User talk:George Orwell III

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
George Orwell III (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.


the deletion of Index:ARyada 1prep SB T2 E 2014.pdf[edit]

It was part of the Egyptian Math curriculum the aim was to create a wikisource entry to that students can have a digital copy of the book and for teachers to use and contribute to. Why was it deleted?

I restored it so you can see for yourself - Error: No such file. What else was I suppose to do? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

wikiEditor custom toolbar (continued here)[edit]

Hi GO3. I've been using the new enhanced editor and everything is just fine. In addition to your modifications, I also found ways to increase the vertical window space by hiding Firefox objects. This provides access to everything needed without having to constantly scroll up and down as this this was the major concern, perhaps more important to me than to others, because PSM pages are identical (and there are so many of them). The proof of this improvement was day's productivity. Face-smile.svg.

Thanks for ALL your hard work.

P.S: I hope you don't mind but I thought that this conversation which started on my talk page is better continued here because more people read your page and thus gets a wider audience.— Ineuw talk 07:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unicode feedback — thanks.[edit]

Thank you for your kind feedback here. I fear my general state of annoyance at yet another unnecessary (not the right word, but I currently cannot think of anything else mildly polite) μSoft divergence rather coloured my immediate response. If it showed through please be assured it was not in any way aimed at yourself.

May I take this opportunity to properly thank you for getting back to me? If the latest (horrible) attempt fails I might have to resort to use of another, tiny, image.

Oh, and if I have learned one thing it is this: if I ever find myself asking again "Will this Unicode point work?" the generic answer will have to be a resounding "NO!" AuFCL (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL, The only solution that covers everybody seems to me is to add the 'DjVu sans' gadget currently on Wikipedia. IE Users would still need to apply the font-pack manually if I remember right... but if time is taken out to explain how to do that, I'm sure we can cut down on the amount of browser to unicode compatibility issues. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you've certainly thrown me there. I was not even aware of such a gadget until you pointed this out, so everything from here on in is based on five minutes or less of research.

According to the Preferences blurb (quote in full: "DejaVu Sans, a font with support for various dingbats. This gadget works on Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox 3.5, and Safari. Install this gadget if you need better font and character support but cannot install fonts directly onto your computer.") this gadget is aimed at providing extra support to the very group of systems which the informal poll seem to indicate do not have a problem by default. Doesn't this indicate the gadget might not be very useful (or worse have passed its effective version use-by date)?

My more general searches keep turning up things like this external link which imply LaTeX supports the very character at the heart of this matter via some kind of phonetic font. How (or even whether) it is possible to somehow translate this into terms acceptable to <math> regrettably is currently quite beyond me, but would be my (Yep: selfish eh?) ultimately preferred solution if it could be reasonably achieved.

Frankly I feel bad about stirring up so much effort even discussing this over one measly symbol which probably ought to be added as a File: image to Commons? (Guess what!!) AuFCL (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

After saving the above I realised I'd only responded to search leads to here. Looks like the licensing is friendly, so I wonder if there is a case for adding this to whatever this month's name for WebFonts-extended (IPA?) might be? Please pardon the throw-away nature of this note. AuFCL (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, progress is progress - don't worry about anything coming off offensive or whatever as long we're making progress.

Off-hand however, I personally wouldn't know how to add something like that to whatever this month's name for WebFonts-extended (IPA?) might be. It's probably done through opening a Bugzilla first and some expert there the gadget half of your suggestion. I did a bit of digging locally and finally unearthed my system is sourcing the offending glyph from the "FreeSerif" font, which a shortguiding it through the rest of the process (but I've been wrong before). Why not ask about adding this over on the ol' Village Pump on WP for starters - I don't think Scriptorium has the traffic for something like this (but I've been wrong before). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)



Any help? The Unicode' template was in the Symbols set of CharInsert all this time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you have me both confused and intrigued. A quick conversion confirms 2129(hex)=8489(decimal), so we are dealing with exactly the same code point…Fact. Now are you telling me that there are things in CharInsert which do not work for Internet Explorer? AuFCL (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
First, a reminder. Our CharInsert gadget is exactly the same as the one found currently on WP. The indivdual characters grouped into selectable sets are nearly the same as well. The only difference is our selectable groups are labeled different than their's and each group contains different characters compared to WP's groups.

Next; generally under 'IPA', 'Math (& Logic)' & 'Symbols' groups, there are several individual characters that render as a "null box". The language sets are mostly complete (except for things like your odd-ball 5th dimension, reverse, small, upsidedown, backwards iota). IE is the worst when it comes to rendering these - both here & at WP - but NO BROWSER renders ALL the characters for one reason or another on WP either (Commons too). This is why additional templates are added towards the end of certain CharInsert sets - to compensate for the lack of function or rendering for as many Users as possible. You should inspect the Unicode template (& @ WP) in this case to isolate the issue at hand (IE does not force the loading of the needed font-family on its own; an inline span does it for us instead).

So to be clear, its not IE alone that has trouble- only the most trouble. Its not the browser in use that has trouble- its a combination of the browser, the stupid debate over translations w/Universal Language selector both contrasted against WebFont usage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for so clearly laying out what I had only hitherto suspected. I (finally) understand, well perhaps only a little, but at least a little more than before. I agree all points. (See rant already committed to other place! Oh and also consider {{rotate}} issue raised there, at the very least I think we ought to synchronise with w:Template:Transform-rotate. No? Or possibly dispose of the currently non-functional implementation?) AuFCL (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously. Thank you for your kind forbearance with regard this trivia. The dent in my office wall where I keep banging my head is starting to get so deep there is danger of structural failure in the building. And yes, I did see your call to arms regarding CharInsert compatibility, but did not at the time (or indeed right now) feel able to add anything useful. AuFCL (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. I've come realize that the "hack" in MediaWiki:Common.js

 * Fix for Windows XP Unicode font rendering

if ( nt 5/i) !== -1 ) {
        mw.util.addCSS( '.IPA { font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode", "Arial Unicode MS"; } ' +
                '.Unicode { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode"; } ' );

... is less than optimal.

Sure it adds 2 class definitions for the 2 needed families so why didn't they keep the same XP-conditional detection and just add the 2 families to the default families? I think the fonts would always render without the need for wrapping the character in question within a span calling class="Unicode IPA" ever. And why make it XP or XP Pro conditinal over making it IE browser version conditional?

...or am I crazy @AuFCL:? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Always settle for crazy. After a while you realise it really isn't (even intended to be) an insult after all.
Simpler is better, unless I've misunderstood Occam's Razor? AuFCL (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Pardon, shouldn't this change have rather become:
        mw.util.addCSS( '.IPA { font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode", "Arial Unicode MS"; } ' +
                '.Unicode { font-family: "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode"; } ' );
i.e. always select those fonts (so that failure to find them simply fails gracefully)? AuFCL (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
That was an interim edit just to see what I could test in my local .js for XP. Turns out no matter which way I try, I can't get normally the wiki code loaded "sans-serif" for HTML/BODY to co-exist (or neatly fail to as the font fall-back) with "Lucida Sans Unicode" added via as you envisioned. In other words everything becomes rendered under "Lucida Sans Unicode" instead of just supplementing the wiki-code induced "sans-serif" scheme.

I decided instead to change my IE8's 'webpage font' in IE's settings to "Lucida Sans Unicode" and, lo-&-behold, your &#8489; (℩) even works - no {{Unicode}} template needed & "sans-serif" resumes being the font rendered just like always. This is OK by me until somebody comes up with a way to reproduce the same behavior I just did without altering IE's settings since this station is almost dedicated just to accessing wiki-whatever anyway.

PS I installed that "free-font" or whatever as a test but some of the characters (including your's) renders too lightly & a tad small for my taste. Same issue however - needs to be Forced as well as Co-Exist with the wiki-code default loading ("sans-serif") to always render without any extra class or template aid. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just musing here: I'm wondering if "mw.util.addCSS" might be a misleading name, as it is starting to sound like it inserts the selected fonts at the "front" of the priority order. Pure speculation, but could there be an alternate equivalent which post-pends the insertion? (Bugzilla: 33305 suggests addCSS is not necessarily a good choice...? Regrettably it does not suggest a better option.)
No that is pretty much is the issue the way I've just tested it so you are not off by much if at all. The point, imho, should first be to amend the font-family class definitions loaded via load.php &/or index.php rather than post .php load thru some code or script locally in common or user's .js settings. If that "cannot" be done, then the 2 Unicode font families should prepend (add at the begining of) the existing string (or whatever) with that info rather than append (add at the end of) it. I just don't know if any of that is even possible nevermind how to do it myself. Will keep trolling for experts from other domains and sooner or later - hopefully - one of them will know how. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Look I know I am being insufferable about this but since you moved this out of MediaWiki:Common.js, once the change beds down/proves itself a little might it be worthwhile merging it into the ieCSS string logic just above? (I know I'm drawing a long bow here and don't really understand the processing but it may just be that appending the new CSS to the end of the prior addCSS call might end up putting the new fonts closer to the end of the list where they ought to be; whereas a new call to addCSS appears to insert them ahead of the previous values (obviously assuming earlier observations hold this is not an optimal solution.) As always, please confirm if possible with those "trolled experts" you refer to as I am likely to be wrong. AuFCL (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, I revised the patch into ieCSS form but I don't see the benefit since we're still defining the Unicode & IPA classes post load.php. Unless those classes are manually added inline or templatized, normal browsing won't trigger the needed forced result. I'll keep this one in mind - but unless somebody "votes" to the contrary, I don't see how we could further the quest for a solution at this stage.

Still, I noticed {{Unicode}} adds a 2nd font-family /**/:inherit; at the end of the inline-style string and I suspect that oddity is related to this loading/merging/coexisting font nuance we are trying to nail down somehow. I didn't find anything to support that yet however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More good news (not!) The next strange character which comes up in R&W is an upside-down "D" which does not even appear to have any kind of Unicode "cheat"; so perhaps I will have to look into {{rotate}} more seriously after all. Damn. Why do I insist on getting into these things? AuFCL (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
tsk.. what did you expect from a 100 year old publication dealing with "math" or whatever all that is... simplicity? George Orwell III (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: I never said I was not pig-headed. Or an idiot, come to think of that.
But at least I am a pig-headed (long-time-ago now once-was mathematics student) logic-trained idiot. Did I mention stubborn? AuFCL (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion requested[edit]

I am hesitant to move (and transclude) [the unindexed] Dover Beach to The poetical works of Matthew Arnold/Dover Beach and delete the associated Talk page, for there is a bit of work/info/contributions that went into it. Am I being too timid? Should I create a versions page to include both or just carry on as usual with the move/deletion? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Plain & simple ---> No scans to support a version? Then that version pretty much equals garbage.

Go ahead and replace it with the scan backed version - I can copy & paste a bunch of text without a working source-link too and claim its proofread too. That piece was created some 6 years ago when "we" didn't know our ass from our elbow when it came to transcribing then proofreading. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the direction. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
When moving pages, should I or should I not choose the option to also move the associated Talk page? It seems that creates more deletion work, yes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If the "old" talk-page has nothing of note in relation to the new mainplace replacement work, then by all means - don't move it. Just tag it for speedy deletion. Its been so long that I forget what is an Admin-only option and what isn't & that was one of them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Display/watchlist et al[edit]

Just a reminder in case its slipped your mind: Might it be worth at least including some kind of hint to update (whatever: personal biological 404 status) are the enCA and enGB equivalents of MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary when the main (en) version changes? Your dismissal test looks good so far, but only for the en(US!) case. AuFCL (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kindly ignore. By the time I remembered /en-gb you'd already done it. AuFCL (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-addViafData.js syntax?[edit]

Noticed in passing this change. I admit I am not familiar with the "$'" query syntax, but from context something here looks slightly wrong. Are you sure you didn't mean:

	var viaf_query_input = $('<input type="text" name="viaf_query" id="viaf_query_input" size="60" value="' + wgTitle + '"/>');

—instead? (In case it is not obvious, I think there should there be an "=" between "size" and its value: here 60?) AuFCL (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sectioning formatting[edit]

Question. Has something changed with sectioning formatting within the last day? See output here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been fixed or it fixed itself. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It was propably me alright - Sorry about that - was done with best of intentions :( I restored the "old" code covering that nuance so you should be fine (now that I know not to go anywhere near it again).

How many pages did I screw up and where? Just point me to them & I'll help out b4 I call it a night. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just that one page, and I re-saved it. Sleep well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor question about FIS[edit]

Hi. In the process of proofreading, I am replacing all floating images of unbroken text-wrap with FIS. I rarely use the margin-top parameter, but when I applied it HERE, there is no spacing difference when I tried 10 or 20px, so thought that I should let you know. It's really not an urgent issue, so please don't feel pressured.— Ineuw talk 08:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think even I can field this one. At present there is no margin-top parameter to {{FIS}} which is why setting it does nothing at all. There is, however, a cstyle parameter which (interestingly) does not appear in the template documentation. I modified your page from margin-top=10px to cstyle=margin-top:10px as a working example which you should be able to fine-tune as appropriate? AuFCL (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Help:Maintenance tags[edit]

Oh sorry, I forget it. Thanks for reminding me. Bozky (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help at Author:Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr., much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain when reverting[edit]

I noticed that you recently reverted (within an edit that also included some other changes) my contribution with this:

I understand that in the English Wikisource, other than in the German one, you're generally not linking to external sources other than sister projects. However, it'd be a good idea for you to explain, even shortly, the reason you're reverting other users' contributions in order to motivate new users, as long as they seem to be trying to be productive.--Flekstro (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated[edit]

Hi GO3. Everything is running fine, and just to let you know (in case someone wonders), that the "CharInsert" gadget is superior to the "Special characters" of the new wiki editor, which is limited to the basic characters while CharInsert has the full extended range.— Ineuw talk 19:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Ineuw - it does make a difference

From what I've been able to gather from the sidelines, CharInsert was "developed" with an eye towards many of the now-realized enhancements in mind. All the recent code updates bringing us Universal Language Selector, the typography refresh, and other accessibility enhancements have only worked to improve my local copy - even the most unlikely of characters render properly for me for the first time (in view & after a save that is; still a null box more often not in edit mode though).

The issue now seems to be just cosmetic; too much repetition and overlap between character sets - plus the layout is still sort of disorganized/sloppy. We really need to trim it down to definitive default sets and let folks add & remove additional groups as needed on their own. ⊕ I'll get to it one day! -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for looking into this but the following doesn't work...

{| width="25%" {{td/dot/sandbox|Example text}}||{{fsp}}1{{tr}} |}

Example text................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


By comparison with the existing template:

Example text
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The 1 should be at the end of the line. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:, I did mention it wasn't going to swap right in for the existing template & more refinement was needed. It works without all that extra table-cell creation involved at the end (fsp ) is all...

{| width="25%" |{{td/dot/sandbox|Example text|111}} |}

Example text................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Plus I couldn't figure out where one cell was opened and the next closed in the template "tree of trees" - Good luck either way.
ps You might want to review it's history - please see {{SimpleLeader}} -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, As I don't have the expertise to look at this in depth, I've effectively deprecated {{td/dot}} by it's removal form use, until someone else can come up with an effective soloution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
For some obscure reason, removing all line feeds worked. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Johnson[edit]

Many printed works of Samuel Johnson appear signed "Dr. Johnson". (Indeed, that is how he is best known.) There is also a redirect on WP from "Dr. Johnson" to "Samuel Johnson" (as the lead says, ...often referred to as Dr Johnson). Hence the redirect here, too (though you've deleted it). ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And the point of the having such redirects over simple, piped-inline wikilinks here on wikisource would be what exacly? Timesavings? Do you expect those who follow your transcriptions to have sooooooooo much follow-up proofreading troubleshooting to do that the time saved by having this kind of redirect already in place will surely save them 6 maybe 10 seconds per instance encountered? - a life-time investment of maybe 5 extra minutes to pipe this kind of interlink instead too much of a burden here? What am I'm I missing exactly?
Sorry if I sound a little peeved here - the little lady has been at the desktop looking over Doc Johnson's fine line of "toys" ever since she glimpsed me come across and delete it many hours ago  :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought you were going to tell me why "Dr. Johnson" isn't a valid redirect, even though it is used in numerous wikis, and Author:Samuel Johnson leads to a disambiguation page, but judging by your "argument", you seem to be against redirects in general, so expecting a serious answer from you on this was perhaps misguided of me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@DanielTom:, It might very well be a legit "A.k.A." for this author in certain circles (or even in many, many distinguished circles) but it is just not unique or notable enough for me to be comfortable with keeping it around so the unknowing can "trip over it" and start associating it with some other 'Johnson' who also happens to be a doctor...or worse - champion the practice as an example setting a precedent, justifying similar pointless excursions in template or redirect 'arts n' crafts'. Pen-names like Bught Rindestone, Kata Puphin or James P. Qwuirk rise to the level where there is no question about the association between real & fake even to most of those who are encountering the nuance for the first time. I can't say that about ol' Doc Johnson - sorry. Its little more than an earned title & his real last name the way I see it.

Ultimately, things like this make more clutter than anything else.

And honestly. How many times would you expect to apply such a redirect-driven wikilink here on Wikisource in your transcription lifetime? A dozen? maybe 2? What is the point exactly? Now you can explain that to me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to apply them in transcriptions, readers (never mind editors) might still look for the page "Author:Dr. Johnson", as I did yesterday. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but you already know Samuel is his first name so your searching was going to be skewed even before seeing the results come up compared to someone who is on this trail of bread-crumbs for the "first" time - nevermind the nuances of setting search parameters here in on-site.

And why wouldn't a piped wiki-link serve the same purpose ultimately? In both cases you only see Dr. Johnson in blue amongst the rest of the text & either method takes you to the full Author page anyway. Is not stating this familar nick's 'crush of significance' re: the author in the Author: header's note field enough to inform readers about this? Again, I don't see the possible benefits outweighing the possible negatives here - not with that usage. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, thanks for your time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Lost in renaming[edit]

@George Orwell III: Please hold off on name changes and moves until the parties involved resolve the names.— Ineuw talk 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi GO3. I was asked to look at this project which has internal sections named Book I, Book II, etc. but then, I found out that it's also a physical series of three two volumes (also named Book 1, Book 2).

Thus, I created commons:Category:Mexico,_Aztec,_Spanish_and_Republican_(Books) with the three sub categories to store the book and images, but the existing volume Index:Mexico,_Aztec,_Spanish_and_Republican.djvu wasn't renamed because I don't know what happens to the validated contents on WS. Can you please help me here? Many thanks.— Ineuw talk 04:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

cc:@William Maury Morris II: and @Gumr51:

For clarification purposes, please note it is actually two physical books, Volume I, already proof read, has three internal sections (called Books) and each its own chapters. we are about to begin with Volume II, not sure how many internal books and chapters.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: In Ineuw's statement above he asks to "hold off on name changes and moves until the parties involved resolve the names." That decision Ineuw mentions was done several hours ago immediately after he contacted us. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

{{paragraph tag}} — sans parameters?[edit]


For some time I've been aware that this template generates exactly nothing when not accompanied by any parameter. May I tap you for your thoughts on why it was designed like this? Did you code it this way deliberately as a hint that a raw <p> might be a better way, or is there some other subtlety I've overlooked?

Unless you have any objection, I'd like to slightly recode the opening line from:

-->{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<p class='{{{class|pclass}}}' style='<!--
{{Paragraph tag/parse|{{{10|}}}}}<!--

-->' lang='{{{lang|en}}}' dir='{{{dir|ltr}}}' {{#if:{{{id|}}}|id='{{{id}}}'}}<!--




--><p class='{{{class|pclass}}}'{{#if:{{{1|}}}| style='<!--
{{Paragraph tag/parse|{{{10|}}}}}<!--

-->'}} lang='{{{lang|en}}}' dir='{{{dir|ltr}}}' {{#if:{{{id|}}}|id='{{{id}}}'}}<!--


—i.e. to generate the class/lang/dir/[id] attributes on an otherwise empty <p> tag in this situation instead.

I would have made this a /sandbox mock-up, but you appear to already have an experiment in progress, and I do not feel what I am proposing is really all that technically fraught. However I really would like your thoughts particularly if you think this proposal is a bad idea.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is conflicting. First point, this nuance wasn't by design and only realized it myself much later on. Second, I decided to leave it as it was for the simple reason that I saw no benefit in "correcting" it. As you know, the application and possibilities of the paragraph tag are largely lost on the average contributor and I figured why generate the tag when its not applying any "real" attributes & settings - nobody really cares either way. My hope was if you're not going to use the template at least get into the habit of using the [paragraph] tag (also largely a fail to date).

But if you feel uniformity trumps all else in this instance then I can't in good conscience argue with that - templates should be making life easier for all; not used to carve out poor practices or policies that, lets face it, 99.8% of folks just don't care about never mind grasp to begin with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the background. Pretty much as I suspected, and truth is, I am somewhat similarly conflicted. In some respects I'd like to at least change the template to indicate when it is in fact generating nothing useful to let one community know what is going on…

Of late I have caught myself typing {{p|aj}} as a "filler" paragraph start and wondering if <p> (or {{p}} if it didn't actually make things even worse!) is more "honest" as I really don't want to be limiting subsequent future display option choices. Also the though of hitting the parser with effective strings of </p>s gives me the willies, as I know it broke things badly not so very long ago…

In short, no real compelling case for change. Thanks again for the lesson. Stupidity über Alles (← may need grammatic attention)? AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Header page displays a mysterious reference to notes.[edit]

Hi. I noticed that right below the template page header, a mysterious {{{notes}}} parameter(?) is being displayed. I tried locating it's source in the template (which I understand very vaguely) and in the documentation, but found nothing. It causes no problems, I was just curious and thought of asking where it's originating. — Ineuw talk 19:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather - its just a leftover from the early days to help illustrate & differentiate what amounts to html tables, green part & blue part, making-up a single template in the end.

This was easily accomplished by not piping a default null value for the notes parameter in the code. In other words, in the template code,...


... should have been (note the inclusion of | )...


...for the parameter to still be valid but never display a value unless manually added by an editor.

You're right about it not "hurting" anything but it is unusual and "poor practice" to say the least. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Css image crop}}/{{FI}} et al[edit]

First up, thank you for fixing my idiot mistakes here and here. Both change remarks noted and (more than) entirely agreed. D'Oh!™ indeed.

To the main issue: If you squint a bit, these two templates overlap in what I consider an uncomfortable way. May I propose stepping back a bit and considering the "building blocks" involved a bit, so that future users can construct what they really need instead? It strikes me that between these two there are (at least):

  1. presenting a resizable image
  2. captioning an arbitrary image
  3. rotating an image
  4. cropping an image
  5. selecting a sub-page from a multi-page image

As you've already noted I have attempted to add the last (#5) to FI/FIS, with your help I consider reasonably successfully.

What are your thoughts regarding #3 & #4? Should these be imported into FI/FIS? In which case a true rival to Css image crop emerges (with different syntax/semantics); or should #2 be stripped out of FI/FIS to permit the building-block approach to be adopted?

It strikes me this is a bit of a minor crossroad of opportunity, with both opportunities and pitfalls either way. Your thoughts appreciated. AuFCL (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? I consider "the cropping of images" to be something that should take place off-line, then uploaded to commons when done; end of story. This whole on-the-fly, CSS-image-crop template approach, while quite interesting & quite worth the time screwin' around with it imho as well, will "never" a.) become an acceptable practice around here; not to mention b.) ever work properly. Without getting lost in the weeds, your [our] 'boundary box' is not "static" from namespace to namespace nevermind transclusion from Page: to Main, then add in the ~3em lost on the "left" thanks to Dynamic Layouts and you [we] are pretty much dreaming out loud here.

Point 1: images should [dynamically] render automatically in a size appropriate to the User's settings & setup without infringing upon those who do not share the same setup or settings themselves. This is why I first hoped to recover the IMG tag from the wiki-markup only to find myself working on FI as a result of inaction on my hopes.

Point 2: drives me crazy cause there is no standard practice here afaik. Personally, if I was in the position of "cleaning-up" low-quality image files for high-quality ones like most respected contributors seem to do ideally, I'd keep the original caption as part of the image & alt= the same in the mark-up's File: string. Why folks insist on cropping out the existing caption only to struggle with re-adding it manually later on kind of makes me laugh to be honest. Also the wiki-markup's built-in "caption" is useless & should be avoided rather than emulated imho.

Point 3: was "working" on that until I stopped to reply. I think the feature is sorely needed now when once did not. The reasoning; the amount of complex-table re-creation madness might be curbed if folks could re-use the printed tables found in the original work(s).

Point 4: I addressed first in the opening sentences (I think)

Point 5: Kudos to you for that one. Its something that I 'meant' to get to and just plain forgot to address (which is the reason I truly appreciate our little chats/experiments - you always make me "think")

I'll leave it there until you catch-up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all a "vomit;" rather thank you for validating my own (suspicions.) Pity I stuffed up the page logic and thanks again for fixing it.

My (previously carefully unstated to try not to influence your response) observations were:

  • Image cropping is an "interesting" diversion: technically possible, but functionally irresponsible.
  • Similarly rotating images. However, as a sop to proofreading I do have a quick-and-dirty Javascript helper. If interested please ask, otherwise omitted for brevity.
  • #2 (captioning) Guilty as charged, though often performed whilst wondering why. Thanks for confirming doubts.
These are the only issues I consider worth pursuing. Does this constitute being "caught up"? AuFCL (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me back-up re: Image-cropping a bit. It's not that I think having this feature is a waste of time; just that without advances on the PR extension's developmental front to go along with it, I don't see how it can become a game changer on a large scale around here. Part of the problem is 99.8% of our source documents are not born digital, thus dimensions (e.g. 'boundaries and boxes') vary from one scan-set to the next - making standardization of header and/or footer (& lets not forget sidenote) cropping a one-off affair with each new work requiring a re-tooling of the defaults to align logically, again, with 'boundaries & boxes' at hand.

But if you take something serialized as well as 'modern' (like the latest volume of the U.S. Statutes at Large for example), one could consistently "crop" thousands of left then right facing pages without worry - the dimensions never change throughout in other words. If the PR extension would let us manipulate the text layer instead of just dumping it - true & valid programic transcription could take place & "cropping" of some sort could have a role in that case. Too bad they are still stuck on properly recognizing a text-layers as something other than 'really long file metadata'.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify my previous re: "cropping".

Rotating: Thanks but no-thanks. god damn if we can't get this guy's "formula" into a Lua script and templates or something (I'm kind of on an anti-javascript jihad lately). Damn if I know how & WikiData has sucked all the oxygen out of the room it seems. -- 03:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Converted/Preaching to/You are.

Bugger it: I have to admit Yoda got reverse-Polish just about spot-on right. AuFCL (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Internet Archive re-derive[edit]

I've rerun the derive for that item.[1] Just dropping me a link to stuck items (on email or any talk page of mine) is enough. The general process is to wait for the regular cleanup admins do there, or email info a t --Nemo 06:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much[edit]

Thank you for your formatting help at Author:Adrianne Wadewitz !

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Index talk remarks}}[edit]

Hello. I hope this is not a foolish question: what exactly is the advantage of the current form in the above template of:




—in other words why test for something you may not subsequently want to include, when you might as well cut out both the test and the contents up-front? AuFCL (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I was more concerned with the resource usage and was thinking of ways to reduce it. Turns out specifying the Index talkspace for detection (ns:107) uses less resources than the previous magicword "talkspace" did. At the same time, this specificity prevents the display of the template without any 'clude tags needed. Edited. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you—worth knowing. BTW how are you assessing "resource usage?" (Not criticising: just curious.) AuFCL (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In edit mode & after at least 1 "show preview" submit, you should get the parser profiling data wayyyy at the bottom of the page. I just removed the doc template and compared the before and after. In that case, results were pretty clear so I saved the changes.

Please tell me the ppd table isn't lost like some other components when Users are set to UK or Canadian English. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(Pardon my tardy response.) Thanks again. Not a surprise (you appear to have addressed my only potential concern with the profiling data by performing a dummy initial view.) Checked presence both with en-CA and en-GB: O.K. both cases. AuFCL (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Author:Ermine Cowles Case[edit]

Umm. Curious. Why above? I assume the plan is to eliminate the non-english-language authorities; or is there another matter I should know about for next time? I just sort of went mad and piled in all the "majors" I stumbled across when correcting the prior VIAF mix-up. AuFCL (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just sour per the latest exchange with another self-absorbed wiki-pinhead over the whole wikidata/authority control thing and took it out on all the recent additions is all. While I admittedly waivered on this from one week to the next, I've decided from now on that if an authority is not easily verifiable in "English", its not worth the trouble of adding locally here (which in all honesty, should have been the approach taken that would be the most inclusive as well as the most reliable considering the domain language at hand). Don't consider it a policy or anything; just me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I can live with sour. Doesn't that just mean experienced and a moderately observing student of human nature?

"self-absorbed wiki-pinhead" is interesting, though, as I think it accurately describes you, me, and just about everyone who cares (or indeed does not care) about this slightly warped exercise we all seem mildly addicted to.

I'll try to be good and not insert the BNFs / SUDOCs et al in future. I mainly read them merely to verify alternate names or dates which may be missing or vague in VIAF, and that part usually comes across pretty much despite language, doesn't it? AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I think the aforementioned SAWP just identified themselves. FFS! If I start acting anything like that I grant you full authority to slap me, please! AuFCL (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyway - insert whatever you like. My point goes to the desired ISO standard that will usurp them all (well, capture them all at once if I understand right) and rarely will you find anything other than the original 4 associated with an ISNI. Its just taking forever thanks to the German switch to a single GND in the interim. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mysterious changes in Editor icons[edit]

Hi. I noticed in the past two mw releases that the editor icon for Italics keeps changing between A and I. Just curious how this comes about.— Ineuw talk 04:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons likely; the first being your primary lang being set to en-ca and, for whatever developer reason(s), that causes all sorts of quirks like that. Apparently, it doesn't cycle through the assigned list of letters per languages properly or something and gets thrown off where to "stop" and render. I'll take a closer look & see if I can't reduce/modify the list when I get the time.

The entire en, en-us, en-ca & en-gb thing is turning into a real issue in many places. So far, only Wikidata had addressed it with any meaningful results; results where the other two not selected become fallbacks for the primary more often than not. This was accomplished by both listing all 3 in the user preferences there and applying all 3 babel boxes for en, en-ca & en-gb on the User's front page. Now, when a data item has no "description" for example, I no longer get French or Spanish or German as alternatives to my primary (en) but get en-ca & en-gb instead. I never got around to seeing if we could accomplish the same through the babel thing fwiw.

The second thing will become moot sooner or later. The WikiEditor folks used spirited icons originally but are moving to individual .svg/.png files the last I checked. Spirited icons are compiled into a single "sheet" and each image is then selected by giving the x/y coordinates for the icon somewhere in the coding or the coresponding .js file(s). They finally accepted the fact this approach caused more bloat than doing toolbar button images the "old" way with stand-alone image files and are moving in that direction if not already there (which might also be behind your bouncing button). Again, I'll have to take a closer look time permitting. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, everything makes perfect sense. Please don't waste your time with it. Mentioned it just because I noticed the changes. As I now recall, we already had a similar issue regarding the commons link icon/button on images related to the user's language setting. Thanks for reminding me of its importance.— Ineuw talk 02:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Remembering Adrianne Wadewitz by National Collaborative for Women's History Sites[edit]

Your reformatting changes at Remembering Adrianne Wadewitz by National Collaborative for Women's History Sites seem to cause the image to load incredibly slowly, line-by-line, on my browser -- why is that?

-- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Its cause your browser loaded then cached a thumbnail of the core image yesterday or whatever while after the changes it loads and caches the core image - letting it dynamically resize itself if need be from then on. It should happen once (unless you don't use a [large] cache) if at all. If its an issue just revert my changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Forgive for butting in. I watch {{FI}} and {{FIS}} templates' related issues closely because I use them exclusively since their implementation. Based on my experience, I think that the images' slow rendering relates to the namespace and not the template. I have the same issue with the PSM grayscale images. I pasted your article into this sandbox and it renders instantly.— Ineuw talk 03:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah but was the .jpg already cached by then? Its filepath remains the same regardless of what namespace is calling it. Try again but substitute an image you haven't viewed yet File:Cartoon explaining how to orphan an image.png and then I might change my mind. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
As usual GO3. You're 100% correct. After clearing the cache & browser cache, the first time, the image rendered just as slowly in the sandbox as in the main namespace.— Ineuw talk 03:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately it still loads quite slowly for me too, virtually line-by-line. Is there a way to fix that ? -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It was line by line at the first upload, but very fast from the 2nd visit onwards.--Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. If this was an example transcluded in from the Page: namespace or viewed on a tablet/mobile device, the image would/should quickly resize itself on-the-fly if the dynamic layout changes or when a view-screen is rotated after that intial load takes place. I'm sure there is even a way to speed that up but a solution hasn't presented itself just yet.

Like I said before, if the slowness is a problem a.) try using fixed widths instead of percentages in {{FIS}}; or b.) go back to the wiki-markup image thumbnail approach. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)



I'm going to do a test run of 10 imports due to the project. My first times writing a bot for Wikisource, so thank you for cleaning up that minor test edit. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Love among the chickens[edit]

Looks like the whole thingamajig has been fixed now. Thanks a lot once again for your help! :D —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 12:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Collapsible Nav Menus[edit]

Brilliant! I confirm it works under enGB for whatever that is worth. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't take the credit. fyi - the gadgetized .js is exactly the same as the .js that was removed from the main wmf vector-skin folder and the .css was also trimmed from the existing definition set(s) prior to their "removal" as well. Edtoker just verified where I was hoping to go with this first so I figure best not to wait on the fools behind the change - especially when comes to skins overall - and copied his efforts to en.WS instead (sometimes being lazy pays off eh?).

And, as I suspected, the removal was self-serving for some and annoying for the rest but neither side seems to want to take up the core "problem(s)" behind the removal. If I waited on them for the proper "fix", I'd probably forget all about this and overlook the fix if and when it took place. I figure this way we are less likely to miss that fix while restoring the feature in the interim. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thou art preaching to the converted. Got the hat, tee-shirt somewhere and merely awaiting allocation of official membership number… Credit offer still good. If unwanted feel free to distribute however you see fit. AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

{{center block/s}}, {{center block/e}}[edit]

A bright lad like you ought to be able to figure out the question. Want me to go ahead and do 'em? AuFCL (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, there is a problem with Template:Block center/s and Template:Block center/e? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@sDrewth: Sigh. No. Just me being overly cryptic. This was a carry-over from an off-topic suggestion elsewhere where GOIII suggested replacing {{block centre}} with {{centre block}}, and my pointing out the two template (families) have a lot of dis-similarities, at least one of which included the fact that no provision for cross-page usage (i.e. above two templates mentioned in title sort of don't exist!) had been made in one "family."

Hope this defuses the confusion. I was going to await his thoughts on related matters pending (i.e. committal of sandboxed template changes: {{dotted TOC page listing/sandbox}}, {{center block/sandbox}}) before proceeding with *real* damage. O.K.? AuFCL (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I didn't even know that we had picked up center block and don't think that we should have ever done so due to the naming confusion. Personal preference is one set that does it, not multiples. These templates have been through iterations and discussions about naming before they ended up at block (center|left|right) plus float (left|right) and our discussions then were the desire and intent to keep it simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
…and…I'm…supposed…to…be…disagreeing…with…this? Exactly why? I didn't create the damned things. My role was to try to bend them both into somewhat similar shape before some other cowboy decides to axe one of them without thinking the consequences through properly. However if the "proper" people want to carry this through I am more than happy to bow out and let you get on with it… AuFCL (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah all that is was "beta stuff" at best so nothing was written in stone here just yet. I should have some more free time after this weekend but don't let me stop anyone from experimenting until then either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw you pushed out {{dotted TOC page listing/sandbox}} and then backed it out again almost immediately. What broke? Anything I can help with (or should I take Billinghurst's veiled hint and butt out and let you guys play in private)? AuFCL (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
No such thing & never back down... I rolled it out only to learn even more TOC type templates call upon {{Dotted TOC page listing}} so I backed out until I get around to looking into the effect on those templates (Talk about resource bloat!). Otherwise, the straight usage looked fine for the handful of uses I checked before reverting. -- George Orwell III (talk)
Not in the slightest attempting to teach/suck eggs, but this might be handy? AuFCL (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have deliberately held off tainting {{centre block}} directly, but currently believe {{centre block/sandbox}} to be stable and usable. I added a three-way comparison with {{block centre}} to {{centre block/testcases}} and will concentrate on making it exactly compatible only if you think it worthwhile (I really currently do not.) Only {{centre block/doc}} left to be updated if/when the sandbox is merged (or you catch up via things like this. Good change tag, by the way. Hope this is clear this time? AuFCL (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think its worth merging Center Block with Block Centre but if push comes to shove, the real compatibility testbed would be to take one or two poems from Londonjackbooks' repository of works and see if the two are truly interchangeable or not. I'm still having trouble accepting {{{title}}} - it's width value specifically. To me, the title still seems to be centering to the boundary box (page) rather than the column (div) when it comes to verses of poetry (caveat: maybe I'm just tired). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonder if this is another one those IE vs... situations? I updated the sandbox to test this and it definitely works under Firefox with the current template. I also modified the sandbox to make "title" its own sub-div in hopes this might work more broadly. The 100%/inherit width was only necessary to establish the maximum span size and was probably not really beneficial. Hope you catch up on your rest. I'm off too for now. AuFCL (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:SimpleLeader/doc[edit]

Pardon misunderstanding. I thought your intent had in fact been to capture a particular point in evolution of the template. Just for my edification, what is the advantage of referring to &hellip?curid=349627 over {{dotted TOC page listing}}, unless you anticipate retiring the whole template/development line (eventually)? Otherwise I must be missing the point… AuFCL (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


"Not in the slightest attempting to teach/suck eggs, but this might be handy? AuFCL (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)"

...I just wanted to stop it from appearing on "the list". Using the page id method accomplishes that while also landing on the current version as if I kept the proper interlink. Move on; nothing special about cleaning that list (for now).

The bigger remaining problem is {{dotted TOC page listing}} being called by {{TOC row 1-dot-1}} (less than 100 uses) and {{TOC row 2dot-1}} (less than 500 uses). Completely insane. I don't know where to begin on that front so I went ahead and recycled {{Dotted TOC line}} to mirror {{dotted TOC page listing/sandbox}} - thinking a fresh forked start might be better in moving forward - but that raises all sorts of other issues & I can't seem to focus on an approach either way. Comments? Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. clever.

Once again, pardon the fact I was previously thinking somewhat at cross-purposes to you: i.e. I was thinking in terms of evolving {{dotted TOC page listing}} and its sub-variants and perhaps eventually eliminating things like {{Hansard/TOCwa}} (~2 uses?) entirely; whereas I think you are approaching it in terms of starting a new line entirely(?)

My thoughts run along lines of: all approaches being similarly painful, might as well produce a "reasonably generic" approach—i.e. your work on the "recycled" {{Dotted TOC line}})—and then (maybe via some kind of robot?) dragging all the outlying cases back to the now-trusted central instance.

Right at present I feel I am being a bit of a useless onlooker merely playing catch-up. Thanks for your kind explanations. I think my best strategy is to hold off for now and maybe jump back in later if there is anything I can usefully do without interfering with the general scheme. AuFCL (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider the current approach not just for TOCs but html tables in general - all inline styling via template or templates; first to attain a "baseline" table setting throughout, then to have cell or cells / row or rows / column or columns deviate from that "baseline" by further (or contrary?) inline styling. The eventual problem(s), even with shortcuts such as table style parsing, is that application of such methods become too complex for the newbie to easily grasp all the way up to exceeding built-in resource limits, etc. (e.g. template bloat).

I've "solved" the need to waste setting "baseline" inline resources once before by defining classes for each cell expected in a single table row - see this 4 column list of EOs using {{Eolist-item}} where hardly any inline-styling, to override the baseline(s) or otherwise, is needed. I was thinking of starting something similar for TOCs from scratch with a 'new' family of templates mirroring the EOlist-item approach OR at least prune the attributes that can be class defined in the existing template(s) whenever possible and see what can be done to eliminate/unify templates at that point. I just don't know if the effort is worth it when folks are so hard to "re-train" if you understand what mean by that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The basic idea is sound, and I for one applaud it. However, doesn't it lay a lot of responsibility on the part of sysops to preempt all the nuance CSS which users "just expect to be there," however unreasonably? This whole tortured issue of tweaking potential leader content is representative of the problem, and regrettably I personally am nowhere near even the suggestion of an answer. (That aside, please continue. Sounds good, bearing in mind I think I am condemned as(/to be) one of your retraining converts. AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but even the leader tweaking takes place within an unmodified TD element. The "constant" problem is sometimes the cell (TD) is styled and in other instances the element (usually a DIV) within the cell (TD) is styled. If the table related elements were css defined to some agreed upon standard(s), then templates could strictly deal with formatting just the content - as well as allow overriding the definitions (if need be) - using inline styles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Point accepted. Still sounds good. I probably had 'content:' on the brain. AuFCL (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
...and class-"basicWS" is drawn from MediaWiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css I see. I can see I shall have to get more of a grip on the CSS storage structures (not because I really need to; rather more because I'm a nosy b*****r.) AuFCL (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
right - I broke most of the definitions out into "sub-pages" hoping to identify what is needed and what is mirroring the defs coming down from the servers (work in progress). I added basicWS & commonWS a few weeks ago in hopes it would be applied in some form or another as explained earlier. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer[edit]

@AuFCL - is Media Viewer working for you in the File: namespace? If not, disable it in your user prefs for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this hint: as I do not believe I ever enabled Media Viewer (and it no longer appears to be on the list of alternatives, at least under that name. Checked if it appeared if I suppressed enGB as well: no dice.) Maybe the option only appears if previously enabled back when it was on the Beta program? AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Preferences, Appearance tab, Files section. Apparently, this is what you should see if it is "working" File:Media_Viewer_Desktop_-_Large_Image_Opaque_Info.png for all? image files. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Eep. What can I say? I am an idiot. Yes, it was selected (now OFF.) Frankly if Zonotrichia atricapilla was supposed to change its appearance it must be pretty subtle. (I think that must mean it was working for me all along, no?) AuFCL (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen any change in my File: namespace's layout but that is probably due to my still running IE8. I just saw the new layout as depicted in the linked PNG on a friend's laptop (iMac w/ Safari) for the first time last night. Otherwise, it was just loading modules that never seem to change anything for me here and thought I'd mention it. 'nuff said. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert button[edit]

Dear George, we had already an unpleasend conversation @Captain Nemo. (Example: Author:José P. Rizal is still faulty.) The revert button is for vandalism! You use it for edits you don't understand and/or dislike. Your behavior is arrogant and unproductive. I will stop correcting errors at Wikisource. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kolja21: ??? I never touched that author after your edit. Please clarify.

Plus, I only changed one recent edit of your's where a lower case "x" in the GND string should have been a capital "X". Is Author:Archibald Standish Hartrick the Author you really mean? Wasn't my capitalization correction of your edit (a removal) the optimal GND file at the end of the day? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I owe you thanks...[edit]

...but for what I am (for I hope obvious reasons) not sure. Does it even make sense asking just what in hell happened in the last twelve hours? (If too painful then just accept the undirected thanks and move on...) AuFCL (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It all started with BeeswaxCandle deleting some giberish added to your front User: page by an annon. IP contributor earlier today. For laughs, I opened the "new" page view stat tool I had just discovered & that's when I saw the jump in page views and the like starting back around the 26th of May. I don't know who or what was going on exactly. After pouring over the data, I've come across several accounts getting blown up for weeks at a time then whatever it is moves on to someone else (see Logs in Admin Noticeboard for the top 4 offenders). Funny thing is, its almost always a User: or User talk: page that was never created (by the owner) or deleted by one of us at somepoint. Weird stuff.

That's why I figured the best thing to do was undelete something of your's and move that to the open User: page to "close" or "throw off" whatever it is pointing to that url. ... or maybe you are just that popular on the interwebs? ... know where flight 370 went down for sure? ... playing in the world cup on the side? One never knows for sure who's on the other end :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Pretty much as I had suspected, but thank you for filling in the blanks. Perhaps there is a lesson in this (for me too of course) and that is when a new user is {{welcome}}d, perhaps a dummy User page might be worth creating as well? (At least until the spammers evolve. Hah! Anyone for an arms race?) AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
..and where is MH370? Well according to the aircraft spec.s, without refuelling about the only place you can guarantee it isn't is (maybe) Heathrow airport. AuFCL (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This may be a rather long shot (and is almost certainly not worth following up) but I wonder if I provoked somebody when I made this edit? The timing curiously matches the sudden surge in pageviews directed against my user page. AuFCL (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Diving into stuff like this really isn't my bag. And I see not much has changed in the last ~24 hours but I took a stab in the dark anyway and blocked that IP for a day just in case it is still somehow behind this (if it ever was that is). I'll come back to this in day or so.

Either way, if this continues to be of concern I'd open a discussion on the Admin Noticeboard where there has been some movement since my last concerning other User: accounts w/similar traffic.

FYI... I'm slated for a workstation replacement in the coming week (still trying to bribe my way down to Windows 7 instead of 8) so if I suddenly "disappear" for any noticeable amount of time, please understand its not of my choice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


Do you know why the pagelist elements at Index:The Bostonians (London & New York, Macmillan & Co., 1886).djvu that are labelled with mdashes have so much left padding? It looks horrible. It seems to me this is a recent change of appearance but maybe it has been there for a while but I have not noticed. I had a look in the template and the css class is "index-pagelist", the definition of which I cannot find. Hesperian 02:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my interference, but where-ever it comes from, I do not believe any class to be the offender here. Each dash is prepended by a <span style="visibility:hidden;">00</span> and that I believe is the origin of your padding. May I venture a run-away javascript might be a useful direction for further researches? AuFCL (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that hint. Culprit is PagelistTagParser.php, lines 66–71, written into the code by Tpt on 23 November, presumably deployed here more recently. Hesperian 09:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Congrat.s on pinning it down. I was close, but gave up after realising it was no longer JS. The best (nasty!) "fix" I can think of for the moment is to put something like a > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none} into your common.css. If this seems too scary, you might want to put multiple lines and qualify the "a" selector with .quality0, .quality1….quality4 viz:
a.quality0 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality1 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality2 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality3 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality4 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
On second thoughts, doing it that way might be best for now. AuFCL (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW... I know Tpt has recently added several parser tests to the PrP extension but I can't see how any of those would affect a change in the normal .php(s) and typical rendering. IMHO, the first step would be to bring this to Tpt's attention. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Update: Looks like Tpt knew about this and has applied a patch already - see Problem is, the patch won't likely come down to us until the next 1.24wmf "upgrade" is released next week. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
…which is what I meant (but apparently did not make clear) when I wrote "for now" two responses back. Must admit I'm mildly concerned about that public function testIsNumerci. Looks like a possible typo. for testIsNumeric to me? AuFCL (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Good catch! I left him a note about it on his French talk page.

Plus I see no reason to patch this locally. Its not like a super major exclamation-point spacing violation or anything. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Osric: A hit, a very palpable hit. AuFCL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About FI and FIS[edit]

Hi, here I am seeking for news about FreeImg and FreeImg/span. The idea is, to re-import the updated version into it.source and perhaps to convert it in Lua. Did something substantially changed into the code (yes, I could browse history, but I feel more comfortable to ask you for a brief comment)? Have you any suggestion/warning? Are they somewhere in wikisource world other similar templates/modules? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say 'yes' some changes were made and stuff was added/removed as well but I'd need to review things myself in order to accurately list them too; sorry. @AuFCL:? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Alex brollo:. As I am not sure of the starting point for your familiarity with FI/FIS, the most recent changes (~April?) were to add some page-selection capability (ability to select which image within say a TIFF or PDF file) and a limited ability to rotate the image (mainly achieved through the application of CSS classes.)

This is the broadest outline of recent changes I can think of. Please let me know if you need me to dig out the details. AuFCL (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Something is jiggered with Template:Chart[edit]

Something is jiggered with Template:Chart, it has scripting errors. I cannot see which underlying templates invokes which module, hopefully you know the underlying guts of the components. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, Not really my baby - I just imported the latest revision(s) at the time from WP in hopes it would set things right (I think it did at the time fwiw). Its John Vandenberg who did away with our locally developed version and instead imported the christmas tree of templates and sub-templates in the Chart family we have now so maybe he knows more than I do in this case.
Update: Its not the Chart template et. al causing LUA errors, it was the documentation subpage causing a timeout. I disabled the call to the documentation for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, this is but one "family" of templates that relies more and more on advances made in LUA scripting over the passage of time. We have fallen woefully behind in this aspect. I've tried to keep WS as current as possible to new/replacement Module:s found primarily on WP with some good fortune to date but find myself "boxed out" more & more by high template protections imposed on WP when it comes to differences, collaborating, etc. Not being an admin there, is there any worth in applying for the "lesser" right of (I believe) template editor and how should go about it? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I pretty much guessed something like that, though was in the middle of other issues, so just had to drop and run. Found similar issues trying to resolve other errors when the template was <includeonly> so was hiding all the components to resolve but showed all the bits for the documentation. <ugh> Re template editor right, I have granted that (it is admin allocatable) and left a note to that effect at enWP. I much prefer the low fuss approach, as I know that it isn't your wish to be playing in that pool.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Earle cites, for example, "Lynch vs. Turrish, 247 U.S. 221", which is was 247 U.S. 226 (wrong-now fixed) here at WS. Is the second number in the case citation a page number? If so, would not page 226 be the first page of the case? How would Earle's "221" come before 226? Not sure how these things work... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not going bonkers - You've come upon an error in the original case citation listing here on en.WS is all. I've fixed up the redirs and listing to correctly reflect the case's real start page, 221. Thanks for that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to go. I did a little more digging, and found this website... Too bad WS doesn't display page numbers as well for reference. Thanks for making the corrections, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"We" couldn't work that in at the time because the inline page embedded page numbers thing [the 'page numbers within text' option] wasn't working and that is how almost all court reporters are published (see this example page & scan for where pages 535, 536 & 537 originally started in the original record to see what I mean).

I'm sure there is a way to back-track and work page numbers in with a BOT but without actual scans to back up all the current cases to begin with, it seems more work than its worth right now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaw essay on Ibsen[edit]

As you are the only person to reply to my copyright inquiries, I'm posting this question directly to you. Shaw (d. 1950) published this essay in 1891, without copyright claim stated, but in London. Is it eligible for upload at Commons? Here? Thanks for any assistance you can provide. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not as it was published in 1891 in the US (pre-1923) as well... & assuming they are both relatively the "same" content-wise of course.

And fwiw... that whole U.S. requirement to affix copyright, etc. etc. was made formal in the 1909 U.S. Copyright Law(s) so anything published before then should not rely on that nuance in your considerations regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So, to be sure I understand, a work published in both the US and the UK prior to 1923 would not be under copyright in either country, even if the author is British and died less than 70 years ago? I just want to clarify that it's OK to upload the work to Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way I've come to operate the requirements (and even more so if the work is pre-1909 & published in English in both nations). I find this table of checklists to be quite helpful whenever I face these questions - though it does tend to overstate post 1996 & restoration cases a bit. Plus Commons is good for policing stuff like this & the worst that can happen is we'd need to host the source file locally instead.

Again, I'm but one American idiot - you really should ask these @ Possible Copyright Violations to get a wider & more accurate view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cornell link; that will be useful. However, it does look to me as if that table only considers status of works with regard to US copyright. As I said, you're the only person who seems to field these questions here, so I might need to ask on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:NTSB RAR-92 01.pdf[edit]

OK, If you'd like to consider a cleanup on the HTML tables at the rear of this, I think I can this one is nearly complete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Is Template:Index still needed or can we cull it? It is unused. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
+ Template:Elementbillinghurst sDrewth
also Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The last is a bit of a shame, as I understood and applauded the intent; but was awaiting it reaching a stage where I thought I might be able to usefully contribute. (Obvious) offer extended if you ever want to resurrect it. AuFCL (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In the end, that wasn't the optimal approach for the task at hand as some block elements 'can't use' inline elememnt attributes and vise versa; in addition to even more caveats coming into play when, among other nuances, display:inline-block is set for example (thus the birth of the Paragraph tag template approach where every tag should host its own 'table' of parsed stylings to select from in order to avoid such pitfalls).

I know that seems excessively redundant at first - hosting x number of basically the same set(s) of attributes & their values for each element over and over again - but thats the 'path of least resistance' when it comes to balancing newbie usability with customized flexibility imho.

But If you have the time and still cope with an "urge" to stamp-out stupidity, why not start similar templates to Paragraph tag like Div[ision] tag and Span tag yourself? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: last paragraph above. O.K. That should extend me just enough to make a fool of myself. I have a couple of minor ideas in that area anyway. (2½ points: 1. No spare time immediately. 1.5. I intend to start off slowly on this. 2. Open invitation to look in from time to time and stamp out my stupidity should it come to light [please?].) AuFCL (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I've taken your kind offer a little too literally, but I have made a (trivial at this stage) start on {{span tag}}—based heavily upon your very own {{paragraph tag}} but with a limited variant attribute ability. I hope this remains within your perceived bounds of utility. If it is a Bad Idea please let me know before I push the concept too far. AuFCL (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries - its along my lines of thinking exactly. The question was always the approach to a closing tag and I would have folks type </span> too rather having start & end tags. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.djvu[edit]

To aid transcription is it possible to get the pages noted on the talk page rotated?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

125 Stat.[edit]

Volume 125 awaits! Would you like to do the honors? I should be able to tend to it in the near future if you prefer. Hope things are well. Tarmstro99 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I got it:) I can do the 'trim excessive margins' thing on it over the weekend and have it up by Tuesday or so. Thanks for the heads up & hope this finds you & your's well too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Request sanity check on Dropinitial template please[edit]


Absolutely no urgency on this as (sofar as I am aware) I have a working, just not terribly pretty solution. I noticed the {{Dropinitial}} template was generating margin: CSS-value strings which Firefox 31.0 at least completely rejects. Things like margin:0.00em0.10em0.00em0.00em; (prior default) are being treated by this browser as effectively identical to margin:0 0 0 0;. You will see my couple of false attempts at correcting the template and if you have any suggestions for a more robust approach I would value them.

I hope at worst I am salving an outright browser bug? Regards, AuFCL (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you over-thought the solution. Your last would have spaced only the default values (when no overriding User: input was made). Putting the space "outside" of the #if string produces the spacing regardless of a manual input or the automatic default being used. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! That both works and looks a lot neater. Much appreciated. AuFCL (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: your recent edit of MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template[edit]

Noted in passing: I suspect the second id="ws-author" should most probably be id="ws-illustrator" perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. id="ws-translator" actually. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Lesson for both of us then. I noticed the edit just at the point where I was about to rush off and attend to domestic demands; my primary alarm was multiple occurrences of identical id= values and was not paying (sufficient) attention outside that narrow scope. Good thing you were, and perhaps also good I didn't have the control bit or I might have made a stupid "correction" no matter how well-meant. AuFCL (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

problem with not connecting to wikicommon file correctly[edit]

I'm at wikimania right now and I had a talk with the wikisource guys during a meet-up. if there is a bug with the arabic wiki page is it possible for me to create pages in the multi-lingual domain till it's fixed? When is a document created there?

Re: old.wikisource versus en.wikisource[edit]

I started by Multilingual Wikisource because it is used in other projects as well, so bug fixes would have more impact, but I'll take a look here as well (probably not today) :-)

Careful - the "trend" for other language-wikisources lately has been to import our scripts; not the old.wikisource ones.

Where can I see the "page-highlighting" script?

It's part of our MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js file when it probably should be its own .js. The "problem" at one point was nobody knew that highlighting & toggling was suppose be working with the introduction of "Dynamic Layouts" (e.g. on any mainspace work transcluded in from the Page: namespace (Boyle, Roger (1617?-1687) (DNB00)), you should have a 'Display options' sidebar with 3 working choices. On Mul.Wikisource, many complained these options do no appear let alone work when it does appear). When en.WS divested from importing these scripts from old.wikisource and hosted our own versions did we correct the broken features.

And by "re-writes of Base.js & PageNumbers.js" you mean local changes on English Wikisource or recent changes to the Multilingual Wikisource?

Local English re-writes. If you compare ours to, you'll see alot of differences - the remaining headache being MediaWiki:Base.js overriding the normal LST scheme only to disable it again as a default. Its when we tried to isolate Base.js from the now working PageNumbers.js did the portlet-display-option & their cookie settings go a bit overboard.

What is the problem you noticed with the cookies? Helder 01:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it works but it seems [to me] its a bit overkill & probably does not need to deviate from existing cookie approaches that any other sidebar option use by design ... but I've been wrong before. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Other issues
Some of the existing "issues" that existed prior to deprecated .js modules, etc.
  • The sidebar 'Display options' should only appear on mainspace and Translation: space pages that contain content transcluded in from the Page: namespace. Currently, the 'Display options' header without any options under it is always generated for any main namespace work (like Executive Order 13625) and/or is generated in the Translation: namespace with just the layout options (Translation:Phoenix Pin) regardless of having transcluded content within it or not. I'm sure this can be corrected somehow by detecting the proper ext.xxxxx.js file or something similar.
  • arrgg... my memory fails me!! I know there are more things and will add them here when they come to me.

A common.js script that doesn't need loading[edit]

Hi, I'm in the middle of biting the bullet and moving to WikiEditor. I can't work with half a toolbar on a small laptop screen. In the process, I've just looked at MediaWiki:Common.js and note that there's a script being loaded for DL links for use in the Dictionary of Music and Musicians. I assume that ThomasV put it in about 3.5 years ago. We dumped that method of doing the Dictionary as it wasn't behaving as expected and Phe said that frWS weren't doing things that way anymore either. As a result the script for MediaWiki:Dictionary.js doesn't need loading for everyone, everytime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I always had the feeling it wasn't up to scratch but since I never used it myself, I left it alone in case other folks did.
Since I have you, I'm curious to know if you also lost your tool bar when NOT logged in. Plus - do you have nop inserter gadget enabled? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell you about not logged in as I never edit without being logged in. However, I do have the nop gadget enabled, but I've only ever had that appear in the tools menu on the left side of my screen (monobook). I've just switched it off and tried back to the old toolbar, but it's still overwriting with a cut-down version of the WikiEditor bar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You should see what happens when not logged in - your common.js file has over 150 errors in it (if one can trust IE's debugger that is). Might as well check your preferences per Help:WikiEditor/Troubleshooting afterwards. -- 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Page replacement help[edit]

Hello. No hurry on this, but there are images missing from Volume 5 of Byron's Works, and I have uploaded page replacements to Commons from a similar edition of the work. I have created a gallery of the images here (the work's Talk page), hopefully for your convenience. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm out of the page replacement business for a bit. I just upgraded to 64bit Windows 8.1 & IE 11 so much of my "old" software still sits on my old workstation & I don't know when I'll get around to importing all the tools I need to do this again - sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I believe it will take a while for that volume to be completed anyway... Slowly but surely... Do you know anybody else who knows how to do the task? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CharInsert and WikiEditor in ProofreadPage[edit]

Hi, I have a suspicion that there's some interaction going on between the various extensions. In the Page: namespace the CharInsert section is putting itself above the WikiEditor toolbar. In all other namespaces, it's below the edit window. I tried not logged in at work this morning so that was the Vector skin on a big monitor and it was doing the same. Except that it was initially drawing in the usual place and then redrawing above the toolbar. My normal set up is FF (currently 31.0), Win 7, 14″ screen, monobook skin. I've just tried not logged in on IE8 and it does the same. If I had a larger monitor I wouldn't worry about it so much, but with a small one I'm continually scrolling to see the character list, the page image and the insertion point. It's particularly bad with the Greek tranch of characters as these are usually footnotes with the text on the image and the insertion point in the edit box at the bottom. If you've got any thoughts that could direct me to a way of solving it, I'd be appreciative. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! That's a new one. Can you do a screen grab so I can "see" what you mean exactly. CharInsert "was" suppose to replace EditTools (old setup where character stuff was in its own div container after the edit summary, etc.) and I see you have already toggled the setting that controls that (true/false) since this post so I'm wondering if anything has changed since then.

Please be patient, I am also struggling to learn Windows 8.1 & IE 11 for the first time on top of all this Wiki stuff. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The new location of the CharInsert[edit]

Many thanks for moving it to the top and for the space gained at the bottom.— Ineuw talk 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First I post and then noticed the above post from User:Beeswaxcandle Here is my screen grab: — Ineuw talk 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New toolbar layout.jpg
@Ineuw: -- Same thing as BWC? only happens in the Page: namespace?

I don't know what happened but I'm not behind the change and it's not happening for me under Win 8.1/IE 11 either. — George Orwell III (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly the same. I don't know who did it, if it wasn't you. (still take the credit and we chalk it up to a miracle.) But you should ask He seems to be looking into things and perhaps reading some posts where I commented some time ago about the lack of vertical editing space without having to move the scroll bar. — Ineuw talk 04:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's one option, but I don't think anything he did caused that - otherwise I suspect it would happen in all the namespaces. I don't really know which extension a new bugzilla for this should go under either. - ProofRead Page, CharInsert or WikiEditor. Either way, the best case scenario would be to make that position a per User: option instead of "fixing it" back to the way it was before; that would solve BWC's problem while letting you keep it there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw:: I didn't change anything related to this (at least not intentionally). And for me (on Firefox 31) the tools are below the edit area (above the summary field). Helder 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC) - just to be clear - w/Firefox, the CharInsert bar appears above the Summary: field in all namespaces including the Page: namespace (the namespace where at least 2 users report the bar appearing above the Wikieditor tool bar.) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In my previous comment, I was referring to what I see when editing this page (ns = 3). On Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/615 it appears above WikiEditor toolbar. On Wikisource:Authors and Help:Audio it appears bellow the edit area. The results are the same with Google Chrome 36. Helder 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well again, not seeing this under IE11.

The only thing that leaps out me is the fact all the other namespaces w/WikiEditor enjoy the benefit of a null clear:both div tag prior to the start of the .editOptions div while the page namespace doesn't have one and that happens to be where the #editpage-specialchars div is 'inserted before' normally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I modified the CharInsert css to include a clear:both ; any changes for you folks? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't care if the CharInsert appears on top or bottom. For me it's the same, so don't worry about me because I now have vertical screen space. I only mentioned it to back up BWC and I understand his concern. It is still on the top for me after you included clear:both in Windows XP, Firefox 31.0. In a short while, I will provide you with a table of all OS + browsers I have installed. — Ineuw talk 03:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well then its something more than I can isolate -, how about you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to flog a dead horse . . . I created this small reference table of Browsers and OS's for what it's worth. Everywhere it's on top.— Ineuw talk 04:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Windows 7 Ultimate / Internet Explorer 11... F12 Developer tools should "tell you" fairly quick what's possibly causing the bar to load above WikiEditor in the Page namespace. There's really not much else I can do about on this end; an hour or so into it & I can't even find a way to force-replicate this. Looks like one of youse should open a bugzilla on this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the Windows 7 Ultimate / Internet Explorer 11 output: Perhaps it help you. User:Ineuw/Sandbox2.19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

{{FI}} or {{FIS}}[edit]

I am only using {{FIS}} for images because it's good for left or right offset and centered images and thus find {{FI}} redundant. any comments? — Ineuw talk 09:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

<shrug> lofas a sheged be? <-- very poor Hungarian>
What else am I suppose to say here exactly? Use what works for you.

Personally I'd use FI for whole page (or centered) images only - you might not see any difference nor may there be any actual difference as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may contribute my—probably unwanted—2¢:

I am inclined to use FI everywhere I can get away with it (perfect for centre and full-width situations.) My only quibble is that float= usage "drops down a line" with respect to flowed text around the image; and this last I consider is a problem affecting all <div> usage (and even affects "raw" [[File:…|side]] usage as I'm sure you both would know—do the developers?) under mediawiki and not at all specific to FI. AuFCL (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You know the answer to this - change the containing div to display:inline or display:inline-block depending on the situation no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In short I pretty much represent the mirror to @Ineuw:'s original statement, so you still hold the casting vote. (You probably didn't want that rôle either.) AuFCL (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What in blazes am I missing here - Vote for what? Deprecate one for the sake of the other? I'm confused -- who is complaining exactly? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 :-D Ha ha. Your Hungarian delivers the message perfectly. I like a person who speaks their mind. A minor correction "lo fas" should be "lofas". Also, judging from this and your response to the following post, it's time for you to take a nice vacation. In all honesty, I was wondering when you'll hit this point. My best advice would be is close this office and don't respond to idiotic posts like mine and the one below. Remember, I am on your side. — Ineuw talk 23:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Its not you folks. Its Microsoft and their god-damn changes from XP to 8.1 & from ie8 to ie11 that is making me "irritable" today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Kulcha differences. Don't sweat it. As Ineuw stated earlier: we side yours are on: O.K.? All is appreciated. AuFCL (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Paradisus Londinensis 1(2).djvu[edit]

What happened to Plate's 18 and 89 in this?

They appear to have been omitted from the original scans. (Although are present in the Google Books PDF) 11:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

fuck if I know. I didn't upload the file originally & never worked a single page in the file either - looks like I only re-ran an OCR routine on it to add a text-layer. Personally I wouldn't wipe my ass with such garbage uploads but some folks can't resist putting the cart before the horse it seems. I can't fix it at the moment either so move along to something worthwhile. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tweak common.js[edit]

Sorry to bother you; is it possible for you to tweak my common.js so that a new line is not inserted after a <br /> is added? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: DONE! How about now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Like magic! Always appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)