MediaWiki talk:Edittools
To hide the various subsections, insert any of these lines into your user.css page (eg. User:YOURNAME/monobook.css)
#edittools_main {display:none;} /* For the main "Insert" section */
#edittools_name {display:none;} /* For the "Sign your name" section */
#edittools_characters {display:none;}
#edittools_greek {display:none;}
#edittools_ipa {display:none;}
#edittools_symbols {display:none;}
#edittools_wikimarkup {display:none;}
To change the font size of any of the sections, replace display:none; in any of the above properties with font-size: and then the desired size. For example
#edittools_characters {font-size:12px;}
will make the "Characters:" section display at a size of 12px.
 Archives | |
|---|---|
Link to "common templates"?
Its a pain looking up templates when editing. Could a link to common templates (in separate window), or the main template finder, be added to Edittools? FT2 (Talk) 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Redundant additions
[] [[]] #REDIRECT[[]] and the signature are all above the edit box; are they really necessary? --Rory096 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking not.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- A further proposed change, was to remove the #REDIRECT and ---- (horizontal rule) buttons from the button-bar.
- Particularly the Horizontal Rule button, as they are deprecated per Help:Editing, and i've seen many people mistakenly try to sign their name with that button.
- Also the button bar apparantly doesnt display in some older browsers, so redundancy might not hurt?
- I don't know where/who to ask about those changes though. Does anyone agree, and can anyone help? -Quiddity 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they're probably not necessary, but if the button bar is going to be there anyway, they do no harm (except maybe the horizontal rule). I for one use the signature button all the time. I say keep them. --teb728 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- The signature button is good, I didnt suggest removing that one ;). And it would actually benefit from removing the other two, as it would then be at the end of the row, and hence more useable. -Quiddity 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- A computer which I use frequently doesn't have the button bar; the images on that computer from Wikipedia for some reason won't load, and so it just has text in place of the bar...basically it's useless on that computer. SoaP 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The signature button is good, I didnt suggest removing that one ;). And it would actually benefit from removing the other two, as it would then be at the end of the row, and hence more useable. -Quiddity 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they're probably not necessary, but if the button bar is going to be there anyway, they do no harm (except maybe the horizontal rule). I for one use the signature button all the time. I say keep them. --teb728 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Templates link
As mentioned in the top thread on this page, it might be a good idea to add a link to Wikipedia:Template messages after the wikimarkup list. (eg (templates) like the (polytonic list) link). -Quiddity 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it may be a good idea. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please include ə
Could I make a request for ə (schwa) to appear among the IPA characters? It's one of the most used phonemes among world languages, and its omission is quite glaring. It should certainly take precedence over ɚ, which may be used to represent certain renderings of schwa in American English, but is by no means as common. Thanks, Blisco 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, Schwa is already included in the Characters row, and is one of the last characters. My request is to include the diacritic for dental consonant, extremely important for contrastive phonetic transcription. d̪ (or its diacritic ̪ ).Cygnus_hansa 13:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The lone symbol was not working, so I requested and got done the diacritic with t and d (dental) IPA : t̪ d̪ from a friend.Cygnus_hansa 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know the reason why the symbol was not working? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The lone symbol was not working, so I requested and got done the diacritic with t and d (dental) IPA : t̪ d̪ from a friend.Cygnus_hansa 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Justification
Has someone just switched English Wikipedia from left justification to full justification? If so, this really sucks; please change it back promptly. Badagnani 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why does this "suck"? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki markup line changes
Proposed changes to the "Wiki markup" line, per top 3 page threads:
Remove these links as redundant: [] [[]] #REDIRECT[[]].Done.Add this link to the end of the line: (templates)Done.
sound good? --Quiddity 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done. —Ruud 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now I think of it... clicking on "templates" has the nasty surprise of sending you to another page. Could be quite an unexpected effect for some people? —Ruud 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- So do the "edit summary", "what's this?", "cancel", and "editing help" links just above, but I think you may be right. Maybe my mistaken < code > code would be useful after all? Or another method of visually/subtly distinguishing those 2 links?
- Now I think of it... clicking on "templates" has the nasty surprise of sending you to another page. Could be quite an unexpected effect for some people? —Ruud 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done. —Ruud 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been reverted, and I can see why. Some of us may consider the links superfluous, but others may like them better than the editbuttons at the top of the page. Redundancy is not always a bad thing. Ingoolemo talk 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, a partial reason for the removal was to stop the linewrap at 1024x768; but with the addition of blockquote, that became impossible.
- So, we could even add/duplicate the nowiki button. --Quiddity·(talk) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Bullet spacing
- the bullets at the end of these lines, all have different spacing on their lefthand side. eg:
- ə • {{Unicode|}}
- > • (templates)
- ω • {{Polytonic|}}
- Could someone fix the Unicode and Polytonic lines to have 2 spaces to the left of the bullets. (Makes more sense if you look at the above in the Editing window (monospaced).)
- Also, could we add another bullet between "{{Polytonic|}} (polytonic list)", like this: "{{Polytonic|}} • (polytonic list)"
- Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done! —Mets501 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Extra edit buttons
I strongly recommend that you get User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons by adding the following text to User:Quiddity/monobook.js:
//Create 'winc' function:
function winc(s) {
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:' + s
+ '.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
}
winc('MarkS/extraeditbuttons')
XEB (as I call it) includes all functions in the markup line of edittools, thereby making all of them redundant. Once you've gotten XEB, you can add #edittools_wikimarkup {display:none;} to User:Quiddity/monobook.css, which will then make the wikimarkup line invisible.
Ingoolemo talk 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- (I've made a new section for this.) Thanks for the suggestion, but i don't actually need the buttons, as I hand-type everything. The thread above is just me following up previous discussions, and proposing a change that will hopefully help all users. (by removing redundancy, adding a useful template link, and stopping the linewrap at 1024width). Thanks anyway though. -Quiddity 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Signature button
The 2 dashes were just removed from the signature button, with the edit summary:
- "Rm dashes from "--~~~~". Sign with four tildes only - consistency with WP:SIG. Dashes are redundant anyways... if you want dashes, put it in your preferences"
However the graphical edit buttons signature-button, above the edit window, uses the 2dash prefix. If I were to put the 2 dashes in my sig-preferences, using the graphical button would then give me 4 dashes. These need to be consistent. (Personally, i prefer having the 2 dashes included on the signature buttons by default. It makes it easier to visually seperate comments that end with a link, from their ajoining signature.Quiddity·(talk) 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- On a personal note, I too prefer having the 2 dashes included on the signature buttons by default. I wonder why it was removed. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Siva, the reason I removed it was in the edit summary. I wasn't aware of the functionality of the button you pointed out though, Quiddity (I turned off that bar in my preferences). I wonder if we should change the functionality of the graphical button then too. Or maybe we can just have both ~~~~ and --~~~~ present in the box. I think just having the four tildes makes more sense because it is a personal preference whether or not to have the dashes. If someone does not want the dashes, he has to delete them when using the button; if the dashes aren't there, then someone who wants them would have to type them. Would having both be a good compromise? ~MDD4696 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have a question, does anyone actually click either button? I mean, for me, it's much easier to just type ~~~~ than have to move the mouse. —Mets501 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I go back and forth between typing either 1 or 2 dashes and the tildes, and using (both of) the buttons, at different times. I'm erratic that way ;)
- On the other hand, I wouldnt miss any of the graphical button bar, if we just added the < nowiki > button to this edittools box. --Quiddity·(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I guess I'd weakly support removing the dashes from the graphical sig button, and let people set the dash/es in their own prefs. However, I do also find the dash/es a useful visual seperator, as i mentioned before. Plus, people will be even more tempted to use colourful/garish sigs, if we removed the dashes from being a default. Quiddity·(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have a question, does anyone actually click either button? I mean, for me, it's much easier to just type ~~~~ than have to move the mouse. —Mets501 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use my favourite solution: add id tags? That way, users who don't we can offer both ~~~~ and --~~~~, and more advanced users can choose the former option if they want. (The latter would be set to display by default, the former to be suppressed by default.)
I also added a <nowiki> insert link. Ingoolemo talk 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. And good job summarizing below; and on the successful nowiki addition ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts on redundancy
I thought I'd throw this out, since it seems to be a recurring point of discussion here. My belief on the question of text-based editools (this page) versus the graphics-based toolbar (at the top of the edit window) is that it depends entirely on the users. Some, like myself, prefer to insert markup with the toolbar; others seem to prefer using edittools. We should be ready to accommodate both. So, anything that is in the toolbar should be included in edittools as well. Those who don't edittools-based markup insertion, like me, can suppress it with CSS (see instructions at the top of this page). Likewise, those who have no use for the toolbar can also suppress it, by adding #toolbar {display: none;} to their personal CSS. Hopefully now we can move beyond quibbling over redundancy. Ingoolemo talk 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. We should be ready to include both. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Spaces
Could someone help? I think it would be a good idea to add <div class="references-small"> into this, but I was clicking show preview and, because of the space, it thinks <div is a seperate thing. I tested to see if using <div class="references-small"> on an article if it works by replacing a space wiht an unserstrike, but it doesn't work. Any ideas? Iolakana|T 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
<charinsert><nowiki><div class="references-small"></nowiki></charinsert>should work. It worked for me in my sandbox. —Mets501 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)- Hmm... Thanks anyway! Iolakana|T 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've added it now. —Mets501 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Thanks anyway! Iolakana|T 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Colour guide
I was thinking that whenever you need to put voloured span tags, unless you're God, you ned to look at a colour chart. Why not include a HTML colour chart to help out the meek mortal users? SoaP 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to be god to remember that for green you type
<span style="color:green">and for blue you type<span style="color:blue">, etc. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)- I didn't mean that, I was talking about when you want to exactly match a color for whatever reason. It's a pain in the arse to find the exact colour. I was thinking something along the lines of...I'll show you my way here. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I was thinking of another idea:I have a lot of trouble with edit summaries; they take way too long. What if there was a button to insert key phrases such as "revert", "remove", "cleanup", and "creation"? That would help. SoaP 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The edittools text cannot be entered into the summary field. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, meh, I forgot. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, on a completely non-serious note, what should we do for April Fools' Day? I think that we should replace all the edit tools with "Happy april fool's day" but that's relatively stupid. Maybe put the names of administrators? SoaP 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- We should not cross in to the MediaWiki namespace on April Fools' Day, that is going to far, and admins have been blocked for doing that in the past. —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean something really that far, but maybe putting in one tool that said "Happy april fools' day"? I really don't think that for one day out of 365, one crappy little link would destroy the integrity of the wiki. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I strongly oppose any use of crappy little links even on April Fools Day. No serious researcher or academic would play such a joke. For Wikipedia to keep its integrity and scholarly ideals intact, these jokes should be strongly discouraged. Besides, there is Wikipedia:Humor for this. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean something really that far, but maybe putting in one tool that said "Happy april fools' day"? I really don't think that for one day out of 365, one crappy little link would destroy the integrity of the wiki. SoaP 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Copyright symbols
©, 
and ® need to be inside the box; that would be of great service to image uploaders and those who respect copyright, like me. All I keep typing out for those turn out thus: (c), (p) and (R).
(Hmm...I see isn't Unicode-compatible.) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why? They should not be used in articles, and they aren't needed to indicate that something is copyrighted, you just use one of the tags or you can write what the copyright is. —Centrx→talk • 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
{{subst:PAGENAME}}
Would anyone object if I added {{subst:PAGENAME}} to the editing toolbox? It might prove useful at times. --Ixfd64 22:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary. {{subst:PAGENAME}} just produces the page title, which can just be copy/pasted from the page title visible on the editing screen. —Mets501 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)