User talk:Caesar Schinas/Archive 2

Template:TOC-right Happy to have you with us! (Loved the grunt)Nancy Sculerati MD 22:26, 22 January 2007 (CST)

A belated welcome

Glad to be interacting; I just hadn't run across your work before.

Apropos of your userpage, is Mac OS really an attitude, or a world view? I tend to think of *NIX as an obedient slave, MS as a rebellious teenager always testing limits, and the Mac, to mix metaphors, marching really well to a very different drummer while on Really Good Drugs. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "belated welcome"!

I tend to contribute to projects like Citizendium and Wikipedia in (very) short spurts, with long gaps in between.

I first contributed to CZ when it was first set up, but as there were so few articles online then I soon lost interest as it was no good for reading articles, only writing them. And I'm not a writer...

I only came back again today, so that'll be why you haven't come across me before!

Interesting comments regarding OSes... Two points :

• OS X is Unix-based; I suppose that means it's an obedient slave too...?
• Why, if Microsoft is always testing limits, did they let their browser stagnate for so many years??? Just think where the web could be now without a 7-year-old browser still around!

I switched to OS X from Windows XP a few years ago, and never looked back. Quite apart from the fact that the Mac just runs smoother and has (IMO) a nicer interface; it has a really strong developer community and a lot of great apps which Windows just doesn't have. Apple also provide all the software for developing OS X applications for free, and make it very easy to get started, which suited me as an aspiring programmer.

With the release of Windows Vista a lot changed. Despite all the bad press surrounding it, I personally consider Vista to be Microsoft's first decent operating system. They are all set to continue this new trend with Windows 7.

I'm not a Mac fanboy (oh, how I hate that word). No OS is better than any another for all people. I respect other people's choices of OS. But for me, the Mac is best - at least for the moment.

Nor do I particularly like Apple as a company. Or hate Microsoft. I used to; but recently Microsoft seems to have become more customer-orientated - whilst Apple has become less so. Things change. Pity.

So what is your OS of choice (and why)?

--Caesar Schinas 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of all time? OS/360, not because it was the greatest code, but that I knew what it was doing and had the source. To answer your question, the UNIX involved is obedient to Apple, not the customers of its master. :-)

For client compatibility reasons, and with the caveat I'm not primarily doing development but architecture, I have to use Windows. In the fairly short term, I want to have Ubuntu and Windows XP on my desktop, without reference to where the main services run. I prefer a LINUX when I have to do any data analysis.

My desktop, which I inherited, is an HP/Compaq business machine. For at least a month, I have been rebuilding since I learned, after the fact, HP's implementation is incompatible with XP Pro SP3. It frustrates me no end that MS keeps suggesting I upgrade to SP3 through its update advisories -- all I want to hear about are necessary performance and security. If they get to use WGA to validate my update rights, you'd think a rational update server would recognize the OS has an HP OEM key, that they'd have talked to HP, and not keep trying to install SP3.

I have gotten MS reseller status, but I know I'm never again getting OEM versions of MS software -- the HP experience has shown me what a value-subtracted reseller can do. If MS itself can't provide better truly technical support, LINUX becomes the answer. While I used to have a primarily Mac environment a few years ago, I became utterly frustrated with trying to get technical-level support answers from Apple.

While I lost my slide rule, I still have an abacus. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Linux. I've tried lots of distros. I still have an Ubuntu VM for testing purposes; the others got trashed.

My biggest gripe? It's too hard to install software. Sure, I can manage, but... drag and drop, anyone?

Oh, and I'm a sucker for pretty interfaces. No Linux distro I've come across has one. (Though Ubuntu is getting there gradually.)

It's nice that it's Free (yes, yes, in both senses of the word), and that it's not tied to an evil company (mostly). But I haven't come across anything I can do on Linux which I can't do on OS X, or any Linux-only apps which I've actually wanted. And one more thing : Coda. My life would be misery without it.

I won't get started on WGA. I'd almost forgotten it, but you've just reminded me of a very good reason (for me) not to switch back to Windows. Having said that; I can see it coming for OS X too... :‘(

Perhaps you're right about Linux being the way!

Fortunately, I've never had to deal with Apple's support, but I've heard that it's terrible. MS ditto.

Oh, and I use the Unix shell in OS X the whole time! It seems obedient enough... :-)

--Caesar Schinas 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the edits to CZ:Myths and Facts. --Larry Sanger 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Caesar Schinas 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

sandbox

Hi Caesar, first personal sandboxes are the way to go. We don't have a global sandbox that I know of. Second, I just answered your post on the forum. Do you know much about the licenses with respect to fair use? The upload wizard is a work in progress, so there is a lot that needs work in that area. I would do it if I knew anything about the suboect but it's is better coming from someone that understands the license issues. Stephen Ewen created all the image copyright templates and is still around, but pretty busy, so we can still ask him if needed since he did a ton of research on this topic. Third, welcome back. :) Chris Day 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris.

Yes, I thnk user sandboxes are good. But I didn't think of creating one until I'd looked for a global one and searched for info on the wiki. Perhaps the concept should be mentioned on some of the pages for new users?

Regarding Fair Use - No, I'm not particularly knowledgable on the subject, but I believe use of a company or product logo or a screenshot is fine on pages abput that company or product, and probably nowhere else.

I've responded on the forum again, but one point is not related to the fair use discussion so I'll repeat it here :

I can't upload the file I'm trying to upload anyway. It's in SVG format, and I get an error saying that SVG isn't allowed each time I try. But there are other SVG images on CZ - so how do I do it? Obviously I could just convert it to PNG, but that seems a bit silly.

--Caesar Schinas 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same problem and end up using PNG. I don't know why we don't support SVG. I vaguely recollect this coming up before. We really need to sort that out. Chris Day 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose I'll have to convert to PNG. But how did those other SVGs get on here? Someone knows how to bypass the system :) (Or else it just used to be possible and isn't anymore.) --Caesar Schinas 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Nice fix to get rid of the gaps and remain readable. Far better than my kludge. Chris Day 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I was wondering if it would be better (or even possible...) to set a default height instead of width for the logo. A roundish logo such as Apple's, for example, would look ridiculous 300px wide, whereas if we could set a height of 100px or thereabouts most logos would look good. Is it possible? And is it a good idea...? --Caesar Schinas 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better idea. Chris Day 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! Should be OK, I think. Now we have to update articles for the new way of inserting images... --Caesar Schinas 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing - is there any reason for the "Short Name"? I think it would be better without; it's usually just the long name without "Inc" or "Corps" or "Ltd" or something, and so it seems rather pointless. I'd like to remove it; any objections?

Today is the first time I have even noticed this template so I'm not sure of the short name rationale. I guess there might be business out there with real short names that are distinct. Possibly an acronym such as BOAC or a shortened version such as Pan Am to cite two defunct airlines?

I like your solution to the problem of needing a heading when one of multiple fields would require the same heading. Nice and concise. Chris Day 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK; I'm not sure about short names. If the Short name is official, then I suppose we need it, otherwise not.

I like your changes to the website addresses.

Chris, I think you have permissions for editing MediaWiki:Common.css - do you think it would be a good idea to modify the .infobox class as follows :

(additions in bold, modifications in italics)

/* Infobox template style */

.infobox {
   border: 1px solid #aaa;
   background-color: #f9f9f9;
   color: black;
   margin-bottom: 0.5em;
   margin-left: 1em;
   padding: 0.25em 0.75em;
   float: right;
   clear: right;
   width: 25em;
   font-size: 95%;
}
.infobox td,
.infobox th {
   vertical-align: middle;
}
.infobox th {
   text-align: right;
   width: 35%;
}
.infobox td {
   text-align: left;
}
.infobox th.caption,
.infobox caption {
   font-size: larger;
   text-align: center;
   margin-left: inherit;
}
.infobox.bordered {
   border-collapse: collapse;
}
.infobox.bordered td,
.infobox.bordered th {
   border: 1px solid #aaa;
}
.infobox.bordered .borderless td,
.infobox.bordered .borderless th {
   border: 0;
}

By doing this we could strip out the styles set on individual templates for the infoboxes (making it easier to update them all at once in the future, amongst other things).

It would also mean we didn't have to add separate styles to every th we want to ensure a min-width on (they look a bit odd as-is on the actual pages - see Microsoft Windows, for example).

--Caesar Schinas 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you added the width parameter. But do we really want the text to be on the right for the labels? i did not make that change yet. Also what is the ".infobox th.caption," for. i added it but I'm not sure what that is specifying that is distinct from " .infobox caption"? I'm pretty ignorant about most of the markup on that page. For example, I don't know what th or td stand for, is that HTML? Most of the coding I have done is on a trial and error basis.

I see what you mean about the min width, but shouldn't that be defined in em not %, or is it usual to tie it directly to the info box width. Alternatively just add a no breaking spaces for the text, although I guess that is pretty messy. The reason i consider that option though is that the labels in different infoboxes are going to vary in length. Even in the same infobox depending on which fields are filled.

Lastly, the font size on the current infoboxes does not seem to be at 95%. Is that parameter kicking in for you? Or did i add it incorrectly? Chris Day 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes.

Yes, tr, td, th, etc are HTML elements. They refer to table rows, table cells, and table headings (the row labels on the left in these infoboxes) respectively.

.infobox caption refers to an HTML caption element for the table, which would show above the table like Wikipedia's infoboxes. .infobox th.caption refers to any th element (inside an infobox) which has the class caption - in this case, the top th with the product / company name. We want the same styles for either, in this case, but they aren't the same.

Yes, using  s is an option - so long as people who create new infobox templates always remember to do it...!

Since the infobox table itself has a width in em, it doesn't actually make any difference whether we use em or percent for the things inside it.

I do think the labels would look better aligned to the right - neater and easier to follow. Why not try it and see?

I think the 95% just isn't different enough. Try changing it to 85%, and changing the caption size to 150% (instad of larger) to compensate. I have done this inline for the software infobox; have a look at Windows or Linux.

This will change the em-size, of course, so we may then feel that we want to make the boxes 30em instead of 25. It also means that if we do set a width for the labels, it probably won't want to be as much as 35% anymore.

Oh, and would you mind changing my vertical-align: middle; back to vertical-align: top;? I wasn't thinking, but it messes up multi-line values with single-line labels/headings. Or perhaps we should align the labels/headings to the top, and the values to the middle... Actually, maybe I like it better...

--Caesar Schinas 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the version with the text aligned to the right. To me it looked very lopsided and did not make it easier to scan the headings. We should probably discuss some of these changes in the forums to see if there are any other opinions. I'll switch to right for now, so you can see it.

My reason for having a fixed width rather than a percentage width is that "if" someone changes the infobox width to a smaller size in the future then the 35% will also be too small.

I think I am misunderstanding "em-soze"? I'm not sure why changing the caption size would change the apparent width (from 25 -> 30)? I might be missing something here. Or would it be literally 30 em final width, that is getting on the large size for an infobox, IMO. But I think the you might mean the increase would be to compensate for a different parameter change? Sorry for being dumb here. Chris Day 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; we both made edits at once there. It should have said "em-size". I didn't mean that changing the heading size would affect it; I meant that changing the .infobox text size would. I don't know how much you know about CSS (or printing...) units, but 1em is linked to the font size so that if the font size reduces 1em gets smaller. So I meant that if we changed the font size (and thus the size of each em) to 85% of what is was before, we would need to increase the number of ems of the box width so that it stayed physically the same. 30em was just a guess; but it would be somewhere around that.

Does that make any sense?

(But actually, I think it still looks OK despite being narrower.)

Yes; perhaps we should discuss the alignment with the community, and see what people like best. I still think I like right better, but I don't mind too much.

I do think think that however it's aligned it might look better with a bit more gap between the labels and the values; perhaps you could add a line saying padding-left: 0.5em; to the .infobox td section?

Yes; I suppose you're right, em would be better for the width then. 8.75em would be 35% of 25em; I suppose.

--Caesar Schinas 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a relationship between em and font size, but this makes perfect sense in retrospect. As you can see I have only a vague idea of how CSS and HTML work. A little knowledge is dangerous which is why I don't want to make too many changes unless I know roughly what parameters I'm changing.

I just figured out that when I changed the CSS to 90% you had changed the template to 85%, I assume the template value overides the CSS value. So I guess I was looking at your style changes when i checked the Mac OS X page. Which also explains why the infobox style did not change back when I changed back to 95%. After you have experimented a bit more I'll make the final changes and then we should go to the forums.

Another strange thing i don't understand. Using class="wikitable" I cannot overide the cellpadding in a table but using the class="infobox" overiding the CSS can be done by adding cellpadding="X" after the class. Any idea why there is a difference? Chris Day 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the middle alignment is such a good idea. See the infobox on this page: Acclaim_Entertainment. Chris Day 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

CZ doesn't have a page on em, but if you're interested in the details the WP one is quite good.

Sorry about changing the size again... Yes, the inline values (usually) override the global ones. I personally think 85% looks right. (Note that I've only changed it for Software, not Company.)

No, perhaps the middle alignment isn't such a good idea.

Hmm... not sure about wikitable, I'll have a look at the styles for that a bit later.

I think I've finished playing around with the styles of Infobox Software for now.

When you do your "final edits"... I'd personally like to see the following :

• Infobox text-size set to 85%.
• padding-left: 0.5em; in the .infobox td section as mentioned above.
• Try vertical-align:top for labels (th); vertical-align:top for cells (td). I think that'll work best; but can't tell for sure without trying it...
• And you never changed the infobox padding to padding: 0.25em 0.75em;; I thnk the text is too close to the edge at the moment.

--Caesar Schinas 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I did what you had hoped but i think the labels are included as captions ( .infobox th.caption,) and so they are now centered rather than aligned right. Not sure what the difference is from before, as they did align to the right, but I just ripped out all the style parameters from the company and software infoboxes to see what the raw infobox style looked like. I suspect we need to redefine .infobox th.caption, rather than having it piggy back along with ".infobox caption". Chris Day 19:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes; that looks great. (Except that I had hoped to change font-size: larger; to font-size: 150%; under .infobox th.caption; which would mean that we could apply the 'caption class to all infobox headings to make them the same size as the Software one now is.)

The labels are looking fine to me; aligned to the right. And looking at the source, no; they don't have the .caption class applied to them.

What browser are you using? And have you cleared your cache? If not, do. If so, do it again. Browser caches can be very persistent. Try clearing your cache and then immediately (without loading any more CZ pages) closing the browser and opening it again. If all this doesn't help; try another browser. I've tried Firefox and Safari and it's fine. I haven't tried MSIE, as I don't have access to it right now, but these styles should work fine in it.

--Caesar Schinas 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to replace the current page at Template:Infobox, which isn't really a template at all, with the current content of User:Caesar_Schinas/Template:Infobox. Please see Template_talk:Infobox and let me know if you can see any reason not to... --Caesar Schinas 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Flash help

Thanks for the work you've been doing on the Flash article. Much appreciated!Pat Palmer 12:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The single infobox has been changed to include "b-side" and "format", different from the song box. I am going to add more info but since I'm the only editor still active in the Music Workgroup (the others have since resigned or just not bothered to come back), any new additional to the infobox will come soon when more new articles are added, and many of these will be singles as well as songs. Meg Ireland 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meg, Thanks for letting me know you've reverted my change, and why. But... isn't it better to include these extra details in {{Infobox Song}}? Any details which aren't filled in won't show up, so they can be optional. In this way, different types of song can all use the same infobox, but with different details showing. For an example see {{Infobox Software}}; this can be used for any type of software, be it operating systems, applications, libraries, or whatever; just by filling out the right details.

This reduces redundant templates (of which there are currently a lot), and makes it simpler for users to work out what infobox to use.

What do you think of the idea of employing this technique for {{Infobox Song}} too?

In fact, personally I'd like to see the song infobox moved to {{Infobox Music}}, and this one template could be used for all types of music including songs and singles.

Any comments?

Regards, Caesar Schinas 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe them to be redundant as there are articles that currently employ both. Citizendium isnt paper. So I don't understand the sudden need to delete/remove content. Meg Ireland 07:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not explaining myself properly. I didn't mean there was no need for an infobox with that functionality, nor that that functionality should be deleted/removed. I merely meant that I thought the functionality of these infoboxes could be aggregated into one template, as we have done with {{Infobox Software}} for example, to increase usability both by making it obvious which templates to use, which it currently may not always be (many songs used to be released as singles and on full albums, for example), and by reducing the proliferation of infoboxes and other templates which can sometimes make it quite hard to find the one you're looking for.

But if you disagree, that's fine, I'll keep away from your templates if you like.

(I do still recommend that you base them on Template:Infobox, by the way, for the reasons previously mentioned on your userpage...)

Caesar Schinas 07:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually designed the infoboxs to look nothing like the ones on wikipedia (get as far away from them as possible, yet still be simple and functional). I left a message some time ago on the the Music Workgroup mailing list with instructions on how to use the infoboxes. Maybe I should write a complete FAQ when I have the time for users on the Workgroup with instructions on the colour coding. Meg Ireland 07:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What colours are currently being used or set aside for Template:Infobox? Meg Ireland 07:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I mention Wikipedia? I don't think I did... I don't think my suggestions had anything to do with Wikipedia.

Perhaps you're implying that somehow basing them all on a central template is Wikipedia-esque? I'm not actually sure if that's what they do on WP, it might be, but anyhow, that doesn't negate the benefits here on CZ. We don't have to be different just for the sake of it; only when it's better.

Or maybe you're saying that basing them on Template:Infobox doesn't allow you to colour them; since you mention colours? But you can certainly colour them when basing them on Template:Infobox. See Template:Infobox for details! (I'm hoping to get someone with the right permissions to reduce the padding on the infobox to make the colours reach the edge, but you can certainly use colours as is.)

And besides, colouring doesn't make them less like WP; they colour a lot of their infoboxes on WP.

Sorry; I've probably completely missed your point. I just don't see what WP has to do with the discussion. Feel free to elaborate. :-)

Caesar Schinas 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second question, posted while I was typing my reply: Infoboxes based on Template:Infobox can use any colours. None are reserved or set aside. Caesar Schinas 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines that each Workgroup have a certain colour, so users know which colours to use when adding infoboxs to articles, ie everything standard. Meg Ireland 07:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good idea. As I say, this can be implemented at the moment on a per-cell basis using Template:Infobox, but I'm happy to update it to allow colourse to be specified on a per-infobox basis so that infoboxes based on it only have to have their colours specified once.

Not sure how many workgroups there are, but I suppose everyone would have to agree on the colours before this could be implemented. Is there some admin/editor group to which this should be proposed? Caesar Schinas 07:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Were you thinking of the whole infobox having certain styles, eg background-colour, or just the label column like you've done for {{Infobox Song}}? The whole infobox would be easier to implement, but either is possible. Or both. Caesar Schinas 08:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added full styling support to the Template:Infobox. Please see Template:Infobox#Example for an example or Template:Infobox#Usage for more details. Caesar Schinas 09:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have editing permissions for MediaWiki:Common.css, perhaps you'd be kind enough to change

.infobox {
   border: 1px solid #aaa;
   background-color: #f9f9f9;
   color: black;
   margin-bottom: 0.5em;
   margin-left: 1em;
   padding: 0.25em 0.75em;
   float: right;
   clear: right;
   width: 25em;
   font-size: 85%;
}

to

.infobox {
   border: 1px solid #aaa;
   background-color: #f9f9f9;
   color: black;
   margin-bottom: 0.5em;
   margin-left: 1em;
   padding: 0;
   float: right;
   clear: right;
   width: 25em;
   font-size: 85%;
}

This will improve the infobox by allowing row colours to come closer to the edge. (The difference there is the 7th line, padding, if that's not clear.) Thanks, Caesar Schinas 09:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for so many messages in a row, but it occurred to me that perhaps it would be easier to colour by workgroup area rather than by workgroup, the we can use the colours already in use at CZ:Workgroups. What do you think? Caesar Schinas 09:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't answer you, I had to go to work and was running late. I'll log back on in a few hours when I have a bit more time to have a look at the templates again. Meg Ireland 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. In the meantime I've had a stab at converting {{Infobox Song}} to use my Template:Infobox. It should function in exactly the same way as before. I've also done some basic documentation for it. See what you think! Caesar Schinas 09:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. It can obviously be tweaked if/as nescesary. If you like it we can do the same to {{Infobox Single}}, if you're still set on it being separate... :-p Caesar Schinas 09:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, btw what can be done with the infobox titles? I notice all of them seem to be bunching across to the left hand side and not being placed centrally. Meg Ireland 09:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean on infoboxes based on the template, or ones which aren't? Those which are based on the template should have titles centred and labels aligned to the right, automatically. They do show up like this for me. If you mean ones which aren't based on the template, code must be added to each one to adjust the alignment. Or better; change them to use the template! Caesar Schinas 10:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the ones that were changed. It appears on my screen as bunching to the left hand side. I'm using Windows XP with Internet Explorer on an 18 inch screen. Meg Ireland 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation

Good job on trying to consolidate the templates. This is definitely good practice. As to the date proposal, is this actually a major issue? i.e. 9th May or May 9th does not seem to be a problem. I do agree that 9/5 vs 5/9 is a probvlem but we should be discouraging such usage. If a date template is used can we do it in a way that the dates are not wiki linked or at least optional, with default not linked? Chris Day 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support, Chirs. ;-)

Re. the dates; it's not hugely important, but it seems easy enough for an admin to add - it's just a matter of adding an extension. And there has already been an occasion when, for example, Larry Sanger asked for the format of the date on the page about him to be changed from the 3rd May format to the May 3 format. He said that because the page is about an American the dates should be American, if I recall correctly.

And no, the dates certainly wouldn't have to be linked if we used that extension. They would have to be in <date>...</date> tags.

An alternative (less good) would be to always insist upon the use of the international format, 2009-05-03.

But anyhow, I guess the answer is that no, it's not actually a major issue!

Caesar Schinas 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In case my bit about date tags wasn't clear; the code <date>2009-05-03</date>, say, or <date>May 3 2009</date>, would show up on the page as 3rd May 2209 for a Briton, May 3 2009 for an American, etc.

Caesar Schinas 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)