![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Cross-posted with revisions from en.wikipedia Village pump (technical):
Anyone else having problems with the edit window now, after upgrading to Safari 4.0 on a Mac? Instead of the drop-down menu with the clickable Edittools, I'm just getting the full list of them in a single view and non-clickable. Really a royal pain to have to type in all that coding by hand ... Mlaffs ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Insert" set could be moved out of, and above, the drop-down entries, so that the "Wiki markup" set is displayed as the default drop-down entry. Hence, the "Insert" and "Wiki markup" sets would both be available at once, without clicking required. Is that easily possible? Would there be any problems? -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
above copied from Archive 6
I'm not sure if this suggestion was missed or just unfavored. I've copied it out of the archive to give it another chance. (I still find myself switching back and forth between the two sets regularly.) -- Quiddity ( talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please add to this list.
A few links to other sets of edittools, or related pages, worth considering when making changes to our sets. -- Quiddity ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Add "mercilessly" back. It has always been a charming part of Wikipedia. (I'm a veteran under a new account.) Pzrmd ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) {{ sudo}}
Concur in the request. If there's any dispute about consensus, one simply needs to point to that lack of consensus for the recent change. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation wikis now display MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary below the save/summary section of the edit screen; this is for extended ToS type information that doesn't need to be directly above the buttons. Sorry for the inconvenience for en.wp as we're standardizing these messages now in all languages. Accordingly, Mediawiki:Edittools should really only be used for, well, editing tools and related help.-- Eloquence * 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
copied from Village pump (proposals) archive
The toolbar for inserting special characters has quotation marks listed in two sections: "Insert" and "Symbols". Currently the quotation marks are listed in the following order:
‘ “ ’ ” «»
while I suggest that they should be listed as
‘’ “” «»
The symbols by themselves are quite tiny so it's not too easy to click them with a mouse, especially when they are interspersed. However if we group them so that opening and closing quotation marks are inserted simultaneously (similarly to how «» works now), editing of articles might become somewhat easier. // Stpasha ( talk) 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
end of copied thread
I've copied this thread here, before I forget about it. Something ought to be done, but I'm not sure what. User:Random832 seems to be on wikibreak, but I've pointed him here in case he comes back. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was watching one of the videos from usability study how one person was thoroughly confused with our instructions and links below the edit window. I propose to simplify/re-design it. It seems there are several mediawiki pages at work:
My proposal: (a) merge the other two mediawiki pages to a sleeker version of edittools & (b) collapse the lists of hidden categories and template transclusions. Edittools would look like this (feel free to edit):
Once you click the Save button, your changes will be visible immediately.
Please note:
I have no idea, though, how to put the list of templates used into collapsible list -- but I am certain it must be done. At some point editing any article with Template:Infobox Settlement produced a list of hundreds of items (because of country data templates) -- all of which makes zero sense to a new editor. Ideas? Renata ( talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that √ has been removed from the short list of high-use mathematical symbols, with this reason in the edit summary: "should use latex".
I strongly suggest that it be put back. Non-specialist editors, working in non-specialist articles, may have to use the symbol incidentally – directly, or in quoting some use from a printed source. They have no idea how to use LaTeX, and it is unreasonable to expect them to learn. For anyone, in fact, special markup would be both disruptive and inconvenient in continuous text. Please see this from the common editors' point of view, not just the tech-head stance.
We who are working to help editors with uniform standards at WP:MOS are frustrated by this sort of difficulty. And after all, if only "official" ways of doing things were permitted by the edit tools, several other entities should not be here – like the pre-formed ellipsis (…), and the curly (or directed) quotes and apostrophe (‘ “ ’ ”), all deprecated at WP:MOS. But even sticking with mathematical symbols that presumably "ought" to be done in latex, how are ≈, ≠, ≤, ≥, ±, −, ×, and ÷ justified, if √ is not? How are m² and m³ justified, when guidelines call for the use of superscript instead? The rest of us would appreciate some consistency and rationality with these tools. And above all, some consultation with the expert copyeditors who work through issues at WT:MOS.
Thank you!
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:The edittools box should not include symbols that violate guidelines. The better solution would be to have a dropdown for mathematical symbols that use the proper coding. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
11:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal was on my request at
VP. There is a world of difference between the inclusion of ≈, ≠, ≤, ≥, ±, −, ×, and ÷ and the inclusion of √. Whereas ≈, ≠, etc. render correctly √ does not, e.g. it'll give you "√2", notice the missing line over the two. This is going to be a great mess to clean up. Please get rid of it again. I can certainly understand how difficult it may be to use LaTeX, I've spent way too much time here and am still a LaTeX beginner. Sure, we want a simple way of producing square roots but don't we want something that looks right? How about a template adding <math>\scriptstyle \sqrt{}</math>
instead?
JIMp
talk·
cont
06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could we add <pre>
& </pre>
to the second row, please?
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Could we add an additional row, in slot 3, to contain cleanup/ citation templates like {{ cleanup}}, {{ unreferenced}}, {{ refimprove}}, {{ npov}}, {{ fact}}, {{ who}}, {{ when}}, etc. I appreciate that there are a lot to chose from, but we could perhaps use the most-often transcluded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How about adding "ħ"? JIMp talk· cont 07:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Could we simplify and tidy up the editing instructions on this page just a little? It seems to be a product of years of tinkering by many different people, each with their own adjenda. Why is the first line formatted as <strong>? Why is some text emboldened? Why do some links link to the "Project:" namespace? And what is the significance of the horizontal line? Something like this might be a little better:
Please note:–
(My horizonal line is to seperate out the messages from the template and hidden category lists.) It isn't a major change, but I feel it will help newbies gain a basic grasp of our rules quicker, and removes a bit of visual clutter form the edit page. It also takes up less vertical room. – Anxietycello ( talk) 05:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can you post the exact proposed text here? — RockMFR 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note:–
Anxietycello ( talk) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to link the newly created Wikipedia:Copy-paste (a summary document) to the word "copied" in "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." I'd welcome input on the appropriateness of this link. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
"encylopedic" — Noisalt ( talk) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I intend to add a <div id="editpage-specialchars-inner">
, inside the first div in this message.
Currently when loading an edit page this happens: The full static edit tools flashes, then the JavaScript in MediaWiki:Edittools.js kicks in and changes it to the compact edit tools. This is very noticeable on slower computers, where it costs rendering time and causes the scroll bar to jump up and down, since the page changes length.
We can't use CSS to hide the outer div, since then the JavaScript doesn't add the compact edit tools. Adding the inner div will allow using CSS in ones personal /monobook.css to hide the full message, but still get the compact edit tools.
I have tested this, it causes no visible change for users that have JavaScript disabled, not even the padding changes.
Here's the CSS you would add to your personal /monobook.css:
/* Prevent the larger edit tools to flash. */
#editpage-specialchars-inner {
display: none;
}
I think I know how to add CSS from JavaScript, before the page renders. That could stop the edit tools from flashing for all JavaScript users, even without adding code to their personal /monobook.css. But the method I know means using "importStylesheetURI()
" to load an extra style sheet, which seems inefficient. (But I am not sure if that loads the CSS before page rendering, I would have to test that.)
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<div id="editpage-specialchars" class="edittools-text" ...>
in
MediaWiki:Edittoolsdiv.edittools-text {display:none}
in users' monobooks.appendCSS
(preferrably in
Common.js) can hide the div even before its displayed on the page:var etCSS = appendCSS('div#editpage-specialchars {display:none}')
etCSS = etCSS.sheet || etCSS //for Webkit compatibility, if I remember correctly
etCSS.disabled = true
$j(etCSS).remove() //since we have jQuery anyway
appendCSS('div.edittools-text { display:none; }');
importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js")
", or in
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js right before the "addOnloadHook(){}
" that loads the
MediaWiki:Edittools.js. I lean towards adding it in
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js since that keeps the related code in one place, and then that line of code will only have to be transferred to our editors, and not to our readers.appendCSS()
" code to
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js. All seems to work.Doesn't this break the case where users have disabled the JS edittools with window.noDefaultEdittools = true
? —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs)
12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
//Show the static edittools again for users with "window.noDefaultEdittools=true".
appendCSS('div.edittools-text { display:block; }');
Per WP:ELLIPSIS the use of the … symbol is not recommend. As such I have removed it from the list. Hopefully this is not a big deal, but if anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the © symbol added to the "Symbols" set? It's something I tend to use and at the moment I'm having to copy/paste it from elsewhere, so adding it here would be a plus. PC78 ( talk) 15:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Copied from mathsym in the same order, but with internal spaces removed:
'Math and logic': '= ≠ < > ≪ ≫ ≤ ≥ ∝ + − × · ÷ ⁄ ± ∓ √ |…| ||…|| ∣ ∤ || # ♯ ℵ : ! ~ ≈ ≀ ◅ ⋉ ⋊ ∴ ∵ ⇒ → ⊃ ⇔ ↔ ¬ ˜ ∧ ∨ ⊕ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∃! := ≡ :⇔ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≅ ≡ {,} {:} {|} ∅ {} ∈ ∉ ⊆ ⊂ ⊇ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∆ ∖ → ↦ ∘ ℕ N ℤ Z ℤn ℤp Zn Zp ℚ Q ℝ R ℂ C �� K ∞ ⌊…⌋ ⌈…⌉ ⌊…⌉ [:] [] [,] [,,] () (,) (,) ],[ (,] ],] [,) [,[〈〉<>〈,〉<,>〈|〉<|> (|) ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ • ∫ ∮ ∇ ∂ δ <: <· T ⊤ ⊥ ⊧ ⊢ ⊗ * x <math></math>'
Note, the last character x should have a bar over it. - Ste vertigo 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Could the math template, e.g. {{math|...}}, be added as that's very useful; ideally with the same behaviour as format and markup tags.-- JohnBlackburne ( talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great to have at least the basic math symbols in Edittools! I'd suggest that you check that you have at least all symbols with HTML 4.0 entities in the list; these should work fairly well in modern web browsers. — Miym ( talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Very nice, I hope this goes ahead. Looking through the list, I don't see ⇐, ℙ, ℍ, ≃, or the not versions of the commonly used set relations like ⊈, all of which would be good to have since they're used so often. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{math|...}}
" if you guys need that.I recall there was a problem that at least one set of glyphs from the mathsym page (the angle brackets) were from an incorrect character set. There is some discussion of this at Talk:Hilbert space, which I won't pretend to understand. I have requested input from User:LutzL who first noticed this problem. But it would be a good idea to run this by the character set Geeks to make sure that everything is ok. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Any word on this? Cheers, Ben ( talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the status of this proposal? Are we waiting for more feedback? Should this be advertised again on WT:MATH? — Miym ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
<math></math> {{math|}}
" tags and also added them to the sandbox below, since they have been suggested above.Here is a sandbox where we can edit the list. I have taken the original list, removed things that are easy to type (or create by combining symbols that are in the list) and added some symbols that were suggested in the discussion. Please go ahead and add your own favourites. — Miym ( talk) 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 a⁄b − <math></math> {{math|}}
I've tried putting it in a more logical order: easier stuff at the front, grouping related and visually similar things together, putting some stranded chars in better places. I don't know if it's much better, but it's easier to compared side by side with the previous version. I also added one, º, and removed one, ~. -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Some tweaks: (1) The character ⁄ seems to be appropriate only in combination with superscript/subscript text: a⁄b. If you tried to use it like "a⁄b", it looks strange (depending on the fonts, a and b may overlap with the slash and/or the slash may look too oblique). Hence I have replaced the character ⁄ with the combination <sup>''a''</sup>⁄<sub>''b''</sub> in the above list, to make it more clear what is the intended use. (2) I have added " ", which is very often needed in HTML math. (3) I have also added "−", which is strictly speaking a duplicate of "−" which we already have. However, I have noticed that many people prefer to use the HTML entity, which makes it much more clear that one hasn't mixed up characters like - – — −, some of which are near-indistinguishable in some fonts. — Miym ( talk) 12:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
About time we added this. Please replace the Math and Logic section with the following (copied from above).--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 a⁄b − <math></math> {{math|}}
+
and the \
in <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}
(missing too from the text above). The backslash is presumably intended to prevent transclusion in the code itself (though this doesn't seem to have resulted); the pluses are necessary to assist wrapping symbols around selected text.a⁄b
instead of <sup>''a''</sup>⁄<sub>''b''</sub>
. I'm guessing that this is inadvertent and not a workaround for some undiscussed limitation in inserting multiple pairs of tags. The advantages of super/subscripting are discussed above.— Richardguk ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 <sup>''a''</sup>/<sub>''b''</sub> − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}
'Math and logic': '...'
. Hopefully this reduces ambiguity. 'Math and logic': '− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 <sup>a</sup>⁄<sub>b</sub> − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}'
'Math and logic': '− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 {\{frac|+||}} − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}'
<small>
was abandoned), parameters 2 and 3 are optional, so maybe {\{frac|+|}}
or {\{frac|+}}
would be more appropriate; either way, some editors will fail to guess the exact syntax; but I can see that the proposed form has merits in being the most complete.display:none
for an invisible separator with mixed numbers as a+b⁄c; enlarging the fraction slash as <big>⁄</big>
; possible line-height issues). Though the comments are from some time ago, it's not clear to me that they have been addressed. Is the template widely accepted in use?For reference, it's quite simple to make your own sandbox edittools. If you put this code into your monobook.js:
if ( ( wgAction == 'edit' || wgAction == 'submit' /*previewing*/ ) && wgPageName == 'Sandbox Test Page' ) { window.noDefaultEdittools = true; hookEvent ('load', function () { importScript('SandboxEditToolsJavascriptPageOfYourChoice.js') }); }
then you will load that JavaScript page (which you can copy from MediaWiki:Edittools.js and edit as you wish) instead of the standard edit tools whenever you edit the set page. Ale_Jrb talk 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the above discussion about the advantages (and complication) of having a separate sandbox page to test script changes, User USERNAME:Monobook.js
has been suggested as a way to include a test script. But this would require editors individually to create or mess with javascript in their userspace, which would be intimidating for casual and technophobic editors who might reasonably want to comment on proposed changes.
Would the
new withJS
URL parameter (
recently added to
Common.js) be a more appropriate way to activate an alternate script?
Not sure exactly how withJS
is intended to work, but I think it would allow us to link, say, from this page to
any sandbox page appending &withJS=MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js
or similar (assuming that the imported code can be written not to conflict with the code already loaded from
Edittools.js).
Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&withJS=MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js
Of course an admin would need to create and update
MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js but if withJS
works how I think it works, maybe this would be the best way forward.
— Richardguk ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could we add full IPA coverage? I use that menu a lot, and it's quite annoying to have to constantly clip and paste symbols from the IPA article. Tone, for example, is completely missing, so there is no support for most East Asian languages. Plus there's no need for letters like "a" and "k" in the IPA menu. Wiktionary is better, though still a bit redundant (letter-diacritic combinations, maybe not a bad thing) and not very complete (most diacritics still missing). Buttons as on Commons might make the diacritics easier to enter, as they can be hard to select by themselves.
Also, the labels Wiktionary has in their Latin section are useful. A lot of people mix up haceks and breves, for example, because they can't tell the difference by the display of their screen font. kwami ( talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't get IPA ̚ to work properly. I hate to keep editing this over and over.
Can we give sub-section guides? Like "tone" etc. within the IPA section?
Also, can we enter characters through &#x...; that WP won't allow us to copy & paste? On preview, it looks as though we'll get the coding rather than the character. (I'm thinking of angle brackets, which WP subs with CJK characters.) kwami ( talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the logic used by the JavaScript to parse the insert strings (createTokens()). If I understand it correctly, multicharacter sequences like "k̚" are only recognized when surrounded by spaces, so this may be the root of the problem. Please, can someone try to replace the substring "ᵊk̚ⁿˡ" in the IPA section of charinsert with "ᵊⁿˡ k̚"? — Emil J. 13:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
As above - looking at the history spaces were inserted on 24 Nov but the k̚ was added immediately after so was not fixed, and also needs spaces around it.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At 05:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC), I presented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style the following arrangement for Latin characters below the edit window. By using both dimensions, we can accommodate both orders (alphabetical order and type-of-diacritic order). Please see the preceding discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ordering the Latin symbols at Edittools.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Á Ć É Í Ĺ Ń Ó Ŕ Ś Ú Ý Ź À È Ì Ò Ù Â Ĉ Ê Ĝ Ĥ Î Ĵ Ô Ŝ Û Ŵ Ŷ Ä Ë Ï Ö Ü Ÿ Ã Ẽ Ĩ Ñ Õ Ũ Ỹ Ç Ģ Ķ Ļ Ņ Ŗ Ş Ţ Ů Ǎ Č Ď Ě Ǐ Ľ Ň Ǒ Ř Š Ť Ǔ Ž Ā Ē Ī Ō Ū Ȳ Ă Ĕ Ğ Ĭ Ŏ Ŭ Ċ Ė Ġ İ Ż Ą Ę Į Ǫ Ų Ḍ Ḥ Ḷ Ṃ Ṇ Ṛ Ṣ Ṭ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z á ć é í ĺ ń ó ŕ ś ú ý ź à è ì ò ù â ĉ ê ĝ ĥ î ĵ ô ŝ û ŵ ŷ ä ë ï ö ü ÿ ã ẽ ĩ ñ õ ũ ỹ ç ģ ķ ļ ņ ŗ ş ţ ů ǎ č ď ě ǐ ľ ň ǒ ř š ť ǔ ž ā ē ī ō ū ȳ ă ĕ ğ ĭ ŏ ŭ ċ ė ġ ı ż ą ę į ǫ ų ḍ ḥ ḷ ṃ ṇ ṛ ṣ ṭ
{{
editprotected}}
Updated and rewritten.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T–]
At present, searching though the Latin list for a target character is needlessly difficult. Not all orderings are equally rational, or equally adapted for use by real human editors (for whom these lists exist).
Wavelength has usefully shown (see preceding section) the interaction of two categorical variables: base letter (upon which almost universally accepted alphabetical ordering can be imposed) and type of diacritic (for which no widely accepted ordering applies). The edittools are not organised to implement such a two-dimensional array, though. The best we could have is a sub-sequence of all A-forms, then of all a-forms, then all B-forms, b-forms, C-forms, .... Within each sub-sequence there could be uniform ordering by type of diacritic.
Here is the arrangement I propose:
A Á À Â Ä Ǎ Ă Ā à ŠĄ Æ Ǣ a á à â ä ǎ ă ā ã å ą æ ǣ B b C Ć Ċ Ĉ Č Ç c ć ċ ĉ č ç D Ď Đ Ḍ Ð d ď đ ḍ ð E É È Ė Ê Ë Ě Ĕ Ē Ẽ Ę Ə e é è ė ê ë ě ĕ ē ẽ ę ə F f G Ġ Ĝ Ğ Ģ g ġ ĝ ğ ģ H Ĥ Ħ Ḥ h ĥ ħ ḥ I Í İ Ì Î Ï Ǐ Ĭ Ī Ĩ Į i í ı ì î ï ǐ ĭ ī ĩ į J Ĵ j ĵ K Ķ k ķ L Ĺ Ŀ Ľ Ļ Ł Ḷ Ḹ ḹ l ĺ ŀ ľ ļ ł Ḷ Ḹ ḹ M Ṃ m ṃ N Ń Ň Ñ Ņ Ṇ n ń ň ñ ņ ṇ O Ó Ò Ô Ö Ǒ Ŏ Ō Õ Ǫ Ő Ø Œ o ó ò ô ö ǒ ŏ ō õ ǫ ő ø œ P p Q q R Ŕ Ř Ŗ Ṛ Ṝ r ŕ ř ŗ ṛ ṝ S Ś Ŝ Š Ş Ṣ ß s ś ŝ š ş ṣ ß T Ť Ţ Ṭ Þ t ť ţ ṭ þ U Ú Ù Û Ü Ǔ Ŭ Ū Ũ Ů Ų Ű Ǘ Ǜ Ǚ Ǖ u ú ù û ü ǔ ŭ ū ũ ů ų ű ǘ ǜ ǚ ǖ V v W Ŵ w ŵ X x Y Ý Ŷ Ÿ Ỹ Ȳ y ý ŷ ÿ ỹ ȳ Z Ź Ż Ž z ź ż ž ß Ð ð Þ þ Ə ə
I now formally request that the Latin characters be reordered in this way, to be friendly to all editors.
This would be far more usable: anyone looking for some variant of E, for example, can see immediately where it will be found. We readily spot a cluster of variants of E or e, but not a cluster of characters with an acute, say; or with the accustomed dot missing, as happens with ı.
Note:
A challenge:
I believe almost everyone will find this new ordering more usable.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 07:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
else if (token.length > 2 && token.charCodeAt(0) > 127) //a string of insertable characters
for (var j=0; j < token.length; j++) addLink(token.charAt(j), '');
:
", else we need to manually add spaces.Note the subsequent objection by User:Parsecboy at #Accent versus alphabetical ordering below. For consistency, please reply in that sub-section, not here. — Richardguk ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The 'Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites' content is bogus. So is the 'only public domain resources can be copied without permission' content.
The latter phrase is technically true in a sense, but is highly misleading. Free content licenses provide the necessary permission allowing licensed content to be copied, but the whole sentence indicates that only public domain content is allowed, and that's far from true. The former phrase is simply providing false guidance. It's often perfectly fine to copy and paste content from copyrighted websites. (Consider free content sites such as congresspedia (AKA OpenCongress Wiki); the content is not in the public domain, but is Wikipedia-compatible).
The improper instruction of the first half of the sentence, "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites" is not rectified by the second half. The sentence is sufficiently badly worded that I think we need to tackle improving it. I don't think the linked content does or could address the problems of the sentence. I know we have to keep things simple. But "Use few." is not a useful sentence, unlike "Use fewer words."-- Elvey ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a specific proposal yet. Here are a few ideas:
Oh, and a heads up: The "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone" text will not be true once the flagged protection level testing begins. (WP:FPPR)--
Elvey (
talk)
11:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the first link. It's a shame the section doesn't have a page of its own but we can easily create a quick anchorlink, maybe WP:COPYUSE → Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others (in case the section gets renamed).
The word "familiar" perhaps isn't quite right – it's not necessary to be (very) familiar if one has established the position in the particular case; and it's not enough to be familiar if one still fails to understand or apply the rules! Might still put off new editors.
Let's compare the marked-up possibilities. The text currently in use:
Your version 6c:
How about the following?
Advantages: brief, comprehensive. I think "Please" is unnecessary when warning people not to break the law. Disadvantages: unspecific, no reference to copy-pasting from sources other than websites, no explanation of public domain and other exemptions. But anyone relying on public domain exemptions can reasonably be expected to have enough diligence to check the detailed rules.
For the sake of brevity, the text is deliberately ambiguous about who must have "permitted". This is intended to combine the notion of the source site permitting copying and the notion of Wikipedia policy permitting pasting.
I've changed "copyrighted websites" to "other webites" because casual users may not know that most (or all) websites have copyrights, so it is safer and simpler to cover everywhere – except Wikipedia itself. Or are there some common exempt websites from which such a simple notice might deter casual editors from copying?
The important thing here is to firmly deter potential abusers, briefly guide casual users, and usefully steer diligent users.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Cross-posted with revisions from en.wikipedia Village pump (technical):
Anyone else having problems with the edit window now, after upgrading to Safari 4.0 on a Mac? Instead of the drop-down menu with the clickable Edittools, I'm just getting the full list of them in a single view and non-clickable. Really a royal pain to have to type in all that coding by hand ... Mlaffs ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Insert" set could be moved out of, and above, the drop-down entries, so that the "Wiki markup" set is displayed as the default drop-down entry. Hence, the "Insert" and "Wiki markup" sets would both be available at once, without clicking required. Is that easily possible? Would there be any problems? -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
above copied from Archive 6
I'm not sure if this suggestion was missed or just unfavored. I've copied it out of the archive to give it another chance. (I still find myself switching back and forth between the two sets regularly.) -- Quiddity ( talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please add to this list.
A few links to other sets of edittools, or related pages, worth considering when making changes to our sets. -- Quiddity ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Add "mercilessly" back. It has always been a charming part of Wikipedia. (I'm a veteran under a new account.) Pzrmd ( talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) {{ sudo}}
Concur in the request. If there's any dispute about consensus, one simply needs to point to that lack of consensus for the recent change. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation wikis now display MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary below the save/summary section of the edit screen; this is for extended ToS type information that doesn't need to be directly above the buttons. Sorry for the inconvenience for en.wp as we're standardizing these messages now in all languages. Accordingly, Mediawiki:Edittools should really only be used for, well, editing tools and related help.-- Eloquence * 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
copied from Village pump (proposals) archive
The toolbar for inserting special characters has quotation marks listed in two sections: "Insert" and "Symbols". Currently the quotation marks are listed in the following order:
‘ “ ’ ” «»
while I suggest that they should be listed as
‘’ “” «»
The symbols by themselves are quite tiny so it's not too easy to click them with a mouse, especially when they are interspersed. However if we group them so that opening and closing quotation marks are inserted simultaneously (similarly to how «» works now), editing of articles might become somewhat easier. // Stpasha ( talk) 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
end of copied thread
I've copied this thread here, before I forget about it. Something ought to be done, but I'm not sure what. User:Random832 seems to be on wikibreak, but I've pointed him here in case he comes back. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was watching one of the videos from usability study how one person was thoroughly confused with our instructions and links below the edit window. I propose to simplify/re-design it. It seems there are several mediawiki pages at work:
My proposal: (a) merge the other two mediawiki pages to a sleeker version of edittools & (b) collapse the lists of hidden categories and template transclusions. Edittools would look like this (feel free to edit):
Once you click the Save button, your changes will be visible immediately.
Please note:
I have no idea, though, how to put the list of templates used into collapsible list -- but I am certain it must be done. At some point editing any article with Template:Infobox Settlement produced a list of hundreds of items (because of country data templates) -- all of which makes zero sense to a new editor. Ideas? Renata ( talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that √ has been removed from the short list of high-use mathematical symbols, with this reason in the edit summary: "should use latex".
I strongly suggest that it be put back. Non-specialist editors, working in non-specialist articles, may have to use the symbol incidentally – directly, or in quoting some use from a printed source. They have no idea how to use LaTeX, and it is unreasonable to expect them to learn. For anyone, in fact, special markup would be both disruptive and inconvenient in continuous text. Please see this from the common editors' point of view, not just the tech-head stance.
We who are working to help editors with uniform standards at WP:MOS are frustrated by this sort of difficulty. And after all, if only "official" ways of doing things were permitted by the edit tools, several other entities should not be here – like the pre-formed ellipsis (…), and the curly (or directed) quotes and apostrophe (‘ “ ’ ”), all deprecated at WP:MOS. But even sticking with mathematical symbols that presumably "ought" to be done in latex, how are ≈, ≠, ≤, ≥, ±, −, ×, and ÷ justified, if √ is not? How are m² and m³ justified, when guidelines call for the use of superscript instead? The rest of us would appreciate some consistency and rationality with these tools. And above all, some consultation with the expert copyeditors who work through issues at WT:MOS.
Thank you!
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
:The edittools box should not include symbols that violate guidelines. The better solution would be to have a dropdown for mathematical symbols that use the proper coding. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
11:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal was on my request at
VP. There is a world of difference between the inclusion of ≈, ≠, ≤, ≥, ±, −, ×, and ÷ and the inclusion of √. Whereas ≈, ≠, etc. render correctly √ does not, e.g. it'll give you "√2", notice the missing line over the two. This is going to be a great mess to clean up. Please get rid of it again. I can certainly understand how difficult it may be to use LaTeX, I've spent way too much time here and am still a LaTeX beginner. Sure, we want a simple way of producing square roots but don't we want something that looks right? How about a template adding <math>\scriptstyle \sqrt{}</math>
instead?
JIMp
talk·
cont
06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could we add <pre>
& </pre>
to the second row, please?
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Could we add an additional row, in slot 3, to contain cleanup/ citation templates like {{ cleanup}}, {{ unreferenced}}, {{ refimprove}}, {{ npov}}, {{ fact}}, {{ who}}, {{ when}}, etc. I appreciate that there are a lot to chose from, but we could perhaps use the most-often transcluded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How about adding "ħ"? JIMp talk· cont 07:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Could we simplify and tidy up the editing instructions on this page just a little? It seems to be a product of years of tinkering by many different people, each with their own adjenda. Why is the first line formatted as <strong>? Why is some text emboldened? Why do some links link to the "Project:" namespace? And what is the significance of the horizontal line? Something like this might be a little better:
Please note:–
(My horizonal line is to seperate out the messages from the template and hidden category lists.) It isn't a major change, but I feel it will help newbies gain a basic grasp of our rules quicker, and removes a bit of visual clutter form the edit page. It also takes up less vertical room. – Anxietycello ( talk) 05:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can you post the exact proposed text here? — RockMFR 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note:–
Anxietycello ( talk) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to link the newly created Wikipedia:Copy-paste (a summary document) to the word "copied" in "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." I'd welcome input on the appropriateness of this link. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
"encylopedic" — Noisalt ( talk) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I intend to add a <div id="editpage-specialchars-inner">
, inside the first div in this message.
Currently when loading an edit page this happens: The full static edit tools flashes, then the JavaScript in MediaWiki:Edittools.js kicks in and changes it to the compact edit tools. This is very noticeable on slower computers, where it costs rendering time and causes the scroll bar to jump up and down, since the page changes length.
We can't use CSS to hide the outer div, since then the JavaScript doesn't add the compact edit tools. Adding the inner div will allow using CSS in ones personal /monobook.css to hide the full message, but still get the compact edit tools.
I have tested this, it causes no visible change for users that have JavaScript disabled, not even the padding changes.
Here's the CSS you would add to your personal /monobook.css:
/* Prevent the larger edit tools to flash. */
#editpage-specialchars-inner {
display: none;
}
I think I know how to add CSS from JavaScript, before the page renders. That could stop the edit tools from flashing for all JavaScript users, even without adding code to their personal /monobook.css. But the method I know means using "importStylesheetURI()
" to load an extra style sheet, which seems inefficient. (But I am not sure if that loads the CSS before page rendering, I would have to test that.)
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<div id="editpage-specialchars" class="edittools-text" ...>
in
MediaWiki:Edittoolsdiv.edittools-text {display:none}
in users' monobooks.appendCSS
(preferrably in
Common.js) can hide the div even before its displayed on the page:var etCSS = appendCSS('div#editpage-specialchars {display:none}')
etCSS = etCSS.sheet || etCSS //for Webkit compatibility, if I remember correctly
etCSS.disabled = true
$j(etCSS).remove() //since we have jQuery anyway
appendCSS('div.edittools-text { display:none; }');
importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js")
", or in
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js right before the "addOnloadHook(){}
" that loads the
MediaWiki:Edittools.js. I lean towards adding it in
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js since that keeps the related code in one place, and then that line of code will only have to be transferred to our editors, and not to our readers.appendCSS()
" code to
MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js. All seems to work.Doesn't this break the case where users have disabled the JS edittools with window.noDefaultEdittools = true
? —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs)
12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
//Show the static edittools again for users with "window.noDefaultEdittools=true".
appendCSS('div.edittools-text { display:block; }');
Per WP:ELLIPSIS the use of the … symbol is not recommend. As such I have removed it from the list. Hopefully this is not a big deal, but if anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the © symbol added to the "Symbols" set? It's something I tend to use and at the moment I'm having to copy/paste it from elsewhere, so adding it here would be a plus. PC78 ( talk) 15:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Copied from mathsym in the same order, but with internal spaces removed:
'Math and logic': '= ≠ < > ≪ ≫ ≤ ≥ ∝ + − × · ÷ ⁄ ± ∓ √ |…| ||…|| ∣ ∤ || # ♯ ℵ : ! ~ ≈ ≀ ◅ ⋉ ⋊ ∴ ∵ ⇒ → ⊃ ⇔ ↔ ¬ ˜ ∧ ∨ ⊕ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∃! := ≡ :⇔ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≅ ≡ {,} {:} {|} ∅ {} ∈ ∉ ⊆ ⊂ ⊇ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∆ ∖ → ↦ ∘ ℕ N ℤ Z ℤn ℤp Zn Zp ℚ Q ℝ R ℂ C �� K ∞ ⌊…⌋ ⌈…⌉ ⌊…⌉ [:] [] [,] [,,] () (,) (,) ],[ (,] ],] [,) [,[〈〉<>〈,〉<,>〈|〉<|> (|) ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ • ∫ ∮ ∇ ∂ δ <: <· T ⊤ ⊥ ⊧ ⊢ ⊗ * x <math></math>'
Note, the last character x should have a bar over it. - Ste vertigo 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Could the math template, e.g. {{math|...}}, be added as that's very useful; ideally with the same behaviour as format and markup tags.-- JohnBlackburne ( talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great to have at least the basic math symbols in Edittools! I'd suggest that you check that you have at least all symbols with HTML 4.0 entities in the list; these should work fairly well in modern web browsers. — Miym ( talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Very nice, I hope this goes ahead. Looking through the list, I don't see ⇐, ℙ, ℍ, ≃, or the not versions of the commonly used set relations like ⊈, all of which would be good to have since they're used so often. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{math|...}}
" if you guys need that.I recall there was a problem that at least one set of glyphs from the mathsym page (the angle brackets) were from an incorrect character set. There is some discussion of this at Talk:Hilbert space, which I won't pretend to understand. I have requested input from User:LutzL who first noticed this problem. But it would be a good idea to run this by the character set Geeks to make sure that everything is ok. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Any word on this? Cheers, Ben ( talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the status of this proposal? Are we waiting for more feedback? Should this be advertised again on WT:MATH? — Miym ( talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
<math></math> {{math|}}
" tags and also added them to the sandbox below, since they have been suggested above.Here is a sandbox where we can edit the list. I have taken the original list, removed things that are easy to type (or create by combining symbols that are in the list) and added some symbols that were suggested in the discussion. Please go ahead and add your own favourites. — Miym ( talk) 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 a⁄b − <math></math> {{math|}}
I've tried putting it in a more logical order: easier stuff at the front, grouping related and visually similar things together, putting some stranded chars in better places. I don't know if it's much better, but it's easier to compared side by side with the previous version. I also added one, º, and removed one, ~. -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Some tweaks: (1) The character ⁄ seems to be appropriate only in combination with superscript/subscript text: a⁄b. If you tried to use it like "a⁄b", it looks strange (depending on the fonts, a and b may overlap with the slash and/or the slash may look too oblique). Hence I have replaced the character ⁄ with the combination <sup>''a''</sup>⁄<sub>''b''</sub> in the above list, to make it more clear what is the intended use. (2) I have added " ", which is very often needed in HTML math. (3) I have also added "−", which is strictly speaking a duplicate of "−" which we already have. However, I have noticed that many people prefer to use the HTML entity, which makes it much more clear that one hasn't mixed up characters like - – — −, some of which are near-indistinguishable in some fonts. — Miym ( talk) 12:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
About time we added this. Please replace the Math and Logic section with the following (copied from above).--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 a⁄b − <math></math> {{math|}}
+
and the \
in <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}
(missing too from the text above). The backslash is presumably intended to prevent transclusion in the code itself (though this doesn't seem to have resulted); the pluses are necessary to assist wrapping symbols around selected text.a⁄b
instead of <sup>''a''</sup>⁄<sub>''b''</sub>
. I'm guessing that this is inadvertent and not a workaround for some undiscussed limitation in inserting multiple pairs of tags. The advantages of super/subscripting are discussed above.— Richardguk ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 <sup>''a''</sup>/<sub>''b''</sub> − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}
'Math and logic': '...'
. Hopefully this reduces ambiguity. 'Math and logic': '− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 <sup>a</sup>⁄<sub>b</sub> − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}'
'Math and logic': '− × ÷ ⋅ ° ∗ ∘ ± ∓ ≤ ≥ ≠ ≡ ≅ ≜ ≝ ≐ ≃ ≈ ⊕ ⊗ ⇐ ⇔ ⇒ ∞ ← ↔ → ≪ ≫ ∝ √ ∤ ≀ ◅ ▻ ⋉ ⋊ ⋈ ∴ ∵ ↦ ¬ ∧ ∨ ⊻ ∀ ∃ ∈ ∉ ∋ ⊆ ⊈ ⊊ ⊂ ⊄ ⊇ ⊉ ⊋ ⊃ ⊅ ∪ ∩ ∑ ∏ ∐ ′ ∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∇ ∂ ∆ ∅ ℂ ℍ ℕ ℙ ℚ ℝ ℤ ℵ ⌊ ⌋ ⌈ ⌉ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊣ ⊧ □ ∠ 〈 〉 {\{frac|+||}} − <math>+</math> {\{math|+}}'
<small>
was abandoned), parameters 2 and 3 are optional, so maybe {\{frac|+|}}
or {\{frac|+}}
would be more appropriate; either way, some editors will fail to guess the exact syntax; but I can see that the proposed form has merits in being the most complete.display:none
for an invisible separator with mixed numbers as a+b⁄c; enlarging the fraction slash as <big>⁄</big>
; possible line-height issues). Though the comments are from some time ago, it's not clear to me that they have been addressed. Is the template widely accepted in use?For reference, it's quite simple to make your own sandbox edittools. If you put this code into your monobook.js:
if ( ( wgAction == 'edit' || wgAction == 'submit' /*previewing*/ ) && wgPageName == 'Sandbox Test Page' ) { window.noDefaultEdittools = true; hookEvent ('load', function () { importScript('SandboxEditToolsJavascriptPageOfYourChoice.js') }); }
then you will load that JavaScript page (which you can copy from MediaWiki:Edittools.js and edit as you wish) instead of the standard edit tools whenever you edit the set page. Ale_Jrb talk 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the above discussion about the advantages (and complication) of having a separate sandbox page to test script changes, User USERNAME:Monobook.js
has been suggested as a way to include a test script. But this would require editors individually to create or mess with javascript in their userspace, which would be intimidating for casual and technophobic editors who might reasonably want to comment on proposed changes.
Would the
new withJS
URL parameter (
recently added to
Common.js) be a more appropriate way to activate an alternate script?
Not sure exactly how withJS
is intended to work, but I think it would allow us to link, say, from this page to
any sandbox page appending &withJS=MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js
or similar (assuming that the imported code can be written not to conflict with the code already loaded from
Edittools.js).
Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=edit&withJS=MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js
Of course an admin would need to create and update
MediaWiki:Edittools/sandbox.js but if withJS
works how I think it works, maybe this would be the best way forward.
— Richardguk ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could we add full IPA coverage? I use that menu a lot, and it's quite annoying to have to constantly clip and paste symbols from the IPA article. Tone, for example, is completely missing, so there is no support for most East Asian languages. Plus there's no need for letters like "a" and "k" in the IPA menu. Wiktionary is better, though still a bit redundant (letter-diacritic combinations, maybe not a bad thing) and not very complete (most diacritics still missing). Buttons as on Commons might make the diacritics easier to enter, as they can be hard to select by themselves.
Also, the labels Wiktionary has in their Latin section are useful. A lot of people mix up haceks and breves, for example, because they can't tell the difference by the display of their screen font. kwami ( talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't get IPA ̚ to work properly. I hate to keep editing this over and over.
Can we give sub-section guides? Like "tone" etc. within the IPA section?
Also, can we enter characters through &#x...; that WP won't allow us to copy & paste? On preview, it looks as though we'll get the coding rather than the character. (I'm thinking of angle brackets, which WP subs with CJK characters.) kwami ( talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the logic used by the JavaScript to parse the insert strings (createTokens()). If I understand it correctly, multicharacter sequences like "k̚" are only recognized when surrounded by spaces, so this may be the root of the problem. Please, can someone try to replace the substring "ᵊk̚ⁿˡ" in the IPA section of charinsert with "ᵊⁿˡ k̚"? — Emil J. 13:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
As above - looking at the history spaces were inserted on 24 Nov but the k̚ was added immediately after so was not fixed, and also needs spaces around it.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At 05:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC), I presented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style the following arrangement for Latin characters below the edit window. By using both dimensions, we can accommodate both orders (alphabetical order and type-of-diacritic order). Please see the preceding discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ordering the Latin symbols at Edittools.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Á Ć É Í Ĺ Ń Ó Ŕ Ś Ú Ý Ź À È Ì Ò Ù Â Ĉ Ê Ĝ Ĥ Î Ĵ Ô Ŝ Û Ŵ Ŷ Ä Ë Ï Ö Ü Ÿ Ã Ẽ Ĩ Ñ Õ Ũ Ỹ Ç Ģ Ķ Ļ Ņ Ŗ Ş Ţ Ů Ǎ Č Ď Ě Ǐ Ľ Ň Ǒ Ř Š Ť Ǔ Ž Ā Ē Ī Ō Ū Ȳ Ă Ĕ Ğ Ĭ Ŏ Ŭ Ċ Ė Ġ İ Ż Ą Ę Į Ǫ Ų Ḍ Ḥ Ḷ Ṃ Ṇ Ṛ Ṣ Ṭ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z á ć é í ĺ ń ó ŕ ś ú ý ź à è ì ò ù â ĉ ê ĝ ĥ î ĵ ô ŝ û ŵ ŷ ä ë ï ö ü ÿ ã ẽ ĩ ñ õ ũ ỹ ç ģ ķ ļ ņ ŗ ş ţ ů ǎ č ď ě ǐ ľ ň ǒ ř š ť ǔ ž ā ē ī ō ū ȳ ă ĕ ğ ĭ ŏ ŭ ċ ė ġ ı ż ą ę į ǫ ų ḍ ḥ ḷ ṃ ṇ ṛ ṣ ṭ
{{
editprotected}}
Updated and rewritten.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T–]
At present, searching though the Latin list for a target character is needlessly difficult. Not all orderings are equally rational, or equally adapted for use by real human editors (for whom these lists exist).
Wavelength has usefully shown (see preceding section) the interaction of two categorical variables: base letter (upon which almost universally accepted alphabetical ordering can be imposed) and type of diacritic (for which no widely accepted ordering applies). The edittools are not organised to implement such a two-dimensional array, though. The best we could have is a sub-sequence of all A-forms, then of all a-forms, then all B-forms, b-forms, C-forms, .... Within each sub-sequence there could be uniform ordering by type of diacritic.
Here is the arrangement I propose:
A Á À Â Ä Ǎ Ă Ā à ŠĄ Æ Ǣ a á à â ä ǎ ă ā ã å ą æ ǣ B b C Ć Ċ Ĉ Č Ç c ć ċ ĉ č ç D Ď Đ Ḍ Ð d ď đ ḍ ð E É È Ė Ê Ë Ě Ĕ Ē Ẽ Ę Ə e é è ė ê ë ě ĕ ē ẽ ę ə F f G Ġ Ĝ Ğ Ģ g ġ ĝ ğ ģ H Ĥ Ħ Ḥ h ĥ ħ ḥ I Í İ Ì Î Ï Ǐ Ĭ Ī Ĩ Į i í ı ì î ï ǐ ĭ ī ĩ į J Ĵ j ĵ K Ķ k ķ L Ĺ Ŀ Ľ Ļ Ł Ḷ Ḹ ḹ l ĺ ŀ ľ ļ ł Ḷ Ḹ ḹ M Ṃ m ṃ N Ń Ň Ñ Ņ Ṇ n ń ň ñ ņ ṇ O Ó Ò Ô Ö Ǒ Ŏ Ō Õ Ǫ Ő Ø Œ o ó ò ô ö ǒ ŏ ō õ ǫ ő ø œ P p Q q R Ŕ Ř Ŗ Ṛ Ṝ r ŕ ř ŗ ṛ ṝ S Ś Ŝ Š Ş Ṣ ß s ś ŝ š ş ṣ ß T Ť Ţ Ṭ Þ t ť ţ ṭ þ U Ú Ù Û Ü Ǔ Ŭ Ū Ũ Ů Ų Ű Ǘ Ǜ Ǚ Ǖ u ú ù û ü ǔ ŭ ū ũ ů ų ű ǘ ǜ ǚ ǖ V v W Ŵ w ŵ X x Y Ý Ŷ Ÿ Ỹ Ȳ y ý ŷ ÿ ỹ ȳ Z Ź Ż Ž z ź ż ž ß Ð ð Þ þ Ə ə
I now formally request that the Latin characters be reordered in this way, to be friendly to all editors.
This would be far more usable: anyone looking for some variant of E, for example, can see immediately where it will be found. We readily spot a cluster of variants of E or e, but not a cluster of characters with an acute, say; or with the accustomed dot missing, as happens with ı.
Note:
A challenge:
I believe almost everyone will find this new ordering more usable.
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 07:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
else if (token.length > 2 && token.charCodeAt(0) > 127) //a string of insertable characters
for (var j=0; j < token.length; j++) addLink(token.charAt(j), '');
:
", else we need to manually add spaces.Note the subsequent objection by User:Parsecboy at #Accent versus alphabetical ordering below. For consistency, please reply in that sub-section, not here. — Richardguk ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The 'Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites' content is bogus. So is the 'only public domain resources can be copied without permission' content.
The latter phrase is technically true in a sense, but is highly misleading. Free content licenses provide the necessary permission allowing licensed content to be copied, but the whole sentence indicates that only public domain content is allowed, and that's far from true. The former phrase is simply providing false guidance. It's often perfectly fine to copy and paste content from copyrighted websites. (Consider free content sites such as congresspedia (AKA OpenCongress Wiki); the content is not in the public domain, but is Wikipedia-compatible).
The improper instruction of the first half of the sentence, "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites" is not rectified by the second half. The sentence is sufficiently badly worded that I think we need to tackle improving it. I don't think the linked content does or could address the problems of the sentence. I know we have to keep things simple. But "Use few." is not a useful sentence, unlike "Use fewer words."-- Elvey ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a specific proposal yet. Here are a few ideas:
Oh, and a heads up: The "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone" text will not be true once the flagged protection level testing begins. (WP:FPPR)--
Elvey (
talk)
11:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the first link. It's a shame the section doesn't have a page of its own but we can easily create a quick anchorlink, maybe WP:COPYUSE → Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others (in case the section gets renamed).
The word "familiar" perhaps isn't quite right – it's not necessary to be (very) familiar if one has established the position in the particular case; and it's not enough to be familiar if one still fails to understand or apply the rules! Might still put off new editors.
Let's compare the marked-up possibilities. The text currently in use:
Your version 6c:
How about the following?
Advantages: brief, comprehensive. I think "Please" is unnecessary when warning people not to break the law. Disadvantages: unspecific, no reference to copy-pasting from sources other than websites, no explanation of public domain and other exemptions. But anyone relying on public domain exemptions can reasonably be expected to have enough diligence to check the detailed rules.
For the sake of brevity, the text is deliberately ambiguous about who must have "permitted". This is intended to combine the notion of the source site permitting copying and the notion of Wikipedia policy permitting pasting.
I've changed "copyrighted websites" to "other webites" because casual users may not know that most (or all) websites have copyrights, so it is safer and simpler to cover everywhere – except Wikipedia itself. Or are there some common exempt websites from which such a simple notice might deter casual editors from copying?
The important thing here is to firmly deter potential abusers, briefly guide casual users, and usefully steer diligent users.