User talk:Tom-/2005

About the Other Languages picture...

Hi Tom,

There was that annoying problem that the image en:Image:Other-langs2.png, because it is also a redirect to Wikipedia:Languages, previously would have gotten displayed on top of that article if the user clicked the image on the home page (but not if they clicked the text link). I've fixed this by creating a redirect at meta:Redirecting_to_Wikipedia:languages... and including that. So if the user clicks on the link on the Main Page here, they get redirected to the above page on Meta which in turn redirects them to Wikipedia:Languages. Because the image here at the English Wikipedia does no longer redirect straight to Wikipedia:Languages, the image no longer gets rendered on the top of the screen. It's a roundabout way, but it works.

Ropers 10:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MSIE style sheet addition

Hi Tom. I've searched high and low for information about editing the Explorer-specific style sheets, and all I found was a sub-page of your user page.

MSIE/Win doesn't automatically substitute fonts for characters that aren't supported by the display font. Consequently, text with many International Phonetic Alphabet characters fails to display correctly. Other browsers and platforms which support Unicode don't seem to have this problem.

Some of us have cobbled together Template:IPA (documentation), which supplies MSIE with a font-family declaration to fix this. In other browsers it sets the font-family back to inherit, but this is hidden from MSIE 6 with a CSS filter.

This solution is a bit of a hack, and vulnerable to editing by well-meaning users who don't know the details. It would be best to hide it away from all browsers except MSIE in one of the IEFixes.css style sheets. I don't know which version is most appropriate; I don't have the facilities to test it in various versions (Mac user), but MSIE 6 users seem happy with it as it stands, and no one else has complained that it's exploded their browser.

The ideal declaration would be:

.IPA { font-family: Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, Gentium, Code2000; }

Then I could reduce Template:IPA to:

<span class="IPA">...</span>

Could you help facilitate this addition to the style sheet, or point me in the right direction to make it happen? Thanks, Michael Z. 21:20, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Monobook.css validation

Me again, Tom.

Yesterday, all of my edit form fields turned medium grey, making editing pages very annoying. I haven't been able to override it in my user style sheet. I've explained the details at Village Pump.

I've looked through everything, and can't find a CSS declaration that causes this, but I noticed that some of the experimental edits you added broke validation for the local monobook.css, specifically, at least this line (is that a Microsoft property?):

    filter: alpha(opacity=90);

The main monobook doesn't validate, either. Any chance you could fix the errors, and remove the invalid declarations? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2005-01-21 17:59Z

Hi Michael, nothing of what I've changed in Monobook.css could be affecting form fields, unless there's a really weird bug in Safari (it's a usability experiment, slightly fading out inactive tabs).

I'll take a look into it, it could be recent changes to Monobook's primary CSS file is causing the problem. Hopefully it can be fixed soon, sorry for the problem in the meantime. Thanks, Tom- 20:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything that could directly cause the fields' background colour to change, but another user has reported the same problem, so it sounds like it some recent change. The W3 validator got a parse error on that filter declaration, so the results in other software are totally unpredictable. Even if that's not the cause, it's hard to trouble-shoot if the style sheets don't validate. Thanks for having a look.

Do you have access to monobook/main.css, or should I be trying to track down another developer to fix the errors in that style sheet? Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-01-21 20:51Z

Ignore the parse error, the CSS is invalid but it won't cause problems. I do have developer access, and I've just booted up my mac to try and track the problem down. As of yet I can't even replicated the problem however :( Tom- 20:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now, seems Safari has a nasty and very weird bug with opacity. I'll send a bug report to Apple. Tom- 23:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. I'm quite interested in this kind of thing. What's the nature of the bug? Regards, Michael Z.

I'm not actually sure, as I only have Safari 1.0, which doesn't show this bug. I'm trying to get Panther installed so I can test it fully. On the face of it, Safari is incorrectly applying the opacity property (which it does support as of 1.2) to form elements, when it should only be applying it to inactive tabs. It's all rather strange... Tom- 10:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for fixing the background-color/transparency problem, Tom. Anyway, when you have a minute, could you fix some of the syntax errors, too? When the style sheets don't validate there's no way to predict how they'll break rendering in someone else's browser.

monobook/main.css:

• Line 66: the validator doesn't seem to like mixed case in colour keywords, although I can't find anything about this in the W3C recommendations ("Orange" → "orange")
• Line 239: "none" is not a valid value for margin or padding, it should be "margin: 0; padding 0;"
• Line 930: missing semicolon

monobook.css:

• Lines 160, 164: why not put Microsoft things like "filter" into one of the IE-specific style sheets?

Sorry to bug you with this trivial stuff. I would do it myself if I had access, and I don't know any other way to get this fixed. Thanks, Michael Z.

MediaWiki:Monobook.css

Please revert this change ASAP. It is messing up the display of table of contents. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

WikiNorthampton

Hi Tom Brookie here from Grendon - good to see local skills on the Wiki! Brookie 13:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

system messages/ markup question

Hi Tom. I had a question and sannse on freenode/#wikipedia reccommended that I ask you. I am trying to make http://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin look exactly like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin . But I am stuck... there are three differences which I cant seem to overcome.

• The yellow box in en.
• The text on en appears at right of the login text boxes and on gu: it appears at the bottom.
• There is an extra button on gu:

Can you tell me what am I missing?

You can reply to my talkpage here or preferably on my talkpage on Gujarati Wikipedia.

Thanks. --Spundun 07:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction templates

Just wondering if you could chime in on why the Introduction templates are designed the way the are, etc. Trödel|talk 17:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)

Developer Question

In the wiki-hiero markup, <hiero>H:D28</hiero> is wrong - the glyphs should be larger, and the twist of flax should appear inside the hands - like this [1]. I can't see a way to adjust this at the moment, is it possible you, or another developer, could take a look at fixing this? ~~~~ 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

A gift for you this day

Hi Tom. The sequencer arrived so I had a go at what we were discussing a while ago. A bit plain, but that was the idea really.

...Oh. I just realised they have updated it since we spoke. Never mind then! --81.131.134.167 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bold changes

When you make bold changes to the interface, and you get reverted, it is customary not to re-revert but to use the talk page to discuss your intended changes. Otherwise you create the impression that you're trying to push through your changes, rather than seeking consensus. Regardless, I have no reverted your change again, but commented on MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext.--Eloquence* 22:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Eloquence may be nicer about it, but making broad changes without bothering to discuss it with anyone is not on. The general response to the changes have been that a) there was no problem that required changes, and b) that the new version looks markedly worse than the old. I've reverted the pages to the last consensus version. Please don't re-revert them until you've held a publicised discussion - these are among the most viewed pages on Wikipedia apart from the main page, and thus deserve discussion before major changes are made. Ambi 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

I like the design you made for the Main Page. Hopefully the current home page will be changed soon since I agree some of the stuff is cluttered and repeated. Good luck. -- Thorpe ^talk 10:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Noarticletext

I reverted your changes to MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:Noarticletextanon. While it's true that Monobook shows a double border, other skins (for instance, Classic) depend on the border on these templates. You should fix the CSS on all skins to show the extra border (or, if the extra border is at MediaWiki:Monobook.css template, add it to MediaWiki:Common.css instead), and then remove the border from the templates. --cesarb 04:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Redesign

Since you did such a great job with the main page, could you take a look at the community portal redesign? It's here. If you see talk page, some people think that it needs to be split up into ever changing "collaborations" and static "help." It really badly needs your help. Renata3 15:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"my contributions"

Since it looks like you have been playing with the interface (perhaps it's even one of your changes that caused this): "my contributions" becomes bold not only on my contributions, but also on any user's Special:Contributions page. --cesarb 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes - this has been fixed, just needs someone to sync the Wikipedia installation (should happen sometime soon!). Current code doesn't bold it at all... am working on it being correctly bolded. Cheers, Tom- 21:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css 2

Please don't make any radical changes to MediaWiki:Monobook.css without discuss it. The new interface was rather ugly. Thanks. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Jump links

Tom, since you added these can you comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Disabling the new skip to navigation and skip to search links? --Brion 01:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the option in preferences. Graham/pianoman87 talk 00:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Monobook.css

PLEASE do not make changes to Monobook.css without discussion. Whatever you did today broke underlining on Firefox (1.0.6 at least). Apparently you have been warned about this before. Unfortunately since the MediaWiki page is protected I cannot revert you but this type of unrequested, untested, unilateral action verges on abuse of Admin status. Thank you. MCB 22:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was hasty with the above, but I still think changes should be proposed and discussed. Almost exactly corresponding to the time you changed the file, on the very next page load underlining was missing. Since I was watching the Monobook.css file, I immediately saw that it had been changed. Since it was the only change to Monobook.css or Common.css in several days, I can only assume there is some connection. However, underlining returned within about 15 minutes, though the change was not reverted (so far as I can tell), so I'm puzzled. Nevertheless, I am very opposed to UI changes that radically change the use/editing experience for large number of users, without any particular pressing reason. If you read the current WP:VPT you will see several mentions of that. MCB 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You were indeed very hasty with the above. I have not changed anything to do with link underlining, merely fixed a bug with the Monobook.css stylesheet. As for "unrequested, untested, unilateral action" - if every change to Wikipedia/MediaWiki had to be requested, nothing would ever get done (nor would it if every change had to be proposed and voted on). I test every single major change I make to CSS/HTML both on many browsers and real people. And unilateral? I think the other 22 users signed up to the Usability Project may well disagree. Tom- 23:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you explain the absence of link underling that exactly coincides with your edit, though? It's clear that there is some sort of bad interaction between site CSS and Firefox, since something that should not have affected underlining (ABCD's edit [2]) for users with underlining set to "Browser Preferences" in their Wikipedia prefs, and with link underlining on in their local browser prefs, manifestly did. (See [3] and [4].) As for discussion, there is a request inside the Monobook.css file itself to discuss proposed changes at the Village Pump tech section, and others have discussed it on the Monobook.css talk page itself. Just like ABCD's edit on 12 October should not have broken underlining, your edit today should not have, either, but I'm at a loss to explain the apparent coincidence otherwise. I don't know enough about CSS to explain it, or to take issue with your work at a technical level, but I hope you will take such issues into consideration in the future. MCB 02:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your browser caches the CSS, so it probably just downloaded the latest version shortly after I made an unconnected edit to the file - just a mere coincidence. Tom- 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom, all links are showing up underlined for many users now. Are you sure you didn't cause this?--Gmaxwell 04:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how anything I've changed could possibly change the content's link underlining. The only edit to do with that was this one. Tom- 00:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

CSS error on MediaWiki:Common.css

I was looking at Firefox's Javascript Console for a unrelated reason, and found it reported a new error on MediaWiki:Common.css (besides the one which was already there). The W3C CSS Validator agrees it's an error:

Line: 216 Context : .EnWpMpBrowseBottom #EnWpMpBrowseCats li, .EnWpMpBrowseBottom #EnWpMpUsefulLinks, .EnWpMpBrowseBottom #EnWpMpFeaturedPic

Invalid number : line-height auto is not a line-height value : auto

Since you're the one who added these lines, could you take a look and change it to what you really meant (I'd guess "normal", since it's the default)? --cesarb 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, looking at it again, the other error isn't the one which was already there. That CSS was using opacity controls somewhere else, and they were removed later (check the talk); you added a different place with opacity controls, which is generating the same errors from the validator and the browser. --cesarb 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

==Help portal==

Hi,

I was looking for people who are interested in improving the Help sidebar link to be more useful. User:Gmaxwell indicated that you might know if anyone is currently working on that. At the moment the Help:Contents page is a long, unhierarchical list, and the proposed replacement Wikipedia:Help portal is worse (the "most frequently used" 200 or so links). I'd like to try to make things more useful by decreasing the number of links and making those links more useful (a top-level Help page doesn't need American vs. British spelling links if it has a Manual of Style link).

Anyway, I'm not trying to require help here, I just wanted to know if you knew of anyone else working on this, so I could talk with them. Otherwise, I'll just Wikipedia:Be bold! until someone gets mad at me :-). -- Creidieki 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Loginend

Moving and redesigning is all right, but why can't I see the username instructions in the new page. The text is now moved to MediaWiki:Signupend, so I was expecting that to be used now. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I left you some messages

I left 3 messages on the Usability Draft Main Page discussion. Thanks for taking on the challenge of redesigning a page that it seems like every other Wikipedian wants their featured picture, favorite language, or favorite link on it. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Done any RC patrolling recently? :-)

Seriously, it's a small change taking up what at the moment is blank space (ie not adding extra lines). I've noticed that newbies have no way of finding the sandbox for their first edit if all they do is come here via (eg.) Google and just hit "edit this page" to have a fiddle. Granted it's in the text below but I'll bet you anything no-one ever reads that (it could be taken out).

I think it's a change would could make quite a big difference to the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Dan100 (Talk) 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Main page re-design

Thanks for taking on the difficult task of redesigning the Main page. I definitely agree that it's needed, with the search bar more prominent. Though, have suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#A quick show of hands (based on following talk page comments) to get rid of the third column and simplify the browse bar, to improve usability and compatibility for various browsers/devices. I think we should keep working on the design ... it's almost there in my opinion. Thanks ---Aude 01:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Donations box

Hi. I'm afraid I don't have a screenshot, but the box came out big, right-aligned and with a white background. I am using FF on XP. If I recall correctly, the text was also non-italicised, though I may be wrong. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 18:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that was the intended idea. Sorry, I assumed it was a mistake. My apologies, [[Sam Korn]] 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi I just saw your idea to improve the main page, and think it's great. Everything you have done will make wikipedia way better. I don't know HTML or alot about templates, so I can't say much from an experts perspective, but I do have a sugestions.

• Instead of collums, there should be rows. I think that the top row should be the FA, then the search (with A-Z next to it), then the catagories, then the other stuff.
  • It would look way better with rows
  • I don't think anyone reads the did you know, or the anaversaries. I just think that rows, not collums would make it much easier to read. Also, most wikipedia articles are not in collums but in rows.

Do you guys agree with me? Tobyk777 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Diffs and links to non-existent articles

I'm having a problem with distinguishing the different parts of diffs, as well as links to articles that do not exist. I'm using jaws for windows version 5.1, which does not have the ability to control what CSS is used - the latest version does, but it is a paid upgrade. I'm using Internet Explorer 6 - limited firefox support is available in the latest release, but internet explorer is still the only choice for jaws users.

When I press the colour identification keystroke (insert+5) on an area I need info on (i.e. to check if something is a red link, to check details in the diffs), I am always told the colour is "black on white". Signatures with special colours report correctly.

Also, jaws does not report text with a class of diffchange as bold, even though this is the behaviour iwritten in the default monobook.css. I created my own monobook.css as an experiment at user:pianoman87/monobook.css to explicitly make the colour of diffchanges red, but the colour was still reported as black on white.

Is there any way this can be changed, or any other way of marking colour-coded text so that it can be distinguished with screen readers? The attributes that can be distinguished easily (at the press of a keystroke) are font (size, bold/underline/italics) ETC), and colour changes. I am aware of the option to make red links display with a question mark (or is it a question mark? jaws 5.1 doesn't handle unicode!), but it thinks that the question mark is the end of a question and therefore it speaks the link strangely. I'm very particular about how text is spoken with jaws ...

The other suggestion I have is that, when displaying diffs, only the actual text that has changed should be displayed. I imagine this could be changed on the fly or set in user preferences , but I don't know how to display it clearly. For example, I would like this diff to clearly show that the word "become" was changed to "became".

Perhaps a skin could be made for editors using screen readers. I'd be willing to help with the design of that. I have also thought of writing a guide about how to use wikipedia with screen readers - what to look out for and the like - to help new contributors. Some of the quirks with wikipedia with jaws happen on other sites with big edit windows, and are a result of the way the edit box in internet explorer works.

Merry christmas, and regards: Graham/pianoman87 talk 14:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for causing clutter on your talk page with this, but I just remembered this tech support notice, and some jaws users might not have colours enabled for that reason. Therefore, differentiating parts of a page using colours may not be a good idea, even for those using screen readers exclusively. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)