Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 26 August 2017

This is RexxS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Archives

Archive Wikimedia UK Archive 01: Jan '08 – Jan '09 Archive 02: Jan '09 – Jul '09 Archive 03: Jul '09 – Jan '10 Archive 04: Jan '10 – Mar '10 Archive 05: Mar '10 – Jul '10 Archive 06: Jul '10 – Sep '10 Archive 07: Sep '10 – Nov '10 Archive 08: Nov '10 – Dec '10 Archive 09: Jan '11 – Feb '11 Archive 10: Feb '11 – Mar '11 Archive 11: Mar '11 – Jun '11 Archive 12: Jun '11 – Oct '11 Archive 13: Oct '11 – Nov '11 Archive 14: Nov '11 – Jan '12 Archive 15: Jan '12 – May '12 Archive 16: May '12 – Jul '12 Archive 17: Jul '12 – Aug '12 Archive 18: Aug '12 – Sep '12 Archive 19: Sep '12 – Nov '12 Archive 20: Nov '12 – Feb '13 Archive 21: Feb '13 – Apr '13 Archive 22: Apr '13 – Sep '13 Archive 23: Oct '13 – Mar '14 Archive 24: Mar '14 – May '14 Archive 25: May '14 – Jan '15 Archive 26: Jan '15 – Apr '15 Archive 27: Apr '15 – Jul '15 Archive 28: Jul '15 – Dec '15 Archive 29: Dec '15 – Apr '16 Archive 30: Apr '16 – Jun '16 Archive 31: Jun '16 – Aug '16 Archive 32: Aug '16 – Sep '16 Archive 33: Oct '16 – Dec '16 Archive 34: Dec '16 – Jan '17 Archive 35: Jan '17 – Mar '17 Archive 36: Mar '17 – Jun '17 Archive 37: Jun '17 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017 Editorial: Core models and topics Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Misplaced Pages. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Misplaced Pages" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Links WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development). Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon. As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata. GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions. Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months. Olivia Solon in San Francisco, Why the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Talk archives

RexxS, I am not sure I've been properly creating autoarchiving for article talk pages. If I want to archive everything after x days (60, 90, 180, whatever) and create new archives when one is full up, can you point me to an article talkpage that has the proper syntax for me to swipe? Thanks. Montanabw 22:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on your Editor of the Week award! There's a functioning archive on Talk:Chiropractic that you can look at. The bits that do the job are:

Archiving by lowercase sigmabot III:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 39
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(20d)
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d
}}

Note that the archives there are currently at number 39 (counter=39) – obviously you'd start a fresh archive at counter=1 (unless some manual archives already existed). The archiving is done every 20 days (algo = old(20d)).

Creating the Archive box that indexes the archives:

{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=20|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}}

Note that {{Archives}} is all that's needed, but the |auto=short makes the display compact.

That talk page actually has an extra: Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index, indexing every section header, which is created by

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}

That isn't necessary, but is a convenience for searching when the talk archives get long.

There are very full instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page #Options, but you can always ping me if you get stuck. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Second tech problem

I should have noticed this after a decade, but {{WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America}} doesn't show "importance" ratings in the project box... as a result, lots and lots of articles in this project are unassessed and those that are, the assessment doesn't show up. Can you do some magic wiki-foo on this template to make it work? Thanks. Montanabw 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I've added the importance parameter to the template, so now it's just a case of working through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America and filling in the values for |importance=. Have fun! --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of them were already assessed, such as Sitting Bull. Those assessments now appear, so we are good --other than having zillions more articles to assess. (Is there a shortcut that can do this...?). Montanabw 19:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the new param to the doc page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Nested footnotes

Hi RexxS, you know more about reference templates, so once again I ask your advice on a vexatious problem. In Underwater_diving#Risk_management I needed to reference the footnotes, and discovered several ways that it cannot be done. The article was consistent in having all the ref defs in the reflist, but if it is possible to do this for nested footnotes, I have been unable to find the way. The help file appears to say it is not possible, but it is not very clear, and may be out of date. I have managed to do it with the ref defs inline, but this nudges my OCD. Do you know if it is possible, and if so, how to do it? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) : 12:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter: I can't see an easy way do that either. I've created a cut-down version of the problem in User:RexxS/sandbox3 to be a bit more manageable in trying out solutions, but so far I've hit the same brick wall as you have, Peter. Please feel free to tinker with that page if you have any ideas to try out and I'll do some more research to see if anyone has a solution. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK • • • Peter (Southwood) : 14:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter and RexxS: Hi guys - you may want to take a look at a draft of mine at User:Robevans123/sandbox/Tredegar Town Clock. I've created a list of nested footnotes with references which is want I think you're after. The syntax is a bit different - I've used efn and notelist to create the footnotes. The bullets are created using the bulleted list template within the efn. Look at the section Conception and footnote b for details. Hope this helps. Robevans123 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Rob, but the problem we're struggling with is that of removing the content of the footnote out of the article text as list-defined references do. It would be nice to have just a named footnote in place in the text, just as you have the named references with the {{r}} template.

However, you started me thinking about {{efn}}/{{notelist}} and that works! @Peter: take a look at User:RexxS/sandbox3 - we have "list-defined footnotes!" using {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. I'm just going to see if I can extend it to refn/reflist with groups. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And that works as well now. See User:RexxS/sandbox3a. It doesn't matter whether the names are in quotes or not as they are template parameters, not tag attributes. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand, but glad to have nudged you in the right direction! Good to see your sandbox examples working well. I'd forgotten/didn't know you could define footnotes with {{efn}}s in the {{notelist}}. Much neater and avoids bracket fatigue. Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of anomalies, or maybe two examples of the same one. There are two backlinks from Administration, which is only used once, and two backlinks from "OHS answers" which is used three times. Also, when I applied the method at Underwater diving#Notes, I get an error message Cite error: A list-defined reference named "OHS_answers" is not used in the content (see the help page)., and this is in the notes section, not the references section where the definition actually is. I also get an extra backlink symbol from Engineering, but the extra backlink doesn't actually work. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) : 20:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spoke too soon. Looking carefully at User:RexxS/sandbox3 and User:RexxS/sandbox3a, there are subtle errors: Notes b. has two backlinks, but only one invocation; whereas References 1. has only two backlinks although it is invoked three times. This solution is also causing errors in Underwater diving. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the implementation really is bugged, Peter. I'd restore the previous version of Underwater diving while I investigate further. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I will do that now that you have had a chance to see it. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 07:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure this has come up before, and the only practical solution seems to be to stay away from WP:LDR. You were heading towards the right lines by using {{refn}}, but personally I would use that only for the actual refs - the notes would be marked up with {{efn}}. The {{efn}} template will happily enclose either {{refn}} or {{sfn}} according to the general ref style of the article. The article footers will contain a {{notelist}} and a {{reflist}} in that order, with an optional heading between. Don't use the |group= parameter for any of these templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But the whole point is to use LDR to make the article source text more readable and manageable. It's obvious that efn/notelist works if each definition is made within article text (as does refn/reflist+group because efn hard-codes a default "group=lower-alpha" version of refn). There's clearly no good reason why defining refs in the Reference section works but defining notes in the Notes section doesn't. The version of the article using {{refn|group=note}} has functional footnotes, but the wiki-text of the Risk management section is almost undecypherable. --RexxS (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been taken to AN/I by someone

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. We hope (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There always appears to be a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Have you entered a competition to win the experience of being me or Eric circa 2010? ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but thanks for the suggestion. I'm really not cut out for such an honour, although I must admit that as the years go by, I find myself increasingly less tolerant of poor editors, and unfortunately I do seem to find myself regularly telling them so. Oh well. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The above two ANI's.

What I will say (after commenting on the first and having to bite my tongue on the second) is that it will be very difficult for me to defend your actions in the future. In the first instance you revert out an editor's change to the status quo and BRD and general editing policies/guidelines supports you in this. In the second you revert back in an editors change to the status quo in what is already an amazing contentious subject whenever it rears its ugly head. BRD does not support this. Frankly for adding an infobox to a music-based article, especially in that genre, it will always be contentious. The community of infobox-arguers (on both sides) has shown over the years it is incapable of solving their disputes through standard discussion due to the entrenched positions, so a formal moderated !vote is the best way to keep the discussion civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) Infoboxes have been contentious for classical music composers (last discussed for Pierre Boulez in January 2016, and I had enough then), but not for compositions, see Mozart and Britten recent TFAs, or a bit longer ago another Requiem for TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, at best, wishful thinking Gerda. Infoboxs in general are contentious. If you need to quibble over 'well it is for composers but not for compositions' then you are clutching at straws. And that in particular is the sort of argument that people who are anti-infobox will just reject out of hand. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the Mozart concerto, and it's review: anything contentious? - Look: I add infoboxes, and if I am reverted, I forget it. Normally. In this case, I was reverted like vandalism, and just questioned why. Some of the old fighters seem to love argument. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Only in death: Thank you for your advice and sentiments, and I do understand what you're saying. However, in the second case, my restoration of the infobox came as a consequence of a single editor (the IP in question) removing the infobox four times in quick succession against three other editors (not including me) who wished to see it included. BRD had gone out of the window long before I arrived, and I was unwilling to see an action supported by several other editors stonewalled by a single objector. I do believe that in this case, an infobox improves the article, and I've taken the time to lay out my reasoning on the article talk page. I do accept that on the talk page, other editors such as Ceoil had raised concerns without specifically objecting, but the IP who was regularly reverting had not made a single constructive comment there. In the circumstances, I don't regret engaging strongly with him, even if I do feel a tinge of shame in descending to his level. At the end of the day, one has to make a decision about where to draw the line in tolerating bad behaviour such as the IP demonstrates. I draw mine pretty close to zero-tolerance for the attacks he made on two of our most respected and well-intentioned women editors on that page. Any other approach would empower him to continue his malignant attacks.

I'm afraid that I must disagree, though, with your suggestion that infoboxes in general are contentious. They are not: not only do they appear in well over half of our articles, they are an integral part of three-quarters of our Featured Articles, although I maintain that there are certainly cases where, on balance, an infobox does not improve an article. If you're interested in why I reach those conclusions, please take a look at User:RexxS/Infobox factors, a work in progress, where I'm attempting to collate as many factors as I can find that influence whether an infobox improves an article or not. If you feel you have any insights to add, then please do so. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's not the infobox that's contentious; just the posting of it. That's it. — fortunavelut luna 13:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and that's a pity in itself. Nevertheless, articles – even ones that benefit dramatically from an infobox – do not come with one "ready-made", so somebody has to compose one and post it. For some editors, crafting it carefully is a labour-of-love: "Quicquid Venus imperat / Labor est suavis / Que nunquam in cordibus / Habitat ignavis". --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What Fortuna said. My personal opinion on infobox's is 'sometimes good, sometimes bad, consensus should be sought on the talkpage'. What irked me about the above is that, its quite disingenuous to argue your reversion of a break from the status quo is valid and cite BRD, then turn around and revert your own preferred break from the status quo into an article. Unless its vandalism or obviously incorrect (neither of which applied in the above two cases) the correct process is to go to the talk page and hash it out there once BRD has started. That it relates to an infobox is just an added annoyance for why said talkpage discussion is probably going to go downhill quickly if anyone notices it. If someone decided to remove that infobox and you (or someone else) decided to take it to ANI in much the same way as Lynn did over the horse matter, what response would you expect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: My opinion is that nobody needs to seek consensus before making an edit that they feel improves an article. Only if it is challenged should there be any need for debate. Nowhere in the two arguments you refer to have I cited BRD. I don't need essays to bolster common sense, and "status quo" is merely the first line of defence for article OWNers - it's almost always masking an ability to make a reasoned argument in favour of a position. In the first argument, I disagreed that LynWysong's gutting of an introductory paragraph was an improvement, and said so as soon as I restored the previous version. In the second argument, I was unwilling to see a single objector remove a valid edit made by three other editors four times. That's not how we write articles on Misplaced Pages. The IP's only objection to the edit was that it was an infobox. Not that it was against policy, nor that it made the article worse, just that it was an infobox. I've engaged constructively on that article talk page to explain why I feel an infobox improves the article; the IP has done nothing but attack others. Frankly, it's about time that the practice of posting to ANI to try to remove any opposition from a content debate was banned. Because in those two cases, that's exactly what happened. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pier

Can you offer a bit of advice? I was trying to get an inline map to display on Brighton Palace Pier (I've heard of people getting lost trying to find it from the station on foot, as if "follow the seagulls until your feet start to get wet" might be a clue) but {{infobox pier}} doesn't seem to want to do them. At the moment, I've hacked in {{infobox building}} as it does do this, but it throws out some of the useful fields on the other infobox, such as length (useful statistic for a pier, not so much for a building). Any other ideas what I can do? Ritchie333 21:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Something like | map_image = File:Location map Brighton central.png in {{infobox pier}} should work - I previewed it in a test edit at Southport Pier, and it looked ok. Robevans123 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Robevans123: Thank you, Rob, that looks like an improvement. What do you think, Ritchie? Optionally, I recently made a template {{overlaid images}} that allows you to overlay one image over another that might come in useful for unusual cases, but it would require a bit of fiddling to make use of. Infobox pier has a parameter |extra= that could be used. You could have fun having an inlaid map with an inlaid map, or just use the background on its own which can be cropped, scaled and shifted to taste. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All I did was remember that the syntax for map images can be quite different in different infoboxes - sometimes you have to give the full file name, sometimes just key parts... I do like the inlaid images - it's something the BBC website use quite often in its location maps. See http://static.bbci.co.uk/searchassets/img/ec/2010/05/south_west_wales.jpg for a ready made example. Robevans123 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Brighton Palace Pier

Brighton Palace Pier in early-October 2011
Type	Pleasure Pier
Official name	Brighton Palace Pier
Characteristics
Total length	524 metres (1,719 ft)
History
Designer	R. St George Moore
Opening date	May 1899
Location of pier in Brighton

Map syntax

"the syntax for map images can be quite different in different infoboxes" This is a ludicrous situation. we've resolved t for some other fields (images and "alt text" are pretty standard now). Is anyone up for working with me on standardising this? The first step would be to gain consensus on what is best pracice... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

url

https://doc.wikimedia.org/mediawiki-core/master/php/DairikiDiff_8php_source.html

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC).

To boil a kettle free

• Thiotimoline

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

Lua help on svwiki

Hello, I saw on the Skills board that you could help with Lua. I am trying to copy {{Q}} from meta to svwiki, but we don't have the function getLabel in any of our Wikidata modules. I tried to copy a part but it didn't work. Can you please help me? Ainali (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ainali: I'm sorry I wasn't around today, as I was in the Medicine meetings. I'd be happy to help, so perhaps you could look for me at one of the Wikidata talks during the day on Friday? --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I fixed it last night. Ainali (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer productivity study

Hi RexxS, thanks for making the challenging point about references being the only indispensable skill for newcomers. Here's the study I drew upon when asking my own question: http://jodischneider.com/pubs/opensym2014.pdf Adamw (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017 Wikimania report Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Misplaced Pages medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Link Plaudit for the Medical Misplaced Pages app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about Lua

Hi! I didn’t manage to talk to you at Wikimania until now, maybe tomorrow we could find a moment?! I need to use Lua on German WP for fixing and improving a specific template and wanted to hear an expert advice on the doability of the proposal. If not tomorrow, I will probably come back to it soon here on the talk page. Best regards, XanonymusX (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, XanonymusX, I'll be in the lighting talks (s38) all morning today, and then w13, s43, and probably r8 in the afternoon. If you can find me, we can take some time in the hackathon space to look at what you want to do. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Invite

Would you like to comment on my proposals on Misplaced Pages:Village Pump (Idea lab)? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge

Hi Doug. The editathon you lead the training at features here..... and there are few pix of you too! Carol features and a great interview we filmed with Peggy. Hope you enjoyed Wikimania! regards Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Small caption in infobox

Hi, the main infobox image caption at Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 was unreadably tiny, so I made this edit to remove the <small>...</small> - but although the caption is now larger than before, it's still only 10.287px in MonoBook. How come it's smaller than the 11.176px of, for example, the caption of Reading Southern railway station, which uses {{Infobox UK disused station}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Text in an infobox is 90% of normal font size (i.e. 90% of 12.7px in Monobook = 11.43px). However the caption has an additional CSS style 'captionstyle' set to another 90% in line 136, so the text is rendered at 90% of 90% of 12.7px in Monobook = 10.287px. I'll disable that. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's now 11.43px, Thank you. I didn't spot that extra styling - it wasn't in the style= attribute of the <div>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't revert unrelated edits.

August 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Scuba set, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Look, it's your responsibility, when reverting editions that you think are wrong, to revert ONLY those edits; not to ruin a bunch of unrelated improvements that happened at about the same time. So if something breaks links, then fix them, of course. But don't also "fix"/ruin unrelated things that don't need to be, and shouldn't be, put back the way they were. If you have a concern about the other things too, then voice those too so that they make sense as part of your reversion. If not, then leave the other stuff alone.

The tense changes are ordered by WP:TENSE and WP:COMPNOW. It's Misplaced Pages's policy to write about things in the present-tense form unless it's absolutely known that every last copy of that item no longer exists. Leave that alone.

"Second-stage regulator" and "open-circuit diffuser" are hyphenated because "second" and "stage" form a compound modifier that act as one word to modify "regulator," and the same thing with "open" and "circuit" for "diffuser." So leave them alone too.

"Scuba muffler" doesn't need to be in quotes just because it's being referred to by a "called ________" phrase. So leave that alone too.

97.117.54.205 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)