![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ Helpme}}
I just found a fix for this problem, but I don't have the power to edit
this template. Can somebody help me?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ref: Template talk:Infobox Former Country#Disappearing flags
I have taken the liberty of moving your sandbox code to the correct place Template:Infobox Former Country/sandbox. There is also a comparison of the two templates on Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases. Feel free to use these standard subpages in future.
Well done for getting your hands dirty and trying to fix this template! As for the request itself, it seems not so straightforward. On Internet Explorer, your new version looks much better as you say. However on Firefox, I have to say that the current version looks better. So perhaps the best fix has not been found yet. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To briefly recap: I happened across this template on the
Austria-Hungary page. In my IE7 browser, the "Succeeded by" flags toward the bottom of the template are almost invisible. They are cut off on the right. I troubleshot this template and found a fix (in IE7). Having received no answer from the above editor, I would like someone with a Firefox browser to confirm that the template found at
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases, the one on the right, is acceptable in Firefox. Specifically, is the flag section toward the bottom of the template acceptable? If it is, then it's time for an administrator to make the two small changes that will fix the
Template:Infobox Former Country. You will find the bottom part of the code nowikified
on this page, and the two widths that must be altered are highlighted in bronze on that page. Thank you very much in advance for a speedy solution to this problem!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Okay, Martin, I've checked several articles that use this template. All look fine with one exception, the
Second Polish Republic. I've placed this one in
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases and tried altering just the 2nd width command. I tried 94% and 93%, but had to go to 92% to get the best image in IE7. If that looks okay in FireFox, then please make this change to the
Template:Infobox Former Country.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
This problem is almost resolved, however there is still at least one instance (perhaps more than one) on the
Second Polish Republic page where the lower flags are only partially visible in Internet Explorer 7. They are still cut off to the right. To fix this, the second width, as shown by the sandbox version on the
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases page was decreased from 95% to 92%. There are two widths that have previously been adjusted by an administrator, and they can be found nowiki'd in
this sandbox highlighted in bronze. The first width near the top can be left alone. If you scroll down to the 2nd width highlighted in bronze, that is the width that needs to be changed slightly to 92%. The trick is to ensure that the alteration is also viable across browsers, for example in FireFox. If it still looks good in FireFox, then this one more slight decrease to the 2nd width in
Template:Infobox Former Country ought to completely resolve this problem. Thank you very much!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Skomorokh? Martin? Where did ya'll go? Is there anybody around who can check the sandbox version in FireFox and help us put this one to bed?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editrequested}}
Yes, thank you, Skomorokh! There is a diff in IE7: The flags toward the bottoms of the templates show differently. The flags in the template on the left are about 1/2 cut off to the right (they go off the template). The flags on the right are shown much better and are only just barely cut off on the right. So yes, the sandbox version of the template is ready to replace the existing working version. Thank you so much for your help in this!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad to help whenever I can. Actually, I do have an account ( User:SWAdair) but rarely log in any more. Most of my edits now are anonymous, just because I don't take the time to log in. Thank you for taking the time to leave me that note. Have a great day. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again the
Charmed template I've been laboring over is
up for deletion.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 11:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to your comment here, you could also have created the template in your userspace first as a way around the problem of editing the live version. When you were happy with it, just move the code over the old page (with talkpage consent, of course) and {{ db-author}} the sandbox. Anyway, happy editing. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was an accident, when I accessed the talk page, i accessed by clicking on the link of the differences between the edition in my watchlist before you add that template, and I ve checking others changes in other tabs before comment in the talk:Brasil, I forgot that when we click in the edit button in a page showing the differences between edition, we edit the content of that revision instead of the actual revision, was my fault and I will input again.
Luizdl (
talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
COPY from Plastikspork's talk page for future reference:
I just noted on my watchlist that you appear to have manually deleted the {{
Charmed Companion}} template from all the pages it was on. I realize that, while it probably took a fairly significant amount of time, it probably wasn't so bad as it could have been. Is there a bot for the larger lists? or do they also have to be done manually when a template is deleted?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Archived: User talk:Debresser/Archive 4#Merge discussion for Template:Anglophone states
White BARBARIAN— to read at your (p)leisure! [From The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason for the self-revert? I thought it a constructive edit. Regards, Justin talk 14:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I just had the following conversation on this talk page about the {{ PDFlink}} template. Now, try to imagine a template called "PDFlink" that absolutely refuses to contain the PDF link? 'Twould be hilarious if it weren't so sad...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose this template be altered so "PDF" is not a wikilink. Everyone knows what a PDF is—it's as ubiquitous as DOC. We don't need the link, which creates a sea of blue in References sections of articles that use a lot of PDFs. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just came across it for the first time in
Robert E. Lee (steamboat)#External links, and my second thought was I better come over here and see why there is no link to
PDF in this template! My first thought was what about all those thousands of new readers each year/month/week to the Internet who don't have a clue about what a PDF is? Andy, I'd like to see some
reliable verification of the assumption that "Everyone knows what a PDF is . . ."
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So please be aware that if you use that template, the PDF link template, there is no link to
Wikipedia's PDF article that would explain to new readers and Internet users what "PDF" means or refers to.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! There's more!...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some people seem to want to be "invincible", when all they really are is "unconvincible". Headstrong is good, don't get me wrong. But when you cut down the trees to save the forest, what's wrong with that picture? He says that he thinks that I believe that an indiscriminate link to PDF is on-topic. What he doesn't see is that in a template called "PDFlink" such a link is not in an indiscriminate place, but instead it's in a place where it very well could be needed by readers. The Wikipedia PDF link in and of itself is never really relevant to any particular article's subject. It is, however, highly relevant when someone goes to click on an
http://anywhere.com/anyfile.pdf url
and who hasn't a clue what he's getting into. These people would benefit from
Wikipedia's PDF link. That editor seems to think these people are as rare as oxygen on Mars. And yet he can present no
evidence to verify this claim. I'm done with that clueless editor. And I sincerely hope he doesn't do too much damage. Wikilinks such as the one we've been fighting over, the PDF link, are a significant part of what makes Wikipedia different and spectacular... and popular!
I could be wrong.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Paine, I started a thread at the talk page beacause the rationale for including that phrase isn't clear to me. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop adding File:Gnome-globe.svg to Geographic locale templates as per Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION 86.42.82.246 ( talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So far today, I've had to put up two templates for speedy deletion, this'un, {{
African topic}}, and this'un, {{
European topic}}. (See
my sandbox.)
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Tfd's I posted were both reverted. See below at
#Demonym-affixing templates for further discussion.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ Helpme}}
I just found a fix for this problem, but I don't have the power to edit
this template. Can somebody help me?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ref: Template talk:Infobox Former Country#Disappearing flags
I have taken the liberty of moving your sandbox code to the correct place Template:Infobox Former Country/sandbox. There is also a comparison of the two templates on Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases. Feel free to use these standard subpages in future.
Well done for getting your hands dirty and trying to fix this template! As for the request itself, it seems not so straightforward. On Internet Explorer, your new version looks much better as you say. However on Firefox, I have to say that the current version looks better. So perhaps the best fix has not been found yet. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To briefly recap: I happened across this template on the
Austria-Hungary page. In my IE7 browser, the "Succeeded by" flags toward the bottom of the template are almost invisible. They are cut off on the right. I troubleshot this template and found a fix (in IE7). Having received no answer from the above editor, I would like someone with a Firefox browser to confirm that the template found at
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases, the one on the right, is acceptable in Firefox. Specifically, is the flag section toward the bottom of the template acceptable? If it is, then it's time for an administrator to make the two small changes that will fix the
Template:Infobox Former Country. You will find the bottom part of the code nowikified
on this page, and the two widths that must be altered are highlighted in bronze on that page. Thank you very much in advance for a speedy solution to this problem!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Okay, Martin, I've checked several articles that use this template. All look fine with one exception, the
Second Polish Republic. I've placed this one in
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases and tried altering just the 2nd width command. I tried 94% and 93%, but had to go to 92% to get the best image in IE7. If that looks okay in FireFox, then please make this change to the
Template:Infobox Former Country.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
This problem is almost resolved, however there is still at least one instance (perhaps more than one) on the
Second Polish Republic page where the lower flags are only partially visible in Internet Explorer 7. They are still cut off to the right. To fix this, the second width, as shown by the sandbox version on the
Template:Infobox Former Country/testcases page was decreased from 95% to 92%. There are two widths that have previously been adjusted by an administrator, and they can be found nowiki'd in
this sandbox highlighted in bronze. The first width near the top can be left alone. If you scroll down to the 2nd width highlighted in bronze, that is the width that needs to be changed slightly to 92%. The trick is to ensure that the alteration is also viable across browsers, for example in FireFox. If it still looks good in FireFox, then this one more slight decrease to the 2nd width in
Template:Infobox Former Country ought to completely resolve this problem. Thank you very much!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Skomorokh? Martin? Where did ya'll go? Is there anybody around who can check the sandbox version in FireFox and help us put this one to bed?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editrequested}}
Yes, thank you, Skomorokh! There is a diff in IE7: The flags toward the bottoms of the templates show differently. The flags in the template on the left are about 1/2 cut off to the right (they go off the template). The flags on the right are shown much better and are only just barely cut off on the right. So yes, the sandbox version of the template is ready to replace the existing working version. Thank you so much for your help in this!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 07:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad to help whenever I can. Actually, I do have an account ( User:SWAdair) but rarely log in any more. Most of my edits now are anonymous, just because I don't take the time to log in. Thank you for taking the time to leave me that note. Have a great day. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again the
Charmed template I've been laboring over is
up for deletion.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 11:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to your comment here, you could also have created the template in your userspace first as a way around the problem of editing the live version. When you were happy with it, just move the code over the old page (with talkpage consent, of course) and {{ db-author}} the sandbox. Anyway, happy editing. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was an accident, when I accessed the talk page, i accessed by clicking on the link of the differences between the edition in my watchlist before you add that template, and I ve checking others changes in other tabs before comment in the talk:Brasil, I forgot that when we click in the edit button in a page showing the differences between edition, we edit the content of that revision instead of the actual revision, was my fault and I will input again.
Luizdl (
talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
COPY from Plastikspork's talk page for future reference:
I just noted on my watchlist that you appear to have manually deleted the {{
Charmed Companion}} template from all the pages it was on. I realize that, while it probably took a fairly significant amount of time, it probably wasn't so bad as it could have been. Is there a bot for the larger lists? or do they also have to be done manually when a template is deleted?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Archived: User talk:Debresser/Archive 4#Merge discussion for Template:Anglophone states
White BARBARIAN— to read at your (p)leisure! [From The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason for the self-revert? I thought it a constructive edit. Regards, Justin talk 14:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I just had the following conversation on this talk page about the {{ PDFlink}} template. Now, try to imagine a template called "PDFlink" that absolutely refuses to contain the PDF link? 'Twould be hilarious if it weren't so sad...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose this template be altered so "PDF" is not a wikilink. Everyone knows what a PDF is—it's as ubiquitous as DOC. We don't need the link, which creates a sea of blue in References sections of articles that use a lot of PDFs. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just came across it for the first time in
Robert E. Lee (steamboat)#External links, and my second thought was I better come over here and see why there is no link to
PDF in this template! My first thought was what about all those thousands of new readers each year/month/week to the Internet who don't have a clue about what a PDF is? Andy, I'd like to see some
reliable verification of the assumption that "Everyone knows what a PDF is . . ."
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So please be aware that if you use that template, the PDF link template, there is no link to
Wikipedia's PDF article that would explain to new readers and Internet users what "PDF" means or refers to.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! There's more!...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some people seem to want to be "invincible", when all they really are is "unconvincible". Headstrong is good, don't get me wrong. But when you cut down the trees to save the forest, what's wrong with that picture? He says that he thinks that I believe that an indiscriminate link to PDF is on-topic. What he doesn't see is that in a template called "PDFlink" such a link is not in an indiscriminate place, but instead it's in a place where it very well could be needed by readers. The Wikipedia PDF link in and of itself is never really relevant to any particular article's subject. It is, however, highly relevant when someone goes to click on an
http://anywhere.com/anyfile.pdf url
and who hasn't a clue what he's getting into. These people would benefit from
Wikipedia's PDF link. That editor seems to think these people are as rare as oxygen on Mars. And yet he can present no
evidence to verify this claim. I'm done with that clueless editor. And I sincerely hope he doesn't do too much damage. Wikilinks such as the one we've been fighting over, the PDF link, are a significant part of what makes Wikipedia different and spectacular... and popular!
I could be wrong.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Paine, I started a thread at the talk page beacause the rationale for including that phrase isn't clear to me. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop adding File:Gnome-globe.svg to Geographic locale templates as per Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION 86.42.82.246 ( talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So far today, I've had to put up two templates for speedy deletion, this'un, {{
African topic}}, and this'un, {{
European topic}}. (See
my sandbox.)
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Tfd's I posted were both reverted. See below at
#Demonym-affixing templates for further discussion.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |