User talk:Caesar Schinas/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Caesar Schinas
	Current Talk Page
Archives	1, 2, 3

Revision as of 01:54, 26 June 2009

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Moved everything except conversations edited today to /Archive 2. 09:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot guidance

Hi Caesar,

I like [(Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{[Cc]reditline\|([^|]*)\|([^|]*)\| ?Paul Wormer ?}} +{{creditline|\1|\2}})) this sort of edit summary] and wish to encourage you to make this a habit. I am interested in learning to run bot scripts too (mainly for maintaining reference formatting) and would appreciate your guidance. Could you post one of your recent scripts somewhere, so that I can ask questions and comment? Thanks!

Daniel

The scripts I use are all (so far) from the pywikipediabot library, normally either replace.py or template.py.

The command I used with the regex above was simply

python replace.py -pt:2 -start:Template:! -regex "{{[Cc]reditline\|([^|]*)\|([^|]*)\| ?Paul Wormer ?}}" "{{creditline|\1|\2}}" -summary:"Remove Paul's name as requested"

I too like the sort of edit summary you mention, which is the default edit summary for replace.py - but I usually change it to something like - in that example - "removing name from credit per author request" or some such, because I think most Citizens will understand that better. Perhaps I should still include the regex at the end somewhere. Or perhaps I'll create a page in my userspace which lists all the command I use; what do you think of that idea?

Caesar Schinas 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, see User:Caesar_Schinas/bot-recent. Caesar Schinas 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Upload menu

I looked at your upload menu. I don't want to pretend to know about GUI's, yet I like to remark that—just like the old menu—the menu deviates much from what one is used to elsewhere on the internet. More familiar would be four tabs (copyright owner, not copyright owner, advanced, help) with drop-down menus that give the choices. Do the colors of the big squares in the menu, as it is now, have any meaning, or is it just a matter of aesthetics? --Paul Wormer 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult (or even impossible) to create any form of interactive interface like that on MediaWiki.

The only way I can see to further simplify this would be to have the first page ask just one simple question - "Do you own the copyright? (y/n)", and then have further questions after clicking yes or no. And so on. But this level of "simplification" would introduce a lot of extra steps, which I think would make the wizard less usable.

The colours do have a meaning; they refer loosely to the amount of freedom - green = high free, yellow = low free, red = not free. This colour scheme is already used at later stages in the process; I just brought it forward because I think that it is clearer if the buttons aren't all the same colour.

But it may be that this use of these colours will only serve to complicate matters... what do you think?

Caesar Schinas 08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

what one is used to elsewhere on the internet — can you give me an example (other than Wikimedia)? I would be interested to see an existing upload wizard. Caesar Schinas 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Caesar Schinas/Upload2 for a wizard with a highly-simplified first step... next steps not completed yet.

I revised CZ:Article of the Week...

I just revised the CZ:Article of the Week to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new nominees.

I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself. All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.

I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.

I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.

Caesar, would you review what I have done in detail and make any changes you deem necessary? If what I have done is acceptable to everyone, I will also revise CZ:New Draft of the Week similarly. Milton Beychok 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit cluttered at the moment, but I like the concept (assumeing that we are going to continue to use the transclusion system, that is). Caesar Schinas 07:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot to populate Related Articles subpages

I am wondering whether you (or I, if you help me) could run a script that does the following:

search for CZ:Clusters that do not have a Related Articles subpage
populate the "other related topics" section of this page with anything that links to that cluster from main space
add a note on top of the page that the content was bot-generated and would need human intervention

I think this would greatly facilitate navigation on the site, since we have many articles that are not put in context this way yet.

What's your take on that? --Daniel Mietchen 11:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would obviously requite the creation of a custom script rather than a standard one, but it doesn't sound too complex. The only problem I can see is that it would rely on Special:WhatLinksHere, which is often considerably out of date due to the fact that the job queue doesn't run quickly enough. (Actually, the job queue is "only" 980 at present...)

I'll see what I can do when I have time. Caesar Schinas 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suppose it makes sense to run the script in a regular fashion (once per week or so), and then the little time lag at Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't really matter. --Daniel Mietchen 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it only operates on articles which don't already have related articles pages, then all that will matter is the length of the job queue when the bot is run. But fortunately, most changes to links will take effect immediately; the job queue is mostly template transclusions and categories.

But another thing - are all articles linking to an article necessarily related to it, anyway?

Caesar Schinas

No, they are not, but deleting them by hand is easier than putting them in. To avoid confusion, we might use a separate section "Bot suggestions" instead of the existing "Other related" one. --Daniel Mietchen 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea.

Of course, an alternative would just be to make the Related Articales link redirect to Special:WhatLinksHere for pages with no RA subage.

Caesar Schinas 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see this as a viable alternative, as it leaves way more manual work to do than a section with {{r}}-preformatted entries which simply have to be cut-and-pasted into the other sections (or deleted). --Daniel Mietchen 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Caesar Schinas 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just can't resist!

You've been a real busy boty recently. (:>) Milton Beychok 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:-D Caesar Schinas 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another for your 'to do' list

Since you are a whizz with bots, it would be nice to have one do the donkey work of enforcing Editorial Council Resolution 0012 - the one that created 'inactive editor' categories for editors who have not made an edit in 3 months, or 500+ in the past year. I have done a few of these but it's hard work. :) Thanks. John Stephenson 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Best seen in conjunction with the list of active editors. --Daniel Mietchen 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume that the bot which Jitse used to generate that page would require very little modification to do what John is suggesting. Perhaps we should ask him for the code, rather than start from scratch, even if doing so would be fairly simple. Caesar Schinas 10:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Daniel's suggestion above, this will require a custom bot - but again, not a complex one. I'll try and find time some time to do both...

Both of these are actually bots which could/should be run automatically every certain period of time. I wonder whether bots like this can be installed onto CZ's servers?

Caesar Schinas 10:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How to use CZ images in a PHP online discussion forum?

I want to use one of my CZ images, Image:Refinery Products Barrel.png, in an online PHP forum (which uses BB markup code]). When I use

[img]http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Refinery_Products_Barrel.png[/img]

it isn't accepted, even when the spaces are converted to %20 .... I think the problem is the colon in the image name. I also tried removing the Image: and using

[img]http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Refinery_Products_Barrel.png[/img]

and that also didn't work.

What can I do, if anything, to make the image display in my posting in the online forum? Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the URL you're using isn't actually the URL of the image; it's the URL of the CZ page for the image. To get teh URL of the image, go to the CZ Image page, Image:Refinery Products Barrel.png, and click on the preview image. This will take you to the image itself, and you can then copy its URL, which in this case is http://en.citizendium.org/images/6/6d/Refinery_Products_Barrel.png.

So the code you want is [img]http://en.citizendium.org/images/6/6d/Refinery_Products_Barrel.png[/img].

Is this for the CZ forum, or another? (I don't know if "hotlinking" CZ images from other websites is allowed - most/many site owners try to prevent this, since it uses their bandwidth with no benefit to them/their site.)

Caesar Schinas 06:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Caesar, that did the trick. The image was for an article I wrote in an on-line chemical engineering discussion forum that welcomes articles and images.

By the way, I just sold the first PDF e-book version of my book to a post-grad student in Ireland ... it went smoothly and he seems quite satisfied with the transaction. Regards, Milton Beychok 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! But did you manage to solve the thing about changing the link each time?

When I mentioned hotlinking, I didn't mean the owners of the other website would mind; I meant that it uses CZ's bandwidth with no benefit to CZ. But I don't suppose it matters much for just a few images. Caesar Schinas 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

About changing the link each time, I just decide to trust people's honesty. And as for that image, while waiting to hear back from you after my question about the image's url, I just linked to a copy of the image that I uploaded to my website ... so I didn't have to link to the CZ copy. Milton Beychok 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I'm sure it would be OK for just a few images, anyway - I just wanted to point out that it could be an issue. Caesar Schinas 16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Facepalm

I found an easier way. Check out my Sandbox, Sandbox3, and Sandbox2. Yes they are in that order for a reason. Of course, this only encompases one unit of measurement, but it can be adapted as needed. Now to delete all those useless convert templates.Drew R. Smith 07:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that code is hard to follow... I can't work out what a lot of it does. But if it works without all those other templates, great! Well done! :-D

Alot of it is beyond me as well. I asked for help at wikipedia, since I only have a limited understanding of the syntax and they pointed me to some other templates.Drew R. Smith 08:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But what do you mean about only encompassing one unit of measurement? I mean, surely for just one conversion, you could do something like (for inches to cm) {{#expr:{{{in}}}*2.54}} rather than all that code... or am I completely misunderstanding what all that code does?

I'm not sure exactly why, but #exper always seems to give an error on CZ. Perhaps CZ doesn't have the same version of wiki sofware that WP does?Drew R. Smith 08:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to work fine for me - for example, {{#expr:12*2.54}} gives 30.48. Caesar Schinas 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I notice you just created Template:Intricate_template - two things. Firstly, I had been going to integrate this concept into Template:TlDoc, since it is used on most templates anyway, so that on complex templates we could just use the code {{TlDoc|complex}}, or similar. Secondly, even if it is going to be a standalone template, it should be called {{TlComplex}} or similar, as this is how all (or most) of our other meta-templates are named at present.

Ok, I can move these over there if you want. Is there a specific way you want it done, or just "use your best judgement"?Drew R. Smith 08:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just im[plemented what I suggested with {{TlDoc}}. Unless you can see anything wrong with it, I'd say just speedydelete the new ones and use {{TlDoc|complex}} instead. Caesar Schinas 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Caesar Schinas 08:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that looks great. I'll speedy the old one. Do you mind if I add an icon to it, or are there rules against that?Drew R. Smith 09:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't have icons on any of our other meta-templates at present, and I would be against the idea unless there's a good reason, but I don't think there are actually any rules about this.

I note that the icons which you have uploaded so far are low-quality copies of Wikimedia icons - if you are going to use these, it would be better to upload higher-quality versions. (CZ doesn't accept SVG, unfortunately, but high quality PNG versions of SVG icons at Wikimedia projects can be easily downloaded.) Caesar Schinas 09:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, don't want to go against the grain. Though IMO an icon would be a good way to grab a readers attention. Most people just skim the text, and if we want to make sure it gets read an icon might help. On the other hand the maturity level here is much higher than WP, so we really may not need it. Only time will tell. If people break templates that have the notice too often, then I may go ahead and add an icon.Drew R. Smith 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that an icon grabs the attention more, but since this is only used on template pages, which most readers won't see anyway, it's less important

Anyway - I don't really object to changing the style of all our notices to use icons, so long as (a) we don't change some and leave others, and (b) we have good-quality icon images.

Caesar Schinas 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like the majority better without icons. It looks more professional, and gives more weight to the ones that do have icons. For now, we can just leave it as is, and if it looks like people aren't paying attention to the template then we can add an icon.Drew R. Smith 02:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to get that ugly template loop off the doc page?Drew R. Smith 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not that I can think of... Caesar Schinas 08:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm not bothering you (too much)

Now that I'm more familiar with the code, and how it works, I can see exactly how all that code in {{In to Cm}} actually works, and why it is better that way. You are right, for a single conversion using #expr would work better. However, that is basically what the code in {{In to Cm}} does, with a few optional parameters. It automatically appends "in" and "cm" to the proper places in the conversion, it can do ranges, 2d, and 3d (for area and volume). You can specify that the abbreviations are turned off which will produce "inches" instead of "in". It also has a spelling parameter that will change the spelling of the full "Centimeter" to the commonwealth spelling of "Centimetre". There are other conversions that could stand to be templated as well, such as the reverse (cm to in) as well as alot of the more widely used SI and Metric units. I will begin working on some of the ones that will likely be used, and if there are any specific conversion you can think of that probably should be templated, let me know. Don't worry, I will make sure to properly document them all, and will probably create a CZ namespace how-to guide for the basics of each template. I'm not sure what the CZ equivalent of wikipedias "Manual of Style" is, but I think a quick blurb about the conversions could be posted there as well.Drew R. Smith 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about bothering me... :-)

I've just been looking at {{In to Cm}}, and I don't actually like the way it prints the number you're converting from - if you want that, you can write it anyway, and if you don't, you're stuck with it. I prefer a template that just converts the value, leaving you to use it in any way you want. This would also be easier to use for people who aren't familiar with using complex templates, IMO.

Also, just a minor point - I think it would be better were it called {{in to cm}} - the abbreviations for units aren't usually written with initial caps.

The documentation on In to Cm is very good, well done.

Caesar Schinas 07:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see there is a lowercase redirect anyway, making that last point less relevant... Caesar Schinas 07:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean in your first point. What is it you don't like about it?Drew R. Smith 07:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a second look at the documentation I wrote up for it, and it seems to me that you can get whatever output you want, so long as you looked at the template before using it. For example it uses the abbreviated form "in" by default, but with the proper parameters it can say "inch", "inches", "in", "inch", and "inches". Perhaps changing "in" to "in." might be prudent, but that is a fairly simple task.Drew R. Smith 07:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like is that instead of just converting a number in one unit to another unit, and printing the result as a number, it also prints the number you're converting from, and the names of the units. I think it would be better just to print the result. So, for example, if I were to type something like {{convert|1|in|cm}}, I would expect the result to be 2.54 - whereas your template would give me something like 1 in (2.54 cm).

If that's still unclear, I'll try again.

You mention adding a dot after the abbreviation - if you do so, make sure you leave it off if the spelling is set to Commonwealth - it's not used outside the US.

Caesar Schinas 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well (I thought) the point of the conversion templates was to provide both forms of measurement so that the encyclopedia is easier to use for people of either nationality. In order to get something with both forms of meausurement using your method, you would have to type something like 1in. ({{convert|1|in|cm}}cm) in order to get 1in (2.45cm). In which case it just seems more prudent to template the entire proccess.Drew R. Smith 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As for leaving the dot off for the commonwealth spelling - I don't really think it would be an issue. Spelling only takes effect when abbreviations are turned off. But if you are saying not to put a "." after "cm", I won't, that's obviously wrong.Drew R. Smith 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be very simple to create a wrapper template around my one which would show names and the original value as well as the conversion. Or to just have an extra parameter which would tell my conversion template to show them. Or, actually, to have an option to tell yours not to show them... all I'm saying is that it ought to be possible to just use it to convert measurements without having to show all that other stuff too.

(Actually, whatever the output, I still think my template system would be easier to maintain... but never mind, your system is OK.)

Regarding the dot - what I meant was that outside the US, dots aren't usually used after abbreviations at all any more, and particularly not after unit abbreviations. So instead of in. and cm. it would be in and cm with no dots.

Caesar Schinas 08:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the point is to make the measurement accesible to users of both systems. To the people who use inches, the shortened form is "in." To the people who use centimeters(or metres) the shortened for is "cm" Of course, I don't think anyone would see "in" instead of "in." and not understand, so I'll probably leave it the way it is.

As for adding the possibility of simply converting, without appending the units or the original number I ask the question: Why can't you use a calculator? Or more specifically:How many people who want to display a single number are going to even know about conversion templates? In most cases people would just run off to calculator.com and find it. The template is meant to be an accessability feature, not a calculator.

Ultimately these templates are works in progress. While they work right now, there are always little things that could be added here and there. I just don't know that they need to be added. For instance, I'd like one central template that can call up a specified conversion subtemplate (similar to how {{convert}} was supposed to work) however it just isn't worth the work at this time.Drew R. Smith 08:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using it as a calculator - that's not how a template is used. I'm talking about using it in a CZ article where unit conversions are needed, but the original unit isn't. I agree that often both measurements will be needed, but I think that sometimes only the one may be wanted. This would also allow it to be used within other templates. But never mind; you're the one creating it, so do it your way.

Well if only one unit is needed, most people would just do a search for a conversion calculator.Drew R. Smith 09:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your last statement about {{convert}} - isn't that what you are doing? If not, what are you doing? Lots of individual templates like {{In to Cm}} which have to be called directly? You seem to say that it is hard to create one central template, but why is it? I don't understand... sorry! Caesar Schinas 08:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Convert}} needed thousands of pages just to get one conversion to work properly. That isn't the kind of template I want. When I do start working on a central template, I'll try to find an easier way to do it. I'm not saying it's the hardest thing in the world to do, I just think it's hard enough to not worry about it yet. As it is, there couldn't be a simpler method than simply typing what you want to convert as the template. If you want to convert 10 ft to metres for instance you would simply type {{Ft to M|10}}. I think its a bit simpler actually than using {{convert|10|ft|m}}.Drew R. Smith 08:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand about why the WP convert template is no good; that's what I've been trying to say from the start. But a template like the one I created at User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert or User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Conv has none of these problems, and is very simple. It could also easily be changed to output the original unit too, like the templates you are creating. What's wrong with that? Caesar Schinas 09:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the first one works, but all I get is errors when I try to use the second one. I can probably adapt the first one for use with all the individual templates, however I still think it is easier to simply type {{In to Cm|1}} rather than {{Convert|In to Cm|1}}, or even {{Convert|1|in|cm}} Individual templates cut down on the number of letters needed, and make it easier to use. Ease of use is a big deal, especially when dealing with people who aren't familiar with wiki-markup or html.Drew R. Smith 09:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the individual templates are easier to use - for one thing, I think most people will expect one template to perform all conversions, and for another, the convert format makes more sense because it mimics speech - "convert 1 cm to in" is more like {{convert|1|cm|in}} than {{Cm to In|1}}.
And lots of individual templates are certainly harder to maintain. But if you'd rather do it that way, go ahead...
Caesar Schinas 09:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Conv doesn't work without the fourth parameter I guess. I personally like the individual templates, and find them easier to use and remember than {{convert}}, but thats just me. The way I see it, is if they are properly explained, either way would be easy enough to use in practice. I'm planning on having a list of the templates, with a brief description of each, and a link to each templates page.

Also, my knowledge of the code used in these templates is somewhat limited. To be completely honest, every bit of code I know I've picked up by dissecting other templates, userboxes, and portals on WP. Which, I'm finding out, aren't very well done. I have no idea how to implement your convert template with my individual templates. I did give it a stab, but I'm not having much luck.Drew R. Smith 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes; I'd missed a default value out. It should now work with just the three parameters - 12 inches = User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Conv centimetres.

My system was intended for a central template. If you want to make individual templates, you can still use exprs, but you'll need to repeat them on each template, which makes for alot of duplication. It would still be easier to maintain than your current system, I think, but not as easy as a central template. If you don't understand my system and want me to explain it I'll have a go... Caesar Schinas 09:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First, how is it hard to maintain? It's not like the code is just going to suddenly break, and if someone accidentaly breaks it, it should be a very simple matter to fix.

I like your system, but I don't understand why I can't simply plug in {{In to Cm|{{{1}}}}} or a variation of that in place of the actual equation. It seems like it should work, however if you look at User:Drew R. Smith/Sandbox5, where I imported your code and attempted this, and then at User:Drew R. Smith/Sandbox2,at the very bottom it gives an error. Every variation of plugging in my template gives a different error message (quite odd that all the errors where different actually).

Actually, my latest edit made some progress. Instead of {{In to Cm|{{{1}}}}} I plugged in {{In to Cm|{{{1}}}, and it still gave me errors, but it did show the final number in cm. I have no idea why taking out the last two "}}" works though...Drew R. Smith 10:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can't do that because it's inside an {{#expr:}}. You could get rid of the expr and do that, but I don't see the point. If you want to obtain the same result as your individual templates via a central one, there are simpler ways of doing it. I might modify one of mine to do that later, as an experiment.

Regarding maintenance; a problem arises if someone decides to change something about the convert template in the future - they have to do it across alle thos individual templates. Also, even apart from that, they have to be able to work out what all that code does, whereas mine uses quite simple code.

Caesar Schinas 10:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it turned out to be even simpler than I thought to make my template do what your many ones do :
Using User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2 :
User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2
User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2
User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2 - 6dp
User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2 - 0dp
User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2 - 1sf
(look at the source here to see the code for each conversion) Caesar Schinas 10:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is easy. And it's very simple to add new measurement into as well. I've imported that one to my sandbox, and added the link creation, though I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have the units of measurement linked, now that I think about it. What's the point of linking inches on a page about guns? Maybe we should just adopt your system, and add the rest of the measurements as we go along. I can write up a document page for it, I do seem to be good at those...Drew R. Smith 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do - please do so! :-D

Shall I move it to the main template namespace over the top of the current Template:Convert, or do you want to keep that for now? Caesar Schinas 10:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we think it's ready to go, then yes, by all means do. It should be simple enough to make minor modifications once it is in mainspace. But what about the linking to the units? Is that a good idea or not? On one hand it promotes article developement, and will keep articles from being orphaned. On the other, as I pointed out above, it seems pointless to link "cm" in Dog.Drew R. Smith 10:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's probably better not to link them by default - we could add a link parameter to enable if wanted. One thing to consider is that only the first use of a word is meant to be linked, if at all.

Alright; I'll delete Template:Convert and move User:Caesar Schinas/Template:Convert2 over the top of it.

Then we'll need to delete all the subtemplates of Convert whihc you originally copied from WP - can you remember what they all were?

Caesar Schinas 10:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're on my contribs. I can also check the category's suptemplates of convert and subtemplates of rnd. I guess I'll get sarted. Does AWB work with CZ?Drew R. Smith 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AWB? I don't know, but I don't see why not. But if there's a category containing all the templates to delete, tell me its name and I'll just use PWB to delete the lot. Caesar Schinas 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do all of these want deleting??? Caesar Schinas 10:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedydelete

As for the question above, yes they do. However it seems you already have, so I'll move on. I think I won't speedydelete {{purge}} unless there is already something like it. It seems to be a useful little gadget. Any thoughts?Drew R. Smith 12:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As for AWB, I only ask because similar programs, and applications, such as huggle, twinkle, and even lupins anti vandal tool don't work here.Drew R. Smith 12:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:2Likewise, I think I will keep Template:2. It seems a useful, harmless little tool. Check the source of this page, and you can see what it actually does, the doc is a little confusing. One of the ones I didn't write.Drew R. Smith 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how useful {{purge}} really is, since it won't be used on most pages and since all you have to do to purge a page is add ?action=purge to the end of the URL, but by all means leave it. As for {{2}} - I can't think of an instance when the code <br /><br /> couldn't be used instead, and even if it's needed, it would be better to have a template called {{br}} which could take an argument saying how many brs to insert - {{br|2}}, for example. What do you think? Caesar Schinas 12:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have tagged all the useless templates. I'll take a look at my contribs again after the ones I've tagged are gone to make sure.

Both templates are more useful trinkets than anything that will be used frequently. I like them, but if CZ doesn't need them I'll probably copy it to my subpages befor speedydeleteing it. {{purge}} specifically will become a commonly used template once CZ reaches the popularity of WP. The template itself doesn't purge the page, but adds a purge link to the page. So it would be useful on high traffic pages. We don't really get the kind of traffic that would need it, but it's there if we ever do need it.

As for the {{br}} idea, that sounds like a really good idea. I'll start working on it in my sandbox.Drew R. Smith 12:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done {{br}}, so I'll delete {{2}}. As for {{purge}}, yses, we may as well keep it. I've removed speedydelete from {{e}} too; I think that looks quite useful. Caesar Schinas 12:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Drew, when you speedydelete templates you must put speedydelete inside noinclude tags, or pages which use the template can get deleted too. Caesar Schinas 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I never though about that. Did anything get deleted that didn't need too?

As for {{E}}, it may prove useful, but shouldn't we move it to something a little (wow. I should go to bed. It took me three tries to spell little right) less cryptic? :)Drew R. Smith 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My sandbox version of {{br}} was a little different (probably three or for(for? really? Time for bed. Definitely) characters more) but functioned the same.Drew R. Smith 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know - after all, E is the standard letter used to represent powers of 10 (1.2E3, etc). What would you suggest calling it? (And goodnight...) Caesar Schinas 13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What about {{In to Cm}} etc - do you still want those? Caesar Schinas 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's only a couple of them and they have some pretty powerful features that {{tl|Convert} doesn't. Maybe keep {{In to cm}} and {{Mi to Km}} as those are the ones likely to be used most. We could provide a link to it on the doc for {{convert}} with a description along the lines of "For added functionality see {{In to Cm}}". Thats my 2cents though, and if you think they should go, then go ahead. Good night. I'll be on again tommorow.Drew R. Smith 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright; we'll leave them for now. Please make a list of them somewhere when you're next on. See you tomorrow! Caesar Schinas 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your message (left the pc on while getting ready for bed). There actually is a list at Category:conversion templates.Drew R. Smith 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah; ok. Great. Caesar Schinas 13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Documentation for Template:Convert

I've finished the documentation for {{Convert}}. Could you take a look at it and tell me if there is anything that should be changed? I added a "no overflow" box to the list of supported units. What do you think?Drew R. Smith 04:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good, but I have a few comments :

• I don't like the way each section is in a box - there is no other page on CZ which is like this.

• The bit about metric and SI doesn't make sense - SI is metric, basically. I think you mean metric and imperial?

• There should be an explanation of each parameter near the beginning, like all our other template docs.

• I think the list of conversions would be better as a table. It could still scroll to avoid taking up too much space.

I'll go through it changing a few of these things now, if you don't mind. Caesar Schinas 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh. Yeah, imperial. My mistake. Must've slept through that class.

I put them in boxes, because I thought it looked better. It's purely an aesthetic choice, and you can change it if you like.

I thought about making the list of conversions a table, and only decided against it because, well I had already done it in a list, and was being lazy. If you think a table is better I'll change it.

By the way, what template controls the box above the edit screen, and shouldn't we change it to use {{Box}}? For uniformity, you know?Drew R. Smith 06:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you might like it better with boxes, but nothing else has them at present, so I've removed them.

As for the box above the edit screen - perhaps, but {{box}} won't let us change the styling (yet). I plan to modify it so that it will, when I have finished tweaking your instructions. Then, yes, I suppose we could change the edit box to use that template.

Caesar Schinas 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember why I chose a list instead of a table. With a list, users can navigate directly to the conversion they want, whereas with a table users would have to spend time searching through all the conversions. Right now that may not be a problem, but in the future, when {{convert}} has evolved beyond just length conversions, and goes into area, volume, temperature, and speed, the table could get quite large. With the list, they can get right to the specific conversion from the Table Of Contents.Drew R. Smith 06:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you're conversion formula for kilometres was uniformly off. I think you forgot about the existance of the decametre. 10 metres is not a kilometre, but that is what {{convert}} would have us believe. I looked up the proper conversion and updated it.Drew R. Smith 06:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Well, you actually added one of those... but for the other, I apologise.

Regarding the table, I think that by splitting it into a few tables for different types of conversion we can make it more easily navigable than at present - already, the TOC is so long as to make it almost worse than non TOC. I'll try using tables, and see how it looks - we can always change it back. Caesar Schinas 06:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I based my conversion off of yours. I saw you moved the decimal once, and did the same. Once I realised that they were off, I looked up the proper conversion and changed it.

While you are working on the table, I am going to import the script for the actual template into my sandbox, and se if I can't get it to do ranges.Drew R. Smith 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to figure out how to make it do ranges. Would a seperate template for ranges, say {{rangeconvert}}, or {{convertrange}} be out of the question? I think the simple code may be part of the problem with adding features to it. Your design just doesn't seem to be able to hold a range conversion. I think your code could be adapted to do ranges, but not both. I'm thinking the new temlate would work like this: Input {{convertrange|1|-|2|in|cm}} and would produce 1-2 in (2.54-5.08 cm). What do you think?Drew R. Smith 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, this could be used for 2D as well, provided the second parameter is merely displayed.Drew R. Smith 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be possible to make my template do ranges, but I think it would be easier and probably better to use a separate template. If we do, the hyphen you've shown there isn't needed - it could just be {{convertrange|1|2|in|cm}}.

What do you think of my changes to the doc for {{convert}} so far?

Caesar Schinas 07:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If we add a fifth parameter to {{convert}} so that all output except the result can be turned off, then {{convertrange}} can be basically just a wrapper around it. I'll try doing so. Caesar Schinas 07:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes to the doc, but I think we should have an area where people can suggest conversions to add.

I guess you are right, the hyphen isn't needed. But if we do put the hyphen as a parameter, we can easily adapt the templates to do dimensions. But Im having a hell of a time with it, so I'll try without the hyphen parameter.Drew R. Smith 07:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I never thought of using {{convert}} inside of {{convertrange}}. Thats a pretty cool idea.Drew R. Smith 07:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How's that? {{convertrange|10|20|km|mi}} gives 10-20 km (6-12 mi).

Regarding the place to add suggestions - it's the talk page! I added a note at the top asking people to leave suggestions on the talk page.

Caesar Schinas 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not liking the current setup for the tables on the doc page. I'll try to draft something in my sandbox.Drew R. Smith 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what exactly don't you like about them? I find them much clearer than the list... Caesar Schinas 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that they don't show all the possible parameters. I've gotten a good start on something hopefully a little better than either form. User:Drew R. Smith/Sandbox4. Drew R. Smith 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange... your edit overwrote mine. I'll just paste mine blow, since it answers your point anyway...

Looking at what you're currently doing in your sandbox, I don't like it... I think there's too much unnecessary detail there. Examples aren't needed for every conversion, since they all work the same.

I'm not sure about the list of possible ways of specifying the unit either - the Usage section already explains the units - "The names of the units can be specified as either abbreviations or full words, using either British or American spelling. The unit names in the output will be in the same format as the input."

Caesar Schinas 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I speak from experience when I say that even if we think something is explained sufficiently well, there will always be people who just don't get it. Take for instance the guy who had been updating the draft of the week. I read on the forums that someone had changed the mainpage to transclude the draft of the week instead of it being placed directly onto the page. Well, the guy who had actually been updating it got confused because he couldn't figure out how to update it anymore, even though there was a pretty good explanation on the talk page, and directions on the new transclusion page. This isn't to say that he was stupid or anything, just "more literate in other areas". People unfamiliar with template syntax may simply wish to cut and paste the specific conversion and replace the value. I just think we should make it as simple as possible.Drew R. Smith 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't have examples for every possible value of every parameter for any other templates, and I don't think we need them for this one.

Your example of Milt not understanding the change which I made to the AOTW system was largely due to the fact that the code was burried amongst other clutter on the page, and that he either didn't think of looking at the talk page or didn't understand my brief comment there (I don't recall which). I'm sure that Milt and most other people are perfectly capable of using the name of the correct unit in a template without a list of possible ways to spell it, particularly as there is a notice saying that they can spell it whatever way they like anyhow. Caesar Schinas 08:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We could, I suppose, put the standard abbreviation in brackets after the name - that would be quite a good idea - but I still see no reason to list the UK and US spellings and their plurals. Caesar Schinas 08:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was you? I read it awhile ago, and couldn't recall who either party was.

And if we float the TOC to the right, what is wrong with using tables to organize the examples like I did in my sandbox? With the overflow box in place, it's not like it's going to clutter the page. Drew R. Smith 09:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it will still make the TOC rather long, but I wasn't thinking of that - it's simply harder to see at a glance what conversions are available with all that clutter around. Caesar Schinas 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use both. I like the way yours shows at a glance which ones are available. But I still like haveing a detailed list. Perhaps we could place yours in an overflow box above mine? And I've started replacing all instances of "meter, meters, metre, metres" with the simpler "meter(s), metre(s)".Drew R. Smith 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that change makes it even more pointless, surely? If your idea was to show every possible spelling of each unit in case people couldn't work them out themselves, now then you're effectively removing some of those spellings.

I have added abbreviations to mine, what do you think of it now?

I'm not sure if having both on the page would be good, but we could have mine as an overview and then put yours on a subpage with a link - something like "click here to see a detailed list". What do you think of that concept?

Caesar Schinas 09:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes it pointless. And we do have to draw the line between misunderstanding and stupidity somewhere. If someone can't work out that "metre(s)" means he can use both "metre" and "metres" then they are probably the people who are listening to a tape 24/7 that broadcasts: breath in, breath out.

But yes, a link would be fine, as long as it is fairly prominent, and not effectively hidden in the middle of text and other links.Drew R. Smith 09:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I like your tables better now that they have abbreviations. For the record, I never meant to intone that I didn't like your tables at all, just that I didn't like that to be the only thing there. In fact, using {{yes}} and {{no}} looks rather spiffy. I just thing a more in depth list of every conversion, with defenitions of exceptable parameters would also be good.Drew R. Smith 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes - my point is that you are drawing the line in the wrong place... :-p I reckon it's already extremely clear. But I'm happy with having your list on a subpage if you disagree. I had envisaged a link just below the scrolling box containing mine, saying "for more info see this detailed list" or something like that. Do you think that's prominent enough, or do you want it somewhere else? Caesar Schinas 09:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it better with the abbreviations. Caesar Schinas 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good place. Maybe we could shorten the overflow box though so that people don't have to scroll past the overflow to get to it. By prominent, what I really mean is that it should be visible without any scrolling down. Other than that, I really don't care where it is.Drew R. Smith 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I was going to put it below the box rather than inside it, so that it was visible without having to scroll the box. I'm glad you agree. (Though I don't see the need to shrink the box - you can scroll past it without scrolling it.) Caesar Schinas 09:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)\

(Edit Conflictc)Hm. I looked at the page again, and it seems that won't be possible. I seem to recall in one of the old versions, the overfow box being much higher. I guess putting the link below it is fine.Drew R. Smith 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)I meant without scrolling at all, but that just won't work, per my comment above.Drew R. Smith 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, but as you say, it is too low on the page. Well, let me know when you've finished your detailed list, and we can move it to Template:Convert/doc/conversions/detail or some such page, and then add a link. Caesar Schinas 10:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That exaple page you gave sounds fine, but obviously we would have to disguise the link. Maybe give it a "sexier" name. :)Drew R. Smith 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly... :-) I was thinking of something like See the detailed list for in-depth information. Or something like that. Caesar Schinas 10:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does CZ have any templates that produce the [edit] link? Once I have converted a section to tables, the [edit] link disapears, and if I want to edit a table, I have to edit the whole page.Drew R. Smith 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of... sorry! Caesar Schinas 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I made one, or imported WP's? I promise to check if it relies on other templates before i begin importing!Drew R. Smith 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind - but can you give me a link to WP's one, so I know exactly what it's going to do? I'm puzzled about how it will work... Caesar Schinas 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox5 - If you're trying to make it so that the "millimetres" heading is editable, just use a standard MediaWiki heading, with = signs, rather than an HTML heading. Caesar Schinas 10:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've imported one of their many templates that seem to do the same thing into my Sandbox, and its effects can be seen at Sandbox2, but this particular version doesn't seem to be what I want. I'll have to see if I can alter it to use a {{edit|text here}} format.Drew R. Smith 10:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that, but I'd rather not. I like the way it looks, and an edit section template may be useful for other things in the future.Drew R. Smith 10:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, all that template does is create a link to edit a section which already exists, and which will in fact already have an edit link of its own. What you need is to be able to create a new section without a heading, and I can't think of any sensible way to do that. So far as I'm aware there is no template to do that at WP either. Caesar Schinas 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I will just use regular headings. It's strange that the html headings show up on the TOC, but not as a seperate, editable section.Drew R. Smith 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes... they didn't used to show up in the TOC either in earlier versions of MW, but now there's no way to get headings out of the TOC. Caesar Schinas 10:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done with the tables, and have moved them to the link you provided. Also, I think an {{editsection}} template may be good for talk pages. Instead of adding a new heading as an arbitrary break, one could simply add an edit link when it becomes a pain to travel all the way back up to the section heading. Obviously, it's probably not ever going to be able to edit sections that aren't actually there, but it can provide some convieniance.Drew R. Smith 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much point, since you have to edit the whole section anyway. Better to start a new subsection.

I have added a link to your detailed list. Caesar Schinas 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

But isn't this so much easier than doing all that scrolling? Drew R. Smith 11:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)----->

Yes, but I still have to scroll in the edit box, and I still have to scroll to find your new message in the first place. If you'd used a new subsection, I wouldn't have had to do either. Caesar Schinas 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but scrolling in the edit window and scrolling to find my message aren't that hard. I simply hit the end key, because I know there is nothing after it. Whereas when scrolling up to a heading, you can always overshoot, so you have to pay attention. And what about when a discussion is really long, but doesn't warrant a new heading or sub heading (albeit, this one isn't a good example as it has slowly moved away from the original topic).Drew R. Smith 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fahrenheit to Celsius

I did a Fahrenheit to Celsius conversion in my sandbox, and it works fine, but when I placed it in {{convert}} something is screwing it up. Are any of the parameters required (besides the obvious ones)?Drew R. Smith 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it - or fixed some problems with it, anyhow. You hadn't used , so it was only working with units in the same case which you had used to enter them - in the template all options should be in lowercase and should be used to make the input lowercase too.

I've also removed the nonstandard temperature abbreviations without ° signs - these mostly have other meanings, such as C for Coulombs and F for Farads. Caesar Schinas 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure temperature abbreviations are uppercase. At least in america fahreneit is abbreviated as 100°F instead of 100°f.Drew R. Smith 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but by using on the input to the whole switch and using lowercase unit names throughout the template, it works with either lowercase or uppercase for every unit. Even if you want to make it so that it only works with uppercase names for temperatures, you would have to make all the other units case sensitive too. And is there any reason for it not to work with both? Caesar Schinas 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

°F and °C are always capitalized the world over ... not just in the U.S. ... there is no reason for any conversion template to include lower case f and c for temperatures. Milton Beychok 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be very complex to allow case insensitivity for some units and not for all. Is there any reason to specifically prevent case insensitivity for these units? Caesar Schinas 10:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CZ:Upload

I just took a look at your changes to the upload page, and I must say I'm impressed. I haven't used it yet, but I look forward trying it in the near future.Drew R. Smith 09:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (I hope it looked right when you saw it - I'm in the middle of making some changes to the CSS and so it's been looking a bit weird some of the time this morning...) Caesar Schinas 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It looked fine when I saw it, four {{box}}'s, each one leading to a different page. Very proffessional looking. Drew R. Smith 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to U.S. National Library of Medicine

I appreciate very much all the work of your I am seeing here and there. Here is a tough one. It is very important that in our medical writing we link statements back to supporting research indexed at the National Library of Medicine. We do that using the PMID. A properly formatted example for citizendium or wikipedia is:

<ref name="pmid3717113">{{cite journal |author=Otte JJ, Larsen L, Andersen JR |title=Irritable bowel syndrome and symptomatic diverticular disease--different diseases? |journal=Am. J. Gastroenterol. |volume=81 |issue=7 |pages=529–31 |year=1986 |month=July |pmid=3717113 |doi= |url= |issn=}}</ref>

This is painful to do, even using the Diberri tool. [1] allows the writer to simply enter:

In addition, they have a customized button on the edit interface so that you highlight the number, click the button, and the ref tag is placed around the number. They do this by fetching the citation data with the PubMed eUtility and then storing the citation locally.

How much work would this to do for us? The same could also be done for ISBNs, DOIs, and any standard identifier that has a web look up service. Thanks - Robert Badgett 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that the wiki which you mention is using a plugin for this purpose, but since they have disabled their Special:Version page I can't tell what plugin it is. Perhaps you could ask them, if you're a member? Otherwise, it would be possible for us to develop our own plugin from scratch, but probably more effort than it's worth, since it's not that hard to use Diberri... If you can get tehm to tell you what plugin it is, we can try getting someone to install it here. I don't know who to ask though; nobody answers emails to bugs about plugins (or anything else, generally). Caesar Schinas 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New upload

I used your new upload menu, and since I made a choice for PD somewhere along the line I thought that I could ignore credit stuff. Apparently not. Do you know why the photos sometimes are distorted and sometimes not? And do you know why FF3 shows suddenly more edit buttons?--Paul Wormer 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd, since when I test the PD option in my wizard it works fine. I wonder if my recent changes are not showing up due to cahching - may I ask you to describe the upload form which is shown at the last stage of the wizard? Does it have lots of individual inputs, or a large textarea? Does it have a dropdown box at the bottom for you to select a licence, and if so, did you select one?

Credit lines are not the problem here; the problem is that the licence isn't showing up at all - I know that you chose the PD option, but the notice saying so isn't shown on the page.

The reason the images are sometimes distorted is due to caching when the image has recently been replaced. Clear your cache and it should look OK. If not, add ?action=purge to the end of the URL and clear your cache - then it should be OK.

The extra toolbar buttons are now shown because I eliminated the bug which was preventing them from showing in all browsers.

Caesar Schinas 08:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Right; I may have found the problem - am I right that (a) you have JavaScript disabled and (b) you didn't select an option in the licence dropdown? Caesar Schinas 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have js enabled, but I probably didn't select an option (I went quickly, did not read the stuff I should have, and --as I said before-- I thought that by choosing PD I had left the licence stuff behind me).

Good that you fixed the buttons bug.

With regard to distortion of photos: while editing and previewing you cannot clear the cache, so you have to save to see it. Further it seems that, even after clearing the cache, some photos are distorted by the upload. Somehow the pixel sizes of the different versions get screwed up.--Paul Wormer 09:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you do have to select a licence even for the PD option - due to the poor design of MediaWiki it is impossible to fully avoid that.

However, it you have JS enabled it should do this automatically for some options, including PD - and it shoudl show a warning if no licence is selected for all options.

The script is new (a few hours ago), so could you try clearing your cache and closing and re-opening your browser before you upload your next image? Sorry for the trouble.

The distortion problem should be fully solved by clearing your cache and appending ?action=purge to the URL. True, you can't do this in the preview, but after you've done it once it will be OK until the image is replaced, so that doesn't really matter.

Caesar Schinas 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] I uploaded "box-end wrench" with your new script and I don't see a licence underneath it (and I do see one for "adjustable wrench"). "Pipe wrench" became distorted after adding "box-end wrench". I did not change anything related to "pipe wrench", cache clearings don't do anything. --Paul Wormer 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Box-end_wrench.jpg does have a licence, so I suppose it was that my new JS wasn't getting to you before because of cache problems. Since it seems to be working now, it should be OK for all future uploads...

None of the images are currently distorted for me, so it must be your cache. How are you clearing it? I think you are using Firefox, presumably on Windows, right? If that is the case, then go to the page with the distorted image, add ?action=purge to the end of the URL and press enter, then when the page has reloaded press ctrl+shift+r. Yo may then have to press ctrl+shift+r again when you next visit that page without ?action=purge, or it may be OK anyway. Caches are persistent buggers...

Caesar Schinas 09:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about uploading a photo

Hi, Caesar. I want to upload a photo of a building from a website at RIVM to use in a CZ article I wrote about the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, commonly known as RIVM.

There is a "disclaimer" section on RIVM's website at Disclaimer which includes this statement:

The materials contained in the web site may be downloaded or copied provided that all copies retain the copyright and any other proprietary notices contained on the materials. No material may be modified, edited or taken out of context such that its use creates a false or misleading statement or impression as to the positions, statements or actions of RIVM.

As I read that, it says that we can use the photo as long as we credit them with the copyright. What licensing option would I use? Again as I see it, the closest one is the one where "the copyright holder has given me written permission .... ". Does a statement like the one above constitute giving us written permission? I hope so. But if not, do we need another option in our upload wizard?

I have run into many similar cases where a website has some photo I would like to upload and the website also has a statement like the one above from the RIVM website ... and I finally decided to see if you (or Joe Quick) think that such statements constitute written permission. Milton Beychok 06:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that constitutes written permission - in my new upload wizard, I would use the options "I am not the copyright holder" > "The work is from a source which permits reuse" > "Other" and then in the licence dropdown I would choose "Copyrighted - but no reusage restrictions except must attribute to author".

This process could probably be made simpler/more obvious... Caesar Schinas 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What quick help! Thanks a lot and I will do as you suggested. Yes, I think that option probably should be made more visible because, as I said, I have run into this situation a number of times. Thanks again. Milton Beychok 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Upload Wizard

Very nice java work, Ceasar. :-)

I wonder if you can create a tick box, Is this a photograph of a human subject? that, if ticked, would insert {{privacyrights}}.

Icons for "I am the copyright holder" might depict one person; the other, two persons. Icons do indeed speed usage. Imagine if your computer desktop only used text and no icons!

Also, here is the documentation to change the URL for the Upload link. You'll need to get whoever has tech access to make the change. Also see troubleshooting.

Stephen Ewen 02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen. I could add a checkbox to do that for people with JavaScript enabled, but it wouldn't work for those who chose to disable it. But that's not many.

Strange about having to set $wgUploadNavigationUrl - on the commons article about the upload form it says that changing MediaWiki:Upload-url will be sufficient. Perhaps it only will if $wgUploadNavigationUrl = false.

Caesar Schinas 07:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a small suggestion, pertaining to our conversation on image redlinks. The only reason I use redlinks is because it automatically fills in the name of the file, so I don't have to remember it, or cut and paste it (I'm a tad lazy;-) I don't know how complicated it would be, but perhaps you could have image redlinks go straight to the wizard, but still fill in the file name?Drew R. Smith 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I had been thinking of doing that, but it would be quite complex unless I completely redesigned the backend of the wizard again... I'll think about it. Caesar Schinas 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's complex, don't worry about it. I don't think anyone else uses image redlinks anyway...Drew R. Smith 06:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening out the mess at AOTW

Thanks a bunch,Caesar. I tried to make the weekly change over in AOTW but could not because of the line added by Daniel Mietchen on June 19th to transclude stuff to a sandbox of his. So I gave up and vented my ire on Daniel's Talk page as you can see there. I see now that you deleted that line that was added on June 19th. I thought of doing that myself but was worried that I might mess things up even worse, so I didn't do it.

The change over of the weekly NDOTW went smoothly. Any how, thanks again. Milton Beychok 06:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually noticed the problem because of your comment on Daniel's talk page. I'm not certain why Daniel added that line, but I think it was to make it show the name above the AOTW when it didn't have a link to itself in the lede. So I just got rid of it, as you saw, and now it's OK. Caesar Schinas 07:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Caesar! --Daniel Mietchen 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about {{convert}}

Is there an easy way to adapt {{convert}} to do something like 5ft 6in to meters? It's not anything important, and I'm not currently needing it in an article, but I was just wondering.Drew R. Smith 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 504: / Line 504: @@
 ::Yes, thanks, Caesar! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
+== Question about {{tl|convert}} ==
+Is there an easy way to adapt {{tl|convert}} to do something like 5ft 6in to meters? It's not anything important, and I'm not currently needing it in an article, but I was just wondering.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)