User talk:Gareth Aus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Talk page
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 – June 2006

Contents


[edit] Using "Writing guides" as example

Just fyi, i'm using template:Writing guides as a (good!) example in this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_Ruleset#Merge_suggestions.3F. (plus you might be interested in the thread). -Quiddity 02:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:H:h Help

Hi, I had to revert it, without align="right" anything is lost for browsers not supporting CSS. After that I reinserted the rest of your CSS replacing the old style, but for obvious reasons I've no idea if that still really does what you want. It should if I understood the "inheritence" rules of CSS, but better check it on an arbitrary help page. -- Omniplex 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought it might cause trouble, as I semi-reverted to the first edit. I don't know if <div align="right" style=...> (as opposed to float:right) would work. The problem is, a table creates whitespace to the right and on the bottom. Here is a screenshot of 2 affected boxes:

Image:H-h-help.png

The problem affects Firefox 1.5, IE6 and Opera 9 (and no doubt others) - Gareth Aus 06:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd opt for the right solution on your image. Because browsers not supporting CSS simply don't see it at all anything you do with CSS is fine from my POV. The stuff required for other browsers is essentially align=, cellpadding=, valign=, and width= where applicable (mostly align + width), anything else is at best prettier, not essential. So if you find a solution working for you (without touching the legacy crap) it should work with "any" browser - minus Lynx, that's probably a hopeless case wrt floating sidebars. -- Omniplex 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Lottery"

Okay, controversy explained. Pepso 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] (pipe cat)

Hi Gareth -- I saw the changes you made to some of the pages I did last night like Andrew Montour and Charles Kurtsinger. What does adding the pipe and the person's name do (i.e., what's it for)? Thanks :) Bookgrrl 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha! How very useful this is. Thanks :) Bookgrrl 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Contents

I don't know what to think about these edits; some of Chuck's revisions are benign or even propitious, but he seems nearly to have changed fundamentally the nature of the header. I didn't want to revert summarily, but I thought someone else ought to have a look. :) Joe 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Browse box

Just fyi, I suggested it at the pump. --Quiddity·(talk) 06:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tutorial

You'll be wanting to check out this thread: Wikipedia talk:Tutorial#Alternative header. :) --Quiddity 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Aus, I tried out a "full-sized," tabbed header for the tutorial. I couldn't get the base line to come out right using difs, so I went with a table design. As usual, I keep putzing with it (like messing with the palette...and I'm itching at the border widths...did it! and less vertical padding ;-), but here's an example. [1] The main problem I can think of with it is that it is wider than 100% at 800 X 600 screen resolution. I'd hate to see that as a deal breaker, since quite a few pages look crappy at that resolution anyway. If we can figure this one out (even if it has to go to two-level tabs), I certainly would like to see more navigation like this with tie-ins to the high-level color schemes and layouts as well. What do you think? Rfrisbietalk 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it. I've squeezed the text size down so it should work on 800x600 [2]. Unfortunately the text becomes a little bit small, but I think the tabs are a lot like a Table of Contents, with people using the "next" link at the bottom of the page to navigate. I agree on using a common colour and layout - the current tutorial design was based on the Introduction - so maybe that should be changed as well. Indeed, it may be worthwhile merging the two.
Getting back to the earlier point on standard navigation, {{writing guides}} was created to fulfil a similar purpose - that is to provide a quick summary of similar pages and allow people to navigate across, rather than up and down a list. I intended to do more of these - I was particularly thinking of deletion pages; but there are just so many of those I haven't tackled it yet. Of course this style won't apply in all situations, but I feel it has some usefulness. {{Wikipedia principles}} was created by Quiddity in the same style, but currently these are the only templates of this type on WP. -- Gareth Aus 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that. There's really not much difference between the full and compressed font sizes. Both extend beyond the right border and don't wrap (the div version did wrap). The full-size text hits the edge at the "R" in "Registration," while the compressed text hits it at "a." Since neither wraps and both go over the edge, I would go for the full-sized text. If you're okay with it, I can break up the test design into four subpage elements then build up a new set of tabs as /Header subpages for each section. I'd also like to make the border adjustments to have them match Community Portal in size and shade. I also would be willing to help out on related groups of pages if we want to make similar style and usability adjustments. Rfrisbietalk 11:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Merging the tutorial with the introduction, I left some thoughts at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Merge. :) --Quiddity 04:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff! The only thing that needs to be cleared up, is the duplicate/redirect link on the Main Page.("Welcome" and "anyone can edit" both link to Introduction now.) Perhaps "Welcome" could be unlinked? --Quiddity 02:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! We'll need an admin to make the change. -- Gareth Aus 03:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I couldnt remember if you were one ;) Do you want me to mention it at Main Page talk? You look busy with redirect updates...
Just fyi, I reverted the Wikipedia:Look it up redirect, as I'm discussing a merge/rethink/overhaul of that page with Wikipedia:Searching, at the Searching talk page with Black Carrot. (Which I'd also welcome your feedback at (no rush at all ;) ). --Quiddity 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elucidate me

Why do you keep editing a template to a project you're not participating in? --evrik 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I am keeping the help templates in a standard form. Why since 24th September have you decided to give the WikiProject a more prominent link (duplicating an existing link)? A link to the WikiProject is perfectly fine but it does not deserve to be bigger or more prominent than the others (except Wikipedia:Awards, which is the header - the link was added by someone else). Continually adding the boxed link seems only to be a cry for attention for the WikiProject. -- Gareth Aus 13:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:H:f Help

Hi - I just noticed your comment in the edit summary for this edit: "remove links that serve only to clutter the page - relevant links are available from the box at the side on each page". To which box are you referring? I first ran into this template on Help:Starting a new page and the links you removed followed the were at the bottom of the article as they are at the meta page. There is no "box at the side" on Help:Starting a new page and the links are useful; if you don't want to restore the "clutter", do you have a replacement handy? Thanks.—Chidom talk  05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Help:Starting a new page is an exception - for some reason there is no box associated with that page here (though there is on meta). You will notice on Help:Moving a page the "editing" box on the right. That is what I was referring to. This is in my opinion far better suited to the Help namespace pages as it changes depending on the type of page being viewed. For example Help:Watching pages features the reading version of the box. I attempted to include links on Template:H:f_Help, which linked to Wikipedia namespace pages but another user (Omniplex - since left) kept reverting this, claiming that help namespace pages were the "real" help pages and Wikipedia namespace pages were tantamount to "lies". Omniplex made further changes to the template in which, strangely, he decided to include some links to Wikipedia namespace pages. I then decided that the (mildly) contextual links at the top were sufficient, particularly as Help:Contents contains quite a comprehensive list of links to pages in both namespaces. Following Omniplex's departure, I deleted the links on Template:H:f_Help in the edit you referenced above. The majority of the useful links on Template:H:f_Help were available in the boxes on the top of the pages. The remainder are mostly links to pages such as Help:Parameter default which are for a very limited audience, and in this case don't even exist on Wikipedia. I would not support a return of excessive links in Template:H:f_Help (a few may be ok) and hope this post explains my reasoning. Thanks. Gareth Aus 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things that might need fixing:

  • The footer at the bottom of the page still states: "This page is a copy of the master help page at Meta...". (This is true wherever it's used, and to my knowledge, none of the help pages are still being updated with the meta page.)
  • If the {{editor toc}} is added to the page, it inserts similar "master page" language at the top of the page.
  • The "other languages" list of links is gone.

I'm not sure what the problem was with having the links at the bottom of the page.

  • There was nothing else following the list that was "required" reading; they weren't making any critical information more difficult to reach.
  • The list of links was more comprehensive than the Help:Contents page. For that page you need to know which category contains the information you're looking for (which isn't always obvious) and often requires more navigation. Being able to scan the list of links avoided all that.
  • The list was also more comprehensive than the {{editor toc}} box.
  • They didn't create browser-specific issues, which the boxes have.

I also wonder if you sought or obtained some sort of consensus before make such extensive changes to a template that's linked to more than 100 pages. Thanks.—Chidom talk  01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No response? The page is now less functional than it was; the "excessive" links are called such by you but others found them useful. I'm still unclear as to why this had to be changed and how the decision was reached to change it. While I agree with Wikipedia's exhortation to Be bold, when something is this far-reaching, I've learned to seek consensus first.—Chidom talk  04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my sluggish reply. Firstly, pages are updated for meta manually e.g. cut & paste. There was a bot which automatically updated the pages every 3 months or so but it doesn't do this anymore. It is still to my knowledge "policy" to update the pages at regular intervals.
  • "The "other languages" list of links is gone." - I don't quite know what you mean by this, you will need to explain this a bit more. Sorry.
  • I disagree that the links were more comprehensive than Help:Contents (just more esoteric). The sub-pages can be scrolled using the site map (which certainly is comprehensive).
  • I did not attempt to seek any kind of consensus as I did not deem it necessary. I do build consensus when appropriate. For example I suggested a redesign of Help:Contents, which was accepted; and merging Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, which wasn't accepted. Granted Template:H:f_Help is difficult to access, but in 2 months of this "new format" you are the only person to raise any concerns, which I feel indicates an acceptance of the template. Moreover, when you say "others found them [the links] useful" what evidence is there to suggest this? It seems you found them useful, but there is no evidence to my knowledge that the general audience wants them - at all, or in such large numbers. I also disagree that the edit was particularly far reaching. The template had also been expanded without consensus building.
  • Re. the replacement mentioned in your first post, Template:Quick help was if I recall a similar list of links to Template:H:f_Help at the time. I attempted to transclude the quick help template into Template:H:f_Help, however Omniplex reverted this. After attempting to discuss the benefits of this arrangement (namely that quick help can be used on non-meta pages and stay "in sync"), Omniplex kept opposing this change for reasons unknown. That could be a possible replacement. Certainly is does without all the ridiculous links subsequently added. I changed my opinion; if Wikipedia namespace pages don't need a generalised template, why do pages from meta? The answer is because some one on meta decided a long time ago that it would be a good idea. On meta they were right - jumping around pages you are doing hard editing to is convenient. On WP, I don't believe that readers want links to certain pages that have little in common to the page their viewing. Gareth Aus 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

  • If the policy is that these pages are supposed to be updated from Meta (even by cut and paste), won't that revert the pages to what's on Meta now? Or do the template links get pasted to link to the ones here rather than the ones on Meta?
Yes it will replace the entire content of the page on Wikipedia. To avoid this use the templates. I have updated Help:Starting a new page and placed the Wikipedia lead on Template:Phh:Starting a new page. These "Phh" templates are for just that purpose. As for the second part of that question, I didn't quite understand, but the answer is likely to be yes.
  • For the "Other languages" links, scroll to the bottom of Meta:Help:Starting a new page and read the small type just above the list of categories. Maybe no one found this useful and it was entirely superfluous.
On the WP version of Template:H:f Help there was a notice "For other languages see Meta". Somehow it was removed but I've put it back.
  • As for the list being comprehensive, my point was that it was easier to scan a longer list of links than to have to know where to start clicking on the main help page to find what you need. As for "esoteric", I agree that the list could be shortened; I doubt that a great number of people would find the "mw: | b: | s: " helpful; it's not even clear what they link to.
True. I just thought it was silly having a list of links on Help namespace pages but none on Wikipedia namespace pages. I guess we have slightly different opinions when it comes to the worth of those links.
  • I give up on when consensus is needed and when it isn't.
It's a difficult and poorly defined issue. To expand on what I said yesterday, I have done quite a bit of work on help pages. As such, I felt I knew the system and felt comfortable making the change. If I had just come across the the page, I definitely would have discussed the change first.
As for the remainder of that point, you completely lost me. Did you change your opinion while you were typing the response? (". I changed my opinion; if Wikipedia namespace pages...")
I know you didn't mention Quick Help. In your first post, you mentioned if I had a replacement handy. Quick Help would be my replacement, if required. I changed my opinion some months ago from wanting general links at the bottom of all help pages to not wanting them on any pages. Most of all I just think this should be consistent. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly.
  • We probably have a different preference when it comes to how links are laid out on a page.
- I like lists that read from top to bottom with bolded headings grouping related links; using indentations and columns, if need be.
- Others like lists that are completely centered, with the links underneath a bold header spaced horizontally across the page as in the layout of Template:Quick help and the main Help:Contents page, for example.
(My issue with this is that the eyes have to move to a different starting point on every line of text rather than returning to the same left margin. The links that were on the page combined the two—headers in bold, everything starting flush left, but related links spread horizontally across the page rather than below the header on individual lines.
We do have different opinions on this ;).
  • As for difficulty in accessing the template, for those of us who don't design templates on a regular basis, it's incredibly difficult to get to the template at all to find out who edited it and thus get to this talk page. I consider myself to be fairly savvy about getting around Wikipedia, but this one stumped me for a long while. Finding that what looks like ordinary text on the page actually comes from something that looks like this: {{h:f|langs=|enname=Starting a new page}} is strange. The template looks nothing like other templates, the "h:f" isn't indicative of what the template's for; that tends to be the case on other templates Template:Other uses, Template:Cite book, etc., or they get used so often that although they wouldn't scan for someone really new, the rest of us have learned what they are through seeing them frequently, such as Template:Afd, etc.. In short, perhaps others who might have had something to say couldn't figure out where to go to say it.
Very true. I myself had difficulty accessing the template initially. The meta-based help system isn't transparent or user friendly. Template:H:f Help is quite frankly an appalling name, but we are stuck with it, as the names would need to be changed on meta and every other project using the system.
  • In terms of "others", even if it were only me, that would be a correct sentence, as I am not you. I see your point, but I'm a noisy person and, as I say, others may not have been able to find this talk page, or they may not be as noisy as I am.
Well I just thought "I" would have sufficed, but your point about not being able to access the template is valid and indeed there may have been others who felt the same as you. The template is, I think, watched by a few other people. I believe they would be quick to revert vandalism or edits they didn't agree with.

Bottom line, my feeling is that Wikipedia is difficult enough to navigate in terms of finding what you need. I still fail to see the harm in having the links remain or why it should be necessary to click to another page and then click some more to get where you need to go. Removing additional resources and ways of finding information is not helpful, no matter how aesthetically pleasing.

That being said, I also tend to forget that there's anything to the left of the page except "What links here", "Upload file", and the search box. I actually like the idea of the Help:Contents/Site map being the place to go (although I would disagree with its layout, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and at the moment, I've had enough seafood). Perhaps a compromise here is to replace all the specific links with a a link to the map; it would fit nicely in the Wikipedia help section. What's there at the moment—the explanation about newcomers and those without accounts being unable to create pages—doesn't really relate to the section heading. Alternatively, put both a link to the site map and the existing link to the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet in a See also section as is found on other pages; however, at this point, I'm willing to drop it. Thanks.—Chidom talk  11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


As your post is rather long I will place most of my answer under each bullet point.

To wrap up, I have updated Template:H:f Help to be a bit clearer. The site map is rather ugly but there are ardent supporters of the two column format (who unlike me actually use the page). I have included a link to Help:Contents on Template:Ph:Starting a new page near the Cheatsheet - from there users can choose the site map if they wish. I can include {{Quick help}} on Template:Ph:Starting a new page if you like. Gareth Aus 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/r/User_talk%7EGareth_Aus_d25c.html"