This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (technical). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: 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, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
Brilliant idea no?
Struck me a little while back. All pages with (disambiguation) on them could be moved to this namespace. They aren't articles, therefore shouldn't be in the same namespace. The same might be a good idea for redirects (Redirect:) Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it new that sorting recent changes for the user namespace gives (User creation log) results? I don't remember it being like that before, and it pretty much takes most of the usefulness of the sort away. If it's going to stay like this, is there any way to choose to ignore log results? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9 protected?, for some reason it won't let me create new subpages for my portal. Some people are able to, some aren't. Some are having these problems with IE; I'm having problems with it on Firefox. Portal:Indianapolis/On this day.../April 9 is also affected by the problem.-- Bedford 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. There was a regex at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist causing this. --- RockMFR 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is small but i think it is good now that when pages are moved, these show up on the watchlist as well. Btw, when did change happen? Simply south ( talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked on the help desk, but they suggested I ask here. Regarding the <gallery> tags. I noticed that on the commons, the gallery makes itself as wide as possible for your browser window, but on wikipedia, it is a maximum of 4 columns. I know you can modify the number of columns using the perrow parameter, but this just screws up the page if you use a lower screen resolution. Is there a way to make wikipedia gallery tags resize to the screen? - mattbuck ( Talk) 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific numerical limit to the number of uses of the #ifexist parser function in one page? Wikipedia:Template limits isn't clear on the issue. -- Iamunknown 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 59/1000000 Post-expand include size: 52/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 6/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0/500
That means you can use a maximum of 500 ifexist calls in ANY page (that includes all ifexists in pages that are transcluded into the article). Yesterday it was accidently set to 100 for a while btw. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a difference in image syntax behaviour depending on whether or not the image is inside or outside a wiki table. I'm working on flag templates and would like to make the border conditional. Some flags (e.g. {{
flagicon|Japan}}
→
) certainly need it, but others (e.g. {{
flagicon|Nepal}}
→
) look goofy with it. I changed the template code to make the MediaWiki border
tag conditional, but this solution does not work when the flag template is used inside a wiki table. For example, [[Image:Flag of Nepal.svg|22x20px|Flag of Nepal]]
(note the double pipe, consequence of the border
tag conditionally removed) results in
but:
{| | [[Image:Flag of Nepal.svg|22x20px|Flag of Nepal]] |}
fails dramatically, as the size parameter is ignored and a full size image is displayed. This only happens when wiki table syntax is used; HTML tables work fine. That's not a viable workaround, and I think any solution that tries to make the pipe also conditional is likely to be quite awkward. Help appreciated. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Today, I'm noticing that when I tab from the edit window to the edit summary window, at least when doing section edits, my cursor has the /* section name */ part of the edit summary highlighted. If I start typing, I overwrite the section name. Previously, my cursor was simply at the end of the text and I could type and hit enter without thinking. Anybody else know what's going on? -- Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is something that's brought up constantly, but no one does anything about it because it would be more trouble than it's worth. Nevertheless, I thought I'd try again. Right now, there are three different ways to indent a paragraph, through a bulleted list (*), through a numbered list (#), or through straight indentation (:). And right now, none of those indentations line up with each other.
That example isn't really a big deal, because I can't see a situation where you'd use a bullet and a number in close proximity like that. Where it does become a problem is in threaded discussion on pages such as AfD, or polls on talk pages, or anything where the first level of comments tends to be set off with a bullet. For example:
Note how Colbertfan's second paragraph doesn't line up properly with his first one? I've edited a bunch with each of the three most popular (I think) browsers, Firefox, IE, and Safari, and the problem is identical in each one. Can anything be done? -- Kéiryn talk 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ OH-Project}} has something strange about it which is causing every talk page it is placed on to appear in Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment (which should only contain template description pages). dramatic ( talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On Peekskill (Metro-North station), a weird error message Expression error: Unexpected > operatorExpression error: Unexpected = operatorExpression error: Unexpected < operator shows up in the infobox. It seems to go away if you edit out the number of passengers, but I see no reason why this is the case. *Dan T.* ( talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be a problem with a template used (probably as part of the infobox template) to present the percentage change in ridership, which is unable to cope with the absence of a figure there. On another unrelated issue pertaining to rail station articles, some of them, including Yonkers (Metro-North station), have a really awkward overlap of their various infoboxes and route boxes, at least in my browser (Mozilla SeaMonkey under Windows XP). Is there anything that can be done about this? *Dan T.* ( talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to know about Eddy current sensors and Optical sensors in detail.
Their construction,working,features,advantages. Now it's not available in wikipedia. So anybody pls help me.
I would find the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" much more viable to have enabled if it didn't prompt on an auto-generated summary such as /*Section*/ - If I want to replace that I will, but I do want to avoid submitting completely blank summaries. Also, an option for a javascript dialog triggered onsubmit would work better here - more immediate for the user and less load on the server. I often hit save then flick to another page, and several times lately have realised much later that an edit is still awaiting a summary or re-save. dramatic ( talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm finally fed up with the new(ish) lump of text that appears at the top of Special:Search when no exact match is found. It's the bit that goes "no page with that title exists / you can search again... or you can request that the page be created". What need I add to my monobook.css to get rid of it? Happy‑ melon 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Added '<div id="msg-noexactmatch">'. -- Random832 ( contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I popped out Extension:BypassSearch, which adds a checkbox under the "misc" tab of "my preferences" to allow individual users to Go directly into editing a non-existent page instead of waiting for a search to complete (which can take seemingly forever during peak load) when using the left-hand search box. I figure it would definitely help in cases when someone knows that they want to create a new page or access a deleted page directly without messing around with the URI or adding to the load of the search servers.
Anyway, I wanted to see if people were interested in enabling it here. Cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 14:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When looking at an article's revision history, It would be useful to me to click on a button to see which editors have edited the article the most.
When I come upon an article that needs cleanup, for example, sometimes I want to create a dialog with the editors that have worked on the article the most. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't get either to work, and i followed the instructions to the letter. Anyone care to look at my monobook and see if they can find my rookie mistake? merci! Jepetto ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
See? i knew it was a rookie mistake. thanks for the help! Jepetto ( talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have chosen to add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page through "my preferences". I found that whenever I purge, the "Edit lead section" button disappears! I am using Firefox 2.0.0.13, and hope that somebody can solve this problem. -- Quest for Truth ( talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone help out with some media stats? The total number of media files (ie. everything in the "Image:" namespace) is given at Special:Statistics. The current total is 772,759 (there is also a magic word that I can't find at the moment). This also includes dupes of Commons images that are kept here and not deleted (for various reasons, though most are in fact deleted, I think). Trying to assess the split between free and non-free can be done if you assume that: (a) all images have license templates, and that the lists at User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage cover all the relevant templates in use. I've pasted the data at those two pages into an Excel spreadsheet, and the total, as of 8th April 2008, are, 360,125 free images and 282,264 non-free images. Add those together, and you get a total of 642,389. I would like to know what the missing 130,370 media files are (whether they are all sounds and video clips, or whether there are lots of images knocking around without license tags or using license tags not tracked by BetacommandBot), so my questions are:
Any and all answers gratefully received. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I answered one of my questions. Special:UnusedImages. Anyone have answers to the other ones? Carcharoth ( talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Betacommand for running an SQL query to get an approximate answer. These approximate figures as of 10 April 2008, are
For comparison, the total number of media files, at approximate the same time (within a few hours or so) was 775,671. The total from Betacommand's figures is 676,953. A discrepancy of 98,718. Anyone have any idea why there is such a big discrepancy? Finally, it is interesting to note that we have around 5500 audio/video files. Obviously Category:Ogg files is woefully incomplete. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This "feature" may be intentional: When adding a new section (using the "+" tab), there is no field in which to enter an Edit Summary. If that's intentional, then fine. What that means is whenever I issue a warning on some user's talk page (usually for vandalism), if it's the first warning of the month, then ordinarily I would use the "+" tab to create a new section. However, without being able to enter an edit summary, I won't use the "+" tab. Instead, I'll use the "edit this page" tab and create a new section using the double-equal sign trick.
The reason I always want to enter an edit summary is in case the vandal removes my warning (which is allowed under the rules), there is still a record of the warning, which I quote in the edit summary. Therefore I favor edit summaries even for new sections, but I can work around it if it's intentional that they are omitted. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (technical). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: 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, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
Brilliant idea no?
Struck me a little while back. All pages with (disambiguation) on them could be moved to this namespace. They aren't articles, therefore shouldn't be in the same namespace. The same might be a good idea for redirects (Redirect:) Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it new that sorting recent changes for the user namespace gives (User creation log) results? I don't remember it being like that before, and it pretty much takes most of the usefulness of the sort away. If it's going to stay like this, is there any way to choose to ignore log results? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9 protected?, for some reason it won't let me create new subpages for my portal. Some people are able to, some aren't. Some are having these problems with IE; I'm having problems with it on Firefox. Portal:Indianapolis/On this day.../April 9 is also affected by the problem.-- Bedford 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. There was a regex at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist causing this. --- RockMFR 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is small but i think it is good now that when pages are moved, these show up on the watchlist as well. Btw, when did change happen? Simply south ( talk) 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked on the help desk, but they suggested I ask here. Regarding the <gallery> tags. I noticed that on the commons, the gallery makes itself as wide as possible for your browser window, but on wikipedia, it is a maximum of 4 columns. I know you can modify the number of columns using the perrow parameter, but this just screws up the page if you use a lower screen resolution. Is there a way to make wikipedia gallery tags resize to the screen? - mattbuck ( Talk) 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific numerical limit to the number of uses of the #ifexist parser function in one page? Wikipedia:Template limits isn't clear on the issue. -- Iamunknown 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 59/1000000 Post-expand include size: 52/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 6/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0/500
That means you can use a maximum of 500 ifexist calls in ANY page (that includes all ifexists in pages that are transcluded into the article). Yesterday it was accidently set to 100 for a while btw. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a difference in image syntax behaviour depending on whether or not the image is inside or outside a wiki table. I'm working on flag templates and would like to make the border conditional. Some flags (e.g. {{
flagicon|Japan}}
→
) certainly need it, but others (e.g. {{
flagicon|Nepal}}
→
) look goofy with it. I changed the template code to make the MediaWiki border
tag conditional, but this solution does not work when the flag template is used inside a wiki table. For example, [[Image:Flag of Nepal.svg|22x20px|Flag of Nepal]]
(note the double pipe, consequence of the border
tag conditionally removed) results in
but:
{| | [[Image:Flag of Nepal.svg|22x20px|Flag of Nepal]] |}
fails dramatically, as the size parameter is ignored and a full size image is displayed. This only happens when wiki table syntax is used; HTML tables work fine. That's not a viable workaround, and I think any solution that tries to make the pipe also conditional is likely to be quite awkward. Help appreciated. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Today, I'm noticing that when I tab from the edit window to the edit summary window, at least when doing section edits, my cursor has the /* section name */ part of the edit summary highlighted. If I start typing, I overwrite the section name. Previously, my cursor was simply at the end of the text and I could type and hit enter without thinking. Anybody else know what's going on? -- Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is something that's brought up constantly, but no one does anything about it because it would be more trouble than it's worth. Nevertheless, I thought I'd try again. Right now, there are three different ways to indent a paragraph, through a bulleted list (*), through a numbered list (#), or through straight indentation (:). And right now, none of those indentations line up with each other.
That example isn't really a big deal, because I can't see a situation where you'd use a bullet and a number in close proximity like that. Where it does become a problem is in threaded discussion on pages such as AfD, or polls on talk pages, or anything where the first level of comments tends to be set off with a bullet. For example:
Note how Colbertfan's second paragraph doesn't line up properly with his first one? I've edited a bunch with each of the three most popular (I think) browsers, Firefox, IE, and Safari, and the problem is identical in each one. Can anything be done? -- Kéiryn talk 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ OH-Project}} has something strange about it which is causing every talk page it is placed on to appear in Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment (which should only contain template description pages). dramatic ( talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On Peekskill (Metro-North station), a weird error message Expression error: Unexpected > operatorExpression error: Unexpected = operatorExpression error: Unexpected < operator shows up in the infobox. It seems to go away if you edit out the number of passengers, but I see no reason why this is the case. *Dan T.* ( talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be a problem with a template used (probably as part of the infobox template) to present the percentage change in ridership, which is unable to cope with the absence of a figure there. On another unrelated issue pertaining to rail station articles, some of them, including Yonkers (Metro-North station), have a really awkward overlap of their various infoboxes and route boxes, at least in my browser (Mozilla SeaMonkey under Windows XP). Is there anything that can be done about this? *Dan T.* ( talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to know about Eddy current sensors and Optical sensors in detail.
Their construction,working,features,advantages. Now it's not available in wikipedia. So anybody pls help me.
I would find the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" much more viable to have enabled if it didn't prompt on an auto-generated summary such as /*Section*/ - If I want to replace that I will, but I do want to avoid submitting completely blank summaries. Also, an option for a javascript dialog triggered onsubmit would work better here - more immediate for the user and less load on the server. I often hit save then flick to another page, and several times lately have realised much later that an edit is still awaiting a summary or re-save. dramatic ( talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm finally fed up with the new(ish) lump of text that appears at the top of Special:Search when no exact match is found. It's the bit that goes "no page with that title exists / you can search again... or you can request that the page be created". What need I add to my monobook.css to get rid of it? Happy‑ melon 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Added '<div id="msg-noexactmatch">'. -- Random832 ( contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I popped out Extension:BypassSearch, which adds a checkbox under the "misc" tab of "my preferences" to allow individual users to Go directly into editing a non-existent page instead of waiting for a search to complete (which can take seemingly forever during peak load) when using the left-hand search box. I figure it would definitely help in cases when someone knows that they want to create a new page or access a deleted page directly without messing around with the URI or adding to the load of the search servers.
Anyway, I wanted to see if people were interested in enabling it here. Cheers =) -- slakr\ talk / 14:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When looking at an article's revision history, It would be useful to me to click on a button to see which editors have edited the article the most.
When I come upon an article that needs cleanup, for example, sometimes I want to create a dialog with the editors that have worked on the article the most. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't get either to work, and i followed the instructions to the letter. Anyone care to look at my monobook and see if they can find my rookie mistake? merci! Jepetto ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
See? i knew it was a rookie mistake. thanks for the help! Jepetto ( talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have chosen to add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page through "my preferences". I found that whenever I purge, the "Edit lead section" button disappears! I am using Firefox 2.0.0.13, and hope that somebody can solve this problem. -- Quest for Truth ( talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone help out with some media stats? The total number of media files (ie. everything in the "Image:" namespace) is given at Special:Statistics. The current total is 772,759 (there is also a magic word that I can't find at the moment). This also includes dupes of Commons images that are kept here and not deleted (for various reasons, though most are in fact deleted, I think). Trying to assess the split between free and non-free can be done if you assume that: (a) all images have license templates, and that the lists at User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage cover all the relevant templates in use. I've pasted the data at those two pages into an Excel spreadsheet, and the total, as of 8th April 2008, are, 360,125 free images and 282,264 non-free images. Add those together, and you get a total of 642,389. I would like to know what the missing 130,370 media files are (whether they are all sounds and video clips, or whether there are lots of images knocking around without license tags or using license tags not tracked by BetacommandBot), so my questions are:
Any and all answers gratefully received. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I answered one of my questions. Special:UnusedImages. Anyone have answers to the other ones? Carcharoth ( talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Betacommand for running an SQL query to get an approximate answer. These approximate figures as of 10 April 2008, are
For comparison, the total number of media files, at approximate the same time (within a few hours or so) was 775,671. The total from Betacommand's figures is 676,953. A discrepancy of 98,718. Anyone have any idea why there is such a big discrepancy? Finally, it is interesting to note that we have around 5500 audio/video files. Obviously Category:Ogg files is woefully incomplete. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This "feature" may be intentional: When adding a new section (using the "+" tab), there is no field in which to enter an Edit Summary. If that's intentional, then fine. What that means is whenever I issue a warning on some user's talk page (usually for vandalism), if it's the first warning of the month, then ordinarily I would use the "+" tab to create a new section. However, without being able to enter an edit summary, I won't use the "+" tab. Instead, I'll use the "edit this page" tab and create a new section using the double-equal sign trick.
The reason I always want to enter an edit summary is in case the vandal removes my warning (which is allowed under the rules), there is still a record of the warning, which I quote in the edit summary. Therefore I favor edit summaries even for new sections, but I can work around it if it's intentional that they are omitted. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)