User talk:SkyLined

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Re: -N programming categories
2 {{delimitnum}} and {{val}}
3 Kilogram
4 Template:Su
5 Kilogram now uses val
6 Problems with linking in {{PhysicsParticle}}
7 Problems with {{PhysicsParticle}} in List of baryons
8 What<s the status of the val template?
9 Barnstar for {{val}}

[edit] Re: -N programming categories

Actually, the templates are fine if you want to keep them on your page. It was the categories associated with them that I was concerned about. VegaDark (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know a ton about all user categorization. It sounds like a good idea to standardize all those userboxes. The most important thing to remember for programming categories is that -0 and -N categories should not be included in the userbox, since those have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{delimitnum}} and {{val}}

SkyLined. It appears you used span-based, non-breaking spaces. Is that right? Here is the Bugzilla 13025 report. It provides a full account of the details for making delimitnum. As for getting rapid adoption, the very first step is to do one’s very best to address everyone’s concerns regarding appearance. Note that I also had a discussion on Talk:MOS#Exponential Notation after my efforts on Talk:MOSNUM and the issue of spaces alongside the × symbol came up. It was an appearance issue that was important to certain editors over there. The fix that made everyone quite happy was to use span-based thin spaces on both sides of the times symbol rather than a full-width non-breaking space. I did a lot of work on the details of this to make sure a best compromise was made in the appearance across all OSs and browsers. The details are disclosed in my Comment #14 From Greg L 2008-03-22 01:39:29 UTC post on Bugzilla. I also have a debugging sandbox here at User:Greg L/Delimitnum sandbox. Note that I have a special demo section showing the full-tilt method that pleased everyone (span-based gaps everywhere) in a section titled “Experiment with narrow spans alongside × sign”. Copied below, is some hand-written code. If your template can look like this, and doesn’t have the mathematical rounding problems you see in my sandbox, I think you’ve got a winner. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Experiment with narrow spans alongside × sign

With ×

6.022141791(30)×10²³ kg

6.022141791×10²³ kg
6.022141792×10²³ kg
6.022141793×10²³ kg
6.022141794×10²³ kg
6.022141795×10²³ kg
6.022141796×10²³ kg
6.022141797×10²³ kg
6.022141798×10²³ kg
6.022141799×10²³ kg

6.022142796×10²³ kg

I've adopted the span based spacing throughout {{val}}. I have literally copy the {{delimitnum}} code, so {{val}} does no better at high precision or very large numbers. However, I've also added error checking, which will report errors caused by the limited precision of floating point numbers, so editors are aware of them:

{{delimitnum|1.2345678901234567890}} = 1.234567890000
{{val|1.2345678901234567890}} = Error in {{val}}: first argument is not a valid number or requires too much precision to display.)

I noticed a conversation about {{delimitnum|0.100}} = 0.1 (zeros missing. I think this can be fixed using {{evalns}} and string comparison. Here's an example (assume {{{x}}} = 0.100):

{{#ifeq:{{{x}}}.|{{evalns|{{{x}}}}}.|add no zero}} =
{{#ifeq:{{{x}}}.|{{evalns|{{{x}}}}}0.|add one zero}} =
{{#ifeq:{{{x}}}.|{{evalns|{{{x}}}}}00.|add two zeros}} = add two zeros
{{#ifeq:{{{x}}}.|{{evalns|{{{x}}}}}000.|add three zeros}} =
{{#ifeq:{{{x}}}.|{{evalns|{{{x}}}}}0000.|add four zeros}} =
etc...

I've not implemented this yet
-- SkyLined (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kilogram

[...removed resolved issues...]

P.S. Additional feedback: This ({{val|h=≈|3|u=ppb|up=cm]]) appeared in both Safari and Firefox about half way down the first paragraph of #Watt balance. The only other “issues” I can see have nothing to do with errors in {val} and are simple preferences of style. I try to examine my numbers using a variety of browsers. For instance, look at this {val}-based value:

1,00027.9769271 × 6.02214179×10²³

…vs. this one:

1000/27.9769271 × 6.02214179 × 10²³

…when using non-Safari browsers like Firefox. The first time I saw your fraction, I liked what I saw. But then I quickly realized, “Wait, what is this going to look like using browsers that can’t anti-alias fonts like Safari?”

You can see that readability can really suffer when text gets below a certain size. I like your scientific notation part because the gap alongside the × symbol is narrower. But fractional expression looks too poor on non-Safari browsers to overcome the advantages of the top-over-bottom style. Anyway, as I said, an issue like this is a matter of typographers’ preferences and browser-rendering issues. [...]

<SkyLined>{{frac2}} is a seperate template, which I created the other day. If it looks bad in some browsers, I will try to fix it or delete it and remove all instances. However, I do not seem to have this issue - it looks quite alright in my FireFox browser. It only becomes unreadable at the point where the normal text becomes unreadably small as well, so that is not an issue. Could you make a screengrab to show me what you mean?</SkyLined>

I also note that Thunderbird2 went in and tried to correct some of the bolded “kg” symbols but only delved into the article deep enough to catch some of them; he missed others deeper down. I note that you appeared to have gone on a small Wiki-break and, seeing that you weren’t able to attend to this quickly, I took the liberty of reverting Kilogram back to the {delimitnum} in the mean time rather than hand-edit each and every occurance of “kg”. Greg L (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

<SkyLined> Kilogram was a "test" for {{val}} to see what would work and what wouldn't. I have no problem with the revert.

I'm looking at having manually entered values and {{delimitnum}} use automatically replaced by {{val}} using a bot, so I should be able to put those changes back quick and easy as well as change other pages to use {{val}} without going through the trouble of manually editting them.</SkyLined>

That sounds like wonderful news. I was a bit worried about the “human error” part inherent in converting values from one template to another. I takes me an extraordinary amount of time doing side-by-side comparisons to make sure I haven’t screwed up a value. Is there any way to make a version, or subset of {val} that parses just like {delimitnum}? I suspect the author of {delimitnum} wouldn’t mind having it replaced with a subset version of {val} with all its error-checking and attention to detail. The principle reason for the request is because of the large number of people on Talk:MOSNUM and Talk:MOS who seemed to share my enjoyment for simplicity: {delimitnum’s} easy-to-remember parsing (template name | value | uncertainty | exponent | unit). If accomplishing that would be a major butt-itch, never mind; I’ll take a very nice looking, error-checked product like {val} any day. I’m just hoping for a “{val jr.}”. Maybe you could create a {delimitval} so a simple global text editor search/replace can use your version without screwing directly with {delimitnum}. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<SkyLined>It's obviously possible to create as many versions of {{val}} as you need, but personally, I'd like to keep the number of templates as low as possible; it gets harder to find the right template if there are a lot to choose from. Also, the arguments to {{delimitnum}} as less self-explanatory because they are all unnamed. {{val}} has the benefit that arguments like exponent and unit are easier to identify because they are named after the first letter in those words. This makes them easier to understand for people that are not yet familiar with them. It would be relatively easy to rewrite {{delimitnum}} to be a "wrapper" for {{val}}, where all it would do is pass the arguments on, like so:

but personally, I am against this for aforementioned reasons of clarity and uniformity across pages.</SkyLined>

Sounds sensible and logical to me. Greg L (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Su

Hi. Subscrits using this template (and or {{val}}) don't show up. Could you take a look? Also, it looks like actually a bad idea to have a template "too complex to show", as it beats the whole purpose of a wiki. - Nabla (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nabla, could you please give me more details? What browser, what OS, which page, a screen dump of what you see, etc... — SkyLined {talkcontribs 03:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IE6, Win98, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Su and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Val, I don't see superscripts (I do see subscripts, my mistake) - Nabla (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You should get a new computer :). But I'll look into it, as soon as I can get a machine with IE6 installed. It may take some time before this can be fixed. I'm pretty busy at the moment :(. — SkyLined {talkcontribs 01:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You should make templates simple enough to be edited by others... - Nabla (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done, it's as simple as I can make it. Feel free to prove me wrong — SkyLined {talkcontribs 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

x is simple, and works (at least it does for me:^x). I miss the point in having a template for such a simple thing, specially one that works for less readers (even if for only few less) - Nabla (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{{val}} does not just produce exponents, it also produces uncertainty, which is represented by two numbers, one in supscipt and one in subscript. They are one over the other, something that cannot be done using and . That's why I created {{su}}. To keep the look and feel of those numbers similar to the exponent, I use {{su}} for the exponent as well. For now I will modify {{su}} to use and if you only need sup or subscript and not both. That should fix the exponent issue. Once I have more time, I'll see if I can't fix {{su}} to work properly with IE6 as well. — SkyLined {talkcontribs 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, let me know if this is better (even though the uncertainty still won't work). I definitive fix still needs to be created — SkyLined {talkcontribs 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see superscripts now, thanks. You have a point about having sub- and superscripts together. But <math>A_{sub}^{sup}</math> seems to works fine - $A_{sub}^{sup}$ - except that it may break the line spacing (but that happens with HTML anyway, doesn't it?). Maybe you could use that?... - Nabla (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Math is not an option:

Math content cannot be copy-pasted
Math content cannot be read by accessibility features such as text-to-speach for the blind
Math has a completely different look and feel from the rest of the text, if you use it for things such as {{val}}, the layout will sucks.

— SkyLined {talkcontribs 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair. Specially the 2nd point. The 3rd being irrelevant, IMO, as if the option is a bad look that works for all or a good look for a few... the option should be obvious (IE6 is still almost a third of 'net users). I still dislike the concept of a template so intricate that is almost impossible to edit - that is very very un-wiki... - but well... if you get it to work it does look fine, and the main point with a template is ease of use, not as much ease of coding. - Nabla (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kilogram now uses val

SkyLined, I just wanted to let you know that I’ve now used {{val}} every place I can on Kilogram. Many thanks. One of the things editors look for in a template is getting it locked down. Are you pretty close to being done with it? Greg L (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with linking in {{PhysicsParticle}}

Hi there. When you get a chance, could you pop over to Template talk:PhysicsParticle, to help resolve a technical problem in the optimal way? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with {{PhysicsParticle}} in List of baryons

I spent about 40 minutes trying to figure out what's wrong with this page. When I remove {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma0}}, {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma*}}, and {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom Xi-}}, all the mess disappears. So there's something wrong with these three particles. The mess in the table remains, though. I can't see what's written in the "I" and "Jp" columns in the first two tables. For me, it is not visually appealing(criterion #6) because I can't see most of the entries in the table and the page remains wider than normal, which in turn makes reading the page difficult. --Crzy cheetah 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the List of Baryon Featured List Review. Can you offer some insight?Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What<s the status of the val template?

There's a bunch of folks over that the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that's eager to have it up and running. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, really busy with my new job. Also, I'm going on a holiday for a week. It'll be at least another two weeks before I can spent some more time on it... sorry :( — SkyLined {talkcontribs 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame since it's the tidiest × most intuitive way I know to stick those non-breaking non-just-turning-into-boxes-on-IE thin spaces around the multiplication sign in the scientific notation. Anyhow, I'm here to let you know that I've set the wheels in motion to tidy up the copy & paste move of {{ScientificValue}} to {{val}}. That done, {{ScientificValue}} can be deleted altogether (I've swapped its few remaining transclusions over to {{val}}. Sadly, though, Headbomb, I can give you a bit of a pointer on {{val}}'s status: broken. JIMp_talk·cont 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The history merge is done. JIMp_talk·cont

[edit] Barnstar for {{val}}

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your efforts on the {{val}}) template. Your patience in listening to the input from a variety of editors and your unselfish efforts to provide the rest of the Wikipedia community with a highly sought-after tool to make their lives easier is much appreciated. Template authors are the unsung heros of Wikipedia. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)