MediaWiki talk:Edittools/Archive 5

Wiki markup line changes
Proposed changes to the "Wiki markup" line, per top 3 page threads: sound good? --Quiddity 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Ingoolemo talk 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove these links as redundant: []  #REDIRECT . Done.
 * Add this link to the end of the line: (templates) Done.
 * Yes, it does. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. —Ruud 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I think of it... clicking on "templates" has the nasty surprise of sending you to another page. Could be quite an unexpected effect for some people? —Ruud 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So do the "edit summary", "what's this?", "cancel", and "editing help" links just above, but I think you may be right. Maybe my mistaken  to User:Quiddity/monobook.css, which will then make the wikimarkup line invisible.


 * (I've made a new section for this.) Thanks for the suggestion, but i don't actually need the buttons, as I hand-type everything. The thread above is just me following up previous discussions, and proposing a change that will hopefully help all users. (by removing redundancy, adding a useful template link, and stopping the linewrap at 1024width). Thanks anyway though. -Quiddity 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature button
The 2 dashes were just removed from the signature button, with the edit summary:
 * "Rm dashes from " --~ ". Sign with four tildes only - consistency with WP:SIG. Dashes are redundant anyways... if you want dashes, put it in your preferences"

However the graphical edit buttons signature-button, above the edit window, uses the 2dash prefix. If I were to put the 2 dashes in my sig-preferences, using the graphical button would then give me 4 dashes. These need to be consistent. (Personally, i prefer having the 2 dashes included on the signature buttons by default. It makes it easier to visually seperate comments that end with a link, from their ajoining signature.Quiddity· (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On a personal note, I too prefer having the 2 dashes included on the signature buttons by default. I wonder why it was removed. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Siva, the reason I removed it was in the edit summary. I wasn't aware of the functionality of the button you pointed out though, Quiddity (I turned off that bar in my preferences). I wonder if we should change the functionality of the graphical button then too. Or maybe we can just have both ~ and --~ present in the box. I think just having the four tildes makes more sense because it is a personal preference whether or not to have the dashes. If someone does not want the dashes, he has to delete them when using the button; if the dashes aren't there, then someone who wants them would have to type them. Would having both be a good compromise? ~MDD4696 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a question, does anyone actually click either button? I mean, for me, it's much easier to just type ~ than have to move the mouse. —  Mets 501  (talk)  21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I go back and forth between typing either 1 or 2 dashes and the tildes, and using (both of) the buttons, at different times. I'm erratic that way ;)
 * On the other hand, I wouldnt miss any of the graphical button bar, if we just added the button to this edittools box. --Quiddity· (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I guess I'd weakly support removing the dashes from the graphical sig button, and let people set the dash/es in their own prefs. However, I do also find the dash/es a useful visual seperator, as i mentioned before. Plus, people will be even more tempted to use colourful/garish sigs, if we removed the dashes from being a default. Quiddity· (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use my favourite solution: add id tags? That way, users who don't we can offer both  and , and more advanced users can choose the former option if they want. (The latter would be set to display by default, the former to be suppressed by default.)

I also added a  insert link. Ingoolemo talk 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. And good job summarizing below; and on the successful nowiki addition ;) --Quiddity· (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Spaces
Could someone help? I think it would be a good idea to add into this, but I was clicking show preview and, because of the space, it thinks k ana |T 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * should work. It worked for me in my sandbox. —  Mets 501  (talk)  17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Thanks anyway! Iola k ana |T  21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added it now. — Mets 501 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour guide
I was thinking that whenever you need to put voloured span tags, unless you're God, you ned to look at a colour chart. Why not include a HTML colour chart to help out the meek mortal users? S o  a  P  15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be god to remember that for green you type  and for blue you type , etc. — Mets 501  (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that, I was talking about when you want to exactly match a color for whatever reason. It's a pain in the arse to find the exact colour. I was thinking something along the lines of...I'll show you my way here. S  o  a  P  15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking of another idea:I have a lot of trouble with edit summaries; they take way too long. What if there was a button to insert key phrases such as "revert", "remove", "cleanup", and "creation"? That would help. S o  a  P  15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The edittools text cannot be entered into the summary field. — Mets 501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, meh, I forgot. S  o  a  P  15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, on a completely non-serious note, what should we do for April Fools' Day? I think that we should replace all the edit tools with "Happy april fool's day" but that's relatively stupid. Maybe put the names of administrators? S o  a  P  15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We should not cross in to the MediaWiki namespace on April Fools' Day, that is going to far, and admins have been blocked for doing that in the past. — Mets 501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean something really that far, but maybe putting in one tool that said "Happy april fools' day"? I really don't think that for one day out of 365, one crappy little link would destroy the integrity of the wiki. S  o  a  P  15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly oppose any use of crappy little links even on April Fools Day. No serious researcher or academic would play such a joke. For Wikipedia to keep its integrity and scholarly ideals intact, these jokes should be strongly discouraged. Besides, there is Humor for this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright symbols
©, and ® need to be inside the box; that would be of great service to image uploaders and those who respect copyright, like me. All I keep typing out for those turn out thus: (c), (p) and (R).

(Hmm...I see isn't Unicode-compatible.) --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? They should not be used in articles, and they aren't needed to indicate that something is copyrighted, you just use one of the tags or you can write what the copyright is. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I add Edittools to my local wiki
Can I add Edittools to my local portal mediawiki? What I must do for this? 83.219.129.26 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You should ask this question at the Village pump. — Mets501 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I stupid :)). I must write /MediaWiki:Edittools

Markup change request
Please remove the semicolon from the id in this line (near the bottom): Thanks :) --Quiddity 06:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done — Mets501 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Markup change request(2)
Hi. Could someone please change: to

This will make insertion easier. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit protected edit request completed. —Doug Bell talk 10:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive box
I added an archive box above.

--Meno25 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Personalized tools
Would give each user the ability to add extra tools only they needed. Would be very useful for things like vandal fighting, giving users the ability to add common templates and similar. Noclip 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I don't think Special pages can be transcluded. — Mets501 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The watchlist can't, but recentchanges can.
 * This might then be a matter of some config. The real question is, do ParserFunctions and trancluding in general work at such an early stage of page generation? I highly doubt it. As far as I know, Mediawiki: pages don't handle MediaWiki syntax very well. D'oh! Миша 13 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some handle transclusions and all syntax perfectly, some can't handle it at all. It depends on the page. — Mets501 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Naira symbol
Could an administrator please add ₦, which is the symbol for the Nigerian naira, to this page? It would go in the line  , in between the Euro (€) and the pound (£). The new line would be like so:   Thanks. Picaroon 02:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --bainer (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on redundancy
I thought I'd throw this out, since it seems to be a recurring point of discussion here. My belief on the question of text-based editools (this page) versus the graphics-based toolbar (at the top of the edit window) is that it depends entirely on the users. Some, like myself, prefer to insert markup with the toolbar; others seem to prefer using edittools. We should be ready to accommodate both. So, anything that is in the toolbar should be included in edittools as well. Those who don't edittools-based markup insertion, like me, can suppress it with CSS (see instructions at the top of this page). Likewise, those who have no use for the toolbar can also suppress it, by adding  to their personal CSS. Hopefully now we can move beyond quibbling over redundancy. Ingoolemo talk 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should be ready to include both. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I need C-dot-below and c-dot-below in the Edittools box
Can somebody add C-dot-below and c-dot-below to the Edittools box. Many of the others, like Ḍ and ḍ are already there. dick@cs.vu.nl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.100.126.13 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Adding editprotected --ais523 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly do so if you can find an example of the character so I'll have something to add, and if no one objects within the next day or so. Karl Dickman talk 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be in Unicode; the best I can do is C̣, which is two characters (C, and combining-dot-below); combining marks aren't very portable, so I'm not sure if using the character is a good idea. (For lowercase c, just change C̣ to c̣). --ais523 13:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what platforms are you aware of that have trouble with combining marks provided an appropriate font is used (they are often rendered in a somewhat ugly fassion but they usually work)? Plugwash 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit box on IE can't handle them. --ais523 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Reflist
Anyone object to me replacing the references-small div with Reflist, as suggested at Templates_for_deletion? Superm401 - Talk 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who particpated in the tfd, and has probably used the div version by accident two or three times since then, I'd say go ahead. The lines  and   would be replaced with  , right? Could you fit in my  request while you're at it?  Already done. Picaroon 02:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to get rid of the regular tag too. Do people think I should? Superm401 - Talk 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I usually don't use it unless there are two refs or less (reasonably rare), but some people still use it well into the double digits of refs, so I guess leave it until consensus forms to move to reflist only (which'll probably never happen...) So yeah, probably just the first of those two lines I mentioned. Picaroon 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just swapped in Reflist, but left alone. Superm401 - Talk 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, I didn't know that template existed :) --Quiddity 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed notice about removing large amounts of text
Since a person may have a justifiable reason for removing large amounts of text, but their edit is reverted because it looks like vandalism, I propose this notice be stuck onto this template: "If you are removing large amounts of text from the edit page, be sure to explain in the edit summary box above or your edit may be confused for vandalism." Sounds good? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really like that. We shouldn't be reverting edits simply because they removed a lot of text.  That statement is not a very good assumption of good faith. —Doug Bell talk 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What Doug said. Plus this page is already getting too big and overwhelming. --Quiddity 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've seen people get reverted over removing large amounts of text, but they were doing so in good faith. It's hard to determine whether someone is a (quasi-)page-blanker or a legitimate contributor when there's no indication. This is an example of such an occurance. And with all the break-neck speed of today's antivandalism, there's no time! &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have two points in response. First, anti-vandalism needs to slow down enough to evaluate the change before tagging it as vandalism, whether or not there is a comment.  Second, any mistakes in reverting a deletion are easily resolved.  I don't think the fact that there are occassional incidents warrants the biting message.  It comes across as warning the the user that they need to defend deleting text, when in fact, many articles are greatly improved by removing content.  Is this really a big problem? —Doug Bell talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

overhaul/optimisation
Per User:Cyde/Saving bandwidth and my solution to the problem of downloading tons of JavaScript on every load of an edit page, I went bold and implemented it (and noone seemed to care a lot when that was proposed). New characters and tags should now be added fo Mediawiki:Edittools/chars (which is the heavy page that gets downloaded on-demand now). Миша 13 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Please discuss this further at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. —Ruud 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Add "Contents" to sidebar
Please see Village pump (proposals) for a current discussion about adding the link Contents to the sidebar. --Quiddity 07:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong talk page? —Ruud 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doh! --Quiddity 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment indicator
Would it be possible to add to the "Wiki markup:" section. I think that it would be quite for people who can't remember it and would save keystrokes for those who do. --After Midnight 0001 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. --After Midnight 0001 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For your own mediawiki
I have a wiki that is running Mediawiki, and I'd like to know how to get edittools on it. I've heard from people it is a mod, but could somebody provide a link? Thanks. 71.191.100.99 13:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this Special:Allmessages? --Steinninn 05:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You need the extension called CharInsert to do it. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pease add <>
Could someone add < > to the edittolls. These signs are not featured on many non english keybords and it's very hard to write them fro such cheats as br. Thanks --Steinninn 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You could just use a simple script to add this personally for you — Alex Smotrov 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know the first thing about JavaScript. Besides, wouldn't that just help me and no one els? I'm not an admin so I can't add it myself. --Steinninn 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is: most people already have &lt; and > easily accessible on their keyboards, we should make it convenient for most people, not for a few.
 * The script should go to your monobook.js. It adds &lt; and > to the end of specialchars block.

if (wgAction == 'edit' || wgAction == 'submit') addOnloadHook(function {  var block = document.getElementById ('editpage-specialchars');  if (block) block.innerHTML +=     '","");return false\' href=#>&lt;&gt;'; })
 * Thanks a lot. I've just added it. Is there a list anywhere of suggested js that you can put on 'your monobook' ? --Steinninn 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tools→WikiProject User scripts. --Quiddity 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

charinsert automatically at the bottom
Is there any way of telling a to go to the bottom of the page. As it is now, it automatically goes to the top of the page. That is, if you haven't selected any other place. I wanted to add a 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Try bugzilla. — M ETS 501 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"without permission"
"Do not copy text from other websites without permission" and similar terms are dangerously misleading.

Giving Wikipedia "permission" to reproduce your content isn't enough. It needs to be released under the GFDL. — Omegatron 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and changed it. Better wording might be warranted. — Omegatron 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem is the public domain works have no "license" at all, so they need not be under a "GFDL-compatible license". —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. This is a bit tricky though.  When we use public domain works or fair use quotations to create a derivative encyclopedia article, is the entire article released under the GFDL or just the original content?  — Omegatron 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be significant creative or original work in order for the derivative to be under new copyright. Entries that are copied from, for example, public domain encyclopedias, are welcome on Wikipedia and would not be under new copyright. Regardless, even if someone were to make significant creative changes to the entry such that the result were to be under new copyright, the author would, if he followed this message diligently, look around to find the "GFDL license" on the public domain encyclopedia and find that there is no such license with it. In fact, he might find the copyright notice behind the title page that says "Copyright 1913" and think that he cannot add it to Wikipedia, when instead all works published prior to 1923 are in the public domain. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Curly quotes problematic?
If anyone watching this page knows the answer for sure, please comment on the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks. (comment by Rick Block, copied from Wikipedia talk:Accessibility) --Quiddity 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * editprotected
 * Please remove the 4 curly quote marks ( ‘ “ ’ ” ) from the Symbols line, per discussion and consensus at that thread. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Please check. - Nabla 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Quiddity 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)