User talk:David Kernow/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Naming conventions

Hi, David! Just wanted to let you know about this discussion/poll. I don't know your position on this, but I am sure you will be able to put your two (or more) cents in, assuming, of course, that the subject interests you at all. If this is something you don't care much about, feel free to ignore this message altogether. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...PS Re this, I took a look at the discussion and realised I don't have ideas either way, at least not at present. Thanks, though, for pointing it out.

New Zealand topics

I've asked for some discussion on this new template at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.-gadfium 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me; I've just left some context there for the sake of discussion. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this

xpost (by section title)

Hi Frank,

...weigh in on VfD's: for W2 and W2C (here). They're great time savers cause I can search and replace... Just go to WP TFd, I said it already there. Also laid down a link to the one here for W2C...

I see from WP:TfD#Template:W2 that W2's discussion was closed on 30 January, so not sure what I can do (other than remind you to copy it to your userspace, if it didn't start there or you haven't already done so); W2c, on the other hand, has been replaced by "To be deleted.", but I don't see the discussion; meanwhile, W2c at the Commons seems intact and unchallenged...?  Apologies if I've managed to confuse myself... Yours, David (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • 'W2' disposition has been put on hold as a courtesy pending untangling and/or appeal... the thing is mixed in everywhere interwiki involved, so even AWB is a tough task and option, and apparently, AWB would also have trouble generating the [W: this|this] subst needed to not affect interwiki usage.

       Here's the W2c discussion which is dead locked. I'm formulating a self-substing method to make such typing-aids have little effect on server loads... that by email soon and at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion, which I'm currently actively editing, interupted to see and answer your post. (Add in, I need to go back and finish fixing the snowblower and use it, and... too many things, too little time! <G> Samo-samo in life always!) Cheers! // FrankB 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TurkishPeople2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TurkishPeople2.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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedia templates

I agree that the category does need sorting out, hence why I was spending some time last night trying to sort out Category:Templates by article category. I'm not sure that I agree with the exact structure you're proposing in your sandbox, though.

We seem to have the following distinct groups of templates:

  • Navigation
  • Infobox
  • Wikiproject banners
  • Userboxes
  • Utility/shortcut (e.g. {{mp}})

The first two, along with some of the utility templates, fall nicely under specific topic areas. I've recently set up Category:Astronomical templates and subdirectories, which is currently my preferred way of organizing these. Note that the navigation and infobox templates are in their own subdirectories; I found that when they weren't, they really cluttered up the template list.

I'm unsure with Category:Navigational templates and Category:Infobox templates. They would fit pretty nicely into your proposed Category:Templates by type. I'm worried that they will become very cluttered, and hence useless. Perhaps it would be worth setting up a series of categories like Category:Applied science and technology-related navigational templates in them, similar to how the topic area templates are organized? Or would this just duplicate work - would it be better to loose the template categories completely in favour of the topic-organized ones?

The wikiprojects template category is currently in a right mess: it includes both templates related to wikiprojects, and the ones they use (which need to be moved into the appropriate topic area categories). This needs to be sorted out so that they only have the wikiprojects ones; once that's done, I think that category is OK as a top-level one.

Category:Wikipedia userboxes (which perhaps should be swapped out with Category:Wikipedian userboxes in this category) has a whole load of issues that I really don't want to get into. I'd suggest that remains pretty much as it is.

The utility and shortcut templates are something I'm not yet sure on how to organize. I think that putting them under a Category:Utility templates is a good idea. Within this, Category:Administrative templates might be useful, along with something like something like Category:Template construction templates (that needs a better name, though).

I will try to put together my own proposed category structure later this evening, and make sure I haven't missed anything. I've run out of time this morning, though. :( Mike Peel 08:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started this at User:Mike Peel/Template categories, although it will probably take me a while to complete - I seem to be rather busy at the moment. Mike Peel 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages, Mike, especially your thoughts in the first. I too find myself more busy than usual at the moment, but will aim to compare/contrast/contribute to User:Mike Peel/Template categories and User:David Kernow/Sandbox#Category:Wikipedia templates simplification sooner rather than later. Yours, David (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
...I've taken the liberty of adding a few suggestions/entries to User:Mike Peel/Template categories as I think it's probably closer to becoming a workable system. (I still feel, however, that I still haven't quite sorted out distinctions between template types, uses, designs, etc, etc in my head!)  Perhaps it might be preferable to copy this page to Category talk:Wikipedia templates and work on it there...?  Regards, David (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
PS There was an edit conflict, so some of the material added may be redundant.
The scale and mess of the template categories is beginning to give me a bit of a headache... As you suggest, I've moved the page to the category talk page, although it probably won't fit the usual style of talk page for a bit. I'm stopping editing the list for now as I need a break from it; will hopefully be able to carry on with it in a day or so. Mike Peel 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the list is now in a near-completed state, at least at the top-most levels. Sub-categories can be sorted out as and when needed. What do you think? Mike Peel 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

David, I know that this is rather bad timing from the point of view of the above rearrange, but I need to take a wikibreak and focus on my actual work more. I'll probably end up doing editing at random points in time, probably related to this rearrange, but it won't be one of my priorities. Sorry. Mike Peel 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable; as I found your analysis of the template shake-up to be clearer than mine, I feel you've already made a major contribution to the task. You may've spotted that I've begun implementing the "by namespace" categories; I'll continue through the list and reckon I should be able to follow it faithfully, certainly as far as the third level categories if not all. Any passing comments as and when you pay a visit will be welcome, especially if it looks as if I or anyone else who becomes involved may have begun missing the proverbial wood for the trees. In the meantime, though, may your research yield interesting results!  Best wishes, David (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Algeria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

(FrankB re Template:See also)

PING! -- Save these two guys the headache -- Soooo 'glad' to see a recent post by you on CFD. (i.e. activity)
re: Template talk:see also#Make_this_Edit and 'through the procedure frustrations' on {{Edit-protected}}. Should have just loaded this on you or CBD from the outset, I guess! (Make sure to clear the requested edits page [first link in the section, iirc] too!) Got to see if I can get a sys-op bit!!! Best! // FrankB 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK -- RE-PING or and skip the test. Sic it! LOL // FrankB 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Thanks... I think!)RE-PING
BTW -- T'would rather not have 'initials plus name' all over the internet for google hits, so note the change to FrankB! Thanks. A few hits are enough I think, and there are far more FrankB's out there! [Only one good one HERE! <g> (maybe!??)] Cheers! // FrankB 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Note
Advisory--You'll have to grab from the comment up... I'd thought this was done. There was a missing '}}' on my cut in line... So Robudar had the trouble. Also delete the 'X' turning the protect template into Xprotect. Who gave you permission to have a life off wiki? <G> Thanks! //
AHEM! Template:See also 
Nag, nag, nag!
This snipett is still a problem for the server on backlink referencing: [[:<span class="boilerplate seealso">''See also: {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}|{{{l1|{{{1}}}}}}]] | '''[[Template talk:See also|MISSING ARTICLES]]'''

    ... Tested version Here for your cut and paste buffer! Tests here in this section per 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 'RE-PING' above. // FrankB 04:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RE: Re RE-PING: Sorry, sorry, sorry – am finding myself overwhelmed again. Will attend once I've finished template-patching. Juggle, David (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No big deal or problem... jes' wish you'd warned me you were taking the night off yesterday. I can't even justify editing in the talk either, and those two guys (and my error-- I forgot to close the final if block with }} or Robudar's edit would have put paid to it all) combined to undo the good. Same reason I didn't 'Pre' per your suggestion.

   Need to repeat the caution above "Note:Advisory--You'll have to grab from the comment up..." AND delete the X in {Xprotected}! <g> // FrankB 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Was not my intention, but external events intervened... Will now take a look at situation. David (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
...Okay, I think I've implemented Template talk:See also#Make this Edit (with a little rephrasing; hope it's okay)... David (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

<Chuckling uncontrollably> SO why pray tell did I do this up? (two links above!) Ah, what a riot! This smacks of Keystone Kops comedy!!! I think you're jes trying to get me to go for Admin!!! It's a plot! Template:See also (edit talk links history)

Test new

1.

See also: Gerbil, History, Fudge, ASCII, and Football

2. (empty)

See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name

3. (overrun)

See also: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O—
Error: Too many links specified (maximum is 15)

Versus:

Test new
FrankB 22:30, 6 February 2007

1.

See also: Gerbil, History, Fudge, ASCII, and Football

2. (empty)

See also: Usage error: Template 'see also' must be given at least one ARTICLE Name!

3. (overrun)

See also: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O--
See also Usage Error#2: Too many links
MAXIMUM of 15 ARTICLES ALLOWED in this list


Looks good to me... Finally! Thanks! And don't apologize for RL interfering with Wiki! One is real, one is virtual, and life has to be lived. Last thing any of us should do here is let it pressure us! // FrankB 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwikitmp-grp in Tt0

Hey on another note, look over my shoulder in template talk:Tt0... do you have any idea if I leave the nice indented coding in the Template:Tt0 (edit talk links history) logic whether I'll see the numbers and grey blocks in practice? Or do I have to trim all the whitespace and make it an maintainance headache? // FrankB 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...This template, on the other hand, looks a handful. Scanning the code, there doesn't seem to be any obvious problems that the indentation might cause; are you experiencing something specific...?  I've found that so long as wikicode and HTML are kept apart, all is usually okay; the problems begin when they start to mix... David (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Glad it was as straightforward as I thought – re User:Fabartus/see also, keep for reference and if/when an edit mangles {{See also}}...
Well, I tried to be plain and clear! Harumph! So much for toeing the line with 'proper procedure'!!!
I'll at least use it to suggest the changes I want for compatible with such parameters as LABEL, PRE, POST, SISTER, etc. as on my later adaptations of it {{Catlst}}, {{Template list}}, not to mention the various cat see also's. Unfortunately, I lost that edit with a careless stroke of some unknown hotkey combination pressing CTRL instead of shift... what else was involved back in the edit stack, I don't know. Sigh. Whatever it was, I'm sure it'll bite me again.
On your comment: This template, on the other hand, looks a handful. Scanning the code, there doesn't seem to be any obvious problems that the indentation might cause; are you experiencing something specific...? I've found that so long as wikicode and HTML are kept apart, all is usually okay; the problems begin when they start to mix... David (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not having problems with the logic, but have concerns the spurious numbers (Scan the talk page test) that list out

   1


2
3
6

   i.e. seem to be residue from the equality tests #ifeq: {{{V}}}|#|THEN...

    So the concern is are these going to show up on the tagged pages? Those four number codes (cases) happen to be the one's that cover the template auto-categories for the tagging system itself. This is just the logic block for when it's a system template--defined as one used in tagging as well as those which support interwiki documentation compatibility and link + analysis things like {{lc}} and {{lts}}.

   I wasn't even going to edit the thing {{interwikitmp-grp}} until later in the week or until next, but I kept seeing one spurious (extra or stray) '/includeonly' coming from therein... it went away when I 'Lts'd the template. So I began operating earlier than plan.

   Since I was, I figured I'd get the system declaration categorization in place while it was opened up. The 'working' categorization will be more like see also else of one leading to the next test... so forth for all nine cases. I may rewrite this section the same way. I was analyzing as much as trying to churn out final code.

   The grey boxes are just leading spaces... sortof your mixed wikimarkup and logic together... in one sense. The solution to that is trim out all that nice neat progressive indentation with aggressive whitespace compression... rather like {{see also}} now that I think of it! <G>

   I need to go study the 'switch' character too. Since peram {V} is central, that may be the tightest way to get this done. One problem is 3, 4, 5 and 6 all involve '3' in some way, and '3' can be over-ridden to a sub-cat instead of just Miscellaneous templates. I'll figure something out. Would be easier in Pascal, C, C++ or even old fashioned BASIC or FORTRAN, well maybe not OLD FORTRAN, but some of the latter extended language flavors that supported decent string manipulation. But Wikimarkup is what we gots, so we have to use that!

So if you know what's the likely effect of the 1, 2, 3, 6??? -- do let me know! I think I'm heading to bed soon. This late night crap isn't needed! Best! // FrankB 07:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverse what!?? <BSEG> + LOL... See {{interwikitmp-grp/doc}}... the suffixed versions are to be replaced by this logic or whatever comes from that. Where do you call home anyway? // FrankB 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a travelling British expat, so theoretically the UK – except I've only visited rather than "resided" there... David (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmmm -- you hang your hat where? (email t'would be best, I guess! Add this to your studies if you want to get into the logic needs with me. I'm pretty sure the 'switch' has got to be the way to go, as the default can handle the calls where no V= param is defined... and the SYS and or inhib logic is simple aside from that. At least I got it closed up without locking up the system! I'm off to bed. // FrankB 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added some small comments to {{Tt0}}'s code while trying to follow it; in short, I'd say yes, if any of the <!--then: ___print___--> conditions are satisfied, one or more of those numbers will be printed, whether on tagged or other pages.
Sorry if that sounds a little obvious; it's because (1) I'm not certain; and (2) I feel as if I may've missed the point entirely. Is such a (relatively) complex template really needed...?  Hoping I've been of some help, David (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

.. and deleting "KBE".

I don't think so. There are lots of other orders of knighthood. And if he were a KBE and a KCB would you delete both? Would you delete, say, KCMG but not GCMG? I suggest you may be wrong. Philip Trueman 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; have restored the "KBE". If/when he's given more letters, I guess a new line will be needed!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Template:Countries and territories of East Asia

User talk:Peterwhy#Template:Countries and territories of East Asia

Hi

Thanks for your suggestion. I found that there were some similar navigation box with flags, and so i added flags to the Template:Countries and territories of East Asia. Here are four boxes which show the previous version, the current version, the version if countries are aligned vertically, and my suggested solution:

v • d • e
Countries and territories of East Asia
v • d • e
Countries and territories of East Asia
v • d • e
Countries and territories of East Asia
v • d • e
Countries and territories of East Asia

Please have a look and give some advice.

Peterwhy 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry I had to add a "</nowiki>" to make this section works.Peterwhy 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for including these. I experimented with them and produced:
v • d • e
Countries and territories of East Asia
The code, however, is more complex, so I'm thinking it might be worth creating a {{Navigation with table}} or the like for Navigation templates featuring flags. On the other hand, tidying the flags as above produces a template that doesn't use its full width; I also wonder whether it's worth including flags, especially in templates with relatively few links such as the above... If, though, people reckon they're useful, I think one or more templates that assist in their alignment are needed. Yours, David (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
...Have created and used {{Navigation with columns}} with {{Countries and territories of East Asia}}; what do you think...?  David (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscellania

Hi, David! Thank you for your notes regarding the Adygea draft; I will respond tomorrow or later this week.

I do have another favor to ask of you, if you don't mind (if you do, feel free to send me a bill for all the help I solicited from you so far :)). Having (mostly) finished with Adygea, I am now on with Tatarstan. A guy who lives there volunteered to write articles on all Tatarstan's districts (which is a great help, because unlike Adygea's seven, Tatarstan has forty-three), and thought it to be a good idea to have an infobox for each district. I developed one for this purpose, but I am having slight issues with formatting. The functionality is all there, but there are some quirks I am just not sure how to fix (most likely because my eyes are all bleary from developing this template—something I haven't done for over a year now!). Would you mind taking a quick look at it and letting me know what I am missing? My main issues are that the population density number does not align with the line to its left and that no matter what I try I cannot widen the columns in the "Administrative" and "Municipal structures" sections (I'd rather not have terms such as "urban-type settlement" wrap). Of course, if you see anything else out of order, feel free to fix and improve—I sure could not have caught up with all the latest in template development in just one day! The infobox is currently only used in the Nurlatsky District article; you are welcome to test it there if you need to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've sorted out {{Infobox Russian District}} (aside: Before any pedants take note, I believe infobox names are sentence-cased after the initial "Infobox", i.e. "Infobox Russian district") – at least it seems to be okay – during which I (1) added comments within the code to aid my following it; and (2) tinkered a little with some formatting (in particular, the Website parameter). Hope, therefore, the template now doesn't feel too foreign!  Nice work, David (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Any thoughts re {{Infobox ADRFS}} or is that best kept shelved for now...?
Hi, David! Thanks for looking at the template and straightening it out! I apologize for the lack of inline comments and overall mangled structure—I'm afraid that's the way I am when it comes to coding.
Overall, I like the way the template looks now. I do, however, have a few questions. Can I ask you why you left-aligned the table headers (they used to be centered)? Was it done in order for the numbers (of cities/towns, etc.) to look more balanced? I take it there was no way to adjust the column width of the "administrative structure" and "municipal structure" sections to be different from those in the rest of the table?
Again, I appreciate your help! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I have not forgotten about Infobox ADRFS. I intend to revisit it sometime soon.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've simplified the inline comments a little, now that I've been through the code. (The code structure wasn't mangled!)
The left-aligned headers were an oversight; I'm used to rows beginning "!" centering their contents, but must've forgotten that this doesn't occur with "infobox geography". All should now be repaired. Re the Admin and Municipal structure sections, I meant to say that a subtable is my first thought as regards implementing different column widths, but the template seems fine to me without this complication (especially with the padding-right now added); I wasn't seeing "urban-type settlements" wrap on Nurlatsky District, for example. If, though, I'm missing the point, please repeat (with apologies for thick skull).
I also forgot to mention a query I'd left as a comment within the code for displaying the map; it begins "<!--__Should the following..."  Yours, David (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, "urban-type settlements" does span two lines ("urban-type" and "settlements") for me when I look at the template. "Municipal urban settlements" and "Municipal rural settlements" span three lines (one for each word), and "rural localities" and "district newspaper" also span two lines. I looked at the template in both IE and Opera. Would a screenshot be helpful? I understand that even if the left column's width were increased, lines would still probably wrap, but at least the numbers wouldn't be that far to the right from the label. Aligning those numbers vertically would probably be a good idea, too.
As for your in-code inquiry, sorry I missed it. Putting the legend inside the then-statement probably wouldn't hurt. I don't think anyone would put in a map legend without the actual map, but hey, people tend to do all kinds of stupid stuff! I'll have it fixed just to be on the safe side.
Thank you very much for having a look at it; it was very helpful! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, "urban-type settlements" does span two lines ... for me when I look at the template...
Curious... Since "Municipal urban settlements" appears here to be the longest entry, it's now spaced using &nbsp;s; any improvement...?  David (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that fixed it! Simple and effective; thanks a lot! Just out of curiousity, you said entries did not wrap in your browser—are you using Firefox?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes!  Version 2.0.0.1 (reasonably up-to-date, I think...)  Useful to be reminded never to take any formatting for granted. Yours David (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, David! I hope this is not becoming annoying, but I would like to call on your template-making experience once again, if I may.

Years ago, I made the {{Federal subject of Russia}} template, which at the time was rather advanced. Currently, it would rightfully be considered dated and ugly, and since it's a much higher profile template than the one we made for the districts, I have just upgraded it. The new version is available at {{Infobox Russian federal subject}}, and is pretty much a modified copypaste of the {{Infobox Russian district}}'s code. I tested it on Adygea so far and think that it works reasonably well, except that I used the same green color as in the district's template. That, obviously, is no good. What I would like to do is to use the blue color instead of green (blue is one of the colors of the Russian flag, so the choice is very natural). Blue looks great with white color of the font (incidentally, white is another color of the Russian flag :)), but I am having problems with the color of links (including visited) and language names (which are standard grey). As I am horrible with picking colors, would you have any suggestions regarding how to handle this situation best? We could probably get rid of links in headers altogether, but that would decrease informational value of the template. Or, we could use other, more contrasting, colors for the links, but then it may not be immediately obvious what is a link and what is not (especially for users who have links underlining turned off).

Any help you could provide would, as usual, be extremely greately appreciated. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried "lightskyblue"; how does that look...?  I first tried the Russian flag's #0000ff, as I guessed you may've done, but yes, it was too dark and there was insufficient contrast with the links. There's probably a standard way to create shades of a particular color, e.g. maybe #0011ff, #0022ff, etc; or #1111ff, #2222ff, etc; but I haven't tried these experiments.
This (selected from this) will probably be of interest!  Yours, David (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, David! Lightskyblue, unfortunately, does not really associate with the blue color of the Russian flag, but I guess there hardly is a closer color match that would retain a good contrast. Lightskyblue it is, then :)
And thanks for pointing to the color names list; it's going to be of great help. I guess I have to make a point to browse your userpage and its subpages more thoroughly—you seem to have got tons of useful stuff there!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Have substituted "deepskyblue" for "lightskyblue" (and tidied the comments I left when first working through the template); what do you think of this color...?  It does, at least, share one-third of its definition with the Russian flag's blue!  (Here, though, it's somewhat dark / of poor contrast, but that may be due to my monitor's lowered settings.)  I also tried "dodgerblue" (which also shares the "FF" part-definition) but I think that will be too dark. Regards, David (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, David! I think lightskyblue worked better. Deepskyblue creates contrast problems with visited links (dark purple) and language names (light grey), yet it still does not really associate with the blue color of the Russian flag. If you don't mind, I'll change it back to lightskyblue. Thanks for trying out other options anyway!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're around!

Little problem -- see {{X3}}... See garbage: {{#if: | appearing just above the table. Can you spot an nesting error or unbalanced squirmy braces? (I'm off to start dinner for the family... no hurry. I shouldn't be 'back' for at least an hour. Thanks // FrankB 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You certainly pose some testers!  I'm not sure – I may well've made a mistake while working through the code – but, as the "spaced-out" comments I added are meant to indicate, I think it's missing one "end #if:" (i.e. double curly-bracket) somewhere. Hope that (1) is correct; and (2) helps.
Meanwhile, you may wish to comment re this, specifically re the first bullet "Category:Category namespace templates" underneath; the three categories in the small italics are your creations, so I thought you'd like to indicate where/what you'd prefer them to be recategorized under Category:Category namespace templates!  Now away for a couple of hours myself, David (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're watching, I'm looking Para #2 over now. I'll be interested on Para#1 if your determination matches where I moved code. Thanks! // FrankB 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Template:Interwikitmp-grp exceptions... can you reduce the font size. ONE day, I'm really going to have to study HTML! This is just a syntax thing, any other improvements appreciated too. Now back to your cats... // FrankB 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Have tried font-size:95% for the table. Whatever HTML I know has been picked up via seeing code (mostly here) or Google searches (e.g. try the first few results for "font-size"); I know, though, that this piecemeal approach doesn't suit everyone (and is probably pretty inefficient too).
Visiting {{Interwikitmp-grp exceptions}} reminded me of a suggestion I meant to make earlier: though it may feel unnecessary, use less cryptic names for the parameters, templates, categories, etc you create – but then create shortcuts to the templates and accompanying parameters that are the names you'd prefer (parameter example: ...{{#if:{{{name on metawiki|}}}{{{mta|}}} |<!--then:--> ...). Although more wordy, hopefully it'll make it easier for folk to understand – better still, appreciate – what you're doing, rather than feel it's too much work to comprehend, or, worse, vote to delete. For instance, what exactly is {{Interwikitmp-grp}}, i.e. what would be its expanded name – beyond even "Interwiki temporarytemplate-group" or the like, as I reckon folk would still not be clear as regards its purpose...?

Category talk:Wikipedia templates

and etc.
Whew! Only for you or CBD! I needed to put this together anyway for WP:TSP. This is iterim... if you visit the links I visited about a week back, one of those has a ton of redlink 'likely' category names. Those will autocat by the switching in interwikitmp-grp, if the sister link is enabled. I'm one layer removed from finishing my comments on Category talk:Wikipedia templates#Category:Templates by namespace... I gather this is spurred by your work with Mike Peel. (I lost an edit to him offering to help... Or maybe it's just over on the browser/business overflow I need to get back to whittling down.
My big bug is PAGENAME/doc pages along with this sort of recatting. Great idea-- I saw some of your posts back and forth, and it's right up the alley of needing tools to recommend and or port... Nice to know I'm not the only one interested in surveying templates.
If you scan the given list (in this (2))... the red tagging should indicate names I'd very much prefer remain unmolested. Don't really care where they fall in the heirarchy parents to sub-cats, but would prefer they remain as much the same as possible AS CAT NAMES. See: 'Replacement Head Cat' on the commons... apparently other cats aren't fully tied in -- probably off in one of the browsers I haven't got back to. (Aside: Wikiquote is attacking all the templates I ported! Arrrrrrgggghhhh! Royally messed me plans up these last two days! ) Anyway, THAT is Wikipedia templates for the purpose of interwiki cross connections--a transitional cat between our category scheme and 'Theirs', whomever "they" are "there". This is how I'm tagging in advance of a working {{interwikicat-grp}} (There's an old summer issue eye-sore version stubbed in on the commons. Yuck!) ttfn - got to go finish prepping dinner, then I'll finish my comments. I better safe X3 somewhere B4 that! // FrankB 01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (just keep your replys here... no reason to xpost! If I expect an answer, I'll check, even if I do suck at my watchlist, your talks are on my bookmarks.)

Ping plus a speedy-D if link's still blue! I'm just back from dinner if you're around. Pretty sure you missed the correct #if nesting... the trash is still on screen. Those can be sneaky! I will deal with it. See you're active. ttfn. // FrankB 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just about to go offline again for a while; sorry not to've caught the {{X3}} problem. Thanks for the above re template categories; no immediate action planned in their vicinity, but glad to have something for reference. Will catch up again later. Yours, David (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

recatting my messes

re:

  1. Template:IWTG_size
  2. Template:IWTG_width

Going through Uncategorized templates, I'm a bit baffled where to put this (1) right now. Byt themselves, they don't make sense within interwiki link templates, though I guess interwiki utility templates isn't too much of a stretch... I was trying though to convert that to all tools, not tagging templates.

We don't have a proper WikiProject category interconnection, or the like, but it's part of that and the new WP:TSP... older, individual tags. Ditto (2). Both are just storage register sub-templates-- I'm hoping some day to recast and shrink all those like I did recently with {{commonscat1}}, iirc. (Yep! <g>)

Have you sketched out a sub-template category scheme? For example, {{succession}} and {{succession box}} and a bunch of others take multiple sub-templates. Seems like maybe a good and better approach would be to use a sub-page template which makes the relationship obvious. OTOH, I'm certain there are some sub-templates which are shared, much as my {{indent family usage}} is shared /doc page substitute for five pages. Later you handsome sleeping beauty! // FrankB 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no, not yet. Will address as/when the issue arises; first thought is a Templates using templates category, although whether that is useful or would suffice... Thanks, though, for the early thinking (and anything else to reference).
  • FYI -- Arrrrghhhh! Just lost ??? related Edits trying to get back to your Cat page talk and finish comments... when I hit a hot key that closed the browser!
I wonder if there's a tool that can autosave anything typed into browser fields etc every few minutes... Don't feel you have recreate everything lost, though; if you prefer, just pass on whatever comes to mind as/when you're reminded.

Need to account for this in your planning. In the meantime, I have to go defend Tfd's on wikisource. // FrankB 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess "Category:Wikipedia templates" was set up here rather than "Category:Templates" as, unlike at MetaWiki, "templates" is also an entry in the encyclopedia. Referring to m:Category:Templates, however, is something I hadn't (yet) considered, so thanks again for another useful prompt. Back later, David (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PING Emergency mode! (I'm not having a good weekend!!!) // FrankB 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Category pings in Emg mode

I'm just going to nudge you here with stray links as I fly by or back and forth between sisters, and related thoughts on the cats... I have no clue as to what's done like this sans a task bar

  1. templates tracked categories-- what links here on Template:Tracking_category (edit talk links history).
       also the self categories in the template.
       // FrankB 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Category:Interwiki_category_linking_templates -- these are the inbetween sisters templates.
       // FrankB 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A message on Wikimedia Commons

Please note my recent message on your talk page at Wikimedia Commons. Thank you, Iamunknown 07:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(FrankB re above)

I'm going to edit conflict with myself on above section if I don't ping you down here! <G> Please give an opinion of the category name in this (just answer here... I be back soon. I've actually managed to close up some browsers... (Firefox down to a mere 139,xxx K and IE6 to 159,653K whereas this morning's start both were about 256,000+ K apiece! Had virtual memory issues yesterday--no wonder. Hmmmm, 'nother 159,867 K hanging about in notepads. Sigh!) ...but some of that's related to part of the (eventual note) above (who says wikipedia isn't a a crystal ball! <g>) Some things like See also Templates: cms , IWTG size, and IWTG width are also candidate members. ttfn // FrankB 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do anon. Among (too many) other tasks, I should soon start addressing/incorporating your category information/observations above; for now, only paying a brief visit. Yours, David (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Something I meant to pass on before: In response to the draft Commons map scheme (Commons:Category talk:Maps), User:ElectionWorld has quickly identified that poser about whether distinguishing between "Old maps of the history of" and "Maps of the history of" is worthwhile or too subtle. I'm thinking of shelving that question for the time being and forging on with the rest of the draft (i.e. trying to resolving the other queries included in the draft).
SIGH!, I've never been able to get back there and finish that post either... nor a related post on Electionworld's page, I've now got various bits an pieces of partial work spanning something like a full week... when I went haring off on a side issue and hadn't time to go back. Ever wish the rest of the world would just stop and let you breath? Fixed up {{interwikicat-grp}} good enough for now to go on with, so can use that to auto-list the matters I'm concerned with... assuming I can back through related bug stomping first... I think it's on THIS browser! (Get confused!) Note to self, don't edit talks on another tab when edits pending on the others. <G> I'll keep this tab here.
re: distinguishing between "Old maps of the history of" and "Maps of the history of" is worthwhile or too subtle.
Well to tell you the truth, I've never seen a lot of merit in any' 'Old maps of tagging' as one can immediately see such are not 'newish' save for copyrights needs, and those are already handled by copyrights tags. On the other hand, it makes sense as a category for tracking them because they're old, I just don't see the point of having them separated from the 'new' maps group--which is meant to survey the whole, I'd think. Given that, 'Maps....', 'New maps ...', and 'Old maps ...' make some sense if the first aggregates the other two... or is just the key structural ribs, and one can hang an All maps of, Old maps of, and New maps of sub-cats off those. Such is the distinctions made by the Maps showing periods, like Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages, and Maps showing the history of Pre-history (I hypothesized that name, but if dealing with people, and phase lines, I'm sure there are maps out there that would fit!) Something showing historio-archeological early Civilizations would niche in there nicely.

Countries

It was a procedural nom, I found this as part of an earlier CFD I closed. >Radiant< 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I'm not involved in that corner of Wikipedia, but was intrigued by the nomination. Best wishes, David (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada by area & Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada by population

Just want to let you know that I just realised that the census divison names for Nunavut are not quite the same as the administrative names. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, with apologies for my belated acknowledgement. On revisiting these templates, I thought they may as well be merged, so produced this. Any thoughts, or shall I copy it into template space and replace the previous templates...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:National space programmes - semi protection request

Hi David

I have "spoken" to you in the past regarding the Template:National space programmes. Since then, I have noticed that some users keep modifying this template with unnecessary changes and adding incorrect/disputed information, which you would agree, can be very misleading.

I was wondering, as an administrator, would you consider semi protecting this template against unregistered users!

Many thanks - Ash sul 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done!  Regards, David (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot mate! - Ash sul 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tnavbar in Japanese ethnicity template

Hello David, I noticed that you mentioned it not being centered in your edit summary. I'm not sure what you are seeing but per the code of Tnavbar-header, everything's centered. (→Netscott) 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I must've thought it was off-center when I tried comparing the two versions. Hope you agree, though, that the new position overcomes the color problem. I think I'd recommend moving the Tnavbar there anyway, to avoid any sense of clutter in the titlebar.
As I'm here, I wonder what you'd make of the following (and whether you reckon other folk might be in favor): I was thinking of proposing that either the {{Navigation}} or {{Navbox generic}} format was phased out in favor of the other, for the sake of:
  1. consistency in multiple templates' appearance (e.g. in articles about countries);
  2. avoiding situations where X templates of one kind are autocollapsed, but one or two of the other kind remain shown.
What do you think...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Review request on article Indian Space Research Organisation

Dude,

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm not as well connected as many other wiki editors. Your pretty much the only dude I could ask for review on a specific section of an article.

Please see Opinions and analysis section on the Indian Space Research Organisation article. This is one of the worst writings I've seen in my life. The article is very biased, speculative and very strongly echoes national pride. It also very strongly portrays individual/national point of view againts unknown international critics. Surely an encyclopdia entry should echo neutral point of view, as readers of this article are from all over the world. I have since tagged the above-mentioned section questioning its neutrality. Now I'm trying to get the attention of very few people I know to hopefully get their take on this.

I would appreciate if you could please have a look at this and leave your comment(s) accordingly, even edit the section if you find suitable.

Cheers.

- Ash sul 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to acknowledge your message sooner. I'll try to take a look sometime during the weekend, but have hit one of those "do-everything-all-at-once-by-yesterday" patches. I haven't read the article before, but am interested to do so. Yours, David (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

re: While I remember...

re: Just in passing: Here's an example of where a less cryptic name might earn a few more supporters. How about {{Category also used on Commons}}...?  (...adding the page to a category such as Category:Categories also used on Commons rather than Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories)  Yours, David (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can CFD that someday, I guess you mis-recollect or weren't aware that name (holding me nose) came from the CFD back in the summer... the 'Wikipedia' part was result of the stink raised by Simpson since the name didn't match category naming conventions, but this kind of tracking cat is a hindrance to naming on all the sisters the same way.

   The only other option is to propagate the narrow thinking that probably never took into account interwiki issues and use SITENAME a whole lot in declaring categories (which no doubt will be unhelpfully removed by someone that doesn't understand that cutting and pasting the whole page is a good thing! Saves time!) and my interpretation is there is plenty of precedent for ignoring such when interwiki matters are on the table... interwiki link templates, Navigational templates and internal link templates for three big populations... there are many more, and the easiest thing would be to fix the naming convention standards. But who has the time for such additional politics! But I've had my eye on that one for a while... just no time to fight or tend to the battle... speaking of which... See the WP:TFD on {{W2c}}... I need one 'more' break this week!. Seems to have survived on the commons.

   Aside: Do you know how to add funny words like 'interwiki', CFD, TFD, tl, UTC, nbsp, Wikipedia 'SITENAME' and 'Kernow' to the Firefox spell checker? send me an email if you do! Just back with a long session blowing snow... having the first real storm this winter (Knock on wood!), not that I'm griping--spent half of yesterday fixing it- bad carburator! I just died in the middle of the piddling little clean up from the prior storm. This one's going to take at least 6-8 man-hours! // FrankB 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Asian Americans

Hi David--I don't have the right software, but what if you were to put the Asia map in place of the blue field of stars? If you doubled the size of the US flag, then the Asia map would be about the size it is right now. Then we'd have a single image that combines the two. I've made a similar note in the discussion at WikiPedia Talk:WikiProject Asian Americans. --Ishu 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I think (1) I'd be able to do this and (2) the result should still qualify for upload, but wouldn't wish to do so unless there was a consensus – so thanks also for copying your idea to the WikiProject Asian Americans talk. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Peel Sessions artists

In the 2007 Feb 1 discussion on Category:Peel Sessions artists, I see that you listed it as "no consensus". I counted 11 votes to delete and 7 votes to keep. That's approximately 60% in favor of deletion. Is that really too small a margin for deletion? Dr. Submillimeter 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion rather than the raw number of votes prompted me to list it as "no consensus". If, though, you reckon I may've been unduly influenced, by all means ask for it to be reviewed; I'd want to learn from a consensus that suggested I'd made a poor call. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
To avoid the appearance of disruption, I will not renominate it for deletion.
Good idea, at least for a month or so, assuming the following doesn't work / isn't possible:
(Does Wikipedia have other mechanisms to review votes?) Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place, but haven't (yet) found myself involved there. David (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue where the confrontation of Wikipedia:Deletion review is needed. I will just find something else to do. Dr. Submillimeter 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to protest the deletion vote count, actually. Most of the votes to delete appear to be uninformed votes, i.e. they're just going along with what the original nominator has stated. The original nominator, BTW, appears to have no idea about what it is (s)he was trying to delete. If you're going to delete the category for Peel Sessions artists, it would be akin to deleting the category for Grammy Award winners. Both of them are significant honors that point (different categories of) people toward a particular musical artist. The difference: While the "Grammy Award winner" badge would attract the casual music listener, the fact that an artist was called to do at least one Peel Session attracts passionate music fans who are always in search of artists who are fresh and original and inventive. I would appreciate it if this issue is not revisited amongst a grouping of individuals who have no idea about the subject matter at hand. (Krushsister 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC))
Doesn't look like it will, at least for the time being. If some weeks/months from now Peel Sessions artists appears at CfD again, you could copy-paste its members' names onto a page in your own userspace (e.g. User:Krushsister/List of Peel Sessions artists) as a kind of backup, especially if you think the outcome will be the category's deletion. If it looks like people would accept/support a list rather than the category, you could then copy-paste (or just move) User:Krushsister/List of Peel Sessions artists to List of Peel Sessions artists. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Apologies if all this is well-known to you!
Hi. I highly appreciate your cooperation and response. Unfortunately, a list would not work. Not only would it be unwieldy (with over 200 items, the list would take ages to load up), it wouldn't concisely group together the musical artists who have done at least one Peel Session. And I also feel that an artist's having done a Peel Session should be an honor worth celebrating, akin to winning a major musical award (but much better as music awards usually honor only the most commercial, easily accessible acts). It's sad that this is happening and that people just can't acknowledge that yes, one single DJ (John Peel himself) could have that much of an influence in the world of music, but he was perhaps the most influential DJ ever to exist and his importance must not be underestimated. (Krushsister 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC))
Well, faced with deletion or a not-very-useful list (in userspace), I'd take the list, otherwise knowing who/what was in the category would be lost (or at least a hassle to recover). It should be a while now before anyone sends Category:Peel Sessions artists to CfD (unless they don't notice it's recently been discussed) and that while could be very long, if ever at all; I'd say there's plenty of other categories that are closer to deletion, most yet to appear on CfD!
Thanks for your compliment, David (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I highly appreciate your continued cooperation and assistance, and thanks for the reassurances. And yes, I have noticed the large majority of categories that appear even to me to have little use or purpose, so maybe that will keep that group busy for a long while. Thanks. (Krushsister 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Speedy answer needed

See this edit, made in abeyance of an unfinished post somewhere above. As best I can figure it, this is how you envision the use of the category. Note YOU added the '/doc' pages with AWB in the last few days. If my interpretion of the category usage is correct, then suggest Template documentation be a sub-cat, as it's
A) applicable and
B) already auto-tagged into the hundreds and counting by the various doc page pattern (now four) templates.

  • Agreed; have recategorized Template documentation accordingly. (I'd've assumed I'd come by it at some point during the clean-up, but if it is useful (or needs) to be done now, so be it!) David (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(I added the fourth yesterday for aggregate usage pages like  : lts/Doc , tlx/doc, and indent family usage... now what did I call that? ...

Musical interlude: (06:40, Friday 16 February 2007 less 15:40, 15 February 2007 == 15 hrs to backspace and finish this note! One little bug! A single character in all probability, and damn ifIknow what it was! So much for a need to hurry! Hah! What a day--four hours clearing snow, and am still not done with that! Then the bug on this!. I never take six plus tries to get something right! Shriek!!!)

   ... Hmmmmm, 15:49, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Template:Template combined usages page pattern (Genesis - {~{subst:Template doc page pattern}~} -- modify for combined template usages, not necessarily in /doc pages but in 'usage' pages) -- well that's one, but not the one adding to documentation. Different boilerplate, iirc, Sigh -- lost in another browser, I guess? Maybe not... {{interwiki doc page pattern}} still good enough there, just needed the different subst template. Okay -- still just three, but it makes more sense to me to have such pages in template documentation and have THAT under [[Category:Template namespace templates]]. (Oh-great Scott! Now my firewall is blocking me from this page!!! -- time to go to bed! I've had enough. // FrankB 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Infobox templates and Category:Navigational templates

This thread transferred here.

Not sure what makes a difference

(from /To do:)

(FAB- looking for help with some HTML! But you aren't 'Online')

   If you can constrain the three columms and overall template so it doesn't expand in {{interwikicat-grp}}, Would be much obliged! // FrankB 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just taken a look:
  1. Template looks very sleek – nice!  Just hope very few people might complain about the the font/icon sizes...
Which kind -- too small, too large? And iirc, I already asked if you have a fix on the fixed font scrunching seen in 'mta' in particular. Didn't I? Need to wake up! // FrankB 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Don't see any column etc problems (any link/s to examples?) but have tried a single tweak to the code; no change here (so difficult to guage!) but any improvement where you see these problems...?
See the test case in the diffs where your version was overwritten, then restored, and next couple of iterations. Was using a string of numbers to see how large it would grow if kept... but I think just tagging with the sister name makes that a better solution, so really no longer an issue. Concur? //FrankB
Should be about for a while, David (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Template:Interwikicat-grp (edit talk links history)

  1. As an aside to open with, now my firewall is blocking Firefox from edits (in progress--extent unknown!) on template documentation. Arrrrgh-II! Guess I have to go dig out my documentation and call them... so I can look at documentation! <what a life!>
  2. Thanks!
  3. Not sure what you did that makes a difference, but agree that something did before my overwrite save. Think I got all your code back in... you will need to browse those diffs from yours to now for the next part: I'm interested in trying to change it so won't grow past a certain point given a long name. You can see that from what I had in an unsaved buffer when I stopped to molest your to do then got diverted by Mikes message above. Anyway to do that?
  4. See how the column of abbreviations presents... note Mta in particular looks squished over (there's a few missing hypens too, but I don't believe I can attribute them with causing any issues.). Can you suggest a fixed font for that column? If you code one or two, I'll take it from there. I'm going to add a full page link to bring up history and edit the page if given a param- probably just pipe-tricked to 'h' and 'e', after the icon.
  5. I'm yawning me head off... g'night! // FrankB 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's one clear issue == Redirects from alternative names -- Unlike say {{Commonscat1A}}, text is not wrapping around the HTML table construct. Want this to behave nicely and not crowd out other page content, much as any <G> infobox does! Can you fix?
Also, (barely) ready for adjustments to head thought processes on WP:TSP and WT:TSP. Edit as you see fit. Hope to get back there in a momnent via Meta (path that brought me here)! // FrankB 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Category suppression supporting templates

Hi Willscrlt,

Would you have any objection to the above being renamed Category:Templates suppressing categorization...? Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. I have no problem with the category being renamed. I struggled over with that name for probably close to 10-15 minutes looking at other categories to see what might be the best possible name to use, and at that I wasn't really happy. I was a little surprised that nobody started a CfD or renamed it or something already.

Your specific suggestion of "Category:Templates suppressing categorization", however, is a misnomer for the templates that are in there currently. They are templates that DO generate categories by default, but if you add one of two attributes to the template when it is called, the automatic categorization is suppressed. That sounds quite different from "Templates suppressing categorization", which to me means that it disables potentially all the categorization on the page or article. At the very least, it seems to imply that suppression is the default, not an optional feature.

Admittedly, at first, this category was kind of a way for me to keep track of the templates that I built that include this nifty feature. Since then, I have found that other templates also use the same concept, but implementation varies. So, to me, it's important that this concept is extended so that all templates that wish to make use of this type of logic do so in a fairly standard manner. I'm in no way saying my version is superior to another. I just think that there should be a standard, and I have been working to promote one. That category is a pretty good way to help identify and coordinate that. It will also make it much easier if a different standard gains general acceptance to track down and update many templates that already do it, but maybe in a different way.

The category name is not important to me, so long as it accurately expresses what the templates do. They support the ability through an optional attribute to suppress automatic categorization that the templates would otherwise do. This is useful in infoboxes, userboxes, WikiProject banners, and much more. I find it very annoying to see random pages appearing in catgegories, only because someone placed a template on a page that demonstrates the template. By using the optional attribute, you can display it, but you don't have to add the page where it appears to the related categories. So change the name if you like, but just keep the new name accurate to the purpose of the funciton, please. :-)

P.S. I like all your reference "cheat sheets" on your user page. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this oversight. Would "Templates able to suppress categorization" fit the bill...?
I agree that some kind of standardization would be useful; meanwhile, I've left a thought re routes through catgories to templates here, the place where I've transferred the discussion that began on my talkpage. Regards, David (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navbox generic, passing thought

Hi again Dispenser,

Thanks for maintaining the above; your recent reversion, however, seems to've rendered the show/hide link ineffective and the box permanently collapsed (!) ...or do I need to purge something...?  False alarm; my error while testing. Sorry!

I was thinking of proposing that either the {{Navigation}} or {{Navbox generic}} format was phased out in favor of the other, for the sake of:

  1. consistency in multiple templates' appearance (e.g. in articles about countries);
  2. avoiding situations where X templates of one kind are autocollapsed, but one or two of the other kind remain shown.
Do you think this idea would make any headway...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm doubt that ether template needs be phased out. From the recent comments Ruud, he may rewrite the whole thing in the future[...]
Intriguing!
[...]It should be very possible to also add a third function to the commons.js file that counts all the tables and navdivs and then collapses them, instead of doing it for each set. While on this note, the autocollapse value is set rather low.
I'm beginning to wonder that any collapsible template's default might best be collapsed, regardless of how many others there may be on the page... I realize, though, that I'm considering templates at the end of articles on countries or their subdivisions; elsewhere, a blanket default of collapsed may indeed be inappropriate.
There is, though, the inconsistency when (say) three {{Navigation}}-based templates next to each other autocollapse, while the single {{Navbox generic}} template following them (or nestling between two of them) doesn't collapse; sometimes I think this can look a little odd, or promote the uncollapsed template without good reason.
As for consistency, I believe that this is more of a wikiproject problem. If we had only created one meta-navbox there would still be great inconstancy, as the guide line for amount and style of information in a navbox is typically set upon by the project. For instance compare the Template:Mac OS X to any of the Template:CVG Navigation. —Dispenser 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies; I realize my comment wasn't sufficiently clear. Rather than variation in how templates' contents are presented, I was thinking of the inconsistency described above and the difference in appearance between NavFrame's ({{Navigation}} et al) and class="navbox"'s ({{Navbox generic}} et al) presentation of basic elements (frame, titlebar, background color, etc). Regards, David (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not too familiar with wiki codes, could do me a favour? I need to make the fonts and the width of Template:History of Iran smaller and then make the individual countries in modern era hidden with a "show" option similar to:

{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WikiProject Iran|class=A|importance=Top}}
|2={{WikiProject Afghanistan}}
|3={{WP India|class=A|importance=Low}}
|4={{LanguageTalk|class=A}}
}}

Can you give me the code for these? Cheers. --Mardavich 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any luck David? --Mardavich 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry not to acknowledge your message more promptly. I wouldn't recommend reducing the font-size for the entries in the template any further; instead, I've just reduced the width of the template by splitting the Pre-modern section into BCE and CE sections (removing the need for those early dates to be suffixed with "BCE") and making the 1736 in the "Safavid Empire 1501-1722/1736" entry a footnote at the end of the section. (I guess the end of this empire is a point of contention, but took 1722 from the current opening paragraph of the article.)
Re creating hidden sections – which I agree might be a good idea – take a look at {{hidden}} and {{hidden begin}} / {{hidden end}}. If there's anything there that isn't self-explanatory, let me know. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi David. I went through the instructions on "hidden", but I just couldn't figure it out. I previewed the page a few time after I had made changes per instruction, and it was a mess, I must be doing something wrong. Are you familiar with this? If yes, can you please make the individual countries' hidden? I really appreciate it. --Mardavich 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies; I'd forgotten the template was a table, so using {{hidden}} or the like is indeed more tricky. I've amended the template so that it now consists of "subtables" within the main table, each subtable corresponding to a section and framed by {{hidden begin}}-{{hidden end}}. Not a straightforward introduction to hiding material, but I hope you'll be able to follow the code!
It may be possible to use {{hidden begin}}-{{hidden end}} without subtables, but if so, I imagine even more care (and perhaps workarounds) would be needed. The code would then be more fragile, i.e. more prone to accidental mangling in the future. Yours, David (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David, you did a great job. --Mardavich 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Hi Dude,

Could you please semi-protect the article on Zimbabwe. It seems to be suffering from quite a bit of vandalism recently (see history).

Many thanks

-- Ash sul 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; have semi-protected it as the vandalism seems to be from anon IPs. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks dude. -- Ash sul 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ATTN> 4th generation jet fighter - seems to have turned into a cold war zone

Hi dude

Sorry to bother you again. But could you please see the history of the artice 4th generation jet fighter. It seems to have a lot of disputes between editors of Indian and Pakistani origins. Clearly, this is undesirable on an encyclopidic article.

Many thanks -- Ash sul 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, the recent history doesn't look too unsettled, but I realise much may lie behind edit summaries. I'll add it to my to-do list (after or before Indian Space Research Organisation...?) but I'm wondering if someone more familiar with fighter planes should take a look. If so, User:Askari Mark might be your man, otherwise maybe someone else involved in one or more of the WikiProjects linked from his userpage. Cheers, David (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Askari Mark. Thanks for advice dude. -- Ash sul 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Census template

It looks pretty good. I notice that several templates are being set to the "hide" state by default so you might want to do that. Otherwise it might overwhelm a smaller article. See User:CambridgeBayWeather/Airports with no infobox 01. Cheers.

Good point; I think that means I'll need to convert the template into a collapsible table or transfer it to {{Navbox generic}} format. Will do so anon, then implement. Thanks, David (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Continents of the world

<Quote> "(something like this...?)" <Unquote>

Yep, exactly, that makes the template a bit less unwieldy than it had become with that last change :-)

I just had to change it. Couldn't have you guys claim that the continent my ass is sitting on was mythical. Can't have that kind of behaviour from my continent, No sir! MadMaxDog 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Bierenbaum

Hi. Could you please go to the robert bierenbaum article and read it and then make your opinion i dont think it should e put up for deletion. because it is a notable case and so on. and everyone who has been on the article and helped has not put it up for deletion before but someone did it and i think its wrong.thanks--Matrix17 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) /David

Have just seen this article and reckon that if the case drew national attention (as the external links seem to indicate) then it's by no means alone in the encyclopedia. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection request - Page Chelsea F.C.

Hi again mate

Could you please semi-protect article Chelsea F.C.. It seems to have been constantly suffering from vandalism.

Thanks -- Ash sul 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though as of now it seems to've calmed down (maybe because UK/Europe is asleep...?). If, though, the vandals have returned by the time I look tomorrow – and noone else has protected the article – then I'll do so. Yours, David (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Norway

Why did you add a citation tag to Norway? 129.241.71.164 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean as regards Norway's merchant navy...?  If so, I guess it's because I reckoned a citation would be appropriate; perhaps the navy is the world's second, fourth, twelfth (etc) largest fleet...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, about the constitutional amendment. 129.241.71.164 17:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Haven't seen where this is, but I suspect a mention of this amendment is made without any reference to an external source...?  David (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"A proposed constitutional amendment currently under consideration by the present Storting would repeal the division.[citation needed]" Added here. I'm expanding my comment to all the other facts – these are all fairly common knowledge. 129.241.71.164 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Common knowledge to... Norwegians? ...Scandinavians? ...Europeans? ...Americans? ...Indians? (etc). I guess it depends on folks' point of view... Yours, David (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

could you help me

HI AGAIN can you please write to Isotope23 and tell him just that he could be alittle bit more professional when it comes to editing. he is on my back all the time. and ias you can see im not a bad writer.not as bad as he claims anyway,its absurde.--Matrix17 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're feeling harassed. In these circumstances, I reckon what's best is to follow one or more of the suggestions here, perhaps in this section if you've already tried stepping back for a while as well as trying to communicate. Hopefully it should be clear what can be done, but if not, let me know. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ADRFS and more

Ping, ping!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox ADRFS}}
User:David Kernow/Administrative divisions of Adygea
The template looks great!  I couldn't resist tinkering with it immediately; by all means revert/adjust/etc anything you're not keen on. I'd say, though, that I'd prefer no flag rather than the "flag missing" picture; I reckon anyone who might have a flag to add would know this is possible from those pages that included them (such as Adygea).
I tried fiddling with the flag cell's formatting in an effort to center the Adygea flag, but so far have failed to do so. (Maybe you've already done the same...?)  Looking at the flag's image, I don't see why this isn't possible; maybe it's an effect of the class="infobox geography" that needs more heavy-handed suppression.
Would you mind if I renamed the parameters thus...?:
|name                     = 
|flag                     = 
|admin_center_type        = 
|admin_center_name        = 
|admin_structure_date     = 
|districts                = 
|cities_towns             = 
|urban-type_settlements   = 
|selsoviets               = 
|rural_localities         = 
|municipal_structure_date = 
|urban_okrugs             = 
|urban_settlements        = 
|rural_settlements        =
...or do the "Districts"/"Cities/Towns"/etc headings in the template need to be made generic...?
Thanks for the transformation!  David (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, David! By all means tinker with the template all you want (you are the author of this idea, after all); I was actually hoping you would!
To answer your questions:
  • I used the "missing flag" image because images of flags of all Russian federal subjects (with the exception of one or two which have not adoped a flag yet) are available in Wikipedia. My thought was if the flag is accidentally omitted when the template is populated, then the "missing flag" image would provide an immediate clue. Not that it matters much in the end, as I am afraid I'm gonna be the one populating these templates anyway! Plus, it's there mostly for decoration; to make the template look a little more lively.
    Have left the status quo, because if you reckon the template is (near-)ready, I'll locate flags as/when adding it to federal subjects' pages.
  • I don't know what the problem with centering the flag is either. Admittedly, though, I haven't tried all that hard to fix it.
    I think I've fixed it, but am not sure as I suspect that the rendering is most dependent on how the software scales down the flag images...
  • I have no objections if you rename the parameters to make them conform with conventions used in other infoboxes, but I do in fact want to keep (at least some of) them generic. While the default values would work for most cases, they will cover everything (and even with generic values the template is unusable in articles about the administrative structure of the Russian federal cities). In particular, the "selsoviet" field shows quite a variety (see selsoviet), and uluses and kozhuuns are used in the Sakha and Tuva Republics instead of raions. "Cities/towns" can be shortened to just "towns" in some federal subjects (such as, for example, in Nenets Autonomous Okrug). "Urban-type settlements" and "rural localities", on the other hand, can be hard-coded no problem; I made them generic purely for consistency.
    I've renamed them thus:
|name                     = 
|flag                     = 
|admin_center_type        = 
|admin_center_name        = 
|admin_structure_date     = 
|district-type_div        = 
|#_district-type_divs     = 
|urban_locality_div       = 
|#_urban_locality_divs    = 
|urban-type_settlement    = 
|#_urban-type_settlements = 
|selsoviet-type_div       = 
|#_selsoviet-type_divs    = 
|rural_locality_div       =
|#_rural_locality_divs    = 
|municipal_structure_date = 
|#_urban_okrugs           = 
|#_urban_settlements      = 
|#_rural_settlements      =
Hopefully these are sufficiently generic...?
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have more questions or if there is anything I can help with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
By the time you reach this line, I reckon you will've already done so!  Yours, David (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, this should work just fine, and thank you for having implemented this already! There is only one little thing—"urban localities" refers to both cities/towns and urban-type settlements, so the name of the "urban_locality_divs" field is not entirely correct. I doubt anyone is ever going to notice the difference, though :) Again, thanks! Oh, one more thing: can you tell me when you think you'll have time to return to the Adygea draft in your userspace? I addressed a few points today and am planning to work on it a bit more during this week, but since it's in your userspace, I don't want us to collide in edit conflicts. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Have switched "urban_locality_divs" to "cities_towns". Re returning to User:David Kernow/Administrative divisions of Adygea, I shelved it in anticipation of your responding to the annotations and/or inviting my attention again, so please edit without fear of edit conflict. As/when you'd like any feedback, let me know. Must go now, unfortunately – David (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny enough, I shelved it in anticipation of your replies to my previous comments, but I guess there just wasn't much to act on! :) Anyway, I'll make sure to let you know when the draft is ready for another review. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps again

Hi Frank,
Thanks for your recent messages here, by mail and at the Commons. I have to confess to feeling washed out by categories at present, but, for now, here's some feedback on your latest here:

We seem to have overlooked the scheme Geography overall, which certainly has to be figured into your maps scheme?!! ...

I guess so, but indirectly (i.e. links to geography categories secondary to consistency within and between Category:Maps and its subcategories...)

[...] See Geography and the cathead lists I was hanging. Here take a tour, and pay attention to the parent categories on each page.

1. Category:Geography_of_Africa
This page overloaded; is it awaiting simplification...?
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_of_Africa
Ditto.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_by_country
I guess you're thinking of adding "Maps by country" (with category indexing Geography by country| ]])...?
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_of_Afghanistan, including:
  Maps of Afghanistan · Provinces of Afghanistan and Subdivisions of Afghanistan
Not sure what might be amiss here... PS Recommend {{catlst}} → {{catlist}} and parameter LABEL → prefix or header (i.e. )
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan
Should as many of these (and other Category:Maps of Country) be transferred to the Commons as possible, if not already there...?
6. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan
Looks like one or more "Locator maps" categories needed. Meanwhile, I'm reminded that commons:Category:Locator maps is itself very half-baked; this was the category that bounced me back here when I realized I needed informing about country subdivisions etc. (So don't blame it on the boogie or Rio – it was Category:Locator maps!)
7. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography
Have added Category:Maps to Category:Geography.
8. Geography // Geography
I guess you're thinking of adding Category:Maps // see 7. above
9. Geography by place -- a level which commons doesn't duplicate, but look at the sub-cats:
en.Wikipedia categories by place: Country subdivisions  · Geography by city  · Geography by continent  · Geography by country  · Locations  · Place names  and Regions
and
Commons categories by same category names: Country subdivisions  · Geography by city  · Geography by continent  · Geography by country  · Locations  · Place names  and Regions

... Which misses on Country subdivisions , Geography by city , Geography by continent, and Locations, but hits on the biggest groups.

   Also on the Continents, Sub-continents, Regions question, looks to me the Geography portal has covered most of the bases already... check out: {{Continents of the world}} and {{Regions of the world}}... each (mostly!) with a basis article, which in true npov form, discusses the various reasons why area are this or that region in this or that subject area, etc. Regions of Asia are well defined on both, albeit with some misaligned names, most notably (West, Western, or) Southwest Asia. Regions of Africa, at the moment shows little alignment but for the parent categories... but I would expect that to change fairly rapidly:

en.Wikipedia categories by regions of Africa: East Africa · Maghreb · North Africa · Nubia · Sahel · Southern Africa and Western Africa
Yes, more food for thought...

Bottom line-- Maps should tie in with this geography tree to a very great extent...

Yes, but, as above, I'd say internal coverage and consistency within Category:Maps would be my priority.

[...]as in the Afghanistan categories listed, as well as the missing Geography by place scheme. Notice the Atlas in the Afghanistan cats.

    I so, 'knew' you wanted to think about this complication! (Commiserations with a smile!) // FrankB 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope all well, David (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft is ready for review

Whew! I didn't expect to be done with the revisions until the end of this week, but somehow I managed to do it all today! The draft is ready for your review once again. Here is the summary of the main changes:

  • The format of the cities/towns section is no longer a table, but a narrative. It is now more in line with how the districts are laid out (two locator maps for Maykop and Adygeysk is all that's missing).
  • I added all missing references, mostly for the districts' compositions and the numbers of rural localities. Hopefully, I haven't missed anything.
  • I restored the Tlekhuray references for now, because I can't think of a way to attribute this source in one clean sweep.
    How about the one line I've placed below the relevant section's heading (Rural localities)...?  Suggest the density of Tlekhuray <ref>s too great otherwise, so something like the above needed.
  • Described the differences between administrative and municipal units and documented them where necessary.

As for the overall layout (with a linked summary in a separate section), the more I look at it the more I like it. Visually and navigation-wise, it is certainly the best of what has been tried so far. My concern, however, is that it makes it very hard to edit the article in the future, especially for unexperienced editors. The layout provides way too many opportunities for screw-ups, and it is quite unorthodox and non-obvious. The only other idea I have is to split some sections into separate articles, for example into administrative and municipal division structure of Adygea, dealing with terminology and definitions, and into the (featured) list of administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea, dealing with history, providing a short summary for terminology, and listing the actual entities and stats. But I hope we'll only do the splitting as the last resort, if/when we become desperate to come up with a different solution that works. I'd much rather avoid splitting anything.

I share your concern, but also think (hope?) that as/when somebody is motivated to update/edit this and similar articles, their motivation would also prompt them to seek help about anything they don't understand – in other words, I guess I'm banking on the people wishing to contribute to this and similar articles being the kind of people who are happy to seek help when necessary!  (Maybe too optimistic!)  Alternatively, if someone passes by and leaves say a frustrated note on the talk page, then that could be a prompt to rework the format.

Anyway, if you could go through the draft when you have time (no pressure here!), I'd certainly appreciate your comments. Note that I did not remove those of your previous highlighted remarks which I was not sure how to deal with. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...and I, in turn, have removed further highlights, especially as a result of the below:

Other amendments

<ref>s in the infobox
"reference must follow punctuation!": Must it?  I hadn't intentionally placed them before the bracket; it's just a consequence of the code... and something I suspect would be less than straightforward to accommodate...
"History" section, ¶2
I think I highlighted "district" (currently linked to Raion) as I wasn't sure whether this was the correct name or link...
"Administrative division structure" section
I've amended "State Council–Khase" to "State Council (Khase)" – but kept the parenthesis as part of the (red)link – as I'm (still) not convinced by the mingling of languages in the former. If (as I'd recommend) the link is to State Council of Adygea – which seems reasonable as it's in English – then "State Council" is its foreshortned form in English and Khase an acknowledgement (hence parenthesis) of the native name. If, however, this is not sufficiently representative, then I suggest making the link Khase, use the phrasing "..are authorized by the Khase (the State Council)" and thereafter use Khase rather than "State Council-Khase". (Hope this makes some sense!)
Surplus commented-out code in "Summary" section
"<!--what is the purpose of the code below?-->" I think this is a remnant of an earlier version that I retained in case of fallback. Have now removed.
Double/extra lines in IE
"Double horizontal lines look horrible in IE" "In IE, there is too much white space between the section title and the horizontal line below" – stupid, wretched IE. In lieu of the lines (now removed), I've tried a slightly different background for some of the headings; what do you think...?  (Not 100% sure myself.)
Source for "Settlements"
"I can't source the 1930s claim" – Would've only been for completness' sake; note now removed.
District tables
Centered figures under "Number of rural localities".
Hope something in all the above works!  Yours, David (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As usual, thanks for the detailed analysis, David! My comments are as follows:
  • Tlekhuray refs. I agree that the density of the refs is probably a bit too high to digest comfortably, but I also have never seen the main reference shown right after the section title. Can it be moved to the bottom of the section, perhaps?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Have moved the note to the bottom of the first section; if you meant after the "Stanitsas" section, I'd be hesitant to do so, as I reckon anyone using the article might be more likely to miss it if they scrolled down only as far as the information they required... (I don't think, though, that's what you meant!)
      ...On second thoughts, scanning through the article before saving it with the other amendments below, I think placing this note just before the "Auls" subheading is ambiguous: it might be read as applying only to the "Auls" subsection. So I've returned it to its original position; I'd say it doesn't look out of place there as it resembles a {{seealso}} or {{main}} link. Maybe, though, there's another possibility or I'm misunderstanding your suggestion...?
  • Overall layout. After doing some thinking, I believe I worry about this way too much :) Wikipedians are a pretty smart bunch, and one can indeed always ask for help when/if formatting seems to be an obstacle. Let's leave this formatting and see what happens. With the list being featured and all, I imagine there would be plenty of people watching it, so if anyone screws up anything, that should be fixed expeditiously even if you and me aren't around to take care of it.
    • That'd be my hope!
  • Refs vs. punctuation. That one was mostly my note to self to fix it later. This particular issue was raised during the peer review, which is why I tagged it. Also note that WP:REF WP:REF#Footnotes come after punctuation#specifically mandates placing references immediately after punctuation, so I believe it must be fixed even though the solution would indeed be less than straightforward.
    • Well, will try to engineer this a little later. (Please try before if it seems clear!)  Without wishing to enter the "official" debate about footnote formatting, I wonder how the WP:REF formatting distinguished between a footnote applying to a whole sentence and one applying only to its last few words or clause...
  • Raion link. Although raion is an English loanword, I don't suppose many English speakers are familiar with it. Since we translate it as "district", that's what the link shows. It does still link to raion, because that's the article which specifically deals with Russian districts (raions). In short: nothing to fix here :)
    • Thanks; I just wasn't sure whether the "district" was a raion-type district or a something-else district. Now cleared.
  • Khase. Linking to State Council of Adygea and putting Khase in parentheses when it's first used will probably be an acceptable solution. As a native speaker, you probably know better when a particular usage ("State Council–Khase", in this case) looks awkward :) Would linking it like this→State Council (Khase)←be acceptable? I just don't want the "Khase" part to stand out as if it is something separate (it is a part of the official name, after all).
    • State Council (Khase) seems fine if it fulfils both criteria (an appropriate description; but without mixing languages). Have amended accordingly.
  • IE lines & highlighting. Yeah, IE sucks; no doubts about that. The double lines looked very clean in Opera. As for highlighting, I don't think that's a good solution, however. The good thing is that identation seems to provide a reasonably good contrast already; so if we just get rid of highlighting, the flow would still be sufficiently clear. What do you think?
    • Looking again with fresh eyes, the indents are fine but I agree that the backgrounds detract from the article; duly removed.
I have no comments other than these. I think we are getting close to completing this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes; hopefully a model for similar articles. Two final beige backrounds appear to remain and I can't recall whether or not you've addressed them – so apologies if you find yourself directing me to your responses: (1) In the first sentence of the "Urban localities" section, the phrase "urban areas" is highlighted – this is probably because I wasn't sure whether this is an appropriate description; and (2) see footnote 2. Yours, David (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tlekhuray ref. I tried yet another idea for this source; still not sure if this is going to work. I did indeed thought of moving it to the very bottom of the "Rural localities" section, but after your note I very well see how it's not a workable solution. Why do simple things always have to be the ones creating the most difficulties? :) Anyway, I'm open to any other ideas.
    I think this is the best idea yet, which I've tweaked using {{lower}} (also the sources linked below the "Numbers of rural localities by year" table).
  • Punctuation vs. refs. Unfortunately, it does not seem clear at all. I'll try some ideas; hopefully together we'll think of something. I don't like this particular provision of WP:REF myself, but have no desire whatsoever to "officially" challenge it. If we can't fix it, people who don't like this will have to solve it themselves :)
    Looking again, I realize I'm simply not motivated to complicate the code in order to achieve this effect; if, however, a peer review (re below) takes a dislike to the status quo, I guess it'll need to be addressed.
  • Urban areas. "Urban areas" and "urban localities" are pretty much synonyms. The only reason I defined one via another is because the urban area article is reasonably well-written and can be helpful to readers needing more information. If you think the link looks out of place, feel free to remove it.
    Not out of place; I was simply unsure whether it was the correct wording. Thanks for confirming.
  • The map. I removed the highlighting from the map's caption, because there is nothing I can do about it. Let's hope Rarelibra will find time to improve the map soon. If we get desperate, I can crudely crop the map and move some labels around myself, but there is no way I'll be able to add any new objects.
    I toyed for a moment with trying to source another map to adapt (e.g. derived from here, or perhaps something emailed from this place) but then thought it wouldn't be right to override Rarelibra's work. Perhaps the one action to take is a slight crop of the image's lefthand edge, so its thumbnail form won't start to overlap the Contents box in smaller windows/screens. (Would you like me to try to effect this, since I already see it here...?)
Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I wonder if it would make sense to subject the article to another peer review before we move the contents to the main space.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess so, if this article is to become a model for others; are you thinking similarly...?  Yours, David (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tlekhuray. I, too, now think this is the best solution thus far, especially after you tweaked it. I only wanted to note that it should be perfectly OK to compact the source reference under the table to one line (i.e., to Sources: 1897–...).
  • Punctuation vs. references. Indeed, let's see what the peer review results are. I am not motivated to sink who knows how much time into addressing this seemingly minute detail either.
  • Map. I like Rarelibra's map quite a bit, so I wouldn't want to override it with anything else either. Thanks for the links though (you may be interested to know that Tlekhuray herself worked for the AGU when she wrote her work I used so extensively; but she doesn't seem to be associated with them any longer, unfortunately). In any case, if you don't mind tweaking the map yourself, go right ahead; otherwise, I may try doing it myself this weekend (if I have time).
  • Model. Yes, it was precisely my intent to write and polish one article so it could serve as a template to the rest of the articles in the series. Ultimately, I'd like to see all 86 (or whatever the number is going to be by then) lists featured. Of course, with my current pace it might very well happen only after I retire :))
  • Peer review. I think we can nominate it for peer review this or next week. We might want to move it out of your user space first, though. Moving it to administrative divisions of Adygea/Temp will probably be the best.
  • Misc. Just to let you know, I have not forgotten about my promise to research the benefits/downsides of city/town/urban-type settlement status. I haven't been able to find anything reference-worthy so far, but I'll keep trying. Like I previously said, the status is more of an acknowledgement than a reward, hence there isn't really too much available on this topic. I'll keep my eyes open; the subject already proved to be intriguing :)
Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[continued below]