Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

< Wikibooks:Reading room(Redirected from WB:SLT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesReading rooms
Assistance Discussions Requests Proposals
General | Technical | Administrative (Usurps/Renaming) General | Projects Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Features Featured books | Policies/Guidelines

Contents

Welcome to the Technical Assistance reading room. Get assistance on questions related to the MediaWiki markup, CSS, Javascript and such as they relate to Wikibooks. This is not a general-purpose technical support room.

Nuvola apps chat.png Post a comment

Please title your request and sign your name and date (by adding four tildes thus: ~~~~.

[edit] Right-hand indents caused by review status box.

hi, On all the pages i've created with a right-floating template infobox (e.g. Practical_Electronics/IC/4023) the little box showing the page review status causes it to be indented, leaving a huge and ugly space on the right hand side. Just adding a newline doesn't help, and infoboxes should be at the top of the markup.

Perhaps some sort of div element could be added to whetever code generates that box? What I know about HTML can be written on a postage stamp, so I can't give a better suggestion than that. Inductiveload (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Has it been fixed? I could not see anything wrong with it or the review box; in fact I wish I had made it!
Armchair (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, no, it's still not fixed. I'm using Opera (versions 9 and 10, which have different rendering engines, on both Windows and Ubuntu all have this problem). You can see a screenshot here. The big blank space to the right of the table is the problem. Inductiveload (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been fixed by Darklama by enclosing the table in a div tag:
<div style="width:300px; clear:both; float:right; padding:0px; margin:1em 0em 1em 1em;">
{|
TABLE
|}
</div>
Thanks! − Inductiveload (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adding new Geshi syntax file

How do I go about getting a Geshi syntax file added to Wikibooks so that I can format source code using the <source> tag? Not sure where/who to ask... The file is already written, it just needs adding/inserting somewhere... Newlisp (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm asking in the wrong place... Newlisp (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You would want to visit Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi to contact the author to have additions added. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the software now does not wrap long lines when line numbering is selected. Can somebody please fix that, since it affects quite a lot. Thanks, Armchair (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You should submit a bug.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dropimage show/hide link

The link takes up too much space. Ever since it was improved by somebody, there has been an excessive space to the right of the link, within the heading box.

See the examples in Making_Templates_A101 and I think that you will agree that it was better before. The only change that is needed really is to place the link close to the right margin of the header box. I assume that this is done in the NavFrame script set but I cannot do this myself; my lack of experience with this writing this script and having no access.

Perhaps an admin would know whether this idea would be better. I mean, is there an existing option to change the position of the link? Maybe an option could be made in the script to allow it.

While I realise that the trend is towards the use of collapsible tables, I nonetheless would appreciate any assistance in making the improvement. Regards, Armchair (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Source Tag is Changed

Hello,

I notice that the source tags have changed. They no longer wrap long lines in the numbered mode. As such the change now invalidates much of the content of the section in Source Tags.

Can an administrator please advise on the matter?

Thanks, Armchair (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue you'd need to discuss at Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi as administrators do not have control over which extensions are installed or their source code. Only the site's JavaScript and CSS can be edited by administrators and I do not see anything directly applicable to this extension, nor do the installation instructions on the above page request any changes be made to Mediawiki:Common.css to implement the extension. I can only conclude then that the extension itself changed, putting it beyond administrators' reach. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are there admins out there?

Hi,

Is there is anybody out there? Where have all the admins gone. Responses are conspicuously lacking, and there is a general lack of activity on the blog.

Is there something that we should all know?

Hellooooooo.....!

Regards, Armchair (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are. Several are quite active but being an admin doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the technical matters of the Wikimedia software - hence the likely delay in an answer. For my part, it takes a couple of hours a day just to clear up the vandalism created each day, leaving little time to do much else here. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to http://wikibooks.blogspot.com then you should know that as far as I know, only Whiteknight has the ability to post on that website and it is not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation or affiliated with Wikibooks. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Armchair! I have this page on my watchlist, and when I saw that you were the one who edited it, I assumed you were answering someone's question rather than asking one. Also, I assumed that if you were asking a technical question, it would have been beyond me to answer (because you seem to have a better handle on MediaWiki than I do). For the record, my latter assumption was correct. --Jomegat (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary Hover: a JavaScript on double-click

Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

  1. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');"
  2. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
  3. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New RC patrolling concept

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21517? JackPotte (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we use flaggedrevs.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer this system to flagged revisions, simply because we can see a ! directly into the RC list. Moreover, it's already used in fr.w, and it.wikt. JackPotte (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you fail to understand that we cannot use patrolling.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikibooks does not need patrolling to see ! in RC. FlaggedRevs shows it for revisions in RC that have not yet been reviewed by editors. --darklama 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To be exact the flaggedrevs is "still" under evaluation, that was what we agreed on, there have been several Wikibookians that have already spoken against the final adoption of flaggedrevs and highlighted some of it's problems (specially regarding Wikibooks), including me. To my knowledge more persons have raised issues with the final adoption of flaggedrevs that those that have praised the "innovation", even if I'm sure we all like some of the attributes of the new arrangement...
Since the evaluation has gone beyond what should be expected as useful, I propose, if anyone wishes to second my proposal, to get a final validation (or not) on the adoption of the flaggedrevs system. IIRC this is the second or third time that flaggedrevs have been indicated as having the community approval, this is not the case, we agreed only on a test period... --Panic (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You regularly make that assertion about flaggedrevs, that it hasn't really been adopted. This is a living project, nothing is set in stone, we're always assessing everything dynamically as we move forward, and there is no such thing as "final adoption" of anything; so I've been regularly puzzled by this claim of some sort of special tentativeness for flaggedrevs. I can't figure out where it's coming from. We reexamine flaggedrevs from time to time, reassessing how it's going and to what extent it is and isn't meeting our expectations and serving the needs of the project. From the initial consensus discussion I'm familiar with, here, that's what people thought we should do — rather obvious, really, for such a significant measure, but reminding each other of the obvious is a perfectly valid part of the normal operation of the collective consciousness of Wikibooks. Are you drawing for the claim on some other discussion somewhere? --Pi zero (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The proposal put forward for the community was for clearly for a test period. The process for reversal of a passed as approved decission is very distinct to one for implementing a new change, if consensus fails the new change will not pass. It is specially important to make that distinction regarding what we have agreed previously.
I also agree that most non formalized actions on the project are as you describe above (but they aren't community decisions), they fall in what we came to define as BeBold. --Panic (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You say "clearly", but this is exactly why I'm asking whether you're drawing on another source besides the consensus discussion that I linked above: Each time I read that discussion, I see it not saying what you say is clear. So I'm trying to understand whether you're looking at different data, or perceiving the same data differently.
Also, I'm really not following the distinction you've just made, to the point where I'm not even sure whether or not it actually came out the way you intended it to. The process for reversing a decision is very distinct from the process for implementing a new change? Neither of those sounds much like a "test period". Could you give an example of another past community decision process that involved a "test period"? --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bug?

Is anybody else seen the "Read", "Edit", "View" and Star buttons in a wrong place like in this image? Bug with vector.PNG

I'm using vector and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6. Helder (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! It's driving me crazy too. It's enough to make me turn off the otherwise fabulous beta for a while, but I haven't gone that far yet. --Jomegat (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I left Beta, and though I will miss it, it did fix this problem. I'll return to beta when it's fixed. --Jomegat (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This was caused by a CSS naming collision between some site-specific CSS rules and our new collapsible tabs feature for vector. Both used the "collapsible" class name. I've made a fix in MediaWiki:Common.css which overrides the rules for vector, so please feel free to turn beta back on. Trevor Parscal (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought only administrators could edit in the Mediawiki namespace... -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Trevor works for the Foundation, so he basically has sysop access on all wikis for just this sort of thing.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. I'm back in Beta again, and life is good. --Jomegat (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Technical_Assistance"