This is an archive of past discussions with User:RexxS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, RexxS. In the spirit of making my FLC less daunting to potential reviewers, I was wondering if we could cap (using {{hidden start}}/{{hidden end}} or somesuch) the bulk of our conversation there, while adding a new line to indicate your support? Here's a direct link to the review page. I'd offer to do the edits myself, but fear it might look unwholesome. Cheers. HausTalk19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. I've capped the lot and added my support as clearly as I can. Good luck with the FLC and have a great New Year! --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You are, as the youngsters say, the man. Thanks again, and best with your FLC and New Year's celebrations as well. HausTalk21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Italic text
Hi Rexx, yes, I can use the key to find out more about the data in the table. However, the fact that the text is italic and if it is in a different colour needs to be explicitly spelt out for screen reader users, and I can't find a second table in your message. However the punctuation is fine. I'll be out of here in about twenty minutes, probably. Graham8703:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, and apologies for not revisiting sooner. I've struck my concerns now as you've done a fine job in remaking the template. Good luck with the promotion! --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I did. I think we're vaguely approaching a compromise psoition, or at least greater clarity. Thanks for helping out.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Moar FLC and ACCESS
Hi RexxS. Glad to see your list doing nicely at FLC. I popped by to see what you thought of List of birds of Pennsylvania, in particular regard to the links in the headings. Once again, JAWS rears its ugly and unsophisticated head and would suggest this list needs to have introductory notes for each section to avoid linking in the headings. I'd be really glad of your input here, as these sort of lists seem to do this kind of linking frequently. All the best, happy new year, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy new year, TRM; I'd have to admit that my venture into FL nomination was more in the nature of trying to get a better idea of how table accessibility interacts with "visual appeal". Axl & Arsenikk's comments pointed me in the right direction, and at some point it might be worth revisiting the issue at WT:FLC to try to thrash out some guidelines for editors.
Hi RexxS and thanks for visiting that FLC. So, if as you say "links in headings are no longer discouraged", should the MOS be updated accordingly? Once again, we're duty-bound to comply with MOS at FLC so if there are instructions there which are no longer valid, can we remove them? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's on my to-do list. It's mainly a question of balancing the likely number of users of JAWS prior to version 7.1 (where the problem existed) against the high-value links that we'd get from making them in section headings. The original problem with the links was that used to be impossible to wikilink directly to article sections that had links inside them, but that was solved some time ago (see User:RexxS/Sandbox#Demo for Help:Section Linking). JAWS 7.1 was released in June 2006 (and we're currently on version 12). I'll ask a question of Graham87 as he is usually very clued up on JAWS-specific issues.
Note to self:
WP:MOS#Section headings: "To avoid accessibility problems, headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked."
WP:ACCESS#Links: "Avoid putting links in section headings. Some screen readers, such as versions of JAWS prior to 7.1, have significant difficulty correctly rendering such headers."
Help:Section#Section linking: "An internal link in a section heading does not give complications in terms of section linking"
Cool, thanks. I know a lot of my recent posts may seem picky/trivial, but if we're going to do the MOS/ACCESS thing, then we might as well do it well. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it as picky. It's vital that we give good, up-to-date guidance to editors, and you're always welcome to nag me about things I could do to improve that. Sometimes it's uncontroversial; other times I sense that I have to make an argument and build some consensus first. But I promise we'll get there eventually. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Bridgeman update
Thanks for your supportive comments on the IP number talk page. Maybe you will express support on the Sfan00 talk page.
You asked, “One small point that you might be able to clarify for me: As a UK citizen, I've always assumed Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was the last word on exact copies of 2D works. Is there anything more recent that would modify that decision?”
The Bridgeman decision was essentially threefold: (1) the Berne Convention on copyrights does not require United States courts to enforce copyrights of other countries, where those copyrights did not satisfy the originality requirement for copyrights set forth in United States Constitution, and the Berne Convention provided that signatories were to provide foreign copyrights with the same protection available to domestic copyrights, and in ratifying Convention Congress provided for its enforcement through United States Copyright Act; (2) Color transparencies of famous paintings in museums were not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law; and (3) Color transparencies of famous paintings in museums were not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection, under United Kingdom law.
The Bridgeman ruling is still good law. I suppose some lawyers might argue that Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) is a bit more authoritative because Meshwerks case cites Bridgeman with approval, and Meshwerks was rendered by a higher court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. By citing Bridgeman, a higher court expressed approval the Bridgeman district court ruling (a lower court). Nevertheless, Bridgeman is the seminal case and often cited as such. So the holdings have not changed, but it could be said that Meshwerks is “the last word,” at least for now.
Thanks for your guidance, as I have been complaining to Sfan00 that he shouldn't be tagging a photograph/scan of an old book (dated 1718), since I understood that taking a image is not sufficiently original to generate a fresh copyright. That was based on my understanding of Bridgeman, and I think you've confirmed that for me. I have already contributed a couple of times in the thread that you started, but I'll certainly revisit if there are any further developments. Best regards --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Is there still a problem with Links in section headers?:
Hi Rex, I think that links in section headers are no longer an accessibility issue, since they don't bother me and very few people would be using JAWS versions prior to 7.1 these days. The links in the headings in the List of birds of Pennsylvania can be a bit annoying to me when there are many of them, but maybe it's because I'm not used to that format ... they're not a major problem though. Graham8702:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks again, Graham. That's confirmed my understanding of the issue (as I expressed at WP:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/archive1). It just remains for me to attempt to update the guidance in MOS and ACCESS <grin>. You should drop by WP:FLC when you have the chance; I'm certain that the insight you can bring to all sorts of accessibility issues would be very welcome there. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Does this help any at all?
A driver, who is driving below the posted speed limit is stopped by a police officer.
Policeman: “You were going too fast. I’m citing you.”
Driver: “I was driving under the speed limit.”
Policeman: “Yes, I know that, but the police manual says you can’t drive to fast. So I’m citing you.”
Driver: “But why would the police manual say you can cite me for driving ‘too fast’ if I was driving under the speed limit.”
Policeman: “I don’t know. That’s what the manual says. Policy is policy.”
Driver: “But aren’t you trained to understand the reasons for the speed limit? Are you trained in the law?”
Policeman: “No, I only follow the police manual. It is what it is.”
Driver: “You’re kidding. So you can still cite me even if I was driving under the speed limit?”
Policeman: “Yes, I call them as I see them.”
Driver: “But why would the police manual be more restrictive than the speed limit?”
Policeman: “I don’t issue citations based on the speed limit. I follow the manual. If you don’t like the manual, get it changed. For now, you’re still getting a citation.”
Driver: “But when I received driver training, I was taught to follow the speed limit. Isn’t that enough?”
Policeman: “No. It doesn’t matter. We obey the police manual. And we changed the manual a short while ago, you should know that.”
Frustrated, the driver goes to the police station to talk with a police administrator because he didn’t think the policeman’s explanations made much sense. Upon entering the police station, the administrator says, “Oh look, another complaint about speed enforcement” and proceeds to say that the officer is only human, and he might occasionally make mistakes. “He is very hard working. He writes 500+ citations per day, and you’re complaining only makes his job more difficult.” For the most part, he follows the police manual.” The driver, thinking that the police administrator doesn’t appear very objective from the start, waits to speak with a second police administrator. The second police administrator basically agrees with the first two officers and says, “If you don’t like the police manual, you can get it changed. Besides, all of these police officer’s citations have to approved by a police administrator before you are fined.”
So the driver walks away, having only a few days to pay the fine or talk with a third police administrator. The officer doesn’t get paid but works long very long hours, thinking he is being helpful to the community. Meanwhile, the driver, who was only volunteering to drive for a good cause, wonders whether any of the administrators really understand the reasoning behind the police manual and wonders whether the third administrator will be enforcing the police manual or enforcing the speed limit. The driver also thinks to himself that changing the police manual will require lots of discussion, will take a long time, and wonders why it wouldn’t make more sense for the first officer to more cautiously issue citations to drivers who really were driving over the speed limit, saving time for all drivers, himself, and the police administrators will have to review over +500 citations per day.
You can poke holes in any analogy, but isn’t this all that the editors are trying to say?
Feel free to use this if it is at all helpful. Maybe get another editor to post it? If I do it, I might have to spend hours editing dozens of licenses. Hope you understand. I have already posted this on Andy Dinkley's talk page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.22.132 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a very apt analogy, thank you. At present, I'm very pleased that Sfan00 has engaged with the [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG|RfC], and has taken steps to address some of the issues raised there. I'm hopeful that we'll now find an outcome that's satisfactory to all. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:ACCESS issue re: filmography tables and awards
I don't think this has been addressed before, and I am not sure why. Rowspans is obviously a major issue for any voice and/or text based browser, and from an accessibility point of view, sticking the awards into the table might be an even bigger issue. See a screenshot here of what it would look in a text browser, and imagine a voice browser going through all of that. Horrible. 35 or so "Nominated: ..." only to get to the year of 2005 in the table. Thoughts? Jack, are you reading this? Nymfhideliho!16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It has had some previous discussion, and I even created a subpage to document some of the issues: User:RexxS/Accessibility.
It doesn't get a mention because, for some reason, WCAG doesn't see any problem with rowspans, and so there's no chance of getting consensus for including advice at WP:ACCESS.
I've taken a look at the Natalie Portman article and naturally I'd recommend 'scope="col"' for the column headers. I'd also recommend using the film title as the first column and making the title cells into a row headers (with 'scope="row"' and the table being 'class="wikitable plainrowheaders"') per WP:Access#Tables. Finally, I'd want to see the rowspans replaced with individual data per row – which of course would then make the table sortable. Jack's busy IRL right now, but I'm sure he'll catch up with this soon. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Your accessibility subpage is great, and I've been using it in a couple of discussions, trying to get the point across. Most people seem to go along with the rowspan issues after having it explained to them.
The main, albeit non-technical, issue for me at the moment though is lumping 30, 40 or even 60 awards into the filmography table, completely flooding any voice browser trying to read that table. This is what it looks like for anyone trying to read it at 172%. From an accessibility point of view that's a complete nightmare for almost any impaired user. I don't even dare to think of what it looks like for anyone using a mobile browser. Compare that to a nice and readable table of the same size. Nymfhideliho!18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's often a mistake to try to include too much data inside one table (equivalent to putting lists inside lists). I'd agree it looks much cleaner now. If it's any interest, here's how I'd set out the table to maximise its accessibility:
Hi, folks; I've rad through all of the above and endorse it. as I've said elsewhere, I support scope attributes but expect it to become something that MediaWiki itself can generate in most cases. Down the road, I would expect a bot to remove hard-coded scope attributes that would be auto-generated. I don't believe awards belong in filmographies, and don't believe nominations for minor 'awards' warrant any mentions; too often these are just marketing fluff and many of the 'wins' amount to nothing. Paste the above filmography over to the article, ok? Cheers, Jack Merridew19:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Cite an email (personal communication)?
RexxS, I am working on an update/ re-write of an article but had to email the subject to fill in a bunch of detail that was not in their CV (date of birth, family, etc...). For articles I have used "personal communication" as a reference but I'm not sure how to do that in here since there is not an available template. Have you done this before or do I need to go to WP:RD for a suggested format? Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
A tough one, Gene, because of the problem of establishing a WP:RS for an email. I've made use of email correspondence to establish the copyright status of a YouTube video at Oxygen toxicity, but this isn't quite the same thing. In essence, we need to ask viewers to trust that you have accurately reported the information, and that the information is reliably sourced to the originator. I'd suggest that you could reproduce the email in full (removing any IP addresses, if present) on the talk page of the article, asking for comments. Then, by all means, add a ref that refers to "personal communication" with a link to the section in the article talk page. I suspect that the assumption of good faith, and your impeccable standing as an editor ought to make that viable. Please remember that in a BLP there's a convention not to include the names of the subject's children (unless they are notable in their own right). I'll keep an eye on how it turns out and do my best to help where I can. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I just hit the editor with an email again. <g>
That's a great idea but he gave me a little too much info in the emails. I don't think his mother's maiden name needs to be made public with all the security issues that could be related to that. The info I am getting from him is probably stuff that does not need a ref unless questioned but I like to make this stuff as complete as possible and you can't get any more "primary" research than that... I'll probably post the new infobox and background sections later today if you have a free minute to copyedit. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I finally posted my re-write of the Bret Gilliam article last night. I added a picture a few minutes ago. I need to take a break from it for a little while then come back for more minor edits and unit conversions. Mind taking a look, updating what you can, and should we consider his deep air record for a DYK? Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi RexxS. I have restarted the above FLC because the consensus was unclear. Can you revisit it to ensure that all of your comments have been addressed, and if possible, declare whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the list's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi RexxS, congrats on getting your list featured! Another thing, thanks for your contributions in our review process. I think the gradual inclusion of accessibility reviews into regular reviews (most of which don't tend to cover accessibility to the same level you do) will be given much more time and effort than previous attempts from some parts of WP:ACCESS to "force us" to comply. I'd like to think we're already seeing positives. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TRM, for all your help and guidance on the FL process. At least I think I have a better understanding of the criteria and how it all works, so I'm happier to chip in on reviews when I feel I can be helpful. At the FAC process, there are some reviewers who comment solely on particular aspects like image use, or links, etc. but I'm not sure that model would work at FLC, as I've found myself supporting on accessibility grounds only to spot some different problems later. I think your regular reviewers need to be generalists to ensure all aspects are covered. I'd be happy to encourage nominators and the experienced reviewers to consider accessibility, and eventually I hope it will be subsumed within each reviewer's commentary (in the way that you do now). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
PPI Research Update
First, thanks RexxS, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
Second, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles, to please do a couple; articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. So please do a couple if you possibly can. HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
ACCESS for a list
Hey RexxS, I recently put List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons up for FLC here, and TRM told me to ask you about how to make sure the symbols for the key match up with WP:ACCESS. If I were to replace the symbols used currently with ones found in the Latin-1 alphabet, would it work? I've never really thought about making my lists meet WP:ACCESS before, once I've made the changes to the key I'll probably retrofit all the other hockey lists with similarly accessible keys. Nomader(Talk)17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Latin-1 symbols will probably work with most screen readers, but standard ASCII is safest. The alternative is to use a template which produces an image + alt text. I've commented at the FLC discussion in a little more detail, but feel free to come back to me if you want me to clarify or help further. I will do a fuller review of your nomination later, when time permits. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
ACCESS questions
Just to brighten your day/night, I've added a few questions on the access talkpage. None of them are critical or anything, just found a few minutes to analyse the requirements of MOS:ACCESS in a little more detail and feel it only fair we all understand what's required. I don't expect you to answer them all, either, just that you've taken my queries somewhat seriously and hopefully you know all I want is continue to improve this place. Anyway, I'm sure between you, Dodoiste and Graham87, you can hopefully answer my mini-queries. Cheers for now, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TRM. I've revisited the talkpage and commented on Template:Flatlist. Hopefully, apart from the problem with accessible card symbols, we should have got results on the issues you raised. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the FL state reptile work!
Really appreciate it. Just saw your comment at Malleus's place. We may try to get some more turtle lists to FL. TCO (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm always happy to give advice and guidance wherever I may be able to help, but I try not to stray into contributing significantly, as I want to be impartial when reviews are needed at FLC. But feel free to pick my brains whenever you want – it all goes towards improving the encyclopedia! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) On a second thought, after the WP:ALT controversy I believe it is a good idea to show members of the accessibility project can agree on most topics. It might help us to regain some credit afterall. We'll see. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the WPT I'd like to use
flipped and cropped
Can you please cut it to size as offered?
P.s. Thanks for the rocking work. Love it when there is this flurry of collaboration. Especially from the "heavies"!TCO (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Rexx and Jack. What a tiger team, you are! Love the gallery. Lot of info in there, very efficiently shown. Think it helps article compete well versus other painted turtle articles on the net.
You're most welcome – just let either of us know if you need something. Malleus is still your best bet for copyediting prose though. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Mall has been great. Still fun to brush shoulders with the high and mighty like you, Jack and Mall. Respect!TCO (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So what do we do AFTER featured article? I'm taking this thing further and making it do more tricks than before it got the star. All kinds of new images. A killer gallery. Frigging video. (have a couple tricks left up the sleeve, too.)TCO (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, RamblingMan pointed me in your direction as someone far more familiar with screen readers (as needed to satisfy WP:ACCESS) than I am. Several baseball-related lists current use the section symbol § to mark particular list entries (see List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks). Do you know if screen readers can handle that character, aka is a list which uses that symbol in this manner WP:ACCESS-ible? Thanks! Staxringoldtalkcontribs21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several screen readers available, as well as text-only browsers, so it's difficult to generalise about the accessibility of any given symbol other than the characters normally found on the keyboard. I'll ask Graham87, who uses JAWS, how it sounds to him. But first I should check with you if there's a reason to use § in the context of indicating a supplemental pick (such as commonly used in major sources)? If not, you could consider * ^ # $ etc. as indicators instead. You can be sure that those will be rendered sensibly by any user agent (browser, screen reader, etc.), so are always an accessibility-safe choice. Let me know, because if necessary, there is the possibility of creating a template for § to create an image with alt text (which we are certain is accessible). --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no real need for that particular symbol. Do you think we should swap it out for one of the suggested characters or, since it works with JAWS, just stick it out? Staxringoldtalkcontribs00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks again, Graham.
Stax, as JAWS is one of the most popular screen readers, the symbol is likely to be an acceptable choice. In Lynx it gives this in the key:
º Indicates a supplemental pick
but renders the same symbol in the main table, so there's no real problem there either. I wouldn't worry about it, but if you really wanted to be absolutely certain, then any of the keyboard characters (normal or superscripted) could be substituted to demonstrate the very best practice. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the mark-up! You mention in the edit summary that the plainrowheaders thingy should stop the names from being bold/centered, yet the names still look that way to me. Sorry to continue to harass you despite your doing something nice for the article already! :) Staxringoldtalkcontribs14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem - a complete brain-fart on my part. The column headers need to be marked up as scope="col" and the row headers need to be marked up as scope="row". It obvious really, except when I'm not concentrating, D'oh! --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for this. I've been trying to avoid getting drawn into that mess, and seeing a nice comment not accusing me of conspiracy or censorship was a very welcome change. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of embarrassing you, I was hugely impressed by your RfA, and I've seen you all around the wiki, helping out anybody who needed it – your contributions to Geogre's Ormulum won't be forgotten. It's all too easy for us to criticise anything that seems less than perfect, yet fail to acknowledge the massive amounts of good work that others do; so I don't hesitate to give you credit, because you deserve it. That mess is likely to be over soon, and we can all look forward to getting back to content work. Chin up and keep smiling! --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
FLC stuff
Hey RexxS. Thanks for your input with regard to accessibility and usability on my mini-guide. I still haven't moved it to Wikipedia space, perhaps it's a good idea to do it soon as an essay/guideline or whatever. And thanks for your patience it trying to get our lists up to scratch per ACCESS. I know it's not easy but I hope you can see there's a general agreement to do our best to meet the requirements of WP:ACCESS? There are going to be challenges, but that just makes life more interesting...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I quite like "interesting". Well, the point is that I want editors to understand why we're putting a burden on them, so I'll have to patiently debate the issues which remain novel to many editors. But it's all moving in the right direction. Now that I can see just what caused the problem for Circeus (he views ! scope="row" as unnecessarily doing the job twice: first the '!' and second the 'scope'), then I can try to explain why we've chosen that markup. I won't worry if I can't convince everybody all the time, and this very fine point isn't worth falling out over. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I quite agree. But I do hope you can see that the general trend, at least at FLC, is to support your views and those of WP:ACCESS. Looks like your advice has been followed by the nominator in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm very encouraged by the regulars taking on board accessibility issues, but I think it's more a tribute to their open-minded attitude to new techniques, than anything I'm able to bring to the debate. You have a good team of reviewers and regular nominators, and they are setting an excellent standard for Featured Content to the benefit of Wikipedia.
As for the Armillaria list, Sasata is worth encouraging to contribute more often to FLC - he's a prolific contributor whose work I've previously reviewed at GAN; and Circeus is very tech-savvy - I'd very much like to get him onside as he'd be a big asset to FLC as a reviewer. I'd better get over there and support. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed decision stuff
Notice this post, Big Rex? Followed by proposals on PD main page, utilising one of your workshop principles. Also followed by some.. unexpected replies. What a weird case this is. I think I'll just go to bed. (Late, here.) Bishonen | talk22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
I'm glad that they found those principles useful. But the replies you refer to: absolutely mind-boggling. You have been awarded a present in recompense. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
[darwinbish :] Chomp—chomp—chomp! Nom nom nom! [Hopefully but indistinctly, spraying a light cloud of crumbs as she speaks :] More? [With fake concern:] Poor 'shonen didn't get any! darwinbishBITE08:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi Gene, there's no point in anything other than G12, as it's an unequivocal copyvio with no prior version to revert to. I've done that now. Keep an eye on it, but I doubt that anyone is likely to ask for hang on. If there is an article worth salvaging it can be written, but that was an obituary masquerading as an article. In any case, we are required to remove all copyright violations on sight. If we are mistaken, it can always be restored later, but it's better safe than sorry. Best wishes to you and Becky, hope all is well with you both. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! First time I have come across something so obvious. I did not catch it at first glance.
We are doing quite well. Expecting another baby boy in July. At the last ultrasound there was no sign of CDH so we are moving forward as if it is a normal pregnancy. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, —WFC— 10:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, WFC. I've just thrown together a couple of demo pages that folks can play around with to see the process. I hope that will help generate further enthusiasm. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey RexxS, I hope you didn't mind me picking your list as one of our "prime examples"? Where are the demo pages you've referred to? We'll need to point people to them when we create our proposal at Talk:Main page in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi TRM - I'm flattered that you might want to use the list I nominated, but I don't own it of course, so feel free :) The demo works like this:
Since that's a simplified version of the process the other featured content uses (i.e. the main page transcludes other pages which actually get set-up beforehand by the folks responsible for that part). I hope you realise what you're letting yourself in for! (It's worth it though). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Fix my page
Thanks for your efforts to improve my user page. It's a really nice gesture of collegiality. I'm pleased with your work, and I accepted it. If you have some more ideas about it, feel free to implement them. Also, I really need some help about my userboxes, I want to display them in a different way then they are now. Any ideas? --Sundostund (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, feel free to arrange the userboxes into two columns. I must admit that I don't know much about arranging the userboxes, and I'll really appreciate your help. --Sundostund (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You really did the great job with userboxes! Thank you. I just wanted to ask you, if you can, to put them bellow text, at the end of user page. I tried to do that myself today, but I don't know how. Thanks again! --Sundostund (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm slow to reply, but it's been a busy day, and I've been concentrating on helping the proposals to get Featured Lists their own slot on the Main Page. I see that you've experimented quite a bit, but you'll find that what you're asking for would require alterations to the way the block of userboxes interacts with the main text. I mean it would not be floated. If you did that, you'd end up with a very, very long userpage, so I'd have to ask is that what you really wanted? --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I want to have userboxes at the end of userpage, not on top of it. I don't know how it would looks after alterations, but I really don't like to have userboxes at the top. If you know the way to put userboxes below, please do it. I tried to do that myself numerous times, to no avail. --Sundostund (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you've been really busy past few days. Anyway, whenever you can, please put userboxes at the bottom of user page. I really want to see how it would looks. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I made some changes today, but I don't know how to stop userboxes from overflowing the main container. If that's solved, I'll be very pleased with my present userpage. When you find some time, put userboxes inside the main container, and after that this remodeling will be over. --Sundostund (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It will be a job that needs some time, because I'll have to create a template to fit userboxes inside, so that they all have the same size. I'll then be able to put them inside a container that I can place below the list of subpages. For the moment, I've just fixed the overflow, so it all fits inside the main container. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the overflow. As soon as you can, please create that template to fit userboxes inside. It's really a great idea! --Sundostund (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
ACCESS again
Hi RexxS. I have a question for you. One of the sports-related lists I've worked on, Rawlings Gold Glove Award is undergoing preliminary mainpage prep. Since this nomination was completed well before all the recent ACCESS hoo-ha, I'm having a bit of trouble. I've instated the row and column headers on 4 of the 6 tables in that article, but two of them (the "Batteries" and "Middle-infield duos" tables toward the bottom of the page) don't really have a clear row header because each row is about two primary players, not one primary year or position like the rest. Is it kosher to have two row headers in a single row? What does ACCESS have to say about this? More importantly, what do you have to say? You can respond here and {{talkback}} me, or respond at my talk at your leisure. Thanks! — KV5 • Talk • 15:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi KV, I've looked at both of those lists and I agree that the pair is the key element. From a structural point of view, you could put both names in one cell without losing any information or functionality:
Batterymates to win Gold Gloves for the same team in the same season
But frankly, I wouldn't bother. At present, a screen reader will announce one or the other name before each data cell so the listener won't be confused about which row they are on if they navigate down a column. In that sense, you've done your job by allowing a blind user to easily identify their current row – that's what this bit of accessibility is about. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Understood... is there a way to "plainrow" these small tables? I think the names should be un-bolded to be consistent with the player names in the other tables. Plainrowheaders attribute seems only to work on the leftmost column. — KV5 • Talk • 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done the "Batteries" table for you as an illustration, so you can do the other. It's an undocumented feature of wiki tables that the '!' applies TH (table header) tags to all the cells on that row in the wikitext. So both cells on the row become headers, but only the first one acquires the 'scope' attribute. The "plainrowheaders" class only affects header cells that have 'scope="row"' set – otherwise it would make the column headers plain as well.
Interestingly, this is one of the rare cases where there is a difference between laying out the parameters in wikitext vertically and laying them out horizontally. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw it as soon as you did it, and the double-play table is already done following your example. I appreciate all your help. All I have to do now is the alt text and that list should be completely up-to-date. — KV5 • Talk • 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record regarding your edit summary, if you timestamp the talkback, and then re-timestamp it at a second reply, I'll get orange-barred again. Fun little coding nugget, that. — KV5 • Talk • 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
