This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 20 November 2010 (→content fork: RfC?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:13, 20 November 2010 by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (→content fork: RfC?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User talk:Jack Merridew/Notice
Featured lists
WT:WikiProject Accessibility#Featured list candidate and accessibility --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe, I wondered how long it would be before you rapped me over the knuckles for adding font-weight:normal. But from that thread you can see the dismay that bold row headers causes. I just hope TheDJ's proposal for an extra 'wikilist' class gets taken up, as that would give us freedom to get on with adding row headers (which is the big improvement that we can make), and just applying the extra class to restore the visual status quo. Is it time for a Village Pump discussion on what the default format for a row header cell should be? --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- and I knew you knew it was less than ideal. I'm not keen in The DJ's proposal as-is. I see that there's a strong push-back and I think some DISCOG pages got their own take on some of this stuff implemented, which sparked the threads that TRM started. Thing is, row-headers both are appropriate semantically and they should, for the most part, have the look of headings so people understand their relationship to the rest of the row; that means bold and a tad darker background. We want Googlebot, user agents and users to be aware of the role of these cells. Hiding the styling indicative of their role is less than helpful (it's lying, really). Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I expected no less. So how do we convince the rest of Misplaced Pages that bold/darker is the right way for row headers? By the way, I still think that we need the ability to override those visual effects because of tables like this: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942. As you can see, from a database pov, the unique key is actually the first column (the number of the award), but it's much less useful to a screen reader than the second column (name of the recipient), even though that's not guaranteed unique. My instinct would be to mark up the second column as the row headers; I know WCAG accepts that, and JAWS deals with it without problems. If that's the case, then I think having the second column bold and dark would cause uproar, so it might be a worth a tiny white lie in those circumstances.
- Have you seen this page, btw? A nice, clear explanation of how a screen reader is used to read a table, and the malarkey needed to get any sense out of a table that's poorly marked-up. It adds some weight to the argument for having table captions as well. I've only just got it clear in my mind that a JAWS user can call up a list of all tables on a page and jump straight to one that they select - but that is only going to make sense if the table has a caption. Finally, I've been experimenting with table summaries, but I think that those are going to be as hard to sell as ALT text on images. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting link. As for table summaries, you're making a wrong use of them, so please don't go any further in this direction. See Data tables tutorial#Providing a summary. A table summary is meant for complicated tables, when they have to be used in a particular and unexpected fashion. In this case, the table summary is meant to explain how the table should be used. It is completely different from a table caption. When a table summary is used, there is still the need for a table caption: they are complementary. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Careful, Ralph, your diff will end up immortalized as a thinly-veiled personal attack on that MOS tutorial. Jack Merridew 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there is no offense nor personal attack. But there is a difference between discussing best practices and making experiments, and showing potentially wrong examples to users that will reuse them in good faith. The risk is that the user sees opposing best practices, and people at WP:ACCESS with confusing guidelines and all. Users might then distrust the WP:ACCESS guidelines. And trust here is already fragile since the disaster with alt text. So let's be careful, please. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's all in the eye of the offended and the intent of the offensive. Jack Merridew 14:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's true that those edits to List of Denver RTD light rail stations were in the nature of an experiment on how summaries may be used, but I'd flatly refute the assertion that I'm making a wrong use of them. WCAG only suggests where they are most useful, and is not proscriptive of where they may be used. In each case, the summaries provide either (1) a description of the contents of the table, or (2) a description of the table's organization. I accept that H37 prefers the latter, but for tables that have no captions, the former is still better than having neither. Nevertheless, I agree my summary for the legend table was over the top (it was the whole table!), so I'll cut that down. In any case, let's remember that there is a lot of resistance to using captions. We can go some way towards alleviating that by judicious use of summaries, and nobody is going to object to those.
- I actually think that the guidance at Providing a summary is good, although I'd alter one paragraph thus:
- "Note that a summary is not needed in
mostmany of Misplaced Pages's tables. The summary is most useful when the table has a complex structure (for example, when there are several sets of row or column headers, or when there are multiple groups of columns or rows).TheA summarymaydescribing the organization would also be helpful for simple data tables that contain many columns or rows of data."
- "Note that a summary is not needed in
- The example there is fine, but it represents only one use of the summary element – that of explaining how to use the table. WCAG only gives that example, so we'd have to concoct others ourselves. In many cases on Misplaced Pages, we are not dealing with a 'lookup' table - i.e. one containing homogeneous data (as in the example), and we ought to be giving more guidance to editors on how to present screen readers with information about the organisation of the data in the table they are about to navigate. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there is no offense nor personal attack. But there is a difference between discussing best practices and making experiments, and showing potentially wrong examples to users that will reuse them in good faith. The risk is that the user sees opposing best practices, and people at WP:ACCESS with confusing guidelines and all. Users might then distrust the WP:ACCESS guidelines. And trust here is already fragile since the disaster with alt text. So let's be careful, please. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- and I knew you knew it was less than ideal. I'm not keen in The DJ's proposal as-is. I see that there's a strong push-back and I think some DISCOG pages got their own take on some of this stuff implemented, which sparked the threads that TRM started. Thing is, row-headers both are appropriate semantically and they should, for the most part, have the look of headings so people understand their relationship to the rest of the row; that means bold and a tad darker background. We want Googlebot, user agents and users to be aware of the role of these cells. Hiding the styling indicative of their role is less than helpful (it's lying, really). Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yo... man... wow...
This is you. Wow...
Sven Manguard Talk 05:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
seen it ;) Jack Merridew 27:63, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to falsify your time stamp, do it right... Sven Manguard Talk 08:40, 30 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and thank you for archiving that monster of a page. I can actually click on the scroll bar now! Sven Manguard Talk 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Discographies style
How is this "regressive"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Pardon the interjection from a TPW) It's because many tables can be made sortable – which obviously becomes increasingly more useful on larger tables. It would need the double header to be resolved for it to work for your table, but you can see what I mean in this cut-down version:
Singles, with year released and certifications Title Year Certifications "One Love" 1993 "No Good (Start the Dance)" 1994 "Voodoo People" 1994 "Poison" 1995 "Firestarter"
(featuring Ricky Nelson)1996 UK: Gold
US: Gold"Breathe" 1996 UK: Platinum
AUS: 2× Platinumkey goes here
- But if you have cells spanning more than one row, the sort won't work. I know it's not terribly relevant to the table as it stands now, but spanning the years is a step backward from being able to be make these tables sortable. I'm pretty sure that's all Jack means by "regressive". Feel free to delete this post if it's not helpful --RexxS (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I should reply here... but oh well. If you are not going to span just so that you can sort the table, here is what you get (try sorting chart positions):
List of singles, with selected chart positions and certifications, showing year released and album name Title Year Peak chart positions Certifications Album UK
AUS
FIN
GER
IRL
NOR
US
"One Love" 1993 8 — — — 3 — — Music for the Jilted Generation "No Good (Start the Dance)" 1994 4 45 — 4 3 7 — "Voodoo People" 1994 13 24 — — 7 — — "Poison" 1995 15 — — — 3 5 — "Firestarter"
(featuring Ricky Nelson)1996 1 22 1 6 2 1 30 UK: Gold
US: GoldThe Fat of the Land "Breathe" 1996 1 2 1 8 1 1 — UK: Platinum
AUS: 2× Platinum"—" denotes releases that did not chart.
- So what is gained from not spanning? We may be able to sort titles alphabetically, but we create a lot more work, having to make the other columns unsortable, and we make the tables ugly and repetitive with respect to the years. I don't really see the point...
- Anyway, if you are going to remove the spanning, at least add the sort function to the model. Regards, Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is no immediate gain, and as I said above, your table would need a modified structure for sorting to work. I was only trying to explain Jack's use of the word "regressive", i.e. if you span the data as well, then you move further away from being able to increase the functionality. If you feel that repeating the year makes the table ugly, then that's a valid personal preference. I just don't think it's a good idea to express that in an example that others may copy and build upon in other tables. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- 'merging cells' is presentational effect. What it really amounts to is the omission of data from tables. My undo of your removal of several years from table-rows was a step in the right direction. I *know* that there are other problems with tables such as the broken one you've pasted above. See class="sortbottom", for example. Jack Merridew 18:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Edit Summary
"Failed Prototype A: are those Phillips or Flathead screws?"
- Clearly, they are industrial rivets. What else would you put on a fancy gold plaque. Seriously though, those are there because I wanted to pad the left and right of the box but not the top or bottom.
- As you can see, I am in the market for a new sig (that doesn't annoy anyone on ArbCom.) Let's be blunt though. This is not a rush job at all. That being said, if you have any fun ideas, feel free to float them by me. You do good work. Sven Manguard Talk 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Pig head on a stick
Well, it looks like we can all safely worship 'plainrowheaders' in its latest incarnation. It certainly seems to have brought peace to the wiki-world. We disruptives can merrily continue to markup tables properly and nobody need be any the wiser. Except ... the only way to tell they're marked up properly is to examine the output, or change our own myskin.css. Of course then we won't see how it looks to everybody else – but that was the point. Just updated my monobook.css; I'll see how it goes. Shouldn't be too long before somebody marks up every cell in a table as a header.
Speaking of which, I bet you've seen this before, but I just came across it:
| CHa | CHb | CHc | CHd |
|---|---|---|---|
| RH1 | Data 1b | Data 1c | Data 1d |
| RH2 | Data 2b | Data 2c | Data 2d |
Check the output, <lol />. How did that happen? Unscoped TH, plucked from ... nowhere. My modified monobook is starting to payback the effort already.
You like vertical format, so there's some ammunition. Horizontal screws up; vertical (below) is fine.
| CHa | CHb | CHc | CHd |
|---|---|---|---|
| RH1 | Data 1b | Data 1c | Data 1d |
| RH2 | Data 2b | Data 2c | Data 2d |
Of course, it is sufficient to have the !scope= on its own line, but the parsing of the wiki-markup is seriously fubar. --Ralph (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ya, this is one of the reasons the vertical format is better. There may be a syntactic trick I'm missing, but splitting the cell-types make sense from purely a readability perspective. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
request
Hey Jack, I'd like help in turning this section into a table that will show the election outcomes. Tea Party movement#Effects on the 2010 election cycle. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Mad Hatter called. He'd like his Tea Party back. Jack Merridew 06:00pm, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Jack, very cool. Is this something that you could put into one of those sortable box type tables like you do for the actors films? You know, alpha by state, alpha by candidate?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're free to use those as example, but I'm not much interested in attending this teabagging party. Jack Merridew 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Looking them over, I was thinking I could probably just copy the template and plug in the information. Thanks again.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're free to use those as example, but I'm not much interested in attending this teabagging party. Jack Merridew 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Jack, very cool. Is this something that you could put into one of those sortable box type tables like you do for the actors films? You know, alpha by state, alpha by candidate?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you're the table man in town...
Hey, you know a thing about tables, right?
Okay, so I have two tables on this page, which transcludes to my main user page. Can you force the two tables to have the same column widths? By that, I mean that the "Recipient" section is narrower on the top table than the "Presenter" is on the bottom, and therefore all the other lines don't match up cleanly. I don't mind that "Citation" is wider than "Award", that's acutally a good thing, but I want the "Citation" on the Awards Out table and the "Citation" on the Awards In table to be the same size, etc.
I have a tad of OCD, so this situation bothers me more than it should. Any help would be appreciated,
Sven Manguard Talk 18:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- (TPW) Try that, but I didn't see any transclusion. --Ralph (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I figured out where you were going with it and tweaked with it until it worked. It was simple enough once I knew what I was looking for. Thanks Ralph/RexxS Sven Manguard Talk 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, almost. If the column contains text, then the best unit to use is 'em' because it varies with the size and metrics of the font being used, while 'pt' and 'px' do not. Not all users see Misplaced Pages in the same font as you do (since a client-side local style sheet may override the values used by Misplaced Pages) and different operating systems may substitute the Windows font-family by their own. For images, of course, it is sensible to specify a column width in pixels. --T-RexxS (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well em wasn't working for me, and I'm not sure why, but as long as it looks good, I don't care what format it's in. If you can get it to look nice and use em, please do, I'd rather it work for everyone, if possible. Sven Manguard Talk 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, almost. If the column contains text, then the best unit to use is 'em' because it varies with the size and metrics of the font being used, while 'pt' and 'px' do not. Not all users see Misplaced Pages in the same font as you do (since a client-side local style sheet may override the values used by Misplaced Pages) and different operating systems may substitute the Windows font-family by their own. For images, of course, it is sensible to specify a column width in pixels. --T-RexxS (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I figured out where you were going with it and tweaked with it until it worked. It was simple enough once I knew what I was looking for. Thanks Ralph/RexxS Sven Manguard Talk 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour
Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.
Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.
--180.191.54.108 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- terima kasih ;) Jack Merridew 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like you've pulled, there. pablo 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I recommend Philippinas. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I recommend Philippinas. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like you've pulled, there. pablo 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Filmography Table Fix Question
Hi Jack! Onto more important things than trolls and socks: would you have a look here and see if you could lend your expertise? 1948-49 is all screwed up, and 1962 is wrong as well. Someone added a film incorrectly, and I tried to add it the right way, but obviously something's still very wrong there. I'd appreciate any help/advice you're willing to give, and thanks. Doc talk 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks :> Doc talk 06:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not done; don't (edit conflict) me ;) Jack Merridew 06:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Best AfD ever?
You might get a kick out of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process. Probably best if you don't comment there since the Colonel and I have been at odds today and I don't want this to be seen as canvassing. Still, it is kind of hard to canvass someone when you have no idea what article has been nominated for deletion. AniMate 06:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did comment, but I'll stipulate that I'd seen it before you posted here and that I intended to get back to it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments there, and decided to take it to drama board. AniMate 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, AFD...like RFA only an article gets torn to shreds instead of a person. N419BH 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments there, and decided to take it to drama board. AniMate 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's all of a piece; we call it the toxic-wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like Jimbo's trying to change that. Read his talk page as of late? Oh, I wrote my first article from scratch (other "new" article so far was a redirect). Scope clause, have a read when you feel like dealing with not-drama. :) N419BH 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've read some it; enough to have a post in one section. See John's comments, though; it's the wrong venue and that skews the whole thing. I'll bookmark the article and have a read. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- aren't you daring ;) tip: drop the vandal-fighter verbiage as it doesn't sell well with many. It's been overplayed and is part of how we got some inappropriate admins. Best wises, Jack Merridew 17:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cannot center something
Would you mind centering this for me? I'm an idiot at these things. Thanks!--Chaser (away) - talk 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. That made it much more prominent.--Chaser (away) - talk 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- glad to help, Jack Merridew 07:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate your "nits" at Misplaced Pages:Improve the junk. :) Schmidt, 21:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- is mah job ;) Jack Merridew 07:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
odd find
No idea now how (or why) I got there, but this discussion looked strangely familiar; 4 years ago! Plus ça change ... pablo 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- so, what is the rotational period of teh wiki? ;) Jack Merridew 07:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Default font size used by Infobox
See here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- *That's* interesting; methinks the whole wiki needs the font-size bumped up; will read through it an opine; thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
content fork
Was it that obvious that Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a content fork? Malke 2010 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- it was the hatnote what gave it away ;) Jack Merridew 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're speaking of the bit when you open the page to edit and you see all those embedded instructions? Malke 2010 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I know hatnote. I was thinking about WP:OWN when I wrote the above. That's a bit of a problem over there as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- both; the WP:HATNOTE... and the embedded text makes it crystal-clear. I can see how ownership issues would manifest themselves on such topics. The core issue, however, seems to be the seeking of an escape-hatch to WP:NPOV. Jack Merridew 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the real problem. I was thinking making it an Afd. We've already got the Mary (mother of Jesus) loaded up with Catholic views and we've also got Catholic views on Mary. Also btw, thanks for cleaning things up there. Appreciate that.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- consider an RfC ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 18
- 20
- 22
- 248
- 19
- 21
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28