Eep

Todo list

This conversation has grown a bit more general, and it would be useful to get other people involved. I have moved it to Manual talk:Configuration settings#Categorise by section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HappyDog (talk • contribs) 05:06, July 26, 2007.

Template:W

Hi, why did you revert my changes, such as the one to Category:MediaWiki components? There's no need for an useless template when you can do the same thing with [[w:page title|]] and it works well and doesn't make the page source code messier etc. --Sayuri 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my edit summary comments? It's all explained there but I'll reiterate it here for you: the template requires less typing. -Eep² 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

{{w|Pagetitle}} vs. [[w:Pagetitle|]] Your template reduces the need to type a grand total of 1 character but now requires you to hold down the shift key for 4 characters and strech your finger to hit a character when the other form uses a easier to access character, and causes stress for the MediaWiki parser because now it needs to go and parse a template in addition to the links and substitute variables. In this template doesn't make anything simpler. If this were Wikipedia, Wikiquote, or any Wikia wiki the community would be tagging it for deletion. Dantman 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware putting a pipe (and not adding anything after it) removes the namespace. -Eep² 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this trick doesn't work when using templates, as in [[w:User talk:Eep|]] (actual link, not <nowiki>'d). :/ -Eep² 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "select multiple NS idea"

Moved to [[Talk:Extension:Multi-select Namespace Search]]. -Eep² 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing the extensions

Moved to Category talk:Extensions#Categorizing the extensions. -Eep² 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tables overflow TOC

Eep, the text overflowing the TOC on your user page is within a TABLE. I don't know why but tables overflow the TOC on my wiki, too. Simply fix is to use standard text instead a table for at least the portion of your user page that is currently overlapping your TOC. Do let me know if you discover more about this though. --Rogerhc 23:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, well, oddly, on my former Wikipedia page (I'm banned now), the same design didn't overlap the TOC. That's why I tried copying over Wikipedia's TOCright template, but something else is obviously not right. :/ -Eep² 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to use HTML, do it right. You have two opening table tags and only one closing table tag right now. Not kosher. Also remove the width attributes from the table that the TOC is floated to right of or else use regular text instead a table there. This should fix the overlapping text. I tested stuff at User:Rogerhc/TOC_overflow. --Rogerhc 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The additional </table> fixed it. Thanks. -Eep² 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Project:Extension requests

Hi Eep, what do you mean by proper merge? --Flominator 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As I said in the edit summary ("(by date of initial request)"), the merge should put the discussions in chronological order. From what I can tell, the Extension requests page had more recent discussions than Extensions/Wanted Extensions yet the merge was not integrated and instead just slapped on the end. —Eep² 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok. I thought you wanted to merge the historys or something around those lines :) --Flominator 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that might be good but I don't think it's really necessary. —Eep² 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that, as well, so I just merged them by date. --Flominator 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple Forms extension

Please don't flame around like this [1]. Even if you think he is not being reasonable, fanning the flames doesn't help. Making responses like that just comes of as childish and it's annoying to look at. Aaron 06:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I would appreciate you giving him similar advice too... —Eep² 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual:Hooks Changes

Hi, I'm going to fix the subpages on Manual:Hooks tonight. I saw you resortable-ized the first table. Try sorting on version. It causes weird issues that make the table unreadable because there are columns with rowspan set, which is why I removed it in the first place. There might be a way to fix it but I couldn't figure on out. --Cneubauer 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the sortable table javascript needs improvement, which I mentioned in the edit summary when I first made the table but I still think it should remain sortable as an example of why the script needs fixing. —Eep² 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Javascript, I don't think its fixable really. There is no way to sort the first rows in each section if they contain a table cell with a rowspan attribute. There are a couple ways we could fix it on the page though. We could move the section groupings to be their own row like this:

Version	Hook	Description
Article Management
1.1.0	/AlternateEdit	Occurs whenever action=edit is called
1.4.0	/ArticleDelete	Occurs whenever the software receives a request to delete an article
1.4.0	/ArticleDeleteComplete	Occurs after the delete article request has been processed
1.8.0	/ArticleFromTitle	Called to determine the class to handle the article rendering, based on title
1.6.0	/ArticleInsertComplete	Occurs after a new article has been created
1.11.0	/ArticleProtect	Occurs whenever the software receives a request to protect an article
Page Rendering
...

--Cneubauer 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Still not really good enough. I think we probably need to keep this as two separate lists, particularly as sorting by version will incorrectly sort the list as 1.1.0, 1.10.0, 1.2.0, instead of 1.1.0, 1.2.0, ... , 1.10.0. --HappyDog 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I just spotted this m:Help:Sorting#Sorting_with_hidden_sortkey, so perhaps that last issue is not a problem. However the example is still not good enough, as however you sort it, the extra rows end up in confusing/meaningless places. If we can fix that somehow (maybe with a sort key?) then perhaps it would be workable, but it's better to have two separate lists that work as expected than one that is ever-so-slightly easier to maintain but which doesn't work properly. --HappyDog 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. I added the fix to the second table (the alphabetic one) and it sorts properly by version and title. The first table is not going to sort properly any time soon. Regardless, there are currently three tables and we could reduce it to two. Try sorting the second one. It should all work properly. I think we should remove class="sortable" from the first one. And the third one could go. Or we could keep it, I don't really care. Just trying to trim teh page down. --Cneubauer 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why have 3 tables when 1 will suffice, providing it can be sorted correctly? Anything's possible so it's just a matter of finding a competent javascripter who can fix the script. —Eep² 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its that simple. The way the table is structured right now, the first element in each row (the function group name) has a rowspan element. This means that the first row in each functional area has one more element than every other row in the section. There is just no way to sort that without actually changing the DOM. You could restructure the DOM in javascript on the fly, breaking the one cell with the rowspan into a number of cells one for each row but that is almost definitely beyond the scope of that bit of javascript. The only way I can see around it is to change the actual HTML that's being produced. On the other hand, we can reduce three tables to two since the second two can be sorted just fine. --Cneubauer 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like bad initial DOM coding then... —Eep² 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree but there is no way around it without changing the table layout somehow, like for example, in the way I suggested above. --Cneubauer 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a proposal to delete one of the tables here: Manual_talk:Hooks#Removing_Hooks_Groups_By_Version --Cneubauer 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Eep - Due to your persistance at Project:Forum#Reporting_problem_users? (despite my warning) you have been blocked from editing for 3 days. I hope you will take this time to cool your heels a little and either walk away from this issue, or begin handling it in a more constructive fashion. --HappyDog 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you do one of the two suggestions made please, either walk away from this issue, or begin handling it in a more constructive fashion. --Zven

Like how? Be sure to ask Nad too since it's not all me... —Eep² 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Be more civil in your edits, you don't need to add remarks. --Zven 11:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And you don't need to butt in to things that don't pertain to you. Nad chose to be incivil to me first yet no one else seems to acknowledge this. Civility is as civility does. —Eep² 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nad

Have responded to your recent comment on my talk page. --HappyDog 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)