind regards. — SomeHuman 9 Apr2007 20:23-20:25 (UTC)
Update: I literally jumped to a wrong conclusion. This step should have been checked first:
Looking into the html source of your talk page shows the simple lower to have properly returned, and here above well displayed:
<span style="position:relative; top:1px;">test phrase</span>
Let's pass that html to template raise as 2nd parameter, that's:
1px
As the first parameter was 1px for each function, the result should have been an absolutely normal line. Instead our error occurs without passing a template as 2nd parameter to template raise.
I now show the 'span' with top:3px but with the style='' between single quotes:
test phrase
And now pass that same html that totally lacks doublequotes to the template raise:
1px
So doublequotes were not the cause either. Let's try something else,
{{raise|1px|<span style='color:#f06666;'>test phrase</span>}}:
1px So, it appears that lower and raise do not allow html as 2nd parameter. Let's try
{{raise|1px|test<span style='color:#f06666;'>other phrase</span>}}:
1px
Let's try html's simplest form, however with the herein erroneous end-tag of span:
{{raise|1px|test<br>other phrase</span>}} and {{raise|1px|test<br/>other phrase</span>}}
{{raise|1px|test<span id=DEF>other phrase</span>}} and {{raise|1px|test<span id="FED">other phrase</span>}}:
1px and 1px
Wait a minute, there is some difference between br and span that I did not yet try out to its full extent,
{{raise|1px|test<span id="FED">other phrase</span>at end as well}} or {{raise|1px|<br>test this phrase<br>}} or {{raise|1px|<br>test this phrase<br/>}}:
1px or
test this phrase
or
test this phrase
<span> !!! Or am I once more jumping to conclusions? {{raise|1px|<br id="QED">test this phrase<br>}} or {{raise|1px|could <br id=QE2> stay on the surface<br>}}:
1px or 1px
A tag's argument being the cause? Let's make sure and try {{raise|1px|just an equal sign = without tags in this phrase}}
1px
I think I narrowed down the problem to the "=", but can't say that I understand it. Is the code for the #if: published somewhere? Btw, notice the 8px default raise instead of the by argument passed 1px in samples here above, the #if: does correctly execute it's 'then', the decision-making of the #if: parser function appears at fault; another possibility is that :{{{2|}}} simply returns the empty alternative when the second parameter contains an "=". Where is the code that handles "2" to be taken the 2nd parameter? And the code that interprets the pipe character? And the code that interprets the treefold accolades? I should be able to check where it goes wrong by creating a test template and see how things get handled by a named parameter, by an unconditional {{{2}}}, etc.
{{raise|1px|AB_CD=AB_CD}} or {{raise|1px|"this phrase"="this phrase"}}:
1px or 1px
Thus "it" does not act as an #ifeq: function. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 10 Apr2007 19:52-23:17 (UTC)
Concluding
A template (here using fictive name TestTemplate) with this simple content:
<includeonly>unconditional 2nd parameter was {{{2}}}<br/>unconditional parameter abc was {{{abc}}}<br/>conditional 2nd parameter was {{{2|not passed}}}<br/>conditional parameter abc was {{{abc|not recognized}}}.<br/></includeonly>
to which is passed:
{{TestTemplate |param1=1 |param2=2 |abc=param3=3}}
returned:

unconditional 2nd parameter was {{{2}}}
unconditional parameter abc was param3=3
conditional 2nd parameter was not passed
conditional parameter abc was param3=3.

As you probably anticipated when seeing the forms passed, obviously the "=" sign in a 'something <span style="whatever:setting;">...</span>' has to be interpreted quite normally as if the named parameter 'something <span style' is set to the value '"whatever:setting;">...</span>' and because the parameter is "recognized" as being named, it is not interpreting either the whole 'name=value' nor 'value' as a positional parameter. Thus we can only pass some css or html arguments like 'align="right"' as named parameters, and must avoid all templates with positional parameters unless we can be sure something like that is never going to be passed. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 11 Apr2007 05:11 (UTC)
P.S. This explains why in Template:Infobox Country, the Template:lower caused an error on handling Template:Map_caption. Since in {{raise|1px|{{lower|1px|test phrase}}}}, Template:lower returns '<span style="position:relative; top:1px;">test phrase</span>', Template:raise sees that returned '=' in its second parameter as a named one and hence decides there is no 2nd unnamed parameter, hence simply returns its first parameter '1px' raised by default 8px. Logical, but I feel rather awkward about these matching templates not being able to work together (e.g. to raise an expression that would have a few lowered characters inside). Should we consider making these templates use named parameters (or at least the second parameter) instead? — SomeHuman 11 Apr2007 22:06 (UTC)

These templates' behaviors have obviously intrigued you! – or, perhaps more accurately, #if:'s behavior (as you suggest). Bearing the latter in mind, I suspect it might be best to leave {{lower}} and {{raise}} as they are, i.e. as simple shortcuts for moving single elements; I think their main use is to align simple [[Image: ]] elements (e.g. flag icons) or automated footnote numbers (cf some {{Infobox Ethnic group}} examples) with straightforward text on either side. If/when something more sophisticated is needed, however – I'm taking their possible use with {{map caption}} as an exception – you've already completed some of the work necessary. Thanks!  Yours, David (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The intriguing part proved to be how templates determine whether positional or named parameters are passed. I would have assumed that {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, etc would either simply take the first and the second parameters also in case these would be named parameters (including both left and right of the '='), or take the first and second parameters that are not recognized by their name. In fact, templates assume that even an unknown name (one not used anywhere in the template) can be a named parameter (which does not make sense unless as taking for granted that it must be a typo in the name), only because an '=' occurs in it. It does limit the practical usage of positional parameters, to my feeling needlessly: only recognized names should be handled as such. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 12 Apr2007 05:01 (UTC)

Need admin quick fix

with reason: Second part of double move-- Novel into compliance with NAMCON

please move/overwrite the redirect at Goldfinger with the page at Goldfinger (disambiguation) ASAP... I've already fixed the redirect on {{otheruses}}. Thanks // FrankB 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made Goldfinger redirect to Goldfinger (film) (and amended the disambiguation there accordingly) as I imagine most people would think of the movie when hearing/seeing the word "Goldfinger". If, though, there's any consensus claiming otherwise, I'll happily follow whatever it suggests. Yours, David (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was already redirecting like that, but to the novel, n'est pas? Just from the move. OTOH, not moving the disambig, means that all those links that may have been referring to the book (quite a few actually--Bond novel fans seem to have the upper hand in this Media war) now have the wrong contexts, whereas had you done as I'd asked, those references would be like other softredirects... at least a step in the right direction to where the link meant to take you. Sigh. // FrankB 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now redirected Goldfinger to Goldfinger (novel) and amended the redirection notices there and at Goldfinger (film) accordingly (I hope). I also hope this is what you had in mind!  Yours, David (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PS So far, I don't think any action I've taken has required admin "powers"; at least, I haven't been asked or warned about deletion or overwriting...

Hmmmmm, looks like I shoulda visited here again. Your PS is a tell-tale. Admin powers were needed to move the disambig to Goldfinger, which became a redirect when I moved the article to Goldfinger (novel). (At least this way you see what I asked for.)

Heh, Heh, heh. It started as there was no Goldfinger (novel), so t'was the move I made. If you've put it back... let it be... there were a fair number of links to find and fix, which I should have checked first. But no. Wanted the disambig to have the plain jane name, as it should, so the rest of the Goldfingers (the Non-Bond one's) have a fair break. I guess I should have just ignored loosing the disambig history page and copied the danged thing! <g> Thanks, but if the name is redirecting to the novel, or film or whatever, tis all small potatoes compared with getting the text and facts straight. But... If the disambig were 'there' (Goldfinger), eventually someone would connect each to the proper context, which was my intent. I don't imagine there are many editors that write links to disambig pages! <g'night!>// FrankB 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navigation edits

Hey, did you do something special to Template:Navigation? I'm asking this because Template:KDE looks strange now. Ignore this if it doesn't aply. :-) Wipe 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "mea culpa"; a cosmetic change I'm trying to make proved less than cosmetic!  Have reverted the template and moved to a sandbox. Thanks for the alert, though, as I may not've noticed. Best wishes, David (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, I've just put the amended version – now corrected, I hope! – back in place. {{KDE}} looks okay from here, but if not from where you are or you see anything else using {{Navigation}} that seems to've gone awry, I'd appreciate a(nother) note. Thanks, David (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine now, cheers! Wipe 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Turkic-speaking regions

Hi Lexicon,

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATurkic-speaking_regions&diff=122528503&oldid=122482193

(moving turkey to keep the "alphabetical to column end" scheme working (i'd prefer alphabetical by row, actually, since that would allow the last row to be filled))

Just spotted your amendment above – thanks also for tweaking "Tuva" – and know what you mean; unfortunately, though, I'd say the nature of the "[flag] placename" format steers the alignment toward the vertical, as placenames can be (very) variable in length. I'm not necessarily in favor of retaining the flags in this or other templates using them, but while they're there I felt they may as well be tidy. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You could still order them to be alphabetical by row while retaining the column-based layout, it would just require some rearranging of the items. Lexicon (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

True; and it occurred to me that the membership of the template is unlikely to change (at least for some time!) so I've just gone to try the new the format and seen you've already done so – nice!  Best wishes, David (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

[3] Michael G. Davis 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP)

Hi David! I don't have enough knowledege to rectify this, but if you have, it would be good to adapt the style of other navigational templates used at the bottom of Portugal also with this template. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and hope a consensus is confirmed as to a consistent presentation of these templates in all the country articles. Meanwhile, I'm slowly trying to contribute to this goal and plan to pass by Portugal soon!  Best wishes, David (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Adygea

Hi, David! Sometimes I wonder if there will ever be time when we finish this list... Anyway, I made a few changes today, and would appreciate you looking throught the list once again. It'd be great if you could proofread the History section, which I somewhat expanded (covering the most important events of the 1930–1991 period), and if you could take a look at the new layout of the Districts section. With the districts, my second choice is to maybe compile a table similar to ones used in other featured lists (such as here, for example), but I'd like your feedback regarding this tableless version first. Oh, and have you seen the peer review feedback yet? As usual, this is not urgent. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, soon, hopefully – at least, a version that's closer to an "alpha" than "beta" status!  You may already have spotted my tinkering since your message; use a diff to reveal all. I've also made a couple of amendments to Rarelibra's enhanced map (about which I hope he doesn't mind).

I'd say the current version is closer to the ideal of a comfortably readable page. If for future pages a conflict between readability and information content arises, I reckon collapsing the more numerical/tabular information might be a good solution.

On a somewhat related note, could you also take a look at this proposal? Another user wants to help with improving the administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast, and he came up with a table which sums all the information together. The table looks very much like one I wanted to try out next for Adygea (see my message above), although my main concern is that there is no good place to put locator maps in. Any feedback you could provide would be much appreciated. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On first sight, it looks a little overwhelming (perhaps another case for some "collapsed" information areas...) but I'll take a closer look soon. Best wishes, David (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[A] version that's closer to an "alpha" than "beta" status! Surely, you meant it the other way around? :))

Oops, so I do!

Regarding the map, I'm sure Rarelibra will do the requested corrections eventually; after all, even though all this is taking a lot longer than anticipated, we are in no particular hurry.

Cf here (re this, if not already seen).

I also have a few comments regarding the changes you've made (thanks for proofreading, by the way—my prose, unfortunately, is not at its best when I'm trying to juggle a hundred things at once):

1. List of administrative, territorial, and municipal units. You are correct, it it my intent to rename the article once it's ready. I do have my reservations regarding the term "subdivisions", however. I generally am trying to avoid this term unless there is absolutely no other option (subdivisions of Russia being a good example). The reason is that so far I've seen way too many complaints about it. As you, of course, know, the principal meaning of the term, especially in the United States, is a "lot of land", or "land parcel", something, say, a townhome would be built on. It is not really used often when referring to administrative (or other kinds of) units a country is divided into. While in all the arguments neither side was particularly convincing, I am trying to avoid the term (or at least not to rely on it too much) just in case. Do you think the title "administrative, territorial, and municipal divisions of Adygea" would be unacceptable (that is, besides its being quite long)?

I suppose (1) I'm not sure where the distinction between "administrative" and "territorial" divisions lies, at least in this article; and (2) I consider a "municipal division" to be a type of "administrative division" – whether accurately or inaccurately, I don't know – so I'm wondering whether the article's title need be any more descriptive than "Administrative divisions of Adygea"...?

The definitions of "administrative" and "territorial" units come from the laws, and vary from one federal subject to another. Quite often, as it is the case with Adygea, there is no strict line, and everything is bundled under one "administrative-territorial" umbrella, so while in the end we still have a list of "administrative and territorial units", it's impossible to say which is which without original research. The municipal divisions are a different story. If administrative and territorial units represent the framework within which the bodies of state power operate (think police, welfare, etc.), then the municipal units (which are formed on the territories of administrative-territorial units) are the framework for local self-government (think water supply, trash removal, etc.). These two concepts are regulated by different legislative documents, but since they are very closely related, it makes sense to put them into one list. With that in mind, the title of the article should definitely be changed (the original list did not even mention the municipal units, hence its name of "administrative divisions of..."). Does this help any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It does – thanks – although, thinking from a worldwide perspective, I'm not sure if the article's title definitely needs changing (not that I'd oppose) as nearly if not all similar articles for other countries and their subdivisions seem to use the "Administrative divisions of X" format. (The one major exception I can recall now – which I'm glad to've done so as it's reminded me to ask you about it – is the United States, whose templates/articles seem to prefer "Political divisions of..."; my question being whether it'd be incorrect to label them "Administrative divisions..."...?)

Like I said before, the specifics of administrative and municipal divisions are drawn on a local level, although the general guidelines are provided by the federal laws. In case of Adygea, districts are both administrative and municipal, and rural settlements are strictly municipal (calling them "administrative" would be very wrong). Having thought all this over, I now think that the "territorial" designation can be safely omitted from the title (most of territorial units are also administrative), so something like "administrative and municipal divisions of XXX" would probably work the best. Bundling the administrative and municipal units together under the "political" moniker may work, but I don't think this term is being applied to smaller Russian divisions often. So, what would you say to "administrative and municipal divisions of XXX" being used as a title?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess so; I'm certainly unsure about throwing "political" into the mix (or, per my US mention, even using it at all; in this context, it seems something of a "red herring"/"curve ball" to me!). I'm just imagining someone passing by this article (and, I'm supposing, other potentially similar articles) and thinking 'But municipal divisions are types of administrative divisions – at least, that's what Wikipedia's been telling me...'  If, though, Adygea and other (Russian) areas are anomalies or exceptions that prove the rule pattern, so be it! David (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can always re-word the text and/or add more details if someone ever complains about that. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

2. In the 1930s... a decision was made to mix Russians with the native Adyghe population. This sentence is now followed by "First, on January 10 1934, North Caucasus Krai was split...". The fact that North Caucasus Krai was split in 1934 does not really have anything to do with the decision to mix Russians with Adyghes, yet the way one sentence flows into another implies such a connection. Further down, Adyghe Autonomous Oblast is mentioned to become "a subdivision of... Azov-Black Sea Krai", but, again, strictly speaking it was not a subdivision. Adyghe AO was considered to be a separate entity, yet in some aspects it was subordinated to Azov-Black Sea Krai (and later Krasnodar Krai). The situation, while not identical, is very similar to, say, modern Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug being a part of Irkutsk Oblast, yet still being a separate federal subject of Russia. I don't want to restore my original wording, because I see that it indeed reads a bit awkwardly, but perhaps you could re-phrase this passage once more?

I'll take another (now fresh) look; as regards the paragraph's opening, I guess it read to me as if the reorganizations were a consequence of the decision to mix the populations. Glad this possibility has been detected!

...Okay, have tried to accommodate the above in the wording; hope it now reads more satisfactorily.

I think it reads fine now, but I'll give it another look later.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Districts sections new formatting. Looks good, although I bet Renata, being a fan of "human-readable prose", will call it too listy :) Also, isn't the sentence about all population numbers being per the 2002 Census redundant? All population numbers are referenced below anyway.

Re being too listy, you could point (1) to its opening words – at present! – being "This is a..."; and (2) to the current encyclopedia version being a featured... (chuckle). Re the "All populations per the 2002 Russian Census" sentence, I think I was moved to add it as otherwise it's only implicit, i.e. only seen if one or other of the references is accessed. I may be missing something obvious, though, that hopefully I'll spot when I'm reading through the article again.

Good point! As long as this stays an FL and not an FA, I guess "being too listy" should not be a concern.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

4. One question I was meaning to ask you for quite a while now, but kept forgetting, is about "the village (selo, aul, etc.) of Foo" construct. I've seen this alternatively worded as "village (selo, aul...) Foo" and "Foo village (selo, aul)" in some sources, but I could never find out whether such constructs were valid English. "Village Foo" seems to be a calque from Russian (деревня Фу), and the other one just doesn't sound right, at least to my ear. Would you, by any chance, know for sure if they are OK to use?

I'd say I agree, certainly re the "village Foo" construction; and also say that "the village of Foo" seems to be the correct prose form, if somewhat formal... [Testing: "Here we are in the city of Philadelphia..."; "Here we are in Philadelphia City [city?]..."]... Since, though, the article is primarily a list – a "prosed-up" list...?...! – then "Foo (village)", "Foo (selo)", etc would seem sensible... Does any of this musing help...?

Sorry for being dense, but no :( After reading the above, I'm still not sure which of the variants you consider acceptable. Could you, please, clarify further?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure; sorry to've splurged rather than organize my thinking on the page screen!  In a nutshell, "Foo (village)" (i.e. "Name (settlement_type)") seems optimum to me.

5. As for the Moscow Oblast table above, I'll wait for your reply when you have time. Thanks again for everything!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to've replied more promptly!  Yours, David (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Re this, I'm not sure now whether you intend to use this template, but, if so, permission to "be bold" and amend the parameter names...?  Shock-horror(-chuckle), David (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you are waiting on me to archive that section of your talk page, just go ahead and archive it, unless, of course, you have other reasons to keep it open. All in all, I am not yet quite sure myself where I want to go with that template and how to amend it further, but if meanwhile you'd like to amend the parameter names, I don't have any objections.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to update their names sooner rather than later. Yours, David (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

...Have just used a few search-replace macros to perform an update, but haven't tried testing the template to see if doing so has also broken it. If/when it's used, I guess we'll find out! &nnbsp;Hope all well, David (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that shaved almost 25 Kb! I'm going to let it hang for now, but I will return to it some time in the future. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of countries in Europe

Greetings. I am the user who created this article. I deeply appreciate your contributions- they have made the page much better. Since you seem to have some extensive editing experience, I thought I might ask you this question about some recent edits that are not attributed to you.

If I go back to an edit which is between your edits, and undo an edit which is not yours, will that then erase your subsequent changes? Basically, I don't agree with the note about the UK and also 'Holland' was removed from the list as a name. Ongoing debate and contradiction of these issues aside, the real benefactors of this article are Americans. A large portion of Americans do not understand the complexities involved in the naming conventions used to distinguish national boundaries within the UK. Nor do they understand the connection between Holland and The Netherlands. As stated before, I don't think they are ignorant Americans, but because colloquial American and proper English are in disagreement at this intersection of the language, I think it would serve to educate and benefit a large audience as to the slight discrepancies between the American English and the Queen's English.

I suppose there are two questions in this post. I'm more interested in your answer for the first question and interested in your opinion of the second. Apologies for spelling- I am not a native speaker of English, but have qualifications in linguistics.

Thanks for your attention and help!!

Best regards, --Theeuro 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• In case you're working, let me field this for David. I believe he's somewhat to the West of us both these days.

• and undo an edit which is not yours, will that then erase your subsequent changes? -- In a word, Yes. The way to do that is to bring up the diff screen in another browser or tab, and edit in another. Then work in the change, whether it be subtracting some or adding. If the change is something you want to add back, and it's in one of the diff panes, you can usually just drag and copy it, then paste it into the page.
  
  Your other points, regarding distinctions, and whatnot, sound fine in theory, and need packaged in proper language. If something has been removed before, or a term added erroneously, sometime adding the change back and incorporating an inline comment with a note about why it is proper will stick. In any case of such 'difference of opinion', suggest adding a talk section noting the issue, presenting the case, and then pointing said in-line comment to it as a good practice. An in-line comment is set off by <!-- to begin it and a matching close comment ---> after it. Actually, you only NEED three characters, but that's a bit weird to me, so I add the extra hypen ahead and behind most of the time. Best wishes. // FrankB 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (Xposted: Theeuro#List of countries in Europe )

• Looks like Frank has covered the ground – thanks, Frank!  Thanks also to yourself, JR, re the above – which I suppose was an example of inadvertently undoing some edits!  Re the second point here about American English, British English, etc, etc, I'll revisit List of countries in Europe and take a closer look. Incidentally, re your English spelling etc, not only have I not spotted any unusual spellings (how's that for complex English phrase?!) but I'd say I'd've said (!) you were a native speaker!  Chuckle, David (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

X5z

re and aka:

1. {{ltswpd|Commonscat1A}}
2. {{ltscms|Wikipediacat1A}}

David! Ping Email// FrankB 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

David! Ping Email again for answer // FrankB 07:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

{{ltscms|X5}}

PING David Kernow/Archive 18

1. Am soon to be about Finalizing... stand clear!
2. Answer: here
3. I can live w/de English Wikipedia long form, tho' think I'll trim the odd cases so the heading stays on one line.
4. Got a better 'uniform' name to suggest than Othersister? Or do I just stay with Wikipediacat1A and Commonscat1A?
5. Cheers // FrankB 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Just before I sign off for a while,

   ...Got a better 'uniform' name to suggest than Othersister? Or do I just stay with Wikipediacat1A and Commonscat1A?

Since {{sisterlinks}} already taken, how about {{sisterprojects}} (to relate to {{sisterproject}}; I'd free the name from its current redirect role) or {{sistertopics}}...? Yours, David (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah... Those might do. Tho' 'sister' seems so effeminate! <G> // FrankB 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More Names

How do these strike you? Right our of the text for "Short and Sweet-101"! <G>

1. Invoking utimate KISS principles:
   1. Available names here???: {{ties}}, {{Crossties}}, {{matching}}, {{matches}}
   2. commons available (???): {{ties}}, {{Crossties}}, {{matching}}, {{matches}}
   3. & Meta available? (???): {{ties}}, {{Crossties}}, {{matching}}, {{matches}}
2. I think I favor the first or last most. If my plot/scheme/unproposed proposal to be(!) to have this 'tagged page content' become a keyword treated by the preprocessor to interject any foreign language interwiki instead of our links bears fruit, they would seem to be sufficiently intuitive as a keyword, and I'd suspect would alliterate/translate well.

I'll be starting anyway with updating Commonscat1A as that will shake out any bugs that may be lurking. The final naming still has time as the extant usages in place are more important at the moment.

(Looks like our wiki-windows of availability are out of synch... Again! I'll be working perhaps another hour then taking a long break for RL during the rest of this afternoon. Wind storms dropped 5 {count them FIVE!!!) trees in my back yard earlier in the week, and I need to fire up my chainsaws now that things have dried out some.) ttfn // FrankB 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CC by email

I be finalizing these now and installing the code in the old template names. CBD has suggested a few others and opined the original 'othersister' name would be apparently his first (mild) preference. I've fwded that by email. So Pick a name or forever hold your peace! <G> (I don't have a favorite, but dislike changing {{sisterproject}} which I use as an interwiki in documentation here and there. Not sure 'project' would be good anyway, as all eleven sister's are WMF projects, and it may come off as presumptuous to someone!) [X5 completion mugged by other messages... as this was delayed. I've got rain predicted all weekend, so should be around quite a bit and will finish that up tomarrow as I'd planned for tonight!] Cheers // FrankB 06:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I say go with "othersister"... I regret not spending more time trying to follow and contribute to this work at present, but, as acknowledged, I've found myself steeped in template maintenance and construction &ndah; to the extent that, if, like me, your school play for the year was Macbeth, "I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Not so much tedious, though, as simply worth wading through (cf, for example, {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}). Yours, David (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Template:Infobox European Union into Template:Infobox Country

Hi, David! When you have time, could you take a look at the Template:Infobox European Union and check if is possible to merge with Template:Infobox Country? I think the only difference is that in EU, the "capital" is called European Commission and the section Template:EU_members_infobox. Thanks Guilherme Paula 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_European_Union&diff=123363863&oldid=123362049
2. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Country&diff=124368919&oldid=123602473
3. Combined:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_European_Union&diff=123363863&oldid=124368919

Conclude close enough to try using the one instead of the other and see what needs tweaked on a sandbox page. // FrankB 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to reassure you that I haven't overlooked the above and am planning to take a look during my next Wikipedia session. Thanks for your patience!  Yours, David (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...and on a related issue, having just noticed your infobox work at African Union, cf work in progress here and here, with checklist here. Yours, David (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work :-) Would you like to apply this model in all these pages ? - Guilherme ^(talk) 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the plan!  I've renamed the template as Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization, as I reckon this is more meaningful; what do you think...?  Yours, David (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Still haven't forgotten the original point of this thread; now aiming to include alongside the above.

...Hope the issue is now sorted (cf TfD and the one page that was transcluding the template, Portal:European Union/Content). Yours, David (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Crimea

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=124335104

(infobox: reduced <div> width (hopefully without reintroducing overlapping), rephrased map captions)

Yes you did reintroduce the overlapping. I can't use your font. It's way too small for me. So with my font it's seriously overlapping.Bestlyriccollection

Curious; I haven't heard of or seen this kind of situation reported before. My circumstance is the same as reported by dima above, so I wonder if other folk are also now seeing a significant gap between the text and infobox. Do you find this problem elsewhere in Wikipedia, e.g. on other pages using the same or similar infoboxes (articles on countries, etc)...?  Thanks for your message, David Kernow (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Israel

Hi. You dropped the ל from ישראל in Template:Infobox Israel, I can't fix it because the template is currently protected from us mere mortals.--Doron 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting!  This copy-paste error duly corrected. Best wishes, David (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Map issue for Battle of Jutland

Close miss?

How about a bit of old home Geography help <g>, re: City of Sunderland, the river Tyne, and

commons:Image:Berwick-Upon-Tweed_-_Northumberland_dot.png. I have a deep suspicion

the dot on this map is a bit farther north than the actual location of Sunderland and its

shipyards which were the goal of the German raid that lead to this infamous battle...

If you can't confirm or deny, do you know a local person that maybe can? // FrankB 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TfDs

Are you serious? You actually added all those? That's a ridiculous TfD that I just closed, now all those deletion templates have to come off. Lexicon (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly did seem faintly ridiculous!  I'll stop adding further templates now and will happily remove the tags if a bot isn't or won't soon be available. Thanks, David (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the nominator's talk page informing him of the inappropriateness of TfD for such a discussion. It would be a major change to Wikipedia and therefore would require months-long discussion in a proper forum to come to some sort of consensus, not some silly TfD for, well, basically all templates in general. Lexicon (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Amen!"  I've begun stripping the tags from the extra templates – my ulterior motive was to generate my own list of them! – and should have most if not all removed soon. Yours, David (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to {{Aegean Sea}}, since the template was not listed in the linked discussion and, in any case, the discussion was an overwhelming keep. I'll be removing the TfD notice. --Kimon^talk 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – my oversight!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this compulsion of yours to have the best possible name probably triggers a lot of these time wastes ... A healthy obsession? // FrankB 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, something less ambiguous, if nothing else... But yes, I probably have become too distracted with templates and should return to making more substantial contributions. I'll finish the pass through the country articles I've been trying to complete, then look elsewhere (e.g. the above – perhaps cataloging them instead...)  Thanks for the prod, David (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For a change of pace

On making articles look better in large numbers... give a quick read here and give me your thoughts. Thanks (Beats staying focused soley on only cats and templates issues!) // FrankB 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't know if you looked this over, but this abortion attempt is under way. Sigh... (sometimes I wonder how we make any progress around here!) // FrankB 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Couple of AWB observations/queries

Hi again Reedy Boy,
Am posting this here in case it's limited to my computer or something I've overlooked:

1. The latest AWB version takes a few seconds to load – because, I guess, it's accessing the internet – and sometimes appears to've crashed; perhaps the next version could show an "Initialising; please wait..." box during this time and then open the main window...?  (Do you/have you used Spybot - Search & Destroy...?  If so, something like its startup.)
2. Saved settings don't include the list of pages to process (at whatever state it was in when the settings were saved), something I think it did previously... If I'm not imagining this, any chance the option to save the list as part of the settings might be (re)included...?  (I realize the list may be saved separately, but don't find that as convenient.)

Thanks to you and the rest of the AWB crew for keeping it alive, David (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. We can do that. It was mentioned by a user that its annoying finding out if the version is disabled when you start trying to work, as such, it does this on startup aswell now. Added - rev 1902
2. For this one, you are indeed correct, it used to. We decided it would be useful to give the option to the user whether to do this, as such, i think we must have defaulted it to false... Go to General --> User and project preferences. There is an option "Save article list on saving settings". I know this works, as i've been sent lists including saved articles recently. It would onlt be a case of you doing this one, and saving it on your default, then as long as you dont reset settings, it will always do it, even if you save to new settings files.

Hope this Helps!! Reedy Boy 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Reedy Boy; I've just been using AWB again and have already benefitted from the autosave feature!  Combined with the "Save text to file" menu option, I should remain a happier bunny.

Have also found and set the "Save article list on saving settings" and pleased to report that this too seems to be working well. Thanks again!

Best wishes, David (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm guessing {{awbsvn|1902}} was a typo, as autowikibrowser.svn.sourceforge.net reports revision 1902 as invalid.

Template:Infobox Country

Hi Alex,

(50% to compensate for this template looking weird in some articles)

Thanks for your efforts to sort out what prompted the above!  Unfortunately, however, it's had the result of misaligning the flag/symbol display in many if not most country articles. As a workaround, the flag_width parameter is now in place for use in those articles where the flag/symbol spacing isn't working; I'm intrigued to know which article/s these are. Thanks again for your work, David Kernow (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey David, I'm going to make a slight change to the template again, because the template looks weird in this article. All I'll do this time though is change the padding, maybe the width wasn't the issue. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll let you fix it. I liked the old way of using the wikitable for the template better (see the Ukrainian version of the template that I translated). Everything looks fine on that template. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you probably already know, HTML table syntax is used to avoid pipe-symbol ("|") problems...

Hmm... The bug must be IE-only. Take a look at the template through IE7 if you can. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it's another IE shortcoming. I made another effort to workaround it, but, as you'll see from the edit summaries, it looks like something as unwieldy as testing for an "IE_width_fix" parameter might be the only kind of solution. I'm not knowledgeable about browser compatibility issues, however, so maybe you or someone you know could suggest something clever and/or more straightforward...?  Pesky IE. Thanks for your patience, David (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I got it fixed now. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...and I've just finished trying to center the captions below the images as well. The end – I hope!  Chuckles, thanks and best wishes, David (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff protection

I think the featured article should remain unprotected, per WP:NOPRO, right? -- JHunterJ 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for pointing me toward WP:NOPRO. Glad to see the article has already been unprotected. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:World War II issue

I think that comments under Soviet Union, Japan and Free India entries are good idea but I'm afraid many users doesn't read comments or talk pages. See at last Soviet Union discussion - there is no answers on my points but I'm damn sure some will remove Soviet Union entry over and over again. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: LvB nav-box

Thx for the note. Actually "broken functionality" might not be quite correct...On my browser the "v-d-e" links in {{Navigation}} were rendering in the center of the title-line -- garbled together with the title itself. (I'm using IE-5 on Mac OS-9 -- yes I know I'm in the stone age...) If you pointed the mouse just right between "Ludwig" and "van", you could click to the template's discussion page. Maybe wikilinking the title had something to do with it... {{Navbox generic}} doesn't seem to have that problem, and looks the same otherwise on my browser except the list is left-aligned rather than centered. Plus the "group" feature could be useful in the long term as the "Beethoven namespace" develops... —Turangalila talk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request in Template:Navbox generic

Hello! Can you change the titlestyle of the Template:Navbox generic to keep the same appearance of the buttons [Show], [Hide] and the v • d • e with the others Template:Navigation? Thanks - Guilherme ^(talk) 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be useful and have also been meaning to ask about it; as you've probably seen, the key appears to be the interaction between the NavFrame and {{Tnavbar}} elements used by the template, so I was going to approach User:Netscott, Tnavbar's original designer, for his advice/assistance. I've now left a link to on his talkpage to your message above on my talkpage. Yours, David (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab League

Love the work you have done with Arab League! The new template looks excellent! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  If any of the articles listed here are on your watchlist, I'm hoping the template can also be used there. Thanks again for your encouragement!  Giving my keyboard a break before it runs out of exclamation marks, David (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox Company

I noticed that you made some significant changes to the template Infobox Company this morning. In doing so, you have failed to correctly test your changes and as a consequence broken the display of company name and slogans which I have since had to fix. Can I please ask that you go through this template in full to ensure that all the changes you have made work correctly and don't have any unintended consequences like information correclty entered not displaying. Thank you Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. I think the error might be a missing pipe symbol; so I may test this, please let me know the page or (some of the) pages where you found the template malfunctioning – thanks!  David Kernow (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a missing pipe symbol was one of the mistakes in company. You can see a list of the fixes i've made thusfar in this diff. You also forgot to depreciate company_slogan when you changed the field name. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your repairs. I guess I should've looked at more than a couple of pages transcluding the template before moving on!  I've just added a couple of <noinclude>s in order to show the name and type parameters on the template page; does all now seem in order with the template from where you are...?  David (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearing my idea...

Please, take a look here, here and here. I think now we can use Template:Infobox Country to African Union, Andean Community of Nations, etc. What's your opinion ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilherme Paula (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure... Although one usually involves the other, I'd say there's a considerable difference between countries/territories and geopolitical organizations; also, I don't think the articles on all these organizations include (or will include) information such as areas, populations, etc. So, looking ahead, I'm thinking it might be better to keep two separate templates, i.e. {{Infobox Country or territory}} as a supplement to {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}, rather than try mixing them together...

I guess we need more opinions, so if I add {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}+{{Infobox Country or territory}} to a few more articles on the list, more people might notice them and perhaps comment. Thanks for your continued interest!  David (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Have just thought that it might be possible to call {{Infobox Country or territory}} from within {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} in order to add area, population, etc data as part of a single continuous template. How about that...?

Certainly have difference between countries and geopolitical organizations, but the statistics are optional. Don't have problem if don't complete all fields. (e.g: Francophonie)

Is a good idea call Template:Infobox Country from within Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization in order to add area, population, etc data as part of a single continuous template. But, despite that the appearance is not full consistent, I don't think that is more necessary since I modified Template:Infobox Country. If you really want that it is the correct, why not use too call the name, flag, map, anthem, motto and others semilars too, to avoid duplication ? Thanks a lot by the answers ;-) - ◀●▶ Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm cautious because geopolitical organizations aren't countries, don't have national mottos or anthems, don't necessarily have capitals or governments, don't carry sovereignty,... Do you see what I mean...?  As you may already have seen on various talk pages, some people's circumstances make them particularly sensitive to these kinds of issues, so I think it might be wise not to try using one template ({{Infobox Country or territory}}) for both countries/territories and geopolitical organizations, even though this might easily be done. In other words, my concern is not so much about the template itself, but people's possible reactions to its use. Hope you understand what I mean, David (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some organizations have also mottos, anthems or hymn (e.g.1, 2, 3, 4, etc). Really don't have capitals or governments, but carry headquarters, comission seats or other thing. Don't carry sovereingty, but establishment. All these are easily to change or adapt in Template:Infobox Country or territory). I can't understand why create another template only to say: "Editors, it's not a country or territory. It's an geopolical organization." because to the final reader if use one or other, is the same thing. I really don't know what more say to convince you. My last suggestions are, if the problem is the name of template, why not rename to a global name? And... What such to ask for opinions to one third person? Yours truly — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's get some more opinions. I agree that the two templates can be used in similar ways, so, if other people think there should be no problem in merging them, I'll happily come along. To make a start, I've posted this request on Template:Infobox Country's talkpage. Yours, David (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

diplo brats

(Re Military brat, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2007:)

I simply deleted the whole sentence... it is not relevant to the article and isn't accurate. As the articles principle writer, I NEVER came across that term.Balloonman 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's new to me too, but I wasn't feeling as bold!  Thanks for your message, David (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Thanks also for your work on a worthy featured article.

Main Page

Your attempt "to make code more readable" broke the main page. Please experiment in a sandbox. —David Levy 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was fast!  Thanks, with apologies for forgetting to preview. Yours, David (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, think I've now corrected the offending error. Best wishes, David (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Your passing comment/question

re: Your question

• Passing comment: As {{c}} is to categories, perhaps {{t}} best be to templates...?  David (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk about out of de blue questions! I agree with the sense of your question, but how's your hypothetical 'T' differ from 'Tl'/Tl2/Tlx entrenched names? Changing 'Tl' with it's millions of inclusions is certainly unwarranted load on the data base! Not only that, T is pretty well entrenched itself as a table building table. Regardless, this is the first I've seen it, so suggest you need to discuss the sense of a better name and your alternative proposal with the folks listed here: [4]. // FrankB 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I ended up being missing all weekend. On the road again much of this week. Sigh. // FrankB

Well, knowing the huge implications it would have, I guess it was more of an idle thought than a passing comment!  Hoping you don't find the road as wet as recently, David (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Actual picture of the protest should be used instead of picture of Gul himself. I am not sure where is the best location to propose this but you seem to be editing the main page frequently so I decided to ask you. -- Cat ^chi? 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Template:In the news, I'd say that template's talkpage – otherwise there are some other links in the infobox there... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada

Template talk:Infobox Country/Archive 5#Capital/Largest city

Was the above implemented...?  If not, shall I add it to my to-do-soon list...?  Yours. David (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, it was not done. Thanks, then, for adding it to your "to-do-soon" list. Lexicon (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)