User talk:Sperling

Float right
Why add an unneccessary template when the tables float fine with their own style setting? I can't see why we need to complicate these templates, with more nested templates (an extra load on the server) when they work fine already. ed g2s &bull;  talk  21:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're working that fine. Many are missing, and virtually all (including the ones that use the   class from Common.css) try to generate the spacing around the float using  , which doesn't have the desired visual effect where borders and backgrounds of other elements are involved, because the float doesn't "push aside" the block boxes it intersects, but only the line boxes inside them (visible for example when the underline below a section heading intersects a float). Padding + white background and white border are the only ways to solve this. The markup/CSS used by Image uses borders. I think the padding approach is preferrable because it makes the whole background of the float opaque, in case the float content doesn't do that already. However, both versions need an additional HTML element to apply the white border or padding on (the content element of the float cannot be used for this, because it often needs to have a visible border inside the padding), so a pure CSS solution isn't possible.


 * Technicalities aside, my main point is that there should be a simple, consistent way to get float boxes, that doesn't require the editor to be a CSS expert. The float-right-* templates do just that. If server load is really that much of an issue, something like  could be used in templates to avoid the nested template calls (incidentally, Template:Infobox VG uses 5 - 10 nested calls already, so I'm not convinced another two would make that much of a difference).


 * There's really too much unnecessary manual CSS styling going on anyway, most of it related to tables and floats. If there were a couple of predefined styles to choose from that were easy to use and produced good looking tables (ok, there is, but I haven't seen it used in any article source I've edited or looked at) and floats, most of that could be avoided. I'd probably have written some CSS for this by now, but all style sheets are protected (admittedly a necessity) and even simple suggestions to fix bugs in the existing styles are being ignored on the talk pages. I think there's lots to be done on the CSS/markup side of Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem that work on these things from non-admins is exactly encouraged. --K. Sperling 11:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edit of Template:float-right-begin actually breaks it. Forcing an opaque (white) background is intentional. For example, look at Occupied Japan now, the section rule runs through the box. Of course it would be nice if CSS permitted setting the background color to whatever color is defined for the main document, but it doesn't. --K. Sperling 11:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your solution of forcing a white background is unacceptable. Many people use skins which don't have a white background. Besides, infoboxes shouldn't be white anyway (or forced to any colour, as the background colour can change). The TOC and image boxes have a grey background in the monobook skin which pretty much eliminates the problem of section headers going through infoboxes (see Texas). I agree that there is too much manual CSS being used, but this should be solved using classes, not hacks like this.


 * Defining templates to avoid repetitive markup is exactly what templates are for, and hardly a hack. Besides, the infobox itself isn't forced to any color, only the  and , which skins would then have to modify appropriately. Apparently something like that was in monobook/main.css at some point, but it's commented out. The only classes currently available for this that actually work are the ones used for images,   +  . However, using those for non-image floats would be a hack. --K. Sperling 16:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of operating systems / SecuniBot
I'd like to alter Comparison_of_operating_systems to look something like User:Reisio/Sandbox.


 * Do you approve?
 * Will it present any problems for SecuniBot?
 * Any alterations that would make it easier?

&brvbar; Reisio 21:33, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

New Zealand portal
A photo you contributed to Wikipedia, Image:ArthursPass.jpg, is currently the selected picture on the New Zealand portal. You're welcome to nominate other pictures of New Zealand at Portal_talk:New_Zealand, or to view the archive of selected pictures at the picture archive.-gadfium 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007
Hi Sperling, long time since you edited here. I hope you've come back to stay.

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - gadfium 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Nissan Terrano
Draft:Nissan Terrano, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nissan Terrano and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Nissan Terrano during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)