User talk:David Kernow/Archive 13

re: {{Navigation}}

Hi Rudy,

(collapsible) ... (make table-based)

Unfortunately one or other of these operations seems to've reduced the font-size used in the template body...

...All seems well again; thanks for any amendments made!  (Or maybe I should've purged my cache...?)  Yours, David (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the font size has increased over here. Did you clear your browser cache? —Ruud 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the above, I think this is an example of what Jung label/led "synchronicity"...!  Chuckle, David (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick request: could you check if the template correctly works under Internet Explorer? I don't have access to a Windows computer at the moment, so haven't been able to test it. —Ruud 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure...

Color should be working now, I left it out on purpose when I converted the template, however. I find one of the most distracting things about navigation boxes not to be that they take a so much space, but that have all kinds of different shapes and colours within a single article (see User:R. Koot/navbox).

Agreed; the issue arose when I was converting the "Gibraltar topics" template to {{Navigation}} format (here) and felt I ought to preserve the (pleasant) background colo/ur used...

David (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar pound

your edit [1] broke some of the layout. Please preview before saving. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your alert. What in the edit do you advise created the problem?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Your revert removed some other unrelated work. Please diff before reverting; thanks. David (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was broken because {{Exchange Rate}} involves some parser function like #if. I understand what you're trying to do. If what you intend to do did not break the exchange rate section, the output perceived by the reader would be the same. So I decided to act quickly and did a straight revert. Regards, --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for your explanation. A sensitive template that I'll try to remember!  Best wishes, David (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox documentation

Please, let's keep footnotes, tables, and other complex formatting out of the documentation; for straighforward lists, it makes things harder to read rather than easier. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You honestly believe so...?  Surely the (invisible) table showing the list of parameters (with the required in bold) is far easier to scan than its unaligned predecessor...?  (Also, surely tables and <ref>s hardly that complex; one or other (or both) probably occur on every (say) four of five pages...?)  Surprised, David Kernow (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Pity your revert also removed my alignment of the code examples...

Tables are good when you actually need a table layout; here, the information is just a straight list, so presenting it as one seems more sensible (and isn't as dependent on the vagaries of CSS settings as the table version—somebody reading it with, say, a text-only browser wouldn't be able to make any sense of it). The invisible table is part of the problem, for example: the field names and descriptions don't align properly when the description runs onto multiple lines.

(This quite beside the point that those documentation pages are transcluded in some non-obvious places with strange alignment issues; unnecessarily complex formatting makes them much harder to use.)

As far as code example alignment: that has to be the single most annoying thing I've seen in all my work here. If a longer parameter name is added, for example, every line will need to be fiddled with. (More practically, funny whitespace tricks are quite dangerous to use, as the whitespace is often passed into the template parameter unchanged, causing interesting things to happen in the final rendering.) Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess one editor's perceived benefits are another's problems...

Re the table, I don't see this kind of information as just a straight list, i.e. one-dimensional, but in two dimensions, the second (the vertical) being a key to scanning this kind of information quickly. That the parameter names weren't all aligned with the first lines of their descriptions is something that could be rectified easily. Meanwhile, are there really that many folk using a text-only browser to visit Wikipedia...?  (Is there a text-only version of Wikipedia...?)

Re transclusion in non-obvious places with strange alignment issues: well, perhaps those places need some attention; I'd say using a straightforward table and <ref>s is orthodox.

Re code alignment, I reckon the lack of it is the single most annoying thing I've seen in all my work here. For the sake of making code so much easier to read – in particular, parameters – just how hard is it to add some spaces if/when only occasional changes are required (such as accommodating a new parameter, something that only seems to happen very infrequently)...?  To date, I haven't seen nor had my attention drawn to any curious renderings produced this kind of whitespace. One place where I'd say whitespace is less than useful is in instances such as:

| colspan="2" style="blah; blah blah; blah;" | This is the cell's content...

...rather than:

|colspan="2" style="blah; blah blah; blah;"| This is the cell's content...

...which, when scanning code, I find makes it easier to discriminate between cells' modifications and contents.

Still, I'm relieved that you seem happy with my substituting "Part of" for "Command structure" in the template itself; I was wondering whether the former might be too vague / simply incorrect / etc.

Vive la différance, David (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I suppose a table could be done, but it should be a properly laid out table that can be parsed by text-only browsers (and their rather more important kin, screen readers). I'll see if I can come up with something useful.

Don't worry; I'm not unhappy there's no table, especially as the page isn't a frontline encyclopedia page, so please continue your sterling work on said frontline material instead.

As far as transclusion: the table isn't too bad, but transcluding anything that uses cite.php footnotes is a very bad idea; if, say, two sets of instructions are transcluded into one page, the second will show both sets of footnotes.

Or indeed any page using cite.php that is or might be transcluded into another already using it – good point, with my thanks for the reminder. Yours, David (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've cleaned up the template code itself to eliminate the condition that caused these footnotes to be needed in the first place, so that shouldn't be an issue at this point.

As to the spacing: as you say, vive la différance. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, too late. ;-)

I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this version; is it better or worse than the straight bulleted list? Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; life offline is intervening, so I'll respond on my return. Best wishes, David (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; there's no hurry! I've also brought up the question here, as it's likely that whatever layout is finally adopted will be mirrored across all the infoboxes WPMILHIST maintains; you might want to drop by if you have any good ideas. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again – yes, I guess a wikitable should be fine, if you/MILHIST would be happy with it; I'd suggest removing the need for the "Required" column by e.g. formatting required parameters' names in bold/italics/etc. Meanwhile, have left brief comment at #Infobox documentation layout. Yours, David (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and nav box

Hi,

It looks like you are interested in template development too, and contribute a lot on Infobox Country. I would like to work with you on this. I understand that there exists some root template for navigation, such as {{Navigation}}. And because of your edit, I found out about {{Navbox generic}}. This categorized nav box appears to be suitable for currency nav box. I hope to migrate all such nav box listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics#Templates that fall into this category with {{Navbox generic}}. But of course, first sandboxed and then released at the same time. What do you think? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Template editing is something I've found myself trying to do recently rather than by design, so I must admit my experience is very much ad hoc; e.g. I haven't yet examined the (many?) various navbox templates there seem to be (one of which, for instance, may be more appropriate than the {{Navigation}} I've recently tried with {{Currencies of Europe}}). So this should be an opportunity for me to learn more about these templates; I'll visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics#Templates and leave a message there/here/in both places. Thanks for your offer!  David Kernow (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Military districts CfD

Hi, David! I am not sure about casing myself, but my concern over this is of different nature. I left my comment there to that effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've now responded in turn (in short: seems as if a split required). Yours, David (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just patched the code

I have updated the example I used at Template talk:Navigation#Header not centered...? so that it will work correctly in IE too. diff

Great; I'll file that "width:100%;" requirement in my head somewhere;

I noticed you said you had copied the code to your user page for later reference, so I took the liberty of updating that copy as well. diff I want to be sure that no one inadvertently repeats my stoopid mistake. Cheers. —DavidHOzAu 06:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of your message as well as edit summary!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rapid transit

You have suggested renaming Category:Subways to Category:Rapid transit systems, but it only covers a specific class of rapid transit systems and is already a subcategory of Category:Rapid transit. Wimstead 17:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I'll be passing by this CfD again anon and will review. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

SFR Yugoslavia

Thanks for the question; you have a good point, however it appears the template is written so that the word last does not appear. I will take a look at it and see what I can do. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page. User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1




Thanks for the Smiley Award. I didn't notice it until now. ;-) --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto!  (Although I did notice your post a little while ago. I guess your criteria are in a safe somewhere next to the Coca-Cola formulation...)  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace, comments and esoteric templates (re: Template:Infobox Officeholder)

Be careful with comments on esoteric templates like Template:Infobox Officeholder; while they apparently add nothing, they are there to "eat" the empty lines, which would otherwise leak and cause unexpected results. Also be very careful with what you put in comments; two dashes inside a comment close the comment, as comments on HTML are not delimited by <!-- and -->, but by pairs of dashes (--) (a lot of people get it wrong, including some browsers; to avoid it, always open a comment with <!--, close it with -->, and never put two dashes in a row inside a HTML comment).

I fixed the extra whitespace on and above that infobox by simply adding back the empty comments you incorrectly removed (to do so correctly, I slightly altered the comments you added to the code). --cesarb 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for repairing the template and for your explanation including the above. I find it ironic that the action I take in an effort to make the template more comprehensible to folk such as myself causes it to behave peculiarly!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

...A further thought: If all the HTML table code were replaced with wiki table code, would that make the code insensitive to these dash issues...?  Thanks for any further advice, David (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I also thought it was quite ironic.

Regarding the wiki table code versus HTML table code, I don't think it's possible; AFAIK, wiki table code does not iteract well with parser funcions or other conditional trickery, which is why the strange mix of wiki table code (easier to understand and change) and HTML table code (works within conditional sections) is used. And even if you could use wiki tables throughout, it's quite possible it would still need magic whitespace eating comments (unless you wanted to turn the whole code into an unreadable blob). --cesarb 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well... it was an education. I imagine someone will now take exception to the comment-headings you had to amend – in fact, I may even remove them myself (but keep the gaps between sections in the manner you've explained) before too long!  Best wishes, David (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

...One other possibility: If a character other than the dash were used between the <!-- and --> comment markers – say ===== [Parameter name] ===== – would the problem still occur...?  Thanks for your expertise!  Yours, David (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but I didn't want to risk using =...=. It would look like a section heading, which could end up confusing the TOC, section editing, and other section-related things (the exact behaviour has changed before, so it's not that predictable). While it being within a comment means it probably would be ignored, the template's already esoteric enough without having it depend on the precise evaluation order of the parser. That's why I used single dashes separated by spaces; while a bit ugly, it does the job of making the headings stand out without having any possible special meaning. --cesarb 14:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I should've thought of that... If possible, though, I'd like to find a safe alternative (for the sake of future templates) so will probably experiment with this in a while. If I find something that seems to work, I'll let you know before I think of tinkering with the actual template again. Yours, David (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikicoded

• User:David Kernow/Template:Infobox Officeholder (and cf instantiation on User:David Kernow/Test page)

What do you think – sufficiently insensitive...?  If so, I'll replace the {{Infobox Officeholder}} code accordingly. Yours, David (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I also tested with a real example (Saddam Hussein, which is the one where I first noticed the extra whitespace before) and nothing seems to break. Using real wiki tables that way, instead of a hybrid, is much more robust. I notice you also carefully counted the dashes within the comments so it wouldn't cause a problem. --cesarb 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad all seems okay for you. Have now updated {{Infobox Officeholder}} and hope no problems will be reported... Thanks, David (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder

Your edits to this template are causing problems for all the pages of incumbents. This is especially apparent on Romano Prodi where the dates are all bunched up on one side and it says he is the incumbent President of the European Commission, when he isn't. Thank up. Philip Stevens 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, have reverted self for time being. Incidentally, noticed anything else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

...Hopefully all still functioning correctly and you approve of the <hr>s added in effort to improve template comprehension. Regards, David (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• It still isn't working right for Romano Prodi. Philip Stevens 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• ...or José Manuel Durão Barroso. Philip Stevens 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No apparent problem with either of those articles here; try a purge / wait for anyone else's report...?  Hopefully, David (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can see a problem. On Romano Prodi, it says "Incumbent" for President of the European Commission, when he isn't and the dates for the time he was EU President have disappeared. For José Manuel Durão Barroso, it doesn't say he is the incumbent President of the European Commission, which he is, and the dates are there but show both "In office" and "In office since". Philip Stevens 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a single "2" was missing from the code; does all look in order now...?  David (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• They both look fine now. Thank you. Philip Stevens 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting the problem!  I was thinking the office titles "Nth Leader of Somewhere" looked a bit lost amongst the other information, so maybe they would benefit from (say) a slightly different background... What do you reckon...?  Thanks again, David (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, it's often difficult to pick out the order, especially when on the second office. You could try many things to make the order field stand out more, like change the background colour or put on a border or increase the text. I think it would be best to start a discussion on the template's talk page and let other users have their say. Philip Stevens 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Have begun this thread accordingly. Yours, David (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_actor#Capitalization

Had a followup question, can you address it there? Thanks. *Spark* 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly addressed!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for WS

Hi, you have been inserting the country infobox with flag and coat of arms on Western Sahara. Western Sahara is a disouted teritory awaiting a final decision to either become independent or continue to be a part of Morocco. The SADR, the Polisario front's auto-proclaimed exile republic has a falg and coat of arms, the ones you inserted. So they are already on the SADR's page. Moroccans would also like to see the Moroccan flag and coat of arms on the WS page, but the NPOV policy of wikipedia makes that neither Moroccan nor Polisario's symbols be on WS. Cheers.--A Jalil 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; per here, I've now removed the flag and coat-of-arms from the infobox. Hope this is okay, David Kernow (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Air Forces

Hi David Kernow.
Please describe the exact quality problems, you feel you have with this article.
The Wikipedia style guidelines is a jungle of subarticles, so it's better to hear it from the horse's own mouth! Regards Necessary Evil 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left an example of what I have in mind as section D; if nothing else, I feel the flag/roundel icons could beenfit from some alignment. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David! I like the wikitable you have designed for List of air forces, but if you are going to run multiple countries together in a single table, may I suggest a more significant line separator between nations? Cheers, Askari Mark | Talk 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and know this is not the only table that could benefit from (say) a slightly thicker border between nations. I reckon the simplest/neatest/most effective method would be to add an appropriate CSS class next to the row dividers (i.e. |- class="rowborderthing") but don't know what "rowborderthing" might be... (...Just tried a quick internet search, but nothing obvious returned...)  I guess I could ask one of the HTML/CSS guys I've passed by here, unless you have another idea...?  Glad you like the wikitable approach, although a little complicated; I hope Lars (Necessary Evil) does as well. Even if something simpler used, I'd say sorting out some kind of alignment/s for the flags/roundels will be a major improvement. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice table, perhaps every country should have its own table, with voids between them. So nobody would get confused regarding what belongs to Denmark and Djibouti. Else the national flags should be placed at the top, and not in the middle as it is now.

Glad you also like the table approach – though I reckon a separate table for each country might be overcomplicated. I'm confident it's possible to use a class="..." or the like to distinguish countries; I'll make some enquiries.

One of the headlines is Air Force, the article includes naval air arms, army aviation corps, and coast guard aviation. Maybe 'Service' and 'Native name' instead?

Good idea; I've amended the table accordingly.

Have you any idea, regarding all the work that have to be done ;-) Necessary Evil 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, once there's a straightforward way to distinguish countries, it amounts to copying/pasting the article's information into tables built from this template:

| {{flagcountry|Country}} |align="center"| Roundel image | [[Service]]<br/>Native name |align="center"| Dates | Notes |- class="...something..."?

I'd be happy to help convert some sections. Yours, David (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm among the HTML-challenged; I only know enough to be dangerous. :o I tried to see if I could change the style of the border lines between nations to something like the border="2" formula I've used for List of military aircraft of Japan and List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS, but I gave up after an hour of messing around trying to get it to work with the wikitable template. I've browsed around trying to find an example of coding to do that, but without luck. Maybe Lars has an idea??? Askari Mark | Talk 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have just left this request with someone I hope will ride to our rescue. Yours, David (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Add style="border-bottom: 2px solid DimGray;" to the bottom row _→AzaToth 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about "border-bottom:". DimGray is a bit strong, so I think I'll try Silver first... Best wishes, David (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what AzaToth has done ... but I see no change in the border at all. The only changes I see are slightly darker shades of gray in the titles and info cells than before, and a change in height of the rows. Perhaps it's my browser (IE7)? Does anyone else see a change in the borders? Askari Mark | Talk 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do like the slightly darker outer border. However, {{Trb}} appears to have no effect. I ran the width up to 100px and nothing happened. I don't know why this should be so. Is there something about class="wikitable" that locks out subsequent formatting changes? If so, would creating a class="wikitable-trb" work? Askari Mark | Talk 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

GDP nominal

Hi BrendelSignature,

(fixed syntax- DO NOT DELETE NOMINAL GDP FIGURE SPACES w/o discussion)

Looking at the history, I guess it must've been me who deleted these parameters – if so, it was entirely unintentional and I apologiz/se for my error (probably due to careless copy/pasting). I agree that nominal GDP figures are a worthy addition, so I hope all now restored. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know what happened. I'm glad to see that you agree over mentioning nominal GDP in addition to PPP figures. I'm sorry if the edit summary sounded a bit harsh; with the capital letters and what not. Best Regards and Happy Editing, Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When I realized what had happened, I sympathized with how it must've seemed!  Thanks for your reply, David (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

CSS

Hi Mets501,
Just passed by your signature and thought you might be able to help with the following more promptly than say the Village Pump: Are there any CSS classes I could use to alter the borders between rows in (wikicoded) tables, e.g. thicken them or even maybe space each row slightly apart from its neighbors...?  I'm thinking of / hoping for something like:

|- class="something"

Thanks in advance for any help and/or pointers, David Kernow (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. There are various options that you could take, with differing outcomes.

{| class=wikitable
|-
| style="padding: 10px 0px" |Test
|-
| style="padding: 10px 0px" |Test
|}

will produce

Test

Test

If you want to thicken a top/bottom border, you could try this:

{| class=wikitable
|-
| style="border-width: 10px 1px" | Test
|-
| style="border-width: 10px 1px" |Test
|}

Test

Test

If that's not quite what you want, just write back. —Mets501 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a prompt response – thanks!  Can this I guess I was so focused on a class for the |- divider I didn't think of trying out style="border..." options; thanks for the reminder. However, can a single style="border-width:..." apply to a row of cells without applying it to each and every one...?  I experimented with (variations on) the below, but no joy:

One	Two	Three	Four
Five	Six	Seven	Eight

Apologies in advance if I'm doing/missing something straightforward. Meanwhile, I'm sure I've seen classes next to |- being used somewhere in Wikipedia for manipulating rows; maybe there's one that could separate two rows slightly...?  (I scanned Wikipedia:Useful styles and Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes but didn't spot anything...)

Thanks, David (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I can't figure out how to apply the border to the whole row... I can apply a background color or something else, but not a border. —Mets501 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Worry not for now; I'll locate a CSS whizz and ask him/her to educate us... I'm grateful, though, for your border-width: reminder. I'll let you know what/where I find something. Thanks for taking a look, David (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Wikima,

If someone makes a mistake within the work they contribute to an article, please do not simply revert all their work; correct the mistake. Thank you. Dasvid Kernow (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• David, I reverted to the last version because I couldnot fix the template, technically, even though I tried many times. I am not familiar with all the technical details of Wikipedia.
• Content accuracy has priority, this is why I thought to go back to the former version while telling the one who has done the change (you?) to be free to fix technically the template.

Thanks - wikima 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood; all that should be required is changing information to the right of the equals signs (=) or deleting entire rows. (If you're unsure about the latter, simply delete the information after the equals sign and someone should tidy-up any strange text that might then show.) Is there anything still incorrect on the template...?  If so, let me know and I'll amend it; by comparing the amended version with the current version you can then see how it was done. Yours, David (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok David, when others change your changes because there are "mistakes" in them then just don't get back to your version as it was including these same "mistakes".

I guess I try to weigh the amount of work lost by a reversion against the amount kept by not reverting and keeping a few small-scale mistakes.

• If yo have a look a the comments lines in the history - as you rightly recommend - you will see what these "mistakes" are, respectively what others wanted to change, namely in our case the "Sahrawi Republic", to delete the currency and the calling code from the box.
• I will try to delete them again, in your template. If then the box shows "strange text" then please come and fix it.

You've successfully deleted them; and I've now replaced them with the value "n/a" ("not appropriate", "not available"). This should remove the "strange text" that has appeared (the names of the parameters deleted). Hope all looks okay to you and that the changes are apparent here.

Thanks - wikima 19:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: Also there was a footnote next to the map (now striped version). Can you fix? Thanks wikima 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the footnote that was number 3, also now removed...?
Yours, David (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I mean the footnote nr 1. It is related to the map and must show there, next to the map. Just take one minute time, use the history, check how it was and make it axactly the same.

Oh, now I understand – sorry not to realize before!  Hope you agree that using the "map_caption =" parameter is an improvement.

• Please can you simply delete both rows "Currency" and "Calling Code"? If your template cannot do this then I would prefere to go back to the fomer one as it is more flexible and easy to hanlde by users who, like me, don't know about all the technical details.

Thanks - wikima 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. As a result of your requests, the {{Infobox Country or territory}} template is further improved!  Thanks, David (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you David! - wikima 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Navigation}}

I removed autocollapse from your {{Navigation}} template. I see it are hidden in previewing page of countries's articles. But box in using {{NavigationBox}} are don't hidden, that are breakfast. To resolution that in some way. Thanks. --Akanemoto 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Full rv"

(Re {{Tnavbar}})

(rv, appears to break plain nodiv mode) ... (full rv)

Oh well... Seemed fine when sandboxing... It must be possible to fix the faulty title centering somehow; is it the result of some kind of interaction between class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" and id="Tnavbar-nodiv" or id="Tnavbar"...?  Regards, David (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS An example of where the comment-free version broke down would be educational; thanks!

I only "full rv"d your latest two edits. Please have a look here. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood...

As far as title centering, did you want to give me an example? Normally for title areas of navboxes I use Template:Tnavbar-header. (→Netscott) 14:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

...Speaking of here, what do you make of it now...?  David (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you can see where the test code you've made has introduced errors into some of the various additional examples I've added. I think I see what you mean about the centering bit... I'm not sure what causes the Tnavbar bits to offset the centering but I encountered this problem before and came up with the header idea. There's probably a better more universal way though. (→Netscott) 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe (a version of) {{Tnavbar-header}} within {{Navigation}} will resolve the problem... I have to stop editing for the moment, however. (I was also thinking of removing the need for the templateName / name parameter in {{Navigation}} via an <includeonly> magic word.)

Thanks for your prompt repair and for reminding me of {{Tnavbar-header}}, David (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

My experience is that if a list of footnotes is given a heading, say at the end of a chapter or book, then the numbers listed aren't superscripted; but if one or more are given without heading (e.g. at the bottom of the page on which they appear) then they also appear superscripted...?

Maybe, although I've certainly seen it my way, and I personally avoid the superscript in the endnotes altogether, since the purpose is to make the note numbers less obtrusive while reading through the work, whereas you'd want to be drawn them when you're looking up the notes at the end of the work (and so larger non-superscripted numbers are better). It's not a big deal—if you want to change them back I won't complain.

Just interested to hear your experience. As you say, it's not a big deal (I'm not on a superscript mission!) but may amend them again in passing days/weeks after this forgotten...

Please explain a little further; I don't follow... (Apologies if I'm missing the obvious!)

Well, in using "significant territory", we're explicitly removing from notes the possibility of things like small off-shore islands, as they wouldn't be significant. If changed back to "partly", then Spain, Greece, France, etc. also have to go back since they have part of their territory on other continents. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point – thanks for explaining!

Yours, David (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Substituting {{·}}

Hi Phil,

(subst:'ing, Replaced: {{·}} → {{subst:·}} using AWB)

Curious to understand your rationale for the above; thanks!  David Kernow (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm substituting this template for two reasons:
1. It's not actually much saving over typing the character in by hand; in fact · is probably easier to type.

The primary rationale for {{·}} is linewrap management, so it replaces (say)  · – somthing I hope you'll agree is even more ungainly (and perhaps daunting/confusing, therefore, to non-programmers);

2. It's used in so many places that it is a massive vector for vandalism of a subtle and annoying nature. If you take a look at WP:SUBST you will find that this is a common rationale. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hence {{protected template}}... Hope I'm not missing something obvious!

Yours, David (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...As its code isn't currently optimz/sed for subst:ing, please stop continuing to subst: {{·}}, at least for the time being. Instead, what are your thoughts re the above...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...Hello, Phil...?  Please read and respond to the above; I may otherwise need to consider a temporary block...
(I hope Wikipedia's messaging system isn't malfunctioning...)  David (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

...Thanks for stopping your subst: edits. I can imagine the above seems less than pleasant and I acknowledge that a different course of action may've been more constructive. I didn't want to start reverting your edits in lieu of further response from you. (I guess I try to follow as much of a zero-revert policy as possible!)  So, I apologiz/se for any upset caused.

I hope you are able to understand my concern and puzzlement as to your lack of response after 13:05. I've added a little further explanation to the {{·}} documentation in the hope it might make its raison-d'être more apparent. I'd appreciate your resuming the discussion above so I may understand your response to my rationale for the template. Thanks – with recognition of your Wikipedia work – David (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to block

In response to these two edits on User talk:Phil Boswell, please do not threaten to block editors to elicit a response from them. Blocks are meant only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and I do not see anything done by Phil Boswell that is deserving of a block. Please read Wikipedia's policy on blocking editors before you "consider" any more. _JD^talk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I feel disruption is underway, as the code Phil is/was subst:ing is not optimiz/sed for subst:ing; cf {{·}}'s history.

Meanwhile, I'm perturbed that Phil appears not only to've ignored my attempt to discuss the matter and then my request to stop and do so, but continue editing as if no contact made. Does this perturb you?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a dot. How can the template not be optimised for substituting? I really don't see the problem.

1. Compare these; which code would you prefer to subst:?
2. As I tried to indicate to Phil, it's more than just a dot; is that difficult to see?  (If so, my apologies, which, if he also misunderstood, I'll pass on to Phil.)

You may also be interested in the fact that Phil Boswell's last edit was six minutes before you left that message. _JD^talk 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When I left the message I didn't know that edit would be Phil's last edit (for the time being).

I'd appreciate your counsel on whether my concern above about Phil's editing pattern is mistaken; thanks!  David (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's not just a dot; it's a dot with span tags around it. I still don't see the problem, as as far as I know span tags work on articles. I seriously do not see the problem. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me? _JD^talk 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the <span>  or  the <small> tags (more compact, so I'd say preferable for subst:ing), it's the &nbsp; preceding them; this is what I was pointing to in my statement "The primary rationale for {{·}} is linewrap management, so it replaces (say)  ·..." on Phil's talk page. Using &nbsp; in this way prevents the separator character (whether a middot, bullet, etc) from appearing at the start of a wrapped line, i.e. it assists in formatting the template appearance.
Suggest placing {{·}} after an item rather than  ·  or   ·  or  &nbsp;<small>•</small>  or  <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>  etc desirable as:

1. it's the most compact here and hopefully the least perturbing to non-coders;
2. if consensus desires a different separator character, spacing, etc, it's one or two changes at a single template rather than many across many templates.

This is what I'd happily discuss with Phil, but he continued editing without discussion or acknowledgement...

I'm puzzled that you seem to have no advice about my read of Phil's editing pattern...?  David (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't continue to edit. He stopped editing six minutes before you left him a message. Threatening to block a person because they're not editing is way out of line, and substituting the template does nothing to affect the end result. What's so special about {{·}} that will stop people from removing it from an edit box if they see it instead of  <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>? I've seen articles with more code that would be much better off on a separate page, see Australia for one. Seriously, unless you have anything new here that's going to convince me that a block is necessary or that substituting this template is a bad thing, just drop it now. _JD^talk 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're seeing the same history, J Di; my first message to Phil was at 12:40, the second at 13:19 and the third at 15:40 before my bold message at 16:30... After an initial response at 13:05, Phil continued editing without further acknowledgement...

I don't feel a block is necessary. I'm just puzzled by Phil's lack of response after 13:05. Perhaps a message to say I was reverting his related edits in lieu of further response might've been better advised...? Yours,  David Kernow (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not surprised. All this seems petty; you're telling Phil Boswell to stop substituting a template when there's nothing wrong with what he is doing. You haven't actually given any good reason for why this template shouldn't be substituted, and you've threatened to block him because he hasn't replied to your message. I don't even care that he didn't reply to your message; I'm telling you to drop it. Now. _JD^talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I haven't given any good reason to reconsider subst:ing. Thanks, though, for your concern. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I feel the way that you have handled this situation is bad. A. substing that template is justified. B. your threat to block him was all most a breach of WP:CIVIL. also WP:OWN might be a useful read for you. you do not control anything. The reasons behind Phil's edits are completely justified, as for optimizing the code, im not sure it can be optimized anymore that it currently is when subst'ed. plus you jumped on him with a threat to block, you did not attempt to have a logical and civil conversation before you thought about blocking. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologiz/se if my action is considered inappropriate. Per the above, however, I question whether the reasons behind Phil's edits are completely justified; but more so that I did not attempt to have a logical and civil conversation. As Phil did not seem to be responding, my intention was to try to minimi/ze the amout of subsequent reversion that may be required. If there's a more effective way to proceed in these circumstances, please advise - thanks!  Regards, David (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Navigation

Mind restoring the default colors (I cant due to protection). It was lost in a revert perhaps. [2]. If people want any color, they can set it. Ice blue was the most widely used color at the time of the templates creation, thats why I made it the default (and its a nice color :P). Thanks. --Cat out 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Cool Cat,

Sure; have just done so – but if folk disapprove, I think I ought to return it to #eee and create a survey to see if there's a consensus as to the preferred default colo/ur. Hope that's okay. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... Ok. Though, it is an optional parameter... there shouldn't be a reason for people to complain IMHO... :/ --Cat out 07:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

An objection has appeared here on {{Navigation}}'s talk page, so per the above I've returned the colo/ur to #eee and set up a survey to see if any consensus pertains. Regards, David (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

...Have posted notifications re the survey here and here (Community bulletin board | News). Let's hope a consensus emerges!  Yours, David (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested fixes from Template talk:Navigation#Protected

I have made some fixes for the current version, i.e. the NavFrame version. Note that these fixes were worked out three days ago as I haven't been able to get online since then.

1. Centering the title can be solved quickly like this:

   Change:

   <includeonly><div class="NavFrame" style="clear:both;">

   <div class="NavHead" style="background-color:{{{color|#eee}}};"> {{Tnavbar|{{{templateName|}}}{{{name|}}}|mini=1|style=float:left; width:auto; margin-left:0.5em;}} '''{{{header}}}'''</div>

   to

   <includeonly><div class="NavFrame" style="clear:both;">

   <div class="NavHead" style="background-color:{{{color|#eee}}};"> {{Tnavbar|{{{templateName|}}}{{{name|}}}|mini=1|style=position: absolute; width: auto; left: 0.5em;}} '''{{{header}}}'''</div>

   You'll have to do this because I'm not an admin.

2. Implementing autocollapsing into NavFrame's autohiding mechanism is only a trifle more difficult.

   Change 1:

   {

   var indexNavigationBar = 0;

   to

   {

   var NavigationBoxes = new Object();

   var indexNavigationBar = 0;

   ---

   Change 2:

   // if found a navigation bar

   if (NavFrame.className == "NavFrame") {

   indexNavigationBar++;

   to

   // if found a navigation bar

   if (hasClass(NavFrame, "NavFrame")) {

   NavigationBoxes[indexNavigationBar] = NavFrame;

   indexNavigationBar++;

   ---

   Change 3:

   // if more Navigation Bars found than Default: hide all

   if (NavigationBarShowDefault < indexNavigationBar) {

   for(

   var i=1;

   i<=indexNavigationBar;

   i++

   ) {

   toggleNavigationBar(i);

   }

   }

   to

   // if more Navigation Bars found than Default: hide all

   for(

   var i=1;

   i<=indexNavigationBar;

   i++

   ) {

   if (NavigationBarShowDefault < indexNavigationBar || hasClass(NavigationBoxes[i], "collapsed")) {

   toggleNavigationBar(i);

   }

   }

   If possible, it would be nice if we could get NavFrame's autocollapsing to work like the customizable autocollapsing used on collapsible tables, but we'd need a bot to replace all instances of <div class="NavFrame" with <div class="NavFrame autocollapse" beforehand. Exactly how would we do this outside of Category:Navigational templates? --DavidHOzAu 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work!  I was about to start investigating this (yes, as prompted here) but will now take a closer look at your message. Here's hoping you've sorted the gremlins, David Kernow (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vojvodina infobox, numbers

There are two big errors with that infobox that I replaced: 1. there was no list of ethnic groups, which is an important information

In other country/territory articles, I've found this information listed within the article, usually within a "Demographics" section. It can, however, be included as a footnote in {{Infobox Country or territory}}...?

Well, I noticed that you replaced infoboxes in other country/territory articles as well, and regarding countries and territories in the Balkans, the information about ethnic composition is an important information that should be in the infoboxes...

Some were already using {{Infobox Country or territory}} and some were not, so I thought I'd try to intriduce some consistency; however...

...Recently, I read some articles about territories of western Europe and I really was surprised that it is impossible to find information how many Welsh people live in Wales and how many Breton people live in Bretagne. The fact that such information do not exist for countries of western Europe does not mean that Balkan countries should use same infoboxes because the information about ethnic composition is very important information in the Balkans. So, regarding Vojvodina article, can you tell me what is wrong with the current infobox and why you want to replace it with new one? I suppose that you want that all countries and territories have same infoboxes, but, as I said, that is not very good idea. Anyway, I would agree that we can made new infobox named "Infobox Country or territory02", which would be based on the "Infobox Country or territory". It would have two basic differences: 1. It should have part about ethnic groups, and 2. it should be 5-6 cm shorter (if possible) because in the current size it do not look very good here if you see the page on Internet Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vojvodina&oldid=88232341 Of course, the second suggestion is only about usage of the infobox in the Vojvodina article, while the first one should apply for all countries and territories in the Balkans. PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

...I agree that ethnic groups can be a useful inclusion (not just for Vojvodina or the rest of the Balkans, but elsewhere too). However, as forking is discouraged on Wikipedia, I suggest {{Infobox Country or territory}} is adapted; have done so here. Re the display problem with Internet Explorer, I now see what you mean; I'd say, however, that such a problem is not a reason to remove the template but to sort out why Internet Explorer is unable to display it correctly – do you know any Internet Explorer experts...?

And just to answer suggestion that ethnic groups could be included as a footnote. You already done it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vojvodina&oldid=88232341 Problem is that most of the Wikipedia users will never click that footnote to see information about ethnic groups. It should be visible like any other information from infobox. PANONIAN (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So I did; sorry to forget!  Yours, David (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2. It was too big, so it pushed down template from the history section and made a hole in the text of history section. With so large infobox I do not see good way to arrange images and template in history section of the article.

Odd... Here the {{Infobox Country or territory}} infobox was around the same height as the current infobox, i.e. produced a layout that was virtually identical. If the effect you report were not to occur, would you be happy for {{Infobox Country or territory}} to be used...?

It is not same as previous one. Just see how this look on Internet Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vojvodina&oldid=88232341 PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it is not problem with template itself, but its usage in this article have a crapy result for the article (I have no idea what effect this template have in other articles, but lack of section about ethnic groups is an big error indeed). Regarding numbers, since many readers of Wikipedia are not native English speakers, they more easily could read "46" than "forthy six". PANONIAN (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(Re numbers:) Understood. Elsewhere, however – especially on paper – this seems to be a norm. (It's also an option here.)

Yours, David (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is protecting Template:·/doc necessary?

Unless I'm missing something (and please feel free point it out to me if I am), isn't one of the advantages of moving the documentation to a /doc subpage (as I did) is to allow the documentation to be edited without causing all of the pages that include the main template to go into the job queue? See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:·/doc versus Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:·. Also as precedent, Template:cite web/doc is also left unprotected. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I'm hoping you may be able to resolve an ongoing misunderstanding!...

According to (my understanding of) Phil Boswell, there is something that you're/we're overlooking, viz.

[Phil:]
> I'm sorry but you've obviously missed the particular point which is
> the major worry (see below).
>
[Me:]
>> I've immediately {{protected template}}
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%C2%B7/doc on reading
>> the above and am just grateful that this loophole hasn't been exploited (at
>> least, not so far as I'm aware). This "doc" subpage (and, I believe, others)
>> was created by User:TKD so perhaps a friendly message to him/her also
>> advised. Meanwhile, I now know that to protect a template properly (and, I
>> guess, any page with subpages) I need to protect all subpages as well -
>> thank you!
>
[Phil:]
> I don't think you quite caught the nub of the problem either with your
> template in particular or with the entire concept of transcluding
> documentation onto a template. The design pattern which calls for that
> transclusion mandates that the sub-page be *un*protected to allow
> anyone to edit said documentation. Editing a page transcluded into a
> template causes the job queue to be filled with every other page which
> transcludes that template.
>
> That's the big problem...and your template had been transcluded into
> so many pages that any single edit to the documentation caused the job
> queue to surge: it went over 3,000,000 at one point, and took several
> DAYS to subside. In the meantime, changes to other templates are NOT
> propagated properly: WhatLinksHere lists are the major victims but
> there are other side-effects also.

[Me:]
Yes, I guess I don't understand why protecting the template and subpages doesn't solve the problem you
describe... Your saying "The design patten which calls for [a] transclusion mandates that [a] subpage be
*un*protected to allow anyone to edit said documentation [said subpage...?]" suggests to me that protecting
both template and subpages removes the potential for abuse that generates the backlog; if this is not the
case, perhaps a rephrasing, elaboration and/or direction to appropriate documentation (written for folk who
aren't well-trained/practised coders) might help me.

If you and Phil can sort this out between you – I know you're both (far) more computer-savvy than I – then I (and I hope others) would be grateful; please keep me informed. In short, with the proper safeguards in place, I don't see why the succinct and relatively user-friendly nature of {{·}} can't be used. (Also, as I originated the template, I realiz/se it's tempting for folk to think WP:OWN is at play, but I'd happily subst: it away if/when I fully understood the problem/s Phil sees with it.)

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Having discussed this with Phil myself, it seems that the /doc subpage trick/pattern does actually work, but his issue is that "{{·}}" doesn't provide much benefit over its simple expansion, in that the "·" isn't the most convenient symbol to access...

I agree it isn't ideal (i.e. requires Alt+0183 or Mac equivalent, etc) but unfortunately it seems all related one-character alternatives (e.g. "." (period), "'" (quotemark), etc) are already in use. Suggestions most welcome!

...and any fiddling with the template itself by admins does cause the job queue to soar. The other thing is that &nbsp; alone doesn't guarantee that line breaks won't occur; {{nobr}} is better for that, because some browsers will break on certain characters even if all spaces are non-breaking.

Thanks for this information. I suggest the code this {{nobr}} template represents (<span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{{1}}}</span>) looks even more involved to a non-coder's eye than that for {{·}}, so I suggest there's all the more reason for a succinct and less daunting {{·}} template.

I myself would rather not subst utility templates, but don't have a very strong opinion there. So, in summary, it seems that the issue is not with the /doc subpage, but with whether {{·}} is the optimal solution for what it's trying to achieve. — TKD::Talk 13:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare

item 1{{·}} item 2{{·}} item 3

with

item 1<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> <small>•</small></span> item 2<span style="white-space:nowrap;"> <small>•</small></span> item 3

I know which I'd prefer, especially if I had very little or no coding experience!

Alternatively, I suppose, this notion of using a non-breaking space before a separator character as a way to improve templates' appearance could be ditched.

Regards, David (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, the idea behind {{nobr}} is to wrap an entire line (or chunk) of text, not just the space. Even so, yeah, the subst'ed version is obtuse. There is a little bit of dissent on the talk page of WP:SUBST as to whether {{nobr}} should be subst'ed, so you might be interested in that....

I'm not (yet) sure how integral {{nobr}} may or may not become as {{·}}, but am about to start a thread on WP:SUBST's talk page as regards whether subst:ing {{·}} really poses a problem.

Since the discussion/issues have shifted away from Template:·/doc, would you mind if I unprotect? — TKD::Talk 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It could/does affect many other templates, so I'd suggest not; someone might change it with good intentions for the sake of one group of templates without realiz/sing/checking that it would/could alter many more. (I guess this is what Phil means when he says it's "still a dangerous template"; to me, retaining it and keeping it admin-only editable is one of its strengths.)  Yours, David (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The /doc subpage shouldn't affect the transclusions of the main template, though. Phil replied to me: "The latest on this situation is that I have checked with the devs and my facts were out-of-date: editing the transcluded page should not affect the job queue when the transclusion is inside a <noinclude> tag. This is still a dangerous template, however. The reason we were so worried about it was that the Job Queue surged to over 3 million; that this turned out to be somebody fiddling with the template itself rather than the documentation doesn't actually make it any less worrisome—all such templates are subject to fiddling sometimes". However, it's not that big of a deal to me. — TKD::Talk 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Phil's reply earlier in this thread and hope he might respond to what we've added since, either here and/or here. In short, it seems to me that there is no great danger using utility templates within other templates so long as the utility templates are {{protected template}}. What makes it something of a deal to me is that subst:ing them (1) lengthens code with material I'd say is more rather than less likely to appear daunting; and (2) makes it far harder to implement a (change in) consensus (which would be a change that only an admin could make).

As regards /doc subpages, I too would want them unprotected if/when Phil or someone (more) familiar with the MediaWiki software confirms your (and my) belief that editing them won't affect transclusions. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case, but simply don't know. If it takes Phil (or any MediaWiki insider you contact) a while to respond, by all means post your edited version somewhere and I'll transfer/comment on it.

I appreciate the attention you've given this issue. Yours, David (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country or territory

Hi Reisio,

(rm newline)

Per my most recent edit:

(partial rv; removing newline causes code to be displayed on template page, no apparent effect on country/territory articles (suggest problem elsewhere...?))

If there's something I'm missing, please let me know!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're apparently missing the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not the template works on its own page. ¦ Reisio 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might matter, as (1) if the template malfunctions on its own page, I'd guess it was more rather than less likely to malfunction elsewhere; but more so (2) I'd say it'd be fair for folk to expect it to function properly on its own page so they'd be able to see the effects of amendments made to parameters etc.

Was it the appearance of an extra line above the template somewhere that prompted you to remove the newline...?  Regards, David (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it includes a newline and every article using the template has a newline in it that cannot be easily removed from the articles themselves. I s'pose it'll fix itself when someone removes the esoteric parts and that template ceases to interfere. ¦ Reisio 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be a wiki/HTML/CSS/etc syntax that positions something at the top of a page when its code appears after other material (i.e. something to place {{esoteric}} at the top of the page even though <noinclude>{{esoteric}}</noinclude> might appear at say the end of the code). I'll (try to remember to!) look into it and/or ask someone expert; give me a shout if I haven't got back to you and/or nothing seems to've happened after a few days. Yours, David (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I almost put in some absolute positioning to do that, but I figured we should just fix the template and remove any excuse for that silly template to be inserted. ¦ Reisio 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heiemo og nykkjen ( Heiemo and the Water Spirit )

For the translation of Heiemo og nykkjen ( Heiemo and the Water Spirit ) see Frode's page at User_talk:Frode_Inge_Helland#Heiemo_og_nykkjen and below. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Frode kindly forwarded me a Word version of this table a few days ago when I suddenly realiz/sed I'd overlooked one of his messages and so re-established contact. (I guess archiving talk pages can be useful after all!)  As I commented in my acknowledgement of his mail, "The story is certainly more epic than I'd imagined..."  Thanks to you both for allowing me some insight into this intriguing song. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vojvodina infobox

Sorry, I did not had time to answer you before, but if you included ethnic groups into existing infobox, then I would not have problem if it is used.

Hope you're not feeling too busy!  I've now reinserted the {{Infobox Country or territory}} for Vojvodina with ethnic_groups and map_caption added; if anything (still) amiss, please let me know.

Regarding problem with Internet Explorer, I do not know how that can be solved, but I suppose I could rearrange images and template from the history section, so it would solve problem in Explorer. PANONIAN (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging might fudge a solution, but I agree that this behavio/ur shouldn't occur. I thought for a moment that it might be due to the subsequent {{History of Vojvodina}} – in particular the clear:right in its table's style – but having tried to standardiz/se it using an "infobox bordered" class, I don't think the situation has improved... If it has, great!  Yours, David (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Just spotted your {{History of Vojvodina}} revert; if size the only problem (per your edit summary) then no need to revert (per my subsequent edit summary). (The template may now be even thinner!)  David (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have no objections to the infobox anymore. By the way, my thought was to include in infobox ethnic groups with their percentual participation (like it was before), not just to list them. :) But, I corrected that anyway. PANONIAN (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Percentages or no percentages; so long as the information isn't (accidentally) lost!  I reckon there are many articles on countries/territories where using the ethnic_groups option could be an improvement, so I'm glad your observations prompted me to add it. Best wishes, David (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

in/of (revisited)

Please check out Category:Wikipedians by location; and its subcats; and then Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians from Argentina and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia (both are the start of umbrella nominations).

I only just nominated them, so there is as yet no controversy about them. Also, it occurs to me that perhaps all of them should be "of" rather than "in".

I'd greatly appreciate your opinion : ) - jc37 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi jc37, Please check out Category:Wikipedians by location; and its subcats; and then Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians from Argentina and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia...

Happy to confus contribute – just hope the thoughts I've left at UCfD will help rather than hinder!  (In short, reckon all three "in" / "of" / "from" types of category viable.)  Hope all well, David Kernow (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I did (and responded), and btw, thank you very much for taking the time to respond : ) - If you have the time or inclination, you're obviously welcome to join in the other discussions : ) - jc37 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Countries and territories of Oceania

I think someone's messing with templates or Wikipedia code used within the template, and that's why things are messing up. The way it is now is completely bonkers, and the way it was before (with Firefox) was perfect, no problem whatsoever. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted User:MrDarcy's edit and left him/her an explanatory note. David (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's odd - it displayed fine in Firefox after my edits, whereas before, the right-hand column (listing the countries/territories in each subsection) was displaying as an extremely narrow column, resulting in a box that was extremely tall but that was almost entirely blank space in the rightmost third of the box. I think this is the linewrap problem you referred to in your prior edit, but in FF1.5, the lines were still wrapping. Obviously I did something wrong - I think I took out one brace too many, although in a preview it looked fine - but as to OzLawyer's assertion that it was "perfect, no problem whatsoever" before my edits, well, he's mistaken. I certainly wouldn't have touched it if it was displaying properly. Anyway, thanks for the fix. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; strange things do seem to happen, especially between broswers!  Regards, David (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nowrap = Template:Nobr :-)

Hello David, not sure which one should stay (I like the title of your creation better) but I thought you should know of the duplication. Cheers. (→Netscott) 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew of {{Nobr}} but must've forgotten about it... so, I've now moved {{Nobr}} (and docs) to {{Nowrap}}; hope Nobr's originator User:CesarB doesn't mind (have left him a pointer to here). Thanks for spotting, David Kernow (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD Ping!

• Ping! - David (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

...and re our near edit-conflict:

(And support the use of the hyphen in the two above mentioned categories.)

I've struck Category:Freely-associated states as I wouldn't like Quuxplusone to see it as an obstacle. Hope you understand, David (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. If it's a concern later, it can always be nominated separately. Also, I just wanted to say, I liked the "Ping" concept. Working on refactoring my talk page just because of it : ) - jc37 10:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

British English or American English, please choose one

DK,
I was reading through some of your comments recently and noticed how you hybridize the BE/AE words to a 'won't hurt anyone's feelings' combo word. Some examples: antagoniz/sing, recategoriz/sation, recogniz/se, et ceteria.

Just pick one or the other and the rest of us will adjust. Hybrid thing, although good-intentioned, is just odd to read for both BE and AE readers. I am sorry if this comes across harsh— I don't mean it to. Regards, MJCdetroit 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not harsh at all; I was thinking the same recently when I found myself typing some of these words in close succession. I think I'll try switching between "s"s and "z"s. Hope all well in Motor City, David (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe one style on odd-numbered days and the other on even. ;-) Askari Mark | Talk 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,DK.
Conditions in Motown: It's too hot for almost December (today's high will be around 62°F, the norm is ~30°); the auto industry, which affects everything, is doing horrible (thank God my company is only about 70% automotive); crime is high; politicians are corrupt; and with the exception of the Lions, all the sports teams are doing well. As for me, I'm doing well. Cheers, MJCdetroit 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Nobr

Hi again cesarb,
In case you're interested, more of the rationale behind my renaming {{Nobr}} can be found here. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

{{nowrap}} is also a very good name, since it's what CSS calls it. And, since it still works the same with the original name (due to the redirect), it doesn't matter which name the template actually has; I can still call it {{nobr}} when I'm thinking of <nobr>. --cesarb 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who do I contact?

Hi David! I've recently experienced an "identity problem" for the second time since joining Wikipedia. Recently, my signature code has somehow changed (not by me) from [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] to [[User:User|Askari Mark]]. The changes are "retroactive" to many — but not all — older edits, and was made to my preferences as well (since corrected). A couple months ago, it was my talk page link that went from [[User talk:Askari Mark|Talk]] to [[User talk:User|Talk]]. When I go to the user page for "User:User" and check what's linked there, a random assortment of my posts appear. All tend to go to posts with messed-up signatures, but not all of the messed-up signatures are represented. I haven't a clue what's causing it. Can you recommend a wiki-techno I can contact about this? Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally began a list of helpful technical folk only a day or so ago and I know there are as many missing as I've managed to recall!  If memory serves, I'd say User:Mzajac (Michael) seems particularly knowlegeable about the Wikipedia software etc or should know someone to ask. I guess the weird behavior you've described isn't some kind of vandalism, but it's new to me!  Hope you find a solution, David (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Haven't forgotten about this above; one of the other people on the list will probably be able to advise re {{trb}} and IE.

Thanks, David — I'll drop him a line. Cheers, Mark

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rescue From Deletion Award - For being the first person I can recall who, following closing a Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion nomination with the result of "Listify", actually created the list! - jc37 21:42, 27 October 2006

Thanks for the option!  I guess I'm a little accolade-shy but linked this from my userpage. Hope all well, David (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)