MediaWiki talk:Edittools/Archive 5

message: :the bullets at the end of these lines, all have different spacing on their lefthand side. eg:
:ə •  
:>  •  (templates)
:ω   •  
:Could someone fix the Unicode and Polytonic lines to have 2 spaces to the left of the bullets. (Makes more sense if you look at the above in the Editing window (monospaced).)
:Also, could we add another bullet between " (polytonic list)", like this: "  •  (polytonic list)"
:Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! —Mets501 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet spacing 

message: I strongly recommend that you get User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons by adding the following text to User:Quiddity/monobook.js:
//Create 'winc' function:
function winc(s) {
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:' + s
             + '.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
}
winc('MarkS/extraeditbuttons')
XEB (as I call it) includes all functions in the markup line of edittools, thereby making all of them redundant.  Once you've gotten XEB, you can add #edittools_wikimarkup {display:none;} to User:Quiddity/monobook.css, which will then make the wikimarkup line invisible.
Ingoolemo talk 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I've made a new section for this.) Thanks for the suggestion, but i don't actually need the buttons, as I hand-type everything. The thread above is just me following up previous discussions, and proposing a change that will hopefully help all users. (by removing redundancy, adding a useful template link, and stopping the linewrap at 1024width). Thanks anyway though. -Quiddity 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra edit buttons 

message: Could someone help? I think it would be a good idea to add  into this, but I was clicking show preview and, because of the space, it thinks  on an article if it works by replacing a space wiht an unserstrike, but it doesn't work. Any ideas? Iolakana|T 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <nowiki><div class="references-small"></nowiki> should work.  It worked for me in my sandbox. —Mets501 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Thanks anyway! Iolakana|T 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it now. —Mets501 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces 

message: I was thinking that whenever you need to put voloured span tags, unless you're God, you ned to look at a colour chart. Why not include a HTML colour chart to help out the meek mortal users? SoaP 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to be god to remember that for green you type  and for blue you type , etc. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that, I was talking about when you want to exactly match a color for whatever reason. It's a pain in the arse to find the exact colour. I was thinking something along the lines of...I'll show you my way here. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The edittools text cannot be entered into the summary field. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, meh, I forgot. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should not cross in to the MediaWiki namespace on April Fools' Day, that is going to far, and admins have been blocked for doing that in the past. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean something really that far, but maybe putting in one tool that said "Happy april fools' day"? I really don't think that for one day out of 365, one crappy little link would destroy the integrity of the wiki. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I strongly oppose any use of crappy little links even on April Fools Day. No serious researcher or academic would play such a joke. For Wikipedia to keep its integrity and scholarly ideals intact, these jokes should be strongly discouraged. Besides, there is Wikipedia:Humor for this. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour guide 

message: ©,  and ® need to be inside the box; that would be of great service to image uploaders and those who respect copyright, like me. All I keep typing out for those turn out thus: (c), (p) and (R).
(Hmm...I see  isn't Unicode-compatible.) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? They should not be used in articles, and they aren't needed to indicate that something is copyrighted, you just use one of the tags or you can write what the copyright is. —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright symbols 

message: Can I add Edittools to my local portal mediawiki?
What I must do for this?
83.219.129.26 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask this question at the Village pump. —Mets501 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add Edittools to my local wiki 

message: Please remove the semicolon from the id in this line (near the bottom):
 
Thanks :) --Quiddity 06:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Mets501 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup change request 

message: Hi. Could someone please change:
<nowiki><div class="references-small"></nowiki>  
to
<nowiki><div class="references-small"></nowiki>+<nowiki></div></nowiki>  
This will make insertion easier. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit protected edit request completed. —Doug Bell talk 10:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup change request(2) 

message: I added an archive box above.
--Meno25 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: Could an administrator please add ₦, which is the symbol for the Nigerian naira, to this page? It would go in the line  ¢ $ € £ ¥ </span>, in between the Euro (€) and the pound (£). The new line would be like so:  ¢ $ € ₦ £ ¥ </span> Thanks. Picaroon 02:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --bainer (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naira symbol 

message: I thought I'd throw this out, since it seems to be a recurring point of discussion here.  My belief on the question of text-based editools (this page) versus the graphics-based toolbar (at the top of the edit window) is that it depends entirely on the users.  Some, like myself, prefer to insert markup with the toolbar; others seem to prefer using edittools.  We should be ready to accommodate both.  So, anything that is in the toolbar should be included in edittools as well. Those who don't edittools-based markup insertion, like me, can suppress it with CSS (see instructions at the top of this page).  Likewise, those who have no use for the toolbar can also suppress it, by adding #toolbar {display: none;} to their personal CSS.  Hopefully now we can move beyond quibbling over redundancy.  Ingoolemo talk 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should be ready to include both. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on redundancy 

message: Can somebody add C-dot-below and c-dot-below to the Edittools box. Many of the others, like Ḍ and ḍ are already there.
dick@cs.vu.nl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.100.126.13 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding  --ais523 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly do so if you can find an example of the character so I'll have something to add, and if no one objects within the next day or so.  Karl Dickman talk 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be in Unicode; the best I can do is C̣, which is two characters (C, and combining-dot-below); combining marks aren't very portable, so I'm not sure if using the character is a good idea. (For lowercase c, just change C̣ to c̣). --ais523 13:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, what platforms are you aware of that have trouble with combining marks provided an appropriate font is used (they are often rendered in a somewhat ugly fassion but they usually work)? Plugwash 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit box on IE can't handle them. --ais523 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need C-dot-below and c-dot-below in the Edittools box 

message: Anyone object to me replacing the references-small div with , as suggested at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:References-small? Superm401 - Talk 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who particpated in the tfd, and has probably used the div version by accident two or three times since then, I'd say go ahead. The lines <nowiki><div class="references-small">+</div>  </nowiki> and <references/>   would be replaced with {{reflist}}  , right? Could you fit in my #Naira symbol request while you're at it?Already done. Picaroon 02:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't planning to get rid of the regular  tag too.  Do people think I should? Superm401 - Talk 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I usually don't use it unless there are two refs or less (reasonably rare), but some people still use it well into the double digits of refs, so I guess leave it until consensus forms to move to  only (which'll probably never happen...) So yeah, probably just the first of those two lines I mentioned. Picaroon 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just swapped in Reflist, but left  alone.  Superm401 - Talk 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds great, I didn't know that template existed :) --Quiddity 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Reflist 

message: Since a person may have a justifiable reason for removing large amounts of text, but their edit is reverted because it looks like vandalism, I propose this notice be stuck onto this template: "If you are removing large amounts of text from the edit page, be sure to explain in the edit summary box above or your edit may be confused for vandalism." Sounds good? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like that.  We shouldn't be reverting edits simply because they removed a lot of text.  That statement is not a very good assumption of good faith. —Doug Bell talk 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What Doug said. Plus this page is already getting too big and overwhelming. --Quiddity 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I've seen people get reverted over removing large amounts of text, but they were doing so in good faith. It's hard to determine whether someone is a (quasi-)page-blanker or a legitimate contributor when there's no indication. This is an example of such an occurance. And with all the break-neck speed of today's antivandalism, there's no time! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two points in response.  First, anti-vandalism needs to slow down enough to evaluate the change before tagging it as vandalism, whether or not there is a comment.  Second, any mistakes in reverting a deletion are easily resolved.  I don't think the fact that there are occassional incidents warrants the biting message.  It comes across as warning the the user that they need to defend deleting text, when in fact, many articles are greatly improved by removing content.  Is this really a big problem? —Doug Bell talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed notice about removing large amounts of text 

message: Per User:Cyde/Saving bandwidth and my solution to the problem of downloading tons of JavaScript on every load of an edit page, I went bold and implemented it (and noone seemed to care a lot when that was proposed). New characters and tags should now be added fo Mediawiki:Edittools/chars (which is the heavy page that gets downloaded on-demand now). Миша13 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Please discuss this further at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. —Ruud 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  overhaul/optimisation 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: add "Contents" to Wikipedia's main menu for a current discussion about adding the link Wikipedia:Contents to the sidebar. --Quiddity 07:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong talk page? —Ruud 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! --Quiddity 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Contents" to sidebar 

message: Would it be possible to add  to the "Wiki markup:" section.  I think that it would be quite for people who can't remember it and would save keystrokes for those who do. --After Midnight 0001 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sandstein 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. --After Midnight 0001 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment indicator 

message: I have a wiki that is running Mediawiki, and I'd like to know how to get edittools on it. I've heard from people it is a mod, but could somebody provide a link? Thanks. 71.191.100.99 13:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean this Special:Allmessages? --Steinninn 05:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You need the extension called CharInsert to do it. — brighterorange (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your own mediawiki 

message: Is there any way of telling a <charinsert> to go to the bottom of the page. As it is now, it automatically goes to the top of the page. That is, if you haven't selected any other place. I wanted to add a Category: and obviously it's best to have it at the bottom. --Steinninn 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Try bugzilla. —METS501 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  charinsert automatically at the bottom 

message: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission" and similar terms are dangerously misleading.
Giving Wikipedia "permission" to reproduce your content isn't enough.  It needs to be released under the GFDL.  — Omegatron 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is the public domain works have no "license" at all, so they need not be under a "GFDL-compatible license". —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True.  This is a bit tricky though.  When we use public domain works or fair use quotations to create a derivative encyclopedia article, is the entire article released under the GFDL or just the original content?  — Omegatron 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be significant creative or original work in order for the derivative to be under new copyright. Entries that are copied from, for example, public domain encyclopedias, are welcome on Wikipedia and would not be under new copyright. Regardless, even if someone were to make significant creative changes to the entry such that the result were to be under new copyright, the author would, if he followed this message diligently, look around to find the "GFDL license" on the public domain encyclopedia and find that there is no such license with it. In fact, he might find the copyright notice behind the title page that says "Copyright 1913" and think that he cannot add it to Wikipedia, when instead all works published prior to 1923 are in the public domain. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "without permission"