User talk:David Kernow

Archives
01  Oct – Dec 2005 2006 02  Jan 2006 03  Feb 2006 04  Mar 2006 05  Apr 2006 06  May 2006 07  Jun 2006 08  Jul 2006 09  Aug 2006 11  Sep 2006 12  Oct 2006 13  Nov 2006* 14  Dec 2006 2007 15  Jan 2007 16  Feb 2007 17  Mar 2007 18  Apr 2007 19  May 2007 20 June 2007- April 2008 10  Ëzhiki on Russian admin divisions * incl table wikicode edit

Template cat scheme deliniation and ambiguity

hey! re: Function templates and template categorization in general, plus such edit sequences... (not to mention time wasted trying to figure things out!) <g>

Seems to me there is need for much additional cat work on templates. Some skelaton needs be defined as a primary scheme, that other things link into. I'm baffled by a name choice like the above 'function templates' when any math connotation would lead one to believe such are math based.

Instead, the contents are mostly Typing-aid templates, meaning we've an categorical redundancy, or an opportunity to make a finer disctinction. I can buy into a 'string function templates' and 'math function templates' category, but 'function templates without type delineation leads to a lot of vauge possible interpretations.

I've a problem with the latter as the overhaul was I thought supposed to make things clearer, not muddy the waters further. Perahps some need designated as a list (tracking) category collecting things, but you and Mike Peel are certainly not fans of that category use concept! Moreover, as in maps, I believe we need a clear demarcation as to whether a template category is structurally a schema node (holding other categories ala our buddy

or a clasified repository, holding templates categorized by various criteria and so allowing different schema, like your namespace group. I'd strongly suggest adding a parameter to Mike's {{Template category}} to add a line clarifying which are which.

My personal preference would be to allow the nodal categories to also act as a list, allowing a lot of small loops between the contents within it's subcats, and a comprehensive collected list/index by name of what is in the lower cats. The alternative of having each major node paired with a list/tracking category 'List of all whatever by node name templates' setting up a parrallel tree for easy browsing would be fine too. Best of both world views about cats that way!

As it is, your Wikipedia metatemplates and Template namespace templates seem to have the same purpose. Also, to my way of thinking Miscellaneous templates would and should hold general purpose templates which really cross most page namespace boundaries in practice, but you guys have all but depopulated that category putting it at odds dramatically with contents on the other sisters! (Like I needed another headache!) <g>

Bottom line, is there any guideline so one can see the bigger picture as to how you and Mike intend the category shakeup to function? Note there is a current problem as old unrecatted holdovers clutter any clear picture if they are supposed to be moved.

Lastly, suggest you and Mike start adding {{wpd-catlist-up}} and some {{catlst}} (Ammendment: The better [and new] tool now is {{wpd-catlist}} FrankB 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)) down annotations to clarify your intentions... and perhaps shed light on where the partially in place revised system has a gap, overlap, or redundancy.

FYI-- The kids are both away this weekend, so I'll likely be scarce! Cheers! // FrankB 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Back David!

Got your last, and don't know where it leaves us strategically, but submit this idea above of tagging the up-tree could help at least clarify some of the key nodes in the issue.

I can see from the date disparity we're just storming along swiftly here! <BSEG>!!! [Well, I guess progress IS COMENSURATE with the PAY, at that!] <2X LOL>

Your point that thinking of how the (what I call) the "lay editor" perceives and uses and might think from the aspect of categories is the crux--AND a point where I wish I had a crystal ball as well. More so from the standpoint of what is a good level of template documentation, than cats, but the two are certainly related strongly.

The depreciation because of vaugeness of names like Miscellaneous templates, Typing-aid templates, and even Function templates is of course ironic since in general, a vauge name can be seen as a vehicle for hoping to get a clue as to where the kind of templates one is interested in locating may be found... because finding a 'name in such a list as seems promising' along the lines of the kind one is seeking... leads to successive links wherein any one link traversed may give the one seeking a peek at templates 'other' categorizations within or other clues and suggestions as to where to go next, and THAT look or the one after, or the one after that, may thus lead to the "POT O' GOLD" category' -- e.g Table formatting templates, or MSIE Font Fix templates, or whatever.

God knows, at least half the time I go to find a category I'm looking for, it takes me at least three or four link navigations starting with something "I KNOW" is and should somehow be related... which is perhaps why I like the big list model--bad memory! <g>

Aesops sytle 'moral' is obvious-- don't focus only on the first degree relationships either, nor with overwhelming narrow exactness when categorizing such. (These aren't articles, but tools--so can fit into the typical toolboxes of a lot of different trades, if you'll permit me a poorish metaphor.) Very much the same deal with Maps, I fear--differing schema from list (by year, century, cartographer), by type (relief, political, roadmap, etc.) and so forth. And what that means, is tools for different needs by many possible uses.

That in turn suggests perhaps you and Mike should have just been adding your categorization scheme in many or most cases to what was already in place, not replacing it much of the time. Shrug, water over the Dam. I did like the 'Namespace by use aspect', but again, its to me a parallel schema, not necessarily the "Holy writ". (Though making it the fundamental schema makes some sense--I'm not sure it'd be the best path for that though--which is why I suggest the start below from the current status quo ante.) // FrankB 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Going Forward

What to do Going Forward? I submit starting by documenting the structure in place now, and document in one page the various category "Blurb"s in an alphabetically arranged list of template categories surveying the purpose of the extant categories would be a good analysis tool to see what is next, plus have long term value as a start on documenting things. Something along the lines of Wikipedia:templates and it's sub-pages, but focused on defining the list of categories and their putative purpose would be a way to start sharing the grief and the effort and knowledge. Whatever is done, it should be comprehensible to lay editors and template savvy alike.

• Just brainstorming really, but: Shortcut WP:TCS, for Wikipedia:Template Categorization Schemes is available.
  

• Once you have a comprehenisive list documenting what's 'defined' (what's doubly so, missing, etc. will pop out, I would think. You may find the cut and paste friendly nature of {{Template list}} to be a valuable aid there to define the task--that way you can build a list of contents of categories from the categories in a single traversal of the tree only editing a single preview page, or notepad (text editor) starter page. Similarly, {{catlist}} / {{catlst}} or such can be an big assist. A little reordering and alphabetization (using one of those) once you have the cat tree all visisted and listed, and you can have a comprehensive alphabetical list of all template categories extant. Steal logic (code) from Template:Catlst(edit talk links history) if you need higher numbers in {{Template list}} (That part is not essential, and could be left for latter analysis), and this change shows a form reverted because it generated said list in a single column, not the desired intent at all--but you may find that form of display to be quite useful. Putting that deleted 'div style=' around the whole template for any of these should do the same, giving a list in a single column to further cut and paste and global edit into sections and links using {{lts}} or such.
  

• Another thought... a second possible benefit on that manual techique... a second page could be used to document by cat page, the parent relationships, since they're being compended in the aggregate above -- the second page lists each cat and it's parents relationally, so would show brain farts and other places that need adjustments. That would be a alphabetical list of category lists using {{wpd-catlist}} (or a customized form with boilerplate changes--I'D JUST LIST the category page in discussion as the first link, or as part of the LABEL= field with a customized front end) as I'm visualizing this... each just listing the pertinent parents of the given page being indexed.
  

this suggestion by you (i.e. where you list some things alphabetically) strikes me as a KEEPER, too! (My Yikes! comment not actually addressing that MERIT!) However the date of that posting and Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area (just mentioned in your last twice no less-- guess you didn't want me to miss that name! <g>), which seems it's natural parent are a bit out of whack... (perhaps a "Revise and Extend" on some of these discussions signifying what was decided and came about is in order occasionally? I do so now and then on my talks and even on general talks, when it seems like it will aid clarity and fixup context for anyone reading later. [myself included! <G>]).

• Me, I think I'd start by combining all this discussion on a Wikipedia talk as listed between whomever, so people can see all pertinent discussions and go from there.
  

• Secondly, it would be a place to discuss all this stuff and related issues on a central talk so other brainpower can be engaged. Not to mention a place to recruit such manpower. Alas one cannot have lessened work without loosing partial control.
  

I'm perhaps missing how you mean the term 'Precedence' in asking about/discussing the merits of Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area-- but I think it should certainly be a immediate daughter of Wikipedia: templates, if that's what you are asking—as should any scheme for template categorisation.

• All the category schemes need to end in one common point after all, and if something like those tagged with Tracking Category reach Wikipedia administration by their path through Tracking categories, this would be an equivalent sort of administrative mechanism, but perhaps ending the parallel path in THAT latter category (Wikipedia administration) and using {{catlist}} to document sidelinks is a better place and more faithful to not putting loops in categorization? I believe it would be to the one path only category purists--meaning all such "schemes" should do the same... but ending with Wikipedia templates as a common root, can be argued for as well. Flip a coin and pick one! <g>
  

• re: I agree that "Function" templates is probably not an optimal name (especially for the mathematicians out there) but neither, I feel, is "Typing-aid" templates; I recognize the intention, but, for me, it brings to mind Mavis Beacon and the like! So, if not "Function" templates vs. Formatting templates, or "Typing-aid" templates" vs. Formatting templates, any other ideas...?
  

I think the latter connotes the saving of 'editor keystroke savers' better, but perhaps that's the sortof answer needed in some phrase permutation? At least that's what I mean when I say typing saver, or Typing-aid templates, and I know I coined the latter name. This genre is one I'd certainly like seen well organized and exposed to the lay editor much better, and probably is a great place to start a comprehensive documentation page for lay users exposition and reference.

• re: (Assuming you mean "Category:Wikipedia templates" rather than "Category:Templates", etc)
  I'm not sure how/when adding "Wikipedia" before some of the (near-)top-level template category names arose, but I'm guessing it stems from a desire to distinguish between templates as in (say) blueprints used by designers/manufacturers/etc at large and templates as designed/used in Wikipedia. Whether or not that's a distinction worth making, however, I'm not sure; for now, I suspect it probably isn't, but am going along with it. So, something else to consider – but not, I'd say, before the above.
  

I suspect there is some WP:NAME rationale as well, but believe 'templates' satisfies the distiction plenty between a generic (article) category and a template page, and if it doesn't, {{Template category}} tagging certainly dissolves any possible confusion!

I entertained last night, so my brain to too fried to address more now... but then this is over long already! <g> I'm likely to be increasingly scarce for the early summer and am already timesharing my template and category work with "therapuetic" article editing. Incremental refinements can just 'Damn Well Wait' until they pay be better for our time! <G> Have a good day. // FrankB 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Deprecated templates

I've have put forward a proposal to rename (and repurpose) Category:Deprecated templates to a temporary holding category; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 7#Category:Deprecated templates for the full details. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification; having seen the generally unfavourable response, I thought I'd mention here that I've always taken the "Deprecated templates" category to imply your rationale (i.e. to be replaced/deleted) regardless of name. It's a useful reminder, though, to return to Category:Wikipedia templates' imwediate subcategories... Hope all well, David (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the CfD, I'm very tempted to go through the category and remove / redirect templates that aren't in use where possible, possibly even creating a subcategory something like Category:Templates replaced by mediawiki functions. As it stands, the category just looks like clutter to me.

Yes, this task is something that can be done regardless of the CfD – but I haven't dared look yet at what its magnitude might be...

Also, I noticed FrankB's comment above this about the lack of a clear picture with the template categorization. It would probably be a good idea to put a page together somewhere that gives a rough outline of the aims of categorizing templates, as well as an outline of the category system. I would also like to go through Category:Wikipedia templates by subject, and try to put together a decent set of sub-categories for each of its' sections (again, as a list on some page somewhere). With luck, Category:Uncategorized templates should be filled up fairly shortly (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UncatTemplateBot), and it would be good to have a decent category system set up before people (hopefully) start looking to categorize those templates. What do you think? Mike Peel 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was and have been pondering this key issue while populating Category:Wikipedia templates by style, toying with the idea of Category:Wikipedia templates by task and trying to clarify Category:Wikipedia templates' contents further. I suppose it hinges on whether there's consensus over how folk are most likely to use Category:Wikipedia templates; whether to find which templates are used in a particular namespace or for a particular kind of task, or perhaps to browse different styles of templates, or to find templates relating to a subject area, etc, etc – in other words, which of the immediate "Wikipedia templates by X" subcategories (and perhaps a couple of the other current immediate subcategories) might be(come) the most used/useful. Whichever that might be – my first thought is "Wikipedia templates by subject area" – my current thinking is that its contents should populate the top level Category:Wikipedia templates while the other "by X" categories remain subcategories indexed under [space]. For example:

Category:Wikipedia templates

[space]

Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates

Category:Wikipedia templates by namespace

Category:Wikipedia templates by style

Category:Wikipedia templates by task...?

Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion (see this CfD)

(..etc...?)

A

Category:Applied science and technology-related templates

Category:Arts and culture-related templates

G

Category:Geography and place-related templates

H

Category:Health and fitness-related templates

Category:History and events-related templates

M

Category:Mathematics and abstraction-related templates

N

Category:Natural science and nature-related templates

P

Category:People and person-related templates

Category:Philosophy and thinking-related templates

R

Category:Religion and belief-related templates

S

Category:Social science and society-related templates

Yours, David (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Just when I thought things were stable enough on general tools, to actually put some of the category tree you two came up with in place on other sisters, you're still making changes?!! Ouch! (potentially!) How about joining the effort to update what you recat on the other sisters to match, and get the cat tree(s) in place elsewhere as well. See Template:Mta for use example of programing {{interwikicat-grp}} for differences, but is much better to put the same default skelaton scheme in place on all. I'm trying to set up template cats pages so one can just copy and paste to any sister. Sometimes, that means I've been adding {{SITENAME}} XYZ templates's as redirected categories in a fair number of places, so the locals aren't enraged, but the fits are good, save for the way you two highjacked Miscellaneous templates. Keypoint: What practical use is the word "Wikipedia" on a SITE named Wikipedia... and the category naming is handled find by the suffixed classifications "category", "template", etc., so why bother?
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Lastly, like maps, there is no reason there can't be more than one scheme. You seem to want to monotrack things, and not everyone thinks the same way relationally. The world would be a much more boring place if we did! No surprises leading to belly laughs for one thing! <g> I'd l// FrankB 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Spain Close UP 2

Hi david... I had replaced the old Template:Spain Close UP 2 by Template:Spain-related topics. Can you review for me? Thanks — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to reassure you that I haven't overlooked the above and aim to visit the template soon!  Yours, David (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Your original inclusion of "it" in your message was correct!  I've also made a couple of other amendments shown in square brackets above. Don't worry, though; your English is understandable– infinitely more so than my Portuguese! ("nenhum"?)

hehehe :) I'am many years without studying english. I started my editions in wikipedia to pratice more...

Thanks for your comments! Always learning more ;)

(hehehe :) I haven't studied English for many years. I started editing Wikipedia to practice more...)

Certainly an interesting place to learn a mixture of English styles (European, American, Commonwealth, Antipodean...)!

Have finally passed by {{Spain-related topics}} and made only a few minor formatting changes (the &nbsp;s are all just for linewrapping). I also added it to the Category:Country and territory-related topics templates containing similar templates. Thanks for your work!  David (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think is better I change my knowledge in english to intermediate (or to basic?) in my page :-P

One question: What's the difference between &nbsp; and a simple space? Thanks by your attention with my grammar :) — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think [it] is better [if] I change my knowledge [of] English to ["]intermediate["] (or to ["]basic["]?) [on] my page :-P"

I don't know how the "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" levels are described, but I'd certainly say you seem to know more than a "basic" amount of English, so perhaps "intermediate" is most appropriate...?

(I guess you already know about sites such as http://babelfish.altavista.com/ where you can paste any complicated English that I or other native speakers send and receive a rough translation of it...?)

Re &nbsp; vs. space, "nbsp" is (I believe) an abbreviation for "non-breaking space"– follow the link if you need any more explanation!  (Perhaps a Portuguese version "&nqes;"– for "não quebra (o) espaço"(!)– could be implemented...!)

Yours, David (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: "Thanks [for] your attention [to] my grammar :)". "One question..." is perfect!

Your recent changes to flag templates

Hi David, a few weeks ago I spent a lot of time cleaning up the "shortcut" flag templates, now based on the new and improved {{flag}}. I updated the documentation at Wikipedia:Inline templates linking countries to reflect the current status of those templates, deleting the unused or low-use shortcuts, and creating redirects where there were multiple templates for certain countries. The end result was that the main set of templates were based on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes, with redirects for sport-related country codes (Olympics, FIFA, and Commonweath Games) where they differed from the ISO codes. I replaced and deleted most of the non-standard templates, which used "invented" country codes. There are still a few exceptions to these rules, especially in situations where we need a couple of alternate representations for certain nations (e.g. {{KOR}} and {{PRK}} for South Korea and North Korea vs. {{ROK}} and {{DPRK}} for Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

Now I see that you have been busy adding more redirects and changing some of the existing redirects. What is your motivation here? Do we really need these additional shortcuts? I think it is a very bad idea to create too many of these templates with pseudo-country codes that don't really exist. The generic {{flag}} template is perfectly sufficient for most uses, so I would resist the need to keep adding more shortcuts. For example, if an editor can't remember what the country code for Malaysia is (MAL? MYS? MAS? MLY?), they should just use {{flag|Malaysia}}. So simple, and also results in self-documenting wikicode. I have seen several pages that used wiki comments to help explain things (e.g. {{DZA}} <!-- Algeria -->, which is much better coded as {{flag|Algeria}}), so it seems to me that we should be softly deprecating those shortcut templates instead of extending them beyond the set of known country codes. I think a lot of the three-letter shortcut templates were coded long before we got {{flag}} working so elegantly, so there is probably some momentum that needs to be overcome for it to be more popular with editors.

Thanks for your consideration of these ideas, Andrwsc 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry to've appeared to be undoing your work – please be assured that this was not my intention, with my apologies for not making myself more aware of the context.

I was motivated to create the redirection templates as I'd begun trying to use the shorter three-letter templates for flag+country links but couldn't remember or correctly guess a fair number of them. At the same time, I began this to place here and (hopefully) here as a kind of two-pane reference sheet (two pages' worth of listings at the former). (The template is still very much work-in-progress; for example, it's probably even misnamed.)  I'm grateful, though, for your message, as it's allowing me to step back for a moment and think that I agree with you, viz. that multiple redirects encourages unofficial three-letter codes to be thought of as official.

However, rather than (re-)eliminating them as redirects – it may only be a matter of time before other folk unwittingly recreate them again – perhaps they could be recoded to leave a message such as "Please use XXX, the official ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code, or, if in a sporting context, YYY or ZZZ [or...], the IOC [or] FIFA [or...] codes."...?  Maybe, though, this too is unwise...?

Meanwhile, I'm also thinking:

(a) To me, "{{flag|X}}" suggests a template that produces only (an icon-sized) flag of X (i.e. per {{flagicon}}), not the flag followed by a link to X. Suggest, therefore, that {{flagicon}} is rendered unnecessary to leave {{flag}} and {{flagcountry}}, e.g.

{{flag|Algeria}}
{{flagcountry|Algeria}}	Algeria

In turn, it might be useful to make {{flagcountry}} defunct as the default output of a more general {{flag+link}} template; I was experimenting with the latter here some time ago. This would yield:

{{flag+link|Algeria}}     Algeria

(b) Renaming Wikipedia:Inline templates linking countries to (something like) Wikipedia:Inline flag-based templates in order to include "flag" in the title; similarly, renaming Category:Flag templates to Category:Inline flag-based templates, or Category:Flag-based templates (inline) (or...).

Thanks again for your message. For now, I'm going to continue working through this without creating any further redirection templates and preparing to remove the non-ISO/IOC/FIFA/etc variants (which should simplify the code considerably!)  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I replied on my talk page so we can keep the discussion going in one spot.  ;) Andrwsc 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for your thoughtful reply! I think you are spot-on in your recommendation of improved documentation, especially if it leads people to the more readable template calls to replace the often-confusing shortcuts. I had been contemplating some kind of "directory" of the complete set of parameters that could be used with {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, etc., similar to the idea behind the Wikipedia:Inline templates linking countries page and your improvements to it, but I haven't got around to that yet.

As for the template names, perhaps I should explain some history. The original templates as developed by User:SEWilco about two years ago had the following effect:

• {{flagcountry}} (as a shorthand way of writing {{country|flagcountry|...}}), rendered the flag icon followed by the linked country name. The input argument could be the country's name or a country code.
• {{flagicon}} (as a shorthand way of writing {{country|flagicon|...}}), rendered the flag icon only.
• {{flag}} (as a shorthand way of writing {{country|flag|...}}), rendered the flag icon followed by the wikilinked ISO country code. For example: DEU.

Now, earlier this year, User:Ligulem started work to clean up these templates, specifically to remove the extra layer of transclusion by the {{country}} template. We also extended the syntax to make historical flag variations possible. At the time, flagcountry and flagicon were used in many thousands of instances, but not many people used flag. I guess there was no compelling reason to have a template that took a full country name as input parameter but output the ISO country code only. Therefore, I took advantage of that to redefine flag to it's current usage:

• {{flag|Germany}} → Germany
• {{flag|GER}} → GER
• {{flag|DEU}} → DEU
• {{flag|Germany|German Empire}} → Germany

So, that's how we got to the current state. Since flagcountry and flagicon were transcluded many thousands of instances, we only made backward-compatible changes to those templates but left the names alone. The flag template name seemed "valuable" to me — as a short, easy-to-use name, it could be widely adopted because of its simplicity — and it wasn't used in many articles at the time. That's why I redefined it to do the most-common thing (i.e. render a flag icon followed by a wikilinked country name). I would certainly be reluctant to redefine flagicon to the flag name at this point, as flagicon is already transcluded in tens of thousands of instances with that name. For better or worse, that's the name people know and use. In fact, it seems that a large number of editors know about flagicon but don't even know about flagcountry. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this structure coded: {{flagicon|Algeria}} [[Algeria]].

Thanks again for the feedback, and we should keep in touch on how to improve the documentation for all these templates. Andrwsc 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your positive response, Andrwsc; as you may've already noticed, I've begun replacing the unofficial three-letter redirects such as {{CAR}} with little notes and am reorganizing User:David Kernow/Template:Country-code templates. Thanks also for the insight into {{flag}} / {{flagicon}} / {{flagcountry}}'s histories– although collectively they may be transcluded in thousands of articles, I'd hope one or more bots should be able to reorganize them; would you like me to enquire here...?  Yours, David (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi David, sorry for taking so long to reply to this! First, I had noticed the changes you had made to the deprecated redirects. To be honest, I'd go ahead and speedy delete them — especially the ones you recently created and are currently orphaned. I should mention one other wrinkle - there are a handful of country codes on that list that are used in Commonwealth Games articles, so it's not just an ISO/IOC/FIFA list. Specifically, the unique codes are:

• Anguilla — ANG
• Falkland Islands — FAI
• Guernsey — GUE
• Isle of Man — IOM
• Jersey — JER
• Kiribati — KRI
• Montserrat — MNT
• Norfolk Island — NFI
• Saint Helena — SHE
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — SVG
• Turks and Caicos Islands — TCI

Of those, ANG is problematic because it is the IOC/FIFA code for Angola, so it should take precedence. {{SVG}} has a Wikipedia purpose, so I wouldn't change that. And three of the others don't exist as shortcuts. I only mention this because you had changed {{GUE}}, {{JER}}, {{MNT}} and {{SHE}}.

Second, as for the template names, I'm not so sure we need to change them, even with a bot. I think the most fundamental operation people want is to have the flag icon precede the wikilinked nation name. Therefore, I think it should have the most convenient name. The simple "flag" name works for me because it is so easy to use. Even new editors can grasp the idea of replacing [[Country]] with {{flag|Country}} to add the flag. Perhaps you can consider "flag" as a verb instead of a noun if you think the name is inappropriate for the result! You use the flag template to "flag" a nation's article name.  ;) Andrwsc 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New template to collapseable lists

hey! Is possible create template to merge all these templates? Template:EU languages infobox, Template:EU members infobox and Template:EU currencies infobox ? — Guilherme ^(t/c) 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Is [it] possible [to] create [a] template [that merges] all these templates?)

I guess it is, but do they need to be separate in order to work with European Union's {{Infobox Geopolitical organisation}}...?  Regards, David (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am planning for something like this:

{{Collapseable list (or a better name)
|name       = {{subst:PAGENAME}}
|titlestyle = 
|title      = 
|liststyle  = 

|list1  = 
|list2  = 
|list3  = 
...
|listN  = 

What do you thing ? — Guilherme ^(t/c) 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Please, take a look at the discussion about the EU flag in template... It should be stopped now!)

I think I see what you mean now; it's not how these templates may be merged but whether to create a standardized {{Collapsible list}} template for them– yes?  If so, this might be another good idea (I see South Africa's infobox now includes a collapsed list) but I haven't tried thinking it through. No arguments against it occur to me now!

Re the EU flag issue, I think (hope!) a consensus has now prevailed...

Yours, David (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check it. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

EU flag in template

It would be very helpful if you argued for your recent edit of the Template:Infobox Country. all the best Lear 21 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean my trying to accommodate the flag on the lefthand side of the template, I did so only in case it were to remain. My own view is that it's unnecessary in that context. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this up your alley?

If you've got a moment for some light duty thinking, this major expansion (I got caught up in checking terms--what a derailment of my planned and in-progress edit!) needs a proofing (some of my 'history' may be off a bit and need tweaked--I don't know!) and has some redlinks you perhaps know the proper substitute links to clear up. Address buss has to be covered somewhere, doesn't it? Can't believe such a fundamental term was so badly neglected so long! If you're not up on the computer engineering end of things, drop a note back to me, and I'll hunt someone down to check me. Thanks and Cheers! // FrankB 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I began trying to copyedit the above here but realized that while I could give some feedback about the prose, I don't know enough about the subject in order to edit it myself (i.e. yes, I'm not that far up the alley!). If you think it might help, I could continue annotating the copy linked above, but thought I'd check first.

Meanwhile, thanks for your meaty "Going Forward" reply re templates; I hope to give it some attention soon. Yours, David (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm semi-grinning after looking at your edit. "On" is indeed correct, the physical address bus is nothing more than 2ⁿⁿ electrical wires, which may or may not have some amplifiers (called buffers which increase current power but introduce a delay in propagation, so are likely most unused in today's chip environment. I haven't gotten down to that level for two decades, but speed and distance are mutually contradictory design factors, so today we have big chips. Buffers were needed when we ganged up loads of little chips like eight RAM chips of 8k by one bit just so you could have a whooping 8 kbytes of memory!) In any event, thanks for the try, but I think I better find another hardware guy to check me. I'll see what else I can use in your suggestions, but I suspect the page needs merged with another in any case... two groups of editors using different terms and all that such implies. I could have saved my time and yours if I'd pursued categories first.

I may be leaving Wiki's altogether very soon. See my last three or four contribs on Template:Ute to see why I say that. Bottom line, I'm sick and tired of things being decided by a small group of people and such with no quorum required, nor widescale notifications, et. al. I bust my butt and get shit on when I could be doing something to make money. More the fool for that--all of us really. Take care, and thanks for the try. // FrankB 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is one of the drawbacks– or maybe "pragmatic realities"– of a project the size of Wikipedia; at any one time, I imagine 99% of issues each have only a handful of users involved. The more specialized the wiki, however, the more I guess such a handful may resemble a quorum, so perhaps there's a wiki out there where you'd find it more satisfying to contribute (and link to Wikipedia)... I haven't gone looking, so have none to suggest, but I imagine they're out there. (If you take a look and find something interesting, I'd be intrigued to know!)

Meanwhile, if there is sufficient turnover of people involved in an issue, perhaps nothing is ever impossible, only stalled. Suddenly philosophical, David (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Middots

02-June-2007: Other templates, in past months, have been changed to support a wider range of PC/Wifi users who cannot display middots. The substitute for middots has been superscripted-dots or using dashes. Because the middots appear larger than decimal-points, the middots would be nicer; however, some PCs running IE 6.0 will display all middots as bracket-boxes ("[]"). Perhaps a template could test a user's PC to determine middot-presence, and then middots could be used depending on the end-user.

As for the dreaded unicode music-symbols for sharps/flats/etc., I am still checking the problem: someone claims that the MS IE 6.0 browser can display sharps/flats from only the first 2 designated browser fonts (especially font "Arial Unicode MS"). They are in the common font "Lucida Sans Unicode" and seem to require a browser to be configured to access them. The problem occurs in PCs in local libraries, many of which even run old Adobe Acrobat 5.0 (now 7.x), so the superscripted-dots make Wikipedia appear consistent everywhere, which is not the case for the Unicode sharps/flats which are totally useless on many PCs not set to unicode fonts. Of course, the simple F#/Eb notation, used in guitar tabs, actually works fine (universally), since "Eb" and "Ab" are not common English words, but the unicode-purists are trying to outlaw the old stuff in favor of "original research" as standards. -Wikid77 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country

Just wanted to make sure you saw this: Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Reverted_edit. Looks like your most recent edits introduced some sort of error, resulting in comments appearing in an article's lead that were transcluded from the infobox. I went ahead and reverted 'em to temporarily fix the problem. MrZaius^talk 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action and clue to what I'd overlooked in your post above. I returned to the sandbox and made a couple of corrections; hopefully Infobox Country as intended is now working. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All we have now is a the end of an HTML comment, -->. Getting closer. Is there one that's closed twice? MrZaius^talk 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely... In which article/s are you seeing it?  Thanks, David (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

United States again. It's still up as of this writing. Also confirmed presence in India, Belgium, United Kingdom, but not Rwanda. Hopefully that'll help hunt it down. MrZaius^talk 09:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm hoping it will. I've just been testing the United States instance and the problem doesn't seem to be directly related to the previous oversight, so I've reverted the template again and will go hunting. So much for progress, David (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got it! Tested and saw no obvious errors on Mexico, Russia, France, Rwanda, United Kingdom, and the United States. MrZaius^talk 09:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so...!  While checking, I also spotted what appeared to be a missing pipe-symbol within the time zone processing (courtesy of the United States instance again) so hope to've rectified that too. Time now for something completely different (unless you've found a non-compliant article...)  Thanks again for your help, David (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two template related proposals

Hi, I thought you might be interested in

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Promote the use of multilevel templates
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Template test subpage(s)

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Cornish place with map

Template:Infobox Cornish place with map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pit-yacker 19:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; it looks like this infobox hasn't seen much use. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Moons of planets templates - default collapsed?

Hello there, I was looking at these templates, and I noticed that all of them were in the collapsed state by default - with the rationale that this is necessary for the template Template:Natural satellites of the Solar System. I think you made most of these changes on 26th Dec last year. However, on looking at this latter template, when you press "show", it expands everything, including all of the transcluded templates, e.g. Template:Moons of Uranus. I can't, therefore, see why it is necessary that the transcluded templates are collapsed. It makes navigating between different moons of the same planet more difficult, as even if you expand it on one moon article, it's collapsed again if you follow a link to another. I was going to un-collapse them, but before I did, I thought it best to ask if there is a technical reason why they need to be collapsed? Richard B 12:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this oversight and prompting me to revisit the "Moons of X" templates within {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}; after a little reformatting, the former should be expanded by default but collapsed when within the latter. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:If-then-else templates

I have nominated Category:If-then-else templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. _→AzaToth 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of your message. I'm guessing the templates within the category are superceded by ParserFunctions– or, if not, are you thinking they are best categorized elsewhere...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)