User talk:Omegatron/Archive/July, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] COinS in Template:cite whatever

Given the number of places that COinSes are now popping up, wouldn't it make sense to generate them in a templated manner? I see you've updated several {{cite whatever}} templates and included a lot of explanatory text (a Very Good Thing!) which can expand a reference list quite a bit (a Bad Thing unfortunately). Perhaps we would be better served by something in {{cite encyclopedia}} less like the current:

<!--

This is a COinS tag (http://ocoins.info), which allows automated tools to parse the citation information:
  --><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004<!--
  -->&rft_val_fmt={{urlencode:info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc}}<!--                     Field descriptions: http://www.openurl.info/registry/docs/mtx/info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc
  -->&rft.type=encyclopediaArticle<!--                                          The nature or genre of the content of the resource.  (encyclopediaArticle chosen purely because it is recognized by Zotero.)
  -->{{#if: {{{first|}}}        | &rft.aufirst={{urlencode:{{{first}}}}}       }}<!-- First author's given name or names or initials... may contain multiple words and punctuation, i.e. "Fred F", "Fred James"
  -->{{#if: {{{last|}}}         | &rft.aulast={{urlencode:{{{last}}}}}         }}<!-- First author's family name. This may be more than one word ... i.e. Smith, Fred James is recorded as "aulast=smith"
  -->{{#if: {{{author|}}}       | &rft.au={{urlencode:{{{author}}}}}           }}<!-- This data element contains the full name of a single author, i. e. "Smith, Fred M", "Harry S. Truman".
  -->{{#if: {{{editor|}}}       | &rft.contributor={{urlencode:{{{editor}}}}}  }}<!-- An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource. Examples of Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service.
  -->&rft.title={{urlencode:{{{title|}}}}}<!--                                     A name given to the resource.
  -->{{#if: {{{url|}}}          | &rft.identifier={{urlencode:{{{url}}}}}      }}<!-- URL 
  -->{{#if: {{{format|}}}       | &rft.format={{urlencode:{{{format}}}}}       }}<!-- The physical or digital manifestation of the resource... may include the media-type or dimensions of the resource.
  -->{{#if: {{{encyclopedia|}}} | &rft.source={{urlencode:{{{encyclopedia}}}}} }}<!-- A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived.
  -->{{#if: {{{edition|}}}      | &rft.edition={{urlencode:{{{edition}}}}}     }}<!-- Statement of the edition of the book. This will usually be a phrase, with or without numbers, but may be a single number, e.g. "First edition", "4th ed." 
  -->{{#if: {{{volume|}}}       | &rft.volume={{urlencode:{{{volume}}}}}       }}<!-- Volume designation usually expressed as a number but could be roman numerals or non-numeric, i.e. "124", or "VI".
  -->{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}    | &rft.publisher={{urlencode:{{{publisher}}}}} }}<!-- An entity responsbile for making the resource available... person, an organization, or a service.
  -->{{#if: {{{location|}}}     | &rft.place={{urlencode:{{{location}}}}}      }}<!-- Place of publication. "New York"
  -->{{#if: {{{pages|}}}        | &rft.pages={{urlencode:{{{pages}}}}}         }}<!-- Start and end pages for parts (of a book), i.e. "124-147"
  -->{{#if: {{{date|}}} 
       | &rft.date={{urlencode:{{{date}}}}}
       | {{#if: {{{year|}}}     | &rft.date={{urlencode:{{{year}}}}} }}        }}<!-- A date of an event in the lifecycle of the resource... typically the creation or availability of the resource. (ISO 8601)
  -->{{#if: {{{language|}}}     | &rft.language={{urlencode:{{{language}}}}}   }}<!-- A language of the intellectual content of the resource. Recommended best practice is to use RFC 3066... in conjunction with ISO639
  -->{{#if: {{{doi|}}}       | &rft_id=info:doi/{{urlencode:{{{doi}}}}}  }}<!-- DOI
  -->"> </span>

and more like:

{{COinS
   |rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc
   |rft.type=encyclopediaArticle
   |rft.aufirst={{{first|}}}
   |rft.aulast={{{last|}}}
   |rft.au={{{author|}}}
   |rft.contributor={{{editor|}}}
   |rft.title={{{title|}}}
   |rft.identifier={{{url|}}}
   |rft.format={{{format|}}}
   |rft.source={{{encyclopedia|}}}
   |rft.edition={{{edition|}}}
   |rft.volume={{{volume|}}}
   |rft.publisher={{{publisher|}}}
   |rft.place={{{location|}}}
   |rft.pages={{{pages|}}}
   |rft.language={{{language|}}}
   |date={{{date|}}}
   |year={{{year|}}}
   |doi={{{doi|}}}
}}

where date=, year=, and doi= have their reformulations etc. done inside {{COinS}}, as does all the uuencoding, and anything else that turns out to be necessary later. I'm not so sure about rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc — from what I've read I think it might be better generated by {{COinS}} than specified by its callers, as it describes the format of the COinS. RossPatterson 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of templating the COinS, as it would save a lot of work and be easier to read, but all the fields are different from one template and OpenURL format to the next... :-/
Also, the comments don't appear in the final output of the article, so it's not adding to anything. The only time they appear is when you're viewing the source of the template. — Omegatron 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The comments unfortunately contribute to the pre-expand include size limit. We went through several rounds of reducing the included size of the various {{cite whatever}} templates about six months ago and I'd hate to see that work go all for nought. There's pretty much no way to have them not count.
Too bad also about the OpenURL format being so unfriendly :-( RossPatterson 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. Well you can remove them. Not a big deal. — Omegatron 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up news citation

I noticed when I stuck a {{cite news}} in Alfred W. McCoy and then did a import into Zotero and a C-M-c copy into The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, the page= parameter was discarded and the copied one had a | pages = {{{pages}}}. Any idea what's up? --Gwern (contribs) 02:39 1 May 2007 (GMT)

[edit] HTC Wizard

I'm going to remove this content again. Please note that if you revert it again you will be in violation of the WP:3RR. The content is not appropriate for wikipedia, as I explained in the talk page. You've not added anything to the talk page to explain why this content is not covered by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. If you do not intend to participate in discussion you should not participate in edit warring. Please participate in the discussion on the talk page before reverting my edit again. Wibbble 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio sample help

Hi. I saw you had a few disgussions at Template_talk:Audio. I made a few audio samples for Icelandic movie titles. But I think it's a bit ugly how it's put up. See When the Raven Flies. Would you mind giving me a few tips how to make it neat? I would prefere having a link to a javascript player. --Steinninn 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gennaro_Prota has replied and he suggested I ask you. But, well, it looks like you have left too. --Steinninn 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IBM 33FD v Shugart 901 FDD Capacity

Regarding your recent edit to the [Floppy Disk Drive] page, you have to be very careful in researching the capacity of these FDD's for two reasons. First, IBM discounts to net usable capacity whereas OEM's such as Shugart specify net capacity. There are also formatting differences. The first distinction is alternate (spare) tracks. This is an OS distinction and has nothing to do with the medium, drive or even the controller. The 8" SSSD product physically had 77 tracks, not just 73 as in the Engh quote. The difference is alternate tracks supported in certain IBM environments such as the IBM 3740 and S/34. Only IBM would have so much sparing. If you look at the Shugart 800 spec[1] it gives the capacity with an IBM track format as "2.0 megabits" This is a rounded number, the actual gross user capacity with the IBM track format is 26 sectors/track * 128 user bytes/sector * 77 tracks/disk = 256,256 user bytes/disk or 2,050,048 user bits/disk. Shugart, all the other FDD OEM's and the controller OEMS's also supported other formats, for example, 8 x 512 byte sectors per track for gross user capacity of 315,392 bytes per disk. So what number do you want to put up there:

26 sectors of 128 bytes on 73 tracks = 242,944 bytes [IBM 3740 or System 34 Compatible]
26 sectors of 128 bytes on 77 tracks = 256,256 bytes [most common OEM standard, used by most OS's and advertised as such]
8 sectors of 512 bytes on 77 tracks = 315,392 bytes [another, higher capacity, OEM standard]
A SSSD 8" drive and has an unformatted capacity of 6.2 Mbits and can and did generate any of the above formats. It just depends upon the controller and OS.

Personally I prefer the middle one, since that is the way the industry went and represented the product. The other two could be footnotes. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the capacity of these products was never represent by IBM or the OEM's with binary SI prefixes, so it is a bit inapposite to so list them that way - I think bytes or bits is more appropriate. I'll update the page if you don't object. Tom94022 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a variety of numbers for the formatted capacity, with anywhere from 73 to 75 to 77 tracks (77 total, but only 75 used at one time). See Table of 8-inch floppy formats, which shows three such configurations. I haven't found anything that agrees with the 250.25 number, though. We might want to include the range of values, though?
I found 400 "K" for the unformatted capacity, including a document within 5 years, but not written by IBM, and I'm not sure what the K means in that context, so I didn't touch the marketed capacity column.
I'm not sure what you're referring to about binary prefixes. I updated the Memorex 650, for instance, to match the original literature. I couldn't find any for the 33FD. Later disks were advertised as "720K", though, and we need to write it exactly as they stated it; not with a lowercase k, and not with "KB" if they just wrote "K".
The formatted capacity column is for comparison purposes, though, so we should convert the typical, formatted, usable capacity into KiB. — Omegatron 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
77 tracks were always formatted - not every OS made them all available to the user! The [| Shugart SA800] OEM manual states:
"Capacity
Unformatted
Per Disk 3.2 megabits
Per Track 41.7 kilobits
Formatted
Per Disk 2.0 megabits
Per Track 26.6 kilobits"
26.6 * 77 / 8 = 256.03 which has rounding error. The 26.6 is actually 26 * 128 * 8 / 1000 = 26.624. Using the precise number gets you to 256,256 bytes. Note the SI usage of kilo and mega.
BTW, the 256.256 number appears at the bottom of Table of 8-inch floppy formats as a the DEC RX01 format. DEC and all the rest of the world adopted this format and I suggest this is the one value for the table.
Since the formatted capacity is for comparison purposes and since we all agree that when disk drive and media suppliers use SI prefixes, they do so in their conventional sense, then the column should be in units with or without k and M not Ki and Mi.Tom94022 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


DEC and all the rest of the world adopted this format and I suggest this is the one value for the table.

But that's for the DEC RX01 and not the IBM 33FD, right? For the 33FD row, we should either use the most popular format or specify the range of different values that were available ("237.25 to 296 KiB").

since we all agree that when disk drive and media suppliers use SI prefixes, they do so in their conventional sense

I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that.  :-) The field of floppy disks is the most inconsistent in their usage of units. Compare the 1.5 Mbit Memorex 650, the 360 KB floppy, and the 1.44 MB floppy.

then the column should be in units with or without k and M

Writing out the values without units is ok, but a little harder to compare. — Omegatron 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Aren't the questions:

1) From what perspective is both the marketed capacity and the user capacity to be stated, the medium, the disk drive, the controller or the system.
2) Do you have to be consistent over the time span of the table.

Depending upon where you stand and when you look you will get different answers for the same disk drive and medium.

To answer your question, the RX01/ Digital Diskette like the Shugart SA900/SA100 Diskette are all specified to be media compatible the 33FD/IBM Diskette Type 1, yet the available user data varies as reported at the OS level. We don't take away file system overhead from user capacity statements (boot sector and FAT in FD case) so why should we take away alternate track capacity as IBM chooses to do. If you looked at the 33FD/IBM Diskette Type 1 at its controller interface you would find 256,256 gross user bytes.
The same problem exists in the 5 1/4" art. Apple using Shugart drives and media with a unique controller and format achieved higher gross user capacity than all other users typically achieved on the same drive and medium (the "famous" Integrated Wozniak Machine). But in either case the specification is gross user capacity with no allowance for alternates or system overhead. In this particular case, the SA400, both capacities should be shown, or alternatively, we could list the Apple drive as different than the Shugart drive even though the mechanics and media were identical!
The confusion goes away with 3.5" mainly due to the standardization of IC controller chips. Again no allowance for alternates or system overhead in specified gross user capacity at any level below the OS. The OS of course reports net user capacity, net of spares, file system, etc.

So my answer to the questions is we should make both columns consistent across time but with different but consistent perspectives, that is:

The user capacity column should be gross user capacity as determined at the controller level, without allowance for alternates, spares or system overhead.
The marketed capacity should be the unformatted number published by the media or drive manufacturer, or in its absence, the same number reversed engineered out of the medium.

In the case of the 33FD, neither number is published by IBM but can be reverse engineered from the compatible OEM's published numbers. At some point, when I have the time I am going to change the whole table into such a consistent format. I had it that way for the 33FD and am going to change it back, but I thought I would hear what u have to say before I proceed.Tom94022 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you move this to the article talk page? — Omegatron 01:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fromowner

That isn't the upload page. CC is explained on the next page. Please remove the text you have added the page is meant to keep text down to a minium.Geni 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What? — Omegatron 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
this. Exact lisenceing issues are delt with on the upload page. Wikipedia:Fromowner is mostly there as a kind of prescreening and should be as short as posible. Therefore will you please revert your edit.Geni 23:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I can't fathom why you would want to remove that text. — Omegatron 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it is redundant and fails the "do we really really need this" test for use on what is in effect an interface page. Fill the page with text and people will not read it. Keep it to a minimum and they may do so. The only task text on that page should be fulfilling is to try and make sure that only users who hold the copyright on the work click the link. Anything else should not be there since it reduces the effectiveness of the page (don't believe me how many EULAs have you read?). Additionally try looking at the page on a low res monitor. Note how much your edit has increased the level of suck for users with low res monitors.Geni 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
By that logic, the whole page is redundant to the upload form. If you want to make the page smaller that badly, reduce the font size or remove something inconsequential. — Omegatron 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The inconsequential bit would be the text you just added since it is delt with rather better on the upload form a detracts from the primary perpose of the wikipedia:fromowner page.Geni 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. How in the world does it detract from it? What's the primary purpose of the page then? — Omegatron 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"This is silly" you made the edit. "How in the world does it detract from it?" already covered in some detial above for further detials see KISS principle. The primary purpose of the page is to try and discorage people from useing the upload form to upload images they do not hold the copyright on.Geni 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's why I added it. — Omegatron 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Your claim isn't logicaly posible.Geni 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

link please? >Radiant< 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[1] Was that not your comment and you were just reverting to it?
Ah. I see that it was. I will fix my comment. — Omegatron 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lightning Switch

I saw your comment on Lightning Switch. I tried to follow the rules as I understand them in writing the article. As I re-read the article after your comment, I cannot find subjective, qualitative or commericial statements. All of the technology overviews described and linked are from third party, non-commercial, arms-length sources. In short, I did my best to give some objective information on an interesting technology.Ruedetocqueville 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It just needs some work. — Omegatron 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Wikitexschem.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wikitexschem.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiling window manager

Thanks for your comment. My view was that in this particular case, the link to the disambiguation page tiling was sufficiently a "general meaning of the word, for which there is no relevant article" (in the words of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links), that it made sense to remove it rather than linking to tessellation or tile. But link to tessellation if you think it's useful for that article, I haven't been entirely consistent in these corner cases. Joseph Myers 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. — Omegatron 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Why did you remove commas from the US patent template? — Omegatron 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the commas from the US patent template because they were unnecessary with the introduction of {{formatnum:}} in the wikimarkup which places the commas in automatically. And if the commas are removed from the input then we can use services like Google patent (and others) without creating our own parser. —Dispenser 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! You should say that in your edit summaries. — Omegatron 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zotero

So anyway, you seem to be the go-to guy for things involving Zotero and Wikipedia. I've just started trying it out (saw an interesting blog post on it, and a few minutes into using it, it caught a messed up citation of mine), but I can't seem to pull references from some articles where I know I heavily used references and templates in and should be able to; for example, Medici bank#References. Investigating, it seems the Harvard references template breaks Zotero because there's no Coin thing? Or is it my installation? If the former, I'd appreciate it if you could do whatever is needed to make it work. --Gwern (contribs) 04:32 18 April 2007 (GMT)

It's not "breaking" Zotero. The COinS tags have only been added to the templates listed on User:Omegatron#COinS, unless other people have been adding them. So only those templates will be readable by Zotero. I'm not a huge expert on the subject or anything; I just seem to be the only person adding them to templates. If you want to read up on them and start putting them in other ones go right ahead. I plan to eventually. — Omegatron 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. So it's not a matter of breaking, just Zotero doesn't understand it. Guess I'll see how difficult it is to add this COinS stuff. --Gwern (contribs) 15:40 18 April 2007 (GMT)

Exactly. I see that {{Harvard reference}} is deprecated and replaced with {{Citation}}, which I was going to add COinS to eventually, but which is more difficult because it can be used for different types of documents, and the COinS needs to know if it's a journal, book, etc. So... Hmm.... — Omegatron 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats#COinS_work — Omegatron 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats#COinS_work. — Omegatron 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the integration of Wikipedia and Zotero, but it works only for the english Wikipedia. How can I add COinS in another Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org)? -- Patora13 Patora13 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is controlled by the COinS tag in the bottom of the citation templates. For instance, {{cite book}} has a COinS at the bottom with the reference information. To make this template work on es, you would edit es:Plantilla:Cita libro, copy and paste the COinS tag in the equivalent place, and change all the fields, like {{{title}}} to {{{título}}}, and so on. — Omegatron 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It works! Thank you very much! Patora13Patora13 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent.  :-) — Omegatron 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMID in cite journal template

Hi Omegatron,

I'm just coming to grips with citing in the wikipedia and started using citation templates. {{cite journal}} caught my eye since it includes PMIDs which I consider one of the best ways to quickly track an article online. Names and titles are often not specific enough in a search. PMIDs are also easier to copy/paste.

So, I got started with the template only to note that the PMID field I specified in the in-line citations was then ignored in the generation of the end-of-article reference section??? What's the point of having that field if it is not used? How can I make the PMID show up as a link in the references?

Hope you have some advice for me.

Best,

Jasu 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It should show up. Maybe it broke. I'll look at it. Ask on Template talk:Cite journal too. — Omegatron 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've answered Jasu. The variable is "pmid", not "PMID".Circeus 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, guys, for the help. Jasu 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless Power

Moved to Talk:Wireless energy transfer

Bot, archive this. — Omegatron 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{criticism-section}}

Just so you know, I've listed this at the 11 May log of templates for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

k. :-) — Omegatron 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I think those sections are awful as well, nice work creating the template. Of course I think they make the article more negative actually. But either way good work creating the template. Aaron Bowen 05:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTC Wizard discussion

I'm taking this to your talk page rather than the talk page on the article, since I don't want to debate around the issue there, as it were, and this is just mostly for my own curiosity.

Both yourself and 59.144.161.143 obviously feel that the content is appropriate, but neither of you have said why. I've cited various wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:OR, and for the newest additions I would refer to WP:EL. In your comment, you said 'The content could be appropriate if worded correctly' - but I don't see how you can reword a guide on fixing a fault to be anything other than userguide content, and then it would still need adequate references from reliable sources. Why do you think that this isn't userguide content, or that WP:NOT et al don't apply?

It's really frustrating to be opposed by people who don't explain their rationale, and it makes it impossible to reach a meaningful compromise.

So I just thought I'd ask here, aside from the discussion on the article talk page, mostly for my own personal knowledge. Thanks. Wibbble 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced audio

Much better, thanks for your work. There's a link to Differential (disambig page) that doesn't make any sense in context, but it's in a section marked Disputed. Jer ome 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOSNUM/your question

"Are you implying that Sarenne is continuing the disruption from IP accounts? If so, can you list some examples of such edits? — Omegatron 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"; on my talk page.

No proof, but the behavior on Atari ST resembles the modus operandus Sarenne has employed in the past. -- Metahacker 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now, since I last checked it appears he's gone and started editing the article under his own name, reproducing the edits, and using similar arguments in the edit summary, to those used by a handful of IPs in a revert war that waged for chunks of the past few days. -- Metahacker 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to block, but Centrx already did. I'll unblank the talk page. — Omegatron 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment about talk pages, you're quite right; a longer explanation is on my talk page. -- Metahacker 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes to Electrical impedance

Hi there Omegatron, I am interested in making some changes to the article on impedance and noticed that you have been an active editor for a long time. I have explained my thoughts on the talk page, including a link to my user subpage where i'm trying out ideas.

The reason why i'm not immediately editing the article is that i'd like to make some wholesale changes, so I feel it's worth getting input from others before going ahead. Feel free to reply here, on the article talk page or on my talk page.

Thanks,

--DJIndica 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC CSS and MOSNUM

Since you are active on MediaWiki talk:Common.css and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I would appreciate your opinion regarding this suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Template with CSS proposition. Thanks - Shmget 10:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very bad idea? — Omegatron 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COinS in Citation template

Someone has removed the COinS markup from {{Citation}}; I'm about to revert, but you may wish to join the discussion.. Andy Mabbett 10:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you revert? — Omegatron 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)