User talk:David Kernow/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Beethoven navboxes

I see you've checked in some navbox changes to the Beethoven Concertos. How do you get those to open up by default? Thanks.DavidRF 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If I've implemented it correctly, {{Beethoven concertos|state=uncollapsed}} should produce this result (cf the template's own page). Hope you approve, David Kernow (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IE browsers and Bharuch

Can you take a look through the Info box used on the above page and see if you can spot something (anything!!!) which might be causing it to influence the left text and display. See the edit history, and my attempt to influece with a change to 'clear'... that sort of simple thing is all I be asking!

My interest is in the direct behavior of Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history), which under Firefox is doing pretty much what I expect... putting a TOC up tight over to the right against the busy right margin elements like long infoboxes and pics, etc. (See links, this is new, and is in only a few places.) in a targeted vertical locus.

However, both IE6 and IE7 seem to want to insist on either valign=top behavior, or positioning it so that it starts below the table element on the right (Depending on positioning and order with respect to the text and such right seeking elements with respect to the div + div style, etc. contents of the template proper). Since the whole idea is to have a tool that will allow us to tighten up default page composition behavior which leads to big expanses of whitespace because of TOC behavior, the current (almost a whole screen page) top-located 'lead-in' whitespace under IE7 is most annoying! OTOH, Firefox looks like what I want. Note that IE7 behaves properly on Timeline of chemistry, albeit with a simple element to the right. Thanks // FrankB 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can confirm it seems to work fine with Firefox, but, yes, in IE (IE6) the article's text is shifted down so that it starts after the Indian Jurisdiction infobox... This suggests to me that something in that infobox's code – maybe its use of class="infobox" – pushes the number of levels on which it and the other templates' HTML/CSS code operates beyond IE's handling ability; "If I had a dollar for the number of times I've seen "Not [fully/properly/etc] supported by IE" when casting about the internet for help, I'd be a..."

I've left Bharuch with the TOC where it seems to work best (in this case, its standard position between the lead paragraph/s and first section) but at a reduced font-size. I wonder if what I reckon you're after – something like a flipped and reversed L-shaped area in the righthand corner of the article set aside for the infobox (taller) with the TOC (shorter) to its left...? – may not be possible, at least not with tables, <div>s, etc, which all seem bound to straightforward square shapes... Hope that makes some sense, David (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

PS How about asking one of these folk or these folk...?

Need a "class" adjustment

re: this edit... and a few leading up to it with my footprints (FYI). <g> The infobox that was here was causing a margin overrun in IE7, which is to say, added a scroll bar to the whole page, or section. So I subst'd. Then alerted to a problem with it in Netscape, upon revisiting, Firefox is not scaling the element properly, so made this last change... but seem to have lost color now. Sheese! Can you look at the diff and see what I may have deleted which I shouldn't... I cut out the switch branching, and so think that should have settled the contest... save the colors are gone.

Looks like maybe here I should have altered the two templates instead so I could just pass a different width into override the fixed 350px width. Alas it was two layers away! Sigh.

More TOC issues

• Many thanks on your attempts on Bharuch... that one is still being stubborn, so I've set it aside until I can get CBD to take a peek. He's on vacation or something though. He hasn't been around since the 23rd. // FrankB 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure... but, looking at the resulting version, the color seems fine, while the TOC is squeezing the text beside it to only five or so words per line (at present, I'm using a 1024 by 768 resolution screen). I'm guessing the problem has since been resolved (cf thread above..?)  Yours, David (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We be seeing a lot of browser/settings dependent effects in this quasi-initiative (?) [hope?]... sigh. The snapshot you give me is still colorless on IE7, but I'd seen the width problem with Firefox! I'm out of the office so can't check IE6 and my other firefox && Netscape presentations, but note I just tried Template:TOCleft(edit talk links history), and am seeing a big dislocation with respect to wrapping text and vertical position between FF and IE7 in this edit outcome. (Note that template battlebox is back to being a template, and that's in living color again!) I'm concluding there is some sort of interpreted order issue on various browsers of the incoming HTML from wikimarkup. Thanks for taking a look. // FrankB 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On another burner

• I brought X5/Commonscat over late last night, but apparently have a difference in the local {{interwiki class-sisterproject}} template, negating my commenting out the embedded div style of X5 here. Sigh. That I can solve... just thought I'd mention, but I got to go do some RL work now! // FrankB 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Country}} padding-top div

Re: this edit, could you point out an article and any other information (resolution/browser/etc.) that would let me see the problem this code circumvents? ¦ Reisio 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First candidate that came to mind was Benin (although I haven't checked beyond a quick look). I'm most often on a PC with 1024 by 768 or 1152 by 864 resolution, using Firefox. Hope that helps!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Native Name

Thanks a lot! Much appreciated. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sir Jonathan Sacks (small).jpg

Hi, I replaces this with a free use image I found on Flickr of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I suggest you get this one deleted. Good day, DGtal 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and uploading it!  I've now deleted the above. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Hi David I think was something wrong in Template:Infobox Country... Looks there.. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert; hopefully it looks okay now.

How you are editing, take a look in [page] and check if is possible to change to the discussed template... I think that it is more consistent with others UK countries. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean!  Have now repaired. David (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

all lines below of map was also changed... see one more time... — Guilherme ^(t/c) 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now also fixed. Hopefully any further workarounds won't resort to <table>s which may or may not work with the infobox code!  David (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All good, but I was mentioning this infobox to Northern Ireland. Some minor changes. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again; glad you also happen to be online!  While I look at the above, what do you think about using flag-icons next to leaders' names, as in my recent Mercosur edit...?  (I'm currently looking at Union of South American Nations: "Amb. Jorge D’Escragnolle Taunay Filho" – is there a shorter version of this name...?...!)  Regards, David (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

...Have replaced the infobox code at Northern Ireland with that here; hope that's what you meant. (Pastebin.ca looks a useful site – thanks for pointing me toward it!)  David (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This site is really cool :)

No problem when don't have too much members, but with more than 8, 10 or 12 it's strange... I like the way that it works on European Union infobox... What's your opinion ?

I don't have certainty how to diminish this name, but try something like "Jorge Taunay Filho". — Guilherme ^(t/c) 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[resetting indentation]
Re lists of members, yes, there can be "too many" for an infobox... I'm not sure, though, if the European Union's infobox solution – more templates within templates – is particularly suitable... Since an organization's members should be clearly listed within the article, how about the simple approach currently used in African Union, Andean Community of Nations, etc...?
Re "Jorge Taunay Filho", thanks for this suggestion; have now implemented it!  Yours, David (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... it may be too vacant. Agree?

Changing the subject, can you delete this image? Already has another without legend in commons. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization

I agree with you and User:MJCdetroit (from the Infobox Country talkpage thread that combining Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organization seems sensible, so I hope the present {{Infobox Country}} – to which {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} now redirects – meets your approval. I've begun work on a dual-purpose documentation page here; my aim is to limit the widths of the <pre> boxes used so that instead of the current "For syntax and examples, see /doc", the documentation may sit beside two blank versions of the template, one for country/territory use, the other for geopolitical organizations. (Not easy to describe in words!)  Yours, David (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem... nice job :) Some suggestions:

1. - Copy all Template:Infobox Country to another template with a generic name (Sorry, I don't have suggestions to the name)
2. - Create a redirect in Template:Infobox Country to this template..
3. - Delete the redirect Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization (No more necessary... Not too much pages points to it) — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  Unfortunately, I'm about to go offline for a while, but here are my first thoughts re your suggestions:

1. I'd thought of doing this (with the name {{Infobox Territory-related}}) but decided against in case it upset people editing country articles. (For example, I once renamed the template to {{Infobox Country or territory}}, as it was being used for areas other than sovereign states, but this was reverted.)  Perhaps something else to pass by User:MJCdetroit...?
2. Yes – if the above is agreed!
3. Not keen on this idea; Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organization share some parameter names, but not all of them. See also MJCdetroit's comments in the thread on the Infobox Country talkpage.

Back later, David (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Hi David. I've noted your recent changes to the Northern Ireland article. You do realise that the article is currently under edit protection due to edit warring, mainly due to the infobox contents? I bring this up as I don't think that the contents of that, or the box and details should really be changed while the article is protected, especially since a lot of the warring debate was due to the contents of the infobox. Just bringing this to your attention in case you hadn't noticed. Ben W Bell talk 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I realize I'm not fully aware of the dispute's extent; as it failed following an update to {{Infobox Country}}'s code, I had the flag-related <table>-based workaround in the infobox drawn to my attention, so intervened in order to repair it (on the talkpage as well as the article itself). I then responded to the request in the last paragraph of this post; the changes didn't seem controversial, but if they are, I'll happily revert to the previous functional version. Thanks again for your message, David (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Parser Functions in Template:Infobox Country

What do you think about use ParserFunctions to calculate automatically some itens in template?
Ex 1) calculate {{{areami²}}} based in {{{area}}}...
Ex 2) set {{{HDI_category}}} as high if {{{hdi}}} >= 0.800, medium if {{{HDI}}} < 0.800 and {{{HDI}}} >=0.500, and low if {{{HDI}}} < 0.500...
Ex3) set {{{GDP_PPP_per_capita}}} dividing {{{GDP_PPP}}} per population.. etc — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds an excellent idea – something I'd've liked to have thought up!  It reminds me of User:Ezikhi, who (if I've remembered correctly) created a couple of conversion templates a few weeks ago; it may be possible to incorporate them...?  Hope all well, David (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country flag2

Hey David, can you fix this really fast please? It messed up a lot of articles. Thanks in advance! — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million! :-) — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me!  Yours, David (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. A bit ironic that I was messing with the article trying to figure out what's wrong. By the way, what do you think of the border I proposed around flags? Do you think the change you made (white-space:nowrap) will allow users like Carl Lindberg (see template talk page) to see the template on one line? Please let me know. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look a little later; right now, I'm just trying to catch up with other messages, emails, etc. {{Border}} seems a little temperamental here (Firefox on PC) but mixing it with white-space:nowrap might make some difference... David (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the proposed code to the template talk page. I already updated the Ukrainian version of the template, so that you can look at it when you have time (example of its use: uk:Центральний район). Seems to work fine on ukwiki. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David

Thanks for fixing up the Nicaragua-related topics template, i had sort of a hard time trying to get it to look passable but you made it perfect. =)  LaNicoya  •TALK• 09:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you for all the work needed to assemble it; I only added a few touches!  It certainly looked more than passable when I happened to wander by.

Moving the flag to the top righthand corner and using the space below it might benefit smaller-sized broswer windows, but I think that can be tricky to achieve with {{Navbox generic}} at present (unless the first group of topics happens to use a few lines). Perhaps, though, {{Navbox generic}} could be edited to make this an option for any template. Any thoughts...?  Best wishes, David (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

website in Template:Infobox Country

Hi again I think is better remove website from Template:Infobox Country. In my opinion, place it in "External links" make a better appearance. E.g. European Union#External links — Guilherme ^(t/c) 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[when {{Infobox Country}} used as {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}]

Don't think I mind either way; you could try moving a couple to External links on their pages and see if anyone complains...  Yours, David (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Recalled your thoughts

Hello David,

I recalled your appreciation of the differences between Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian territories etc. on some CfDs a few months back, and I was wondering what you might suggest the best course of action would be regarding the just reborn Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. It seems to me that there is a vagueness about the scoping of the WikiProject that will ultimately allow it to conflate all of the above terms in a manner that would never be tolerated in the article-space. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an intriguing (and generous!) message; to put my first thoughts in a nutshell, I imagine there'll be folk who'll keep the project's pages on their watchlist and/or spot any creeping POVs, agendas, etc. To expand the nutshell a little, my impression is that "Palestine" is probably the most appropriate name for the project, if it follows the goals and scope it declares on its page. I realize, however, that this rides on my taking "Palestine" to mean the geographical area, i.e. per the Palestine article. Assuming this is also the project's interpretation, perhaps it would be worthwhile to insert a statement or statements along the lines of "...about the [historical and?] geographical area known as Palestine" in the Goals and/or Scope sections on the project's page, i.e. at or near its beginning... Anyway, there're some first thoughts!  Best wishes, David (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:World War II again

Hi David, I'm giving up editing this template. I know that Wikipedia is editable etc., but recent changes made this template senseless piece of junk. Wrogn flags were posted, someone added meaningless countries and removed much important ones. Noone talks on talk page first, just entering his changes, mostly useless. Maybe you'll be able to keep good work there, I have enough now. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean... If noone else, I appreciate the good intentions you've brought to the template; maybe it's simply time to leave it alone for a week or two, then see what state it's in and if anyone else has tried to restore or rebuild its content. I think this is what I'll do. Thanks again for your contributions, David (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Maybe it might be worth drawing the template to the attention of the Military History WikiProject...?

I'm not sure is MH WP enough. I tried to discuss use of historical civil or war flags there and discussion stopped without any results. Of course it would be great for such important templates when edits could be made after earlier talks and explanations only. Recent changes proved that such templates have to be guarded 24 hours per day. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country data Japan vandalism

David, I have another issue. Template:Country data Japan is edited by User:Saburny and he is removing part of it - such edits make several dozens of articles broken. He was informed by me about this effects two weeks ago but he didn't answered. Instead he made such edit once again today and I consider this as vandalism. Piotr Mikołajski 13:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see User:Saburny's most recent edit there has been undone by User:Denniss – i.e. by someone other than yourself – so, seeing that more than one person disagrees with his/her editing, perhaps s/he might try to discuss the issue next time.

...However, having now just seen that User:Saburny claims difficulty with English on his/her userpage, perhaps not... If problems continue, it might be worth trying a simple message translated by e.g. http://babelfish.altavista.com/ on their talkpage. Yours, David (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree but please note that his edits are not only changing some content but also makes a lot of mess mess in other articles. After his edits flag template Japan is displayed as {{flag|Japan|ww2}}. Of course he may not understand English at all but IMHO he shouldn't edit more sophisticated articles then just like we are not editing on Japanese Wikipedia.

Personally I don't believe in 0-level of English knowledge because he posted reply in his talk page at least once. It means that he reads his talk page and understand entries posted there at least partially so should be able to see my entries about template editing too.

PS. You may post your replies here only, I'm watching this page. Piotr Mikołajski 08:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Country as the one standard

Hi David,
As you have become the lead editor on this template, I would ask you to try to make sure that this is the template that is used for all countries and territories. I came across two single use templates today and quickly TfD'd them. I did a lot of work about a year and half ago to make sure that all countries used the same template. Having one template just makes sense for so many reasons.

Also, in the future (I don't know when) I plan to do a major overhaul on the parameter names to make them more consistent with Infobox City. Using AWB it should go pretty quick. Some of the weird names I know are my fault anyway. I'll explain more when the time comes. —MJCdetroit 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, MJCdetroit. "Lead editor"... well, I suppose I've been the most active recently, if nothing else!  Yes, where I happen to've passed by articles that could use the template, I've either implemented it or added it to the to-do list; there haven't been many and I don't recall any being countries. I agree that one template with inbuilt variations should be preferable to many only slightly different templates, for all those reasons.

To that end, in addition to the recent {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}} variant, I happened to see (the slightly misnamed) {{Infobox States of Malaysia}} yesterday, which, without investigating further, looks a prime candidate for assimilation. Although I didn't pursue this thread at the time, I'm therefore wondering again whether the current {{Infobox Country}} is best renamed to something more generic, to which {{Infobox Country}}, {{Infobox Territory}} (and probably {{Infobox Territory of X}}, {{Infobox Dependent territory}}, etc), {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}, {{State of Malaysia}} (and perhaps {{State of X}}), etc, etc would redirect; something akin to the present {{Infobox Officeholder}}. What do you think...?

Meanwhile, to see what you might have in mind re parameter names, I'll take a look at {{Infobox City}} a little later. Yours, David (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a bunch of similar redirects for infobox city (infobox settlement, infobox village, town, etc). It has worked very well over there. —MJCdetroit 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chris Amon (small).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris Amon (small).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox locked

• can you make a quick protected edit for me if you're still around?
• Click me and change: width:23em; (and any other width statements') to a browser friendly max default of 315px. (No reason to have info boxes scale!!! They look horrible if they're this large on the fonts/screen setups my tired old eyes use as a matter of course, and simply take up way too much width on the page.)

• to width:300px<!-- 23em;--->

• plus somewhere appropriate nearby, this comment: <!-- (No reason to have info boxes scale!!! They look horrible if they're this large and simply take up way too much width on the page. This value is based on the [also overly large] but well thought out and discussed 315px maximum used by the MILTHIST project. user:Fab artus) -->

• FYI, see {{FixHTML}} which is working out very nicely! That TOC hassle actually has had a silver lining. See for example my diff edits Ronald Reagan (edit talk links history) and a few others on the Whatlinkshere.

• If you can tackle this request soon, ping my talk, so I know you're starting. Thanks! // FrankB 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Have just done so, although I assume you realize 300px is a fixed width, while 23em should vary according to each browser's text-size setting (i.e. seems preferable)...?  Yours, David (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank,

...can you make a... (SNIP)

Thanks David!

The first problem with that is then the infoboxes grow obnoxiously large at typical medium font sizes. Then it gets worse for us old folks from there if we actually want to read without eyestrain. I'm taking it on faith the crew in MILT-HIST knew what they were doing and (according to Kirill) they'd debated it at length, and this (315px) was the best compromise solution. As you can see from the link below (I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this), there are tradeoffs all over the place. // FrankB 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Happyme22#Well_mine_was_screwed_up_already

I just pulled an all nighter on this page adding and tweaking pics and so forth, and now have to deal with this emotional 'FA' kind of attachment and one who is making nervous about the pictures sliding when one zooms in/out. Some are ganged in gaggles of four or five. What do you think... see with a couple browsers. IE7 != IE6 != Netscape 8.1 != Firefox if things are left losey-goosey. One problem or the other evinces if you don't pin things down. Sigh. (Two thoughts: reduce pic sizes, allows better floating performance, less pictures... which would be a shame in that page.) // FrankB 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin Stuff

1. Forget the opinion above, the FA editors are overhauling my arrangements with my co-operation. I just wanted to see what you thought and saw of the arrangement. Now passe, I'm afraid.
2. There's some template to tag an article recording a merge, like one that records a TFD or AFD, etc. nomination, I believe. Can you either hang it on this talk, or drop me a note with it's name.
3. I'll pull the mergeto/mergefrom tags. Dec-May is plenty long enough when the definintions aren't even close! (4 Opposed to the noms 1). Cheers! // FrankB 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Finishing Adygea

Hi, David! I re-read our work today and I think this is as good as it gets. Whatever other improvements we can make, they will not affect the content, and as far as the content goes I believe the list is ready for the prime-time. If, after glancing over it one more time (I made some changes today) just to make sure you won't find any (new) major flaws, I believe we can move it to the mainspace. I intend to continue working on articles about Adygea's districts, but this master list seems to be complete (and it's not like we won't be able to add to it if something new and interesting comes up). Exciting, eh? You can finally get a break from all my pestering :) Please accept my enormous gratitude for helping me out so much and for all your invaluable contributions and advice! I could have probably done all this alone, but the result would not have been as thorough and polished. Thank you!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine and I hope a good template for the other subjects' articles!  Thanks for your thanks; I was happy to have the opportunity to contribute as we're both after quality. Anytime you want more input, just leave a note – my guess is we'll be saying hello again as I wander about the country-related articles!  Best wishes, David (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder

• Could you please revert your recent edits to Infobox Officeholder. Your edits are causing problems on several pages, Nancy Pelosi for example. Thank you. --Philip Stevens 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly reverted. I guess you may wish to discuss with User:Fabartus... Best wishes, David (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping1 or Ping2. Yawn (<g>){{Further experience suggests scaling or not is a muddled thing. Strongly suspect fixed is better for these big boxes per efforts on Battle of Jutland and others like Ronald Reagan (used this), so was "this problem" because they used param: width below too? Or the em/px? There's always "boxwidth" instead! Split the difference? // FrankB 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (Time for yardwork -- I'm being Paged! (literally)! Yikes)

Okay, hope this works for all!  Yours, David (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Help me.  :(

They were able to delete the category Peel Sessions artists.  :(

I feel angered. I feel defeated. I feel disgusted. I feel powerless.

I feel that no informed reasoning was put in place regarding why the individuals in question voted for deletion, and looking at those individuals' user pages, none of them appeared to have any knowledge that would pertain to the topic at hand.

Please help me fight to reinstate this category. A list just would not do.

I am literally shaking in anger. If I can't get this category reinstated, I will quit Wikipedia effective immediately. (Krushsister 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi again Krushsister,
As Angus suggests, Deletion review is the place to start if you want to try to restore the category; given Fred's comments, it sounds like there's something to consider. However, as Angus also suggests, a list may be an improvement, as links to the tracks performed during a group's Session could then be included. (I haven't heard anything billed as from a Peel Session for a long time, so hope this applies.)  Either way, my understanding is that nothing is necessarily deleted forever, so please keep contributing!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kirsten_Bråten_Berg,_accompanied_Ale_Møller_-_Heiemo_og_Nykkjen_(opening_verse).ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kirsten_Bråten_Berg,_accompanied_Ale_Møller_-_Heiemo_og_Nykkjen_(opening_verse).ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope this suffices!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for States of Brazil

Hi David
First, congratulations to Template:Infobox Country or territory, it was incredible!

Thanks for your contributions and sharing your thoughts about it as well! ...

When you finish all your work there, could you help me in creating a infobox template to states of brazil? I'am thinking use the base of Template:Infobox Country or territory and modify only the necessary. How can I do it? Thanks — Guilherme ^(t/c) 14:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...One of the ideas you mentioned about {{Infobox Country or territory}} (#2 here) has returned here and may be the way forward as regards an infobox for Brazilian states (and, eventually, maybe any country's large subdivisions!). User:MJCdetroit has yet to notice/respond; meanwhile, I imagine you'd be in favor...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course! I completely agree! It will be nice ;-) — Guilherme ^(t/c) 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the expert

Hi Frank,

re: Country_subdivisions Vs. Administrative division...

Should these be merged? Look like less than a gnats eyelash of distance between the meaning of the definitions.

I'm not sure; my understanding is that administrative divisions are one type of country subdivision, but not the only type (so perhaps this template should be renamed). I agree, though, that country and administrative divisions can seem identical, as the latter seems to hog all the limelight. Perhaps Administrative division might best redirect to an "Administrative divisions" section on the Country subdivision page...?

Go ahead and rename it but CFR/TFR and attempt to adjust to the commons???. I was wrestling with the difference in category names on the commons (subnational entities or divisions) versus our 'country subdivisions'. I think the problem with 'divisions' and Americans in general is Americans aren't used to thinking of the US Gov't first so we build up, not divide down... We 'Think' bottom to top, not top to bottom. Consider: Lousiana has township/School District (taxes! Consolidation of schools to Area and Regional schools has been the trend in many states for 4-5 decades-- from the 50's onward)/towns/cities/parishes (counties every other state)/state /Then finally Federal (US). Day to day, the State government and local governments tend to have more impact on our lives, unless it's a matter bearing on international, civil rights, commerce (interstate or international, so Federal rules take the front seat, including transportation safety), or overall health and safety (OSHA in the workplace, Water, Food and drug purity, etc.) -- even if the National government gets the nightly headlines more often than not. Hope this makes sense! <g> It's an old connumdrum here -- States Rights versus Federal scope. Even had a civil war on it! <ouch! true though! BSEG>

I think this is a good point, so (with deep breath) I wonder if there's a third expression that's acceptable and can supercede "subnational entity" and "country subdivision". My second thought was "subnational unit" (i.e. a variation on "subnational entity") but I'm not convinced whether people would think of states, parishes, etc when they read/hear it; like "subnational entity", it may be too vague and/or abstract...

Meanwhile, here's another poser I've yet to bottom-out on: while other countries' articles and templates use "administrative division/s", the description "political division/s" seems to be used in many/most/all US articles and templates (e.g. here). I wasn't raised by Uncle Sam, so I'm probably missing something...?

per the above! and

conjecture it's more who started what trend in 'term usage' inside what set of templates, than any significant difference in meaning. Simple. Alias and equate in both sets of templates so there is no difference in fact, that is a boolean OR: {{{one|}}}{{{two|}}} in tests and outputs whereever they occur. (Everyone has their cake and some eat it too!) There is whole nother set of different levels, for example electorial districts, that are locally administered, and state designated. [Compromises can be messy, so can corruption-- see Gerrymandering! We still hear the occasional 'controversy' on such, or Federal analogs -- The recent furor over the Bush administration firing a whole batch of US Attorneys, for example. (Most of the time it's the "Loyal Opposition", making political hay and boring the public by "viewing with alarm" in our media. Parliamentary Governments seem to do it more on the floor--most of what happens on our "floor" gets turned into a more personal "interview after", vice seen as part of the legislative process. No real difference. If it's happening one place here, it's happening the other in all liklihood.

In which case, if/when I ever reach those articles/templates, I could try renaming one or two in line with other articles/templates and see what if any reaction there might be.

2) ... on that width parameter the other day... you missed the double use of the same parameter name despite my hint.

Oops – I hope all is now resolved;

Not quite. The issue of fixed width versus dynamic probably needs aired on the village pump. I've an email off to CBD asking if their is a supportive technical basis for my observations, which may shed light on the ex/em's choices. Meanwhile, the admin that finally responded late Saturday evening just reverted it without the oneline pre-/pre cut N paste code (see my talk) I'd still like to see in there.

So, try that the next time you play in there for other reasons perhaps? Then let me know, so I can run some tests and take some screen shots. Frankly, I think most folks won't notice. At typical font size/zoom levels used by the active editor, the two (Three counting your 42ex's!) are of comparable width. Join the testing... Try substituting this (my tmp6) version in a few pages and see if there are any negative effects.

The long term benefit is to being able to add {{TOCnestright}} with less Zoom complications and pack in unprofessional looking whitespace, but whether that is fully compliant with MOS is "Lawyering". Given that the images are hardly ever given an width in em's, makes for much more consistent viewed behavior. Still, I've convinced a few its suitable, and need to clean up these open template matters before I go into the politics of that discussion on our pump!

You mean the information here, yes...?  (Just checking!)

3) ... What the heck is width:42ex; doing? px and em I've seen, but ex? Edjamacate me!

Not so much edjamaction but sharing some bluffing: all I know at present is that an 'ex' seems to be half the width of an 'em', but as to whether that's true (and, if so, why they're useful) I'm as well-briefed as you!  (If I used 'ex's at some point, it would've been experimentation / copied from elsewhere / hope that something different might work.)

A friendly anon added "Re: 3), see Ex (typography)." to the thread and this issue has prompted me to start revisiting templates where I've used the fixed "px" units in order to replace them with "em" equivalents, so their layouts should have more chance of working with other font-sizes etc. (So, yes, another ongoing task to add to the stream...)

4) FYI, Commonscat1A has been the 'new' code for a few days now and I just 're-enabled' Wikipediacat1A ... Looks to me a speedy merger may be in order...

If they can be merged under a less cryptic name, great; if, though, doing so causes problems, point me toward the merged template and I'll see if any gremlins wave their hands at me.

Yeah, we have one lurking on your talk page somewhere... I was figuring I'd go with what it was that CBD suggested of those posed back when... right now I can't relocate his email. Moot point, as need to get all the argument orders checked and verify there are no surprises. I'm on it, but got hijacked by interwiki category adjustments this later part of the morning. Should be "done" today sometime.

OTOH, See the last talk note here. My activity is drawing international hostility, apparently. I swear De:Wikipedians are dominating the commons! [An americanism for you: "Vote early, Vote Often!" <g>]

5) FYI- THAT worked out rather well.

Should look perfect once you're able to remove your 6 May disclaimer!  Yours, David (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Soon, I hope--Wikitime has been at a premium, and I keep getting hijacked into unplanned activities (like your Ooops! <g> or interwikicats) -- I'll have you do some speedy-D's when I clean up the rest of the commonscats. But I should do some yardwork too. The weeds are taking over, and I haven't gotten my crabgrass preventer down yet either. I've been powerwashing the outside paintwork too, and need to finish the wall above the deck while it's afternoon shady... The eastside sun was hiding the grime this morning.

Looks like you get a common name sooner than later. Note the BOT . Damned nationistic shortsighted idiots! // FrankB 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3), see Ex (typography).

Think it'd be a time saver all around if we just interleave and post the whole section back and forth. I've completed an answer to the above, but I'm unable to just cut it in as I'd planned... you truncated sections above I'd write over, and I'm at 1:22am and my pillow is calling. So pay a visit! Re You're the expert! (I've also landed that as one big imbedded comment if you want to interleave edit! Sorry, need my beauty rest—trust me on THAT! Cheers! //FrankB 05:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the othersister (sic) names (User_talk:David_Kernow/Archive_18#X5z) references! //FrankB 05:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • P.P.S.--FYI see this diff and puruse the 'template names' involved. <g> (Tidying up! Finally!) Cheers!//FrankB 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible option

I found out about this template by accident. I believe I've done something similar like this {{Numismatic navigational template notice}}. Do you think they should merge? There are a few small differences.

• Heck yeah, logically Or the keyword tests (so nothing needs changed) and redirect one to the other. Tag the redirect with {{R from other template}}, Add {{catalso|}{{PAGENAME}}|list of cats on the other}}, and you're done. // FrankB 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FrankB certainly thinks so (see original thread) and I'd also say it seems sensible.

1. I use the word "expanded", you use "uncollapsed", although anything that is not collapsed or autocollapse have the same effect.
2. In the nav boxes, I implement with

{{{state<includeonly>|desiredDefaultState</includeonly>}}}

so that the template always shows its content when viewed by itself. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re your second point, I've left each template in its default state on its own page so that default state is apparent when the page is first loaded. I realize this assumes that's what folk are likely to think/assume, i.e. that a template's appearance on its own page may be taken as its defualt state, but if you think otherwise and/or believe a template is best expanded/uncollapsed on its own page regardless of its default state, that's fine by me. Yours, David (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(FrankB followup)

• David, Found the email by CBD with this recommendation per our discussions on same circa 19-21 April:

"> Btw -- see the suggested names for the combined template on Talk David Kernow, and give me any reaction, preference or suggestions. "

'Othersister' sounds fine. Terms like 'elsewiki', 'crossproject',

'wikinected', et cetera would express the same general concept.

• So '{{Othersister}}' is what I'll make the joint pages -- (coming soon to a theater near you! <g>)

Should satisfy the foreign language "simplicity" needs too.

On rereading it suddenly occurred to me that something "sister" doesn't need the description "other", so, unless you've already implemented the template, use something else. (I was going to say {{Sisterproject}} but have obviously lost track...)

• Other news: The various Commons templates are back this morning. Procedural irregularities. I questioned it on the Commons version of WP:AN (disputes), and a whole bunch of people piled on.

• Why some folks can't figure out that five or seven people in a narrow forum don't and can't make policy is something to wonder over! Not to say they won't mount another attack. Definitely need to get more English speakers active on the Commons. The Anglophobia (mainly 'de') crowd does wear!

Have a good day. Cheers! // FrankB 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chris amon.jpg

Hello, David Kernow. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Chris amon.jpg) was found at the following location: User:David Kernow/Chris Amon. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gerard Victory (1921-1995), Irish composer.jpg

Hello, David Kernow. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Gerard Victory (1921-1995), Irish composer.jpg) was found at the following location: User:David Kernow/Gerard Victory. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gordon Crosse (born 1937), English composer.jpg

Hello, David Kernow. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Gordon Crosse (born 1937), English composer.jpg) was found at the following location: User:David Kernow/Gordon Crosse. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscellania

Hi, David! Just to let you know, I moved our worksheet to administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea. Finally!

Don't drink too much vodka!

Too... late... <snooze> :)

My other question is regarding {{Administrative divisions of the Russian federal subjects}}—do you know why there is a space in front of "Adygea"? I don't see anything obvious that generates it, and I don't think it's there for a reason. Could you fix that, please? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any space here (Firefox v2 on PC; unless I'm looking in the wrong place) but have tweaked the template's formatting code in case this solves it (and as it makes the code and template a little easier to read anyway). Any difference at your end...?  Yours, David (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that fixed it. Must be an IE perk, as usual. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logo of the African Union.svg

Hello, David Kernow. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Logo of the African Union.svg) was found at the following location: User:David Kernow/Template:Infobox Country or territory/doc. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Middot size

Hi Stevage,

(add small bold middot to reference (the supposed justification for using bullet instead, for small fonts - I can't see a difference))

Hopefully · the · difference · is · apparent · in · this · sentence when · displayed · on • your • screen/s!
(The separators within "apparent ... sentence" should look/print very insubstantial/ly.)  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Thanks for the {{middot}} redirect – good idea!

It seems to be sensitive to the "font size" setting in the browser. At my normal setting, there was quite a difference, but when increasing the size slightly the two are virtually identical. Anyway, if the difference is sometimes present, that's good enough reason to keep the suggestion. Stevage 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut

Hello! Your editing caused more space to appear below the links than above them. It also added space to the tops and bottoms of header templates that contain shortcuts and caused more space to appear below the shortcut box than above it. (See this page for an example.) Please fix these flaws as soon as possible. Thank you!  :-) —David Levy 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I've reverted the margin and padding settings, so hopefully all back in order on your screen/s. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that didn't help. Now more space appears above the links than below them, and both of the other problems remain unaffected.

May I ask what your edits are supposed to accomplish? —David Levy 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the template to the May 14 version, i.e. before I started editing it. The idea was to make the shortcut panel's appearance a little more substantial; and, more significantly, to indicate on the template's page the five parameter slots it can handle. (I was also promptedon that page to try to clarify where the template ended and the documentation began.)  Unfortunately, though, it seems to've opened a can of worms (presumably in browsers other than Firefox v2). Yours, David (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am using Firefox 2. I also tried IE6 and saw the same effects.

Thanks for reverting. —David Levy 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Irish states since 1171

Hi Snappy56,

(alignment of 1801–1922)

Just to say the alignment was intended as previously, since (1) it's the only entry under 1801-1992; and (2) "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is a long name!  Hope you don't mind, therefore, if I revert your good-faith edit. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, what I was trying to do was get rid of the underlining of the blank spaces to the right of the word 'Great'. It doesn't look good. Reverting my change will bring it back. I suggest you do some tweaking to get rid of it permanently. Snappy56 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh – thanks for this information, as I think I now realise what needs to be done to align the entry as previously but without this result. I'll try implementing it a little later. Meanwhile, thanks again for reminding me of this pitfall!  Yours, David (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...Hopefully all now satisfactory. Yours, David (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Full reversion

I have explained my actions concerning the EU-elections template here. C mon 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Val di Noto

Hi Attilios,

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (Val di Noto)

At a glance, these templates appear to carry the same content as Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy, so I'm wondering what subtlety I'm missing...?  Thanks for enlightenment, David Kernow (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's to allow highlighting of the distinct cities (see bottom of page of Caltagirone for example). Ciao and good work. --Attilios 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  Now I understand "5T" (Cinque Terre) as well as the Val di Noto reference. I incorporated the Cinque Terre and Val di Noto expansions in the main {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} template and was about to suggest that it could now replace those above, but, looking again at the main template (and others in Category:World Heritage Sites by country templates) I was struck by the "density" of the list of sites. I began toying with an alternative design here, but it looks unavoidably unwieldy. Does the current {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} seem "dense" to you; and, if so, do you think a version that uses only the article names rather than the official UNESCO names might improve or impair the template...?  Thanks, David (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is good, but frankly I don't like the too spread format. It'd remain in the "continue" list as it's now. Ideas? Thank you and good work --Attilios 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; I tried condensing the spread format, but it would still be too large. So I've amended {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} to include the Cinque Terre and Val di Noto expansions; would it be okay to use it in place of {{World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)}} and {{World Heritage Sites in Italy (Val di Noto)}}...?  Yours, David (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Too close

Need Fresh eyes

re: from Template:Cms-catlist thru edit 'to and in' Template:catlst/doc.

• If you come back reasonably soon (I get this idea we're out of synch these days), a grooming copy edit of the listed Template:Catlst/doc(edit talk links history) page would be appreciated. Note my last will have put some of the usage in the next three links out of kilter and created some likely redundancies, so you may want to survey the whole six, before taking out the knife, Herr "Doktor K". Such should also be Template:Wpd-catlist, Template:Cms-catlist-up, Template:Wpd-catlist-up, Template:catlst, Template:catlist, den you can outen widden de knifein!

• • (Or do you prefer: "... also be Template:Wpd-catlist, Template:Cms-catlist-up, Template:Wpd-catlist-up, Template:catlst, Template:catlist.???)
    This was a stealth question on which default format you think might be 'Best'! <g> FrankB 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    
    
• Hence using 'Cms-catlist' as the baseline. In fact, the other three should probably display fine if their local usage text is commented or cut out entirely, at least that would be a good way to twist the logic in the combined usage page.
• Certain, I am, Template:Catlist(edit talk links history) and Template:Catlst(edit talk links history) are already barren as well of excess local text.
• In any event, the time to avoid errors of assumption and being too close to "it" <g> is here, so use a scalpel Doc, and trim out and clarify!

Keep any changes here on wikipedia, and I'll export. // (duh!) FrankB 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank,

...I began looking at {{Catlst/doc}} but found it hard to decipher; hopefully I'd find it easier if you generate separate /doc pages for {{Catlst}} and {{Catlist}}. These could then be remerged once I've compared/contrasted/amended (i.e. understood) them. Yours, David (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
(Let's keep this so we can just xpost the whole section -- you stick with italics and we'll both (try <g>) to maintain relative indentating!

Hi, David,
Note: One trick to working with the 'steering logic' in such combined usage pages -- break the includeonly block(s) start by introducing a space so you parse '</incl udeonly>' to evaluate how message portions play together in these /doc type pages. Also, the occasional 'breaking' by forcing an '#if:' temporarily (I just add 'XXX' or something easy to text search when "cleaning up" before the save) can be a big help.

'May be' that splitting them permanently is the better solution. The trial down-link/cross-links do look better if comma delimited, (like the long established {{cat see also}}) so forking the matter seems by use is appropriate. Also provisionally, I'd think we could actually add a parameter that enables either rear-end so any front-end template could be 'hung' and choose CSL or bullets. (Haven't tested that, but using {{!}} should enable such a technique...?)

If they're to see 'heavy use', the WP:DPP is called for either way, but the combining logic in the usage page 'does' get in the way I'll admit cheerfully. Perhaps a switch on 'Pagename' would be a better approach??? At least in clarifying which prose goes to which templates calling the documentation? Would work for interwiki inclusions as well, if it works at all. The "Ifeq:" structure was fine for a few templates, but as a family that's grown and with the possible growth potential, perhaps redesigning for that is in order.

I'm out on the road so not available today, but thanks for taking the look. Bottom line, what I was looking for from you was:

1. What in the documentation is redundant,
2. what is necessary,
3. what relationships need explained and/or clarified.
   

I want all template documentation written so that it is easily digestible to the template ignorant but also lean to thinking we need some provision for the technical savvy to get the gist of relationships with a quick look.

That in turn (now, belatedly! <g>) suggests perhaps using the 'hide or click show' technology to see tech notes for extraneous amplification material? (i.e. That is I'm conjecturing one pre block with fill in the blanks for cut N paste ala many infoboxes, one showing the optional over-rides allowed can then be hidden?)... something along those lines.

Then we 've got had a group of folks using Template:Template documentation(edit talk links history) to pretty up usage pages, which is "OKAY" aesthetically, but I'm pretty sure doesn't work unless the page is a dedicated /doc page. (Apparently hasn't "caught on" based on the Whatlinkshere-- t'was much longer I think back when I first saw it. hmmmm?!!— One wonders at the 'undepreciated status' currently extant. The talk page doesn't even mention the TFD!) Speaking for WP:TSP, the more pages that need ported, updated and maintained, the worse things are and the more likely things are to get out of synch. This despite a general target of only two guaranteed sites, Meta and here on en.wp, with applicability for others based on use/need.

This set of templates (and potential templates) is a good example of why it'd be nice to minimize to one or two usage pages. If each had a dedicated doc page, then most of the material becomes redundant and repeated in NN places. So all this together (not counting categorization!) makes for a "problem set" of criteria in tension either way. Which is where the extra thinking suggested you to me! Thanks, keep it on a burner of some sort! I'll be expanding the usage of some as I clean up the old call forms to the new {{commoncats}}... which is another which needs some clear documentation! (I can only take so much 'template work' in a given week these days. I find your suggestion to work more in article space was some of the best advice I've ever received and taken!!! Thanks again for THAT too!) Be well! // FrankB 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Afghanistan template

Hello. Can you please help me out with the History of Afghanistan template (below)? I want to make some improvements to it, but I do not know how to edit a template. Can you please tell me how to do that? --Behnam 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to help; anything I have to hand is mostly bits of HTML and CSS I've picked up over the past couple of years, followed by some head-scratching and experimentation. What do you have in mind – for instance, is there another template somewhere you'd like to emulate...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the reply. I really liked the History of Greater Iran template (Template:History of Iran), so I wanted this to like more like that. And now that you have given me the link to the template's edit page, I am going to try to make the improvements. If I need some help I will contact you for sure. Thanks again. --Behnam 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:State of Israel

Hi Stevertigo,

(lets keep jingoism (by boosting the font-size) out of wikipedia)

Just noticed and am puzzled by the above; many (most? nearly all?) other templates use larger relative font-sizes for their titles, subsection headings, etc, including templates about other countries, territories, etc. Hence I'm inclined to undo your change, but thought I'd enquire here first in case I'm overlooking something else. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First time Ive noticed it. I think its poor form, as it creates unnecessary inconsistency. Compare United States, Russia, People's Republic of China. Maybe its just the little countries that have size issues? -Stevertigo 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The vertical-aligned templates here are {{Infobox Country}} which uses font-size:1.25em for its main heading, so I've applied this to {{State of Israel}}; hope that's okay!  Best wishes, David (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont like it. Im sure others agree its unncessary. Much prefer standard font size, letting the end user decide what the display size should be. -Stevertigo 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you reckon the 1.25em font-size used in {{Infobox Country}} should also be 1em – moreso, that all template font-sizes should be the same (1em), for titles and subheadings as well as text...?  (Surely not...?)  Puzzled again, David (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I'll need to log-off soon, so possible delay before a further reply!

Infobox Country & two missing lines

Expansion request: Discussion on the talk page resolved a a problem we were having with the "official_languages" of the United States in the infobox, choosing instead to use the regional_languages field, but that field isn't rendering.

There was a typo in the parameter name, but even if that had been spotted the field still wouldn't have appeared, as currently it's dependent on official_languages also being used. Instead, I hope the combination of languages_type and languages has produced the desired result – and I guess I'd better check whether or not these parameters are mentioned in the documentation!

It looks like one other field mentioned in the /doc, the spoken_languages one, isn't actually present at all in the template.

Seems so; I suppose its origin is somewhere in the history...

I'm reluctant to mess with the template, not knowing how to verify that's it working at other pages that might already successfully be using the regional_languages field, but I bet you could do it with relative ease and considerably greater skill. Would you mind making those two fields work? Having a hard time getting anyone to look at it on the Infobox's talk page. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Any apparent ease/skill is purely the result of trials and errors that always remind me how much there is to learn about HTML, CSS, etc, etc – this very template being another example tonight, before your enquiry!  Best wishes, David (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great now. MrZaius^talk 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian Sites

I had tried to modify the template exactly the way you did now, but the one who believed to be its lord ath the time reverted it. This is why I added those two version. Happy now, it's perfect. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 09:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you approve. Thanks for your friendly messages!  Best wishes, David (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)