User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 54

=May 2011=

Getting default styling for the "dfn" tag
Based on your comments in Bugzilla, I thought you might be interested in my proposal here for adding default styling for the tag, which can be used both in the body of the article and to wrap the initial bolded terms at the beginning of each article. CO GDEN  02:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as it doesn't conflict with WP:MOSGLOSS. I'll take this up at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Davis/GA1
Steve Davis is going through a GA review, and is on hold for 14 days to allow time to deal with the issues listed on the review page.  SilkTork  *Tea time 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Heading issue in 'Documentation' template
When you have a minute, please see Template talk:Documentation. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird! I was actually just thinking about this today, when working on the /doc pages of and . — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Celtic Nations
There is a dispute on the article Celtic Nations in relation to the Irish flag (what's new....], the opposition to its inclusion (just the Irish flag, no problem with the rest as usual), tried to make consensus, no luck whatsoever, these people appear to be POV pushing, as you are a mod, can you please put this issue to rest, one way or another?Sheodred (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to be moderatorial about such issues, but I'm not an admin. I will stop by, though, as I have some experience with that debate (generally, not on this page in particular.). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cuegloss
Hey Stanton. Something's going on with definitions linked through cuegloss. I see them as not very noticeably underlined with a dotted line, rather than linked in blue like a regular wikilink. Is it just me or is this some wider change?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something intentional being tried out with  markup.  Most of the time (when cuegloss is used in an article outside of the glossary article itself), it should also be a blue link. If you are never seeing it blue-link, that's evidence of a problem... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Below is a screenshot of what I'm seeing (an excerpt from Cue sports) containing 9 cuegloss links: [[File:Problem with linking.png]]--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that bad, but not what was intended. It should look that way inside the glossary itself, since the links are not to another page.  Anyway, the idea is to reduce the "sea of blue" effect a bit by having terms that need definition for some readers and marked up with , either just have a definition in a mouseover tool-tip, and look like what you screencapped, a style that's becoming kind of a de facto standard around the Web, or be a link to a glossary entry if one exists (with a tool-tip in this case giving the glossary and entry name).  What should happen in those latter cases is that it should show up as a blue link, since it is a link out of the article, but also have the subtle underlining and tool-tip since it is also a definitional item and not an indication of a link to a full-scale article on the term. But the blue's not showing up now. I think this means someone's messed with the cuegloss code or the code of the underlying meta-template or something since last I looked at it.  The appearance we're seeing at articles like cue sports is what we should see at glossary of cue sports terms itself, since the cuegloss links are internal to the article, but this "minimalist" effect shouldn't happen in other articles.  I think someone's made or making a template that works similarly for Wiktionary links; it would underline them like this to indicate a purely definitional link, but also use the light blue external link color like it would normally for an offsite link like that. Anyway, I'll look into the geeky details and see why the CSS isn't working right. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helps at all, I'm seeing this in Firefox and Safari on two different computers, both macs. Are you seeing this as well?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Someone changed something. Whilethe underline should be there to indicate it's just a definitional link, the blue should be there too, outside of the glossary itself. At least that was the theory last time I looked.  Probably not a huge deal either way - it all still functions.  Will look into it shortly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to be fixed now. Whether that's the result of your action or not, thanks for looking into it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)