User talk:Ligulem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger the red (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 24 May 2006 (Added question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

References

Why are you going around to various articles, as psychodynamics, and changing the font-size (from 85% to 100%)? That is, what protocol are you following? --Sadi Carnot 05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadi. Thanks for asking, but you are wrong. With [1] I haven't changed the font size to 100%. Why do you think it is 100%? It is changed to whatever it is set in MediaWiki:Common.css per the class "references-small", which is currently set to 90% per the definition: ".references-small { font-size: 90%;}". It is established practice not to hard-code font size for article text into the article itself. Instead, Cascading Style Sheets must be used, so that this can be set in one location and gives the articles a uniform look. A lot of featured articles use 90% for the references if they use a smaller font for the references. This was discussed on the village pump and MediaWiki talk:Common.css. references-small is intended for articles that want to have a smaller font size for the references. Articles that do want the references in 100% just don't use "references-small". --Ligulem 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts

Hi Adrian, thanks for your note. I deliberately increased the Joel Brand footnote size slightly because they were hard to read otherwise. What difference does it make if font sizes are written as percentages within texts? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you have a bot doing this? You should get a bot. I think it is rather friviolus, but if you get some joy out of this, power to ya.Travb 15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I do have some joy :P. I use WP:AWB (a slightly modified private version tough :-). And there are a lot of special situations to take care of. So this cannot be fully automated, I check each diff. AWB fits nicely. However, I will see how far I come with it. BTW, I do have a bot account (user:ligulembot), but I was told that I cannot get a bot flag for this. So why bother doing it with that account. I also do some occasional additional piggy-back edits in the edit window of AWB. So actually, it is far away from bot work. --Ligulem 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl, what ever floats your boat man. Travb 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stalking me?

Are you stalking me, or are you simply just changing all footnotes?Travb 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, please assume good faith. --M@thwiz2020 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what's your problem? I don't understand. If this helps (but I don't know for what, honestly): I can't remember ever have been looking at your contribs. Please explain! --Ligulem 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke, sorry it wasn't clearer, my mistake. Maybe it would have helped if I put a :) after the statment. Again, as I wrote above, I think your project to change all the sizes is rather frivolous, but whatever floats your boat. I apologize for not being clearer. I think you missed reformating some other pages I did, particularly Plan Colombia.Travb 12:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok. Everything fine then. Joking is a bit dangerous sometimes :P. Ok, I will take a look at your contribs now... --Ligulem 13:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I'll use this in other articles where I create footnotes. Ccson 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It was just such a small tweak. Nevertheless thank you for your kind message. Please consider using normal sized references, if possible, as the small references are harder to read for some users (there is no need to save paper as with a book edition). 2nd best option is – if you really feel urged to use a smaller font for the references – using the CSS class references-small from MediaWiki:Common.css, so that it can be overriden by the user with a local CSS file (as I have done for me with User:Ligulem/monobook.css). --Ligulem 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite web template

Hi,

thanks for the whitespace fix :) The lack of addition to the docs was intentional, as the documentation is basically a contract with the users, and I didn't want to "officialize" something that could be reverted back, or changed according to the results of the (endless) {{languageicon}} discussion. I'm a programmer, so I consider the documentation an integrating part of the code. You know, an old way of saying in the programming world is: if the docs (the comments) and the code are not in sync, they are probably both wrong. Thank you again (BTW, wouldn't   be ok too? or even better?). --Gennaro Prota (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you add a param to that template, there is nearly never a way back to remove it again, as you cannot know whether it is used somewhere or not. The ususal procedure is to propose changes on the talk. But I assumed your good faith and I couldn't see a reason to object your addition. The doc should be in sync. Per the nbsp, I would say a normal space (has to be specified with   due to the whitespace handling of M:PF) is better, because a linebreak is ok there. --Ligulem 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the manual way: you check all pages that include the template :-(. But we are talking past each other, I guess. My point was exactly that I didn't want to parameter to be widely used, to allow a little "trial period" (if one used it he was on his own, as he was relying on an undocumented feature). Anyway, what about adding a warning that the parameter is provisional? I guess when people will, if ever, reach a consensus about {{languageicon}} they will want this template to conform (that doesn't mean the invocation syntax will change, just that it *could*) --Gennaro Prota (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional paramaters on a template that is used in more than 9'000 articles don't work. "if one used it he was on his own", doesn't work. This is what my experience on the category:citation templates tells me. BTW {{cite book}} also has a language parameter. --Ligulem 07:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess I'm too used to programming circles, where saying "this parameter is experimental and could be removed in future versions" is all that you have to specify at "the contract level". BTW, it occurred to me that there's maybe another way to spot all the pages which use a given parameter (I have not tried it though):
{{ #if: {{{MagicWand|}}} | [[Category:PagesWhichUseMagicWand|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}
--Gennaro Prota (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cat idea isn't that bad. It has the problem that articles where param "MagicWand" are used then do have that cat on their bottom. This could lead to complaints by editors. An invisible cat would be cool. --Ligulem 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... how do you create an invisible cat? (Sorry, I'm here from January and most of the time I edit articles, or talk pages; thus I'm not what one would consider a wiki guru) --Gennaro Prota (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about a non-existent feature :-). --Ligulem 16:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool :) But let me make an attempt... (hidden text follows)


--Gennaro Prota (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see :-). We have been labouring with this kind of hack before we finally got #if & Co. See Wikipedia:hiddenStructure (Doesn't work in non CSS browsers and was thus rejected by the community, it's currently still in abuse on some Infobox templates). --Ligulem 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edit summary: "I've seen that this doesn't work"

Hmmm, how come? Kim Bruning 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to talk about this in public. Thanks. --Ligulem 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar!
The Minor Barnstar
Thank you! for all your contributions, especially adding the references-small CSS to articles making references looks neater and more organized. - Tutmosis 22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Ligulem 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

A Barnstar!
The Working Man's Barnstar
For applying a more standardized referencing size to so many of Wikipedia's articles. Armedblowfish 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you make this change to two completely unrelated articles on my watchlist, and I don't watch that many. Your edit history is very impressive. Armedblowfish 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Two barnies on the same day :-). --Ligulem 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the style of references

Hi Ligulem,

I'm quite perplexed about the new references-small class. First of all I think we should have just 1 class, and we already had it. Secondly (and more importantly), shouldn't it be the task of the <ref(erences)/> extension to apply the appropriate class="class_name" when generating the HTML code? --Gennaro Prota (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. The ref extension (m:Cite.php) applies the class "references" (currently defined to be 100% in MediaWiki:Common.css). We have tried to set that to 90% but there was no consensus to do that, because a lot of articles already have those manual div tags with reduced font sizes, so on those articles there would be two size reductions applied (transition problem). Another problem is that there is no wikipedia wide consensus to have all references at 90%. Some people prefer to have it at 100% (including me :-). The important point is, to do the size reduction with a CSS class and not with manual hard coded size reductions in articles. The majority of the articles where reduced references font is wanted (per article consensus) use 90%, so this is not a bad compromise. --Ligulem 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to write that not all references have been done using m:Cite.php. So the separate class references-small comes handy. See for example Diamond. Furthermore, there are sometimes manual references mixed together with Cite.php references, so the smaller font would only be applied to what's in <references/> if done with the CSS class "references". --Ligulem 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have such a list, and it is not only the cite.php-using articles that have hard-coded references font sizes. Currently I'm doing some educated guesses based on what links here of some templates ({{featured article}}, {{ref}}, {{note}}, {{cite book}} etc. were/are some good candidates). BTW I'm using a modified AWB for this (thus no remark in the edit summary about using AWB :-). But I feel I will need probably some more sophisticated tactics. I have also some ideas for some AWB changes. --Ligulem 09:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, historically there have been all sorts of errors in this issue (wrapping <references/> in a div element, using a template in non-subst mode etc.) but what I question is the very same idea of changing styles on a per article basis. If we agree that this should not be done then everything follows as a consequence: MediaWiki decides the class (the same for all articles) and loggen-in users possibly override its attributes. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is two questions into one :) In general, if an article source code doesn't use the wiki markup tools it is on its own. "But"—you may note—"the cite extension is new". So, supposing that the wiki headers syntax ("==...==") were a new addition, what would you do if you noticed a <h2>title</h2> instead of ==title==? Fix it yourself or mark the article/section for cleanup. As to the specific example you provide, I must first answer a question: as fas as I've seen Cite.php was conceived having "anchored" footnotes in mind, i.e. footnotes which refer to a specific portion of the article text (the one to which the [1], [2], ... [n] superscript is attached). Can it also handle a list of "non anchored" items? If so, than it is also suitable for a general reference section, otherwise it can only cope with references that are within an anchored footnote. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intent from the beginning. After all we had some nice discussion. I just feel that we are getting a bit on a lengthy road with this. Thanks for discussing with me. --Ligulem 21:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForge problems

are you aware that the CVS root has changed? now it is

ext:USERNAME@autowikibrowser.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/autowikibrowser

rather than

ext:USERNAME@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/autowikibrowser

This changes a couple of days ago, for a long time before that it was simply broken, apparently now it will be much improved. Martin 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, teaches me for fiddling with everything, in properties => security I had enabled "clickonce" security, I have committed the version without it on now. Martin 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for resizing the refs in the Pokémon articles, keep up the fab work. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message. I've already forgotten that I crossed some Pokémon's :-). I'm on a random walk, due to the randomness of the What links here function. So I might not have done a complete work from your viewpoint. --Ligulem 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you let me know exactly what you are changing, then I can scan the database for you, though probably best to wait until the next dump, as you have changed loads already. Then your walk won't be so random. Martin 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. My walk is not random in regards that I scan everything like mad :-) (I do not use the random article function). My strategy is not that bad, as my hit rate is quite high (I'm following some What Links here's, I just deliberately do not sort them – thus the apparent randomness). But I know that it is a good possibility to do a search on a dump. If my hit rate drops, I will happily ask you for a regex run on the dump. But the problem is that it's a bit difficult to specify regexes for this. There are a lot false positives due to the abundance of hard coded fontsizes (occur a lot in tables for example). I do not only scan for <div> tags around <references/>. There are other cases too (see above). Nevertheless, many thanks for your kind offer. --Ligulem 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Fair use image are not allowed outside the main article namespace, see WP:FUC. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Must have been an edit conflict. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, no idea how that happened then. Sorry. ed g2s • talk 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Argh, you got me!

Arrow → heart. thank ye. :-) Kim Bruning 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrosous race

This was created by Dark Tichondrias but only turned into a redirect later. Please be careful only to tag pure redirects without history for deletion according to the ANI post. Thank you (and thanks for all the tagging), Kusma (討論) 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done trough Dark Tichondrias's contribs. Apologies for any tagging botches. --Ligulem 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if you have gone through all of his contribs, this is finished? Great, and thanks again! Kusma (討論) 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is finished. Thanks to you too for detecting my tagging botches. --Ligulem 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: substing

If you didn't noticed before, the only purpose of that subst was to show how "" works without compromising the example with changes on the template. Clarify my edit if you want, ok? Have a good day. —SHININGEYES 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Correction and Strange Editing

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so bare with me. But I was a film instructor/teacher, historian etc. I have been going over some articles, and noticed you made a very good correction on the article "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company", an old production movie company. I also started delving into the discussion pages and archives. It is riddled with accusations and items far from good faith policy. from what I can see, there are two members that seemed to have tried to "Monopolize" any corrections to the article. Some of these "Cites" and "Corrections" are incorrect and unverifiable at best. I just am obsessive-compulsive and hate to see things like this go unchecked. I also contacted the company it was about, and publishers of the books these two members cited, and found out the inform,ation was incorrect from the authors themsleves (Of the cited books). Just thought you could check out the article, and see what you think. I may want to put it up for mediation to correct this.

Thanks for your help!

--Roger the red

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ligulem&oldid=54933041"