User talk:Edokter

Default modules

 * RE: [ edit summary]

I'm not quite sure whether you do or don't know, but none of the modules on that page are to be assumed present or loaded on any given point in the execution flow (except two, and no more than those two,  and  ). Any variable or method used in your code that comes from any other module must have it's origin module declared as a dependency.

"mw.config" and "mw.html" are not modules. They are part of initial  object (as is mw.loader, mw.msg etc.), defined all at once in the core   module, they don't have their own module (per contents of mediawiki.js).

Just for your information, Krinkle 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That clears it up a bit. The link Rilke added only made it more confusing. Still, you say mediawiki is loaded; does that include mediawiki.util? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 02:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Krinkle 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

navbar
I reverted your CSS based updates (from Feb) to navbar because as cool as those are MediaWiki:Common.css does not contain/support the referenced CSS classes (and it breaks things to assume it does without such in first). 50.53.15.51 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That appears to be an imported revision. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Image caption = alt text
Your edit to Help:Images isn't entirely correct. I've seen it show up as "alt" text "on mouseover" as was specified before your change. I can provide code snippets if needed. — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 12:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All four major current browsers no longer show any alt text as tooltips, probably since we switched to HTML5. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many wikis using the MW core that don't use HTML5. The previous version should be restored and a note saying this effect doesn't apply to wikis using HTML5. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 22:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I'm not entirely sure HTML5 is to blame, or if it is even enabled by default in core, but if there is to be such a note, it should be reflected in all the examples as well. I think the current version is the safer option. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is someone else who is knowledgeable in exactly what changed it that might be able to offer the details so it can properly and fully be documented? — T13  ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 23:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

License compliance is not optional
In this revert, you would seem to imply that complying with image licenses is optional. --SamB (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, it depends on the image policy a project has. This page is only for technical help regarding the use of images in the MediaWiki software; it is not tied to MediaWiki projects like Wikipedia. This software is used extensivly throughout the web, and how they choose to handle image licences is not relevant on this page. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

mediawiki.ui buttons
Thanks for your thinking about the buttons, I think your intuition is correct about making the neutral state buttons darker is good. I'd like to stick with a color we already have in the LESS for greys the closest would be #777777 "Neutral Grey 7" the neutral buttons (white background) also has a bug where it should not have a drop(box) shadow on its text, in normal or hover state, and it currently does, would be ok with switching to the darker "Neutral Grey 7" to keep consistency with the other greys in use elsewhere. Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think #777 is still pushing it towards the 'disabled' perception. At least the button should be black or text color (#252525), but I came up with #696969 as a compromise. I could also have chosen #666, the complement of the #ccc border. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personnally I criticize the default text color (#252525) over the default plain white background. This needlessly reduces the contrast, and forces people to increase the lightness (a problem for mobile devices as it uses more energy, and also a problem of readability for people with vision problems in seeing contrasts: dichromats, myopic, astygmatic, those with reduce field of vision).
 * Why not simply using plain black by default (like the text in this talk page) ? Even in Wikipedia, many articles assume the default text color is the darkest black. And the difference with the blue links is less contrasted with this dark grey... This is also probably even more important when the background is not white for disabled buttons: the light grey (darker than white) already reduces the readability ( example1 most people won't see the difference between the letter l and the digit 1, if they can read the text, it is clearer with black: example1 ). Verdy p (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for Hovercards
We are looking for feedback on Hovercards - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Beta_Features/Hovercards Would be super useful if you could try the feature and give us your feedback since you participated in typography refresh. Also if you have used the navigation popups gadget, we are trying to understand which actions from that gadget are useful. Please comment here - https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beta_Features/Hovercards&workflow=rt4khfuq1svh8sx3 Thank You, Vibhabamba

Your unjustiifed revert
You just delete useful contents about how to use a template. The effect on other wikis does not change when I add notes about usages and some more examples to explicit the use, not the implementation itself. Your deletions are just abusive. I had added these usage notes because there were pages where the template was used incorrectly, breaking texts. It is justified to explain how the border radius is computed, or how and when to adjust it correctly. Verdy p (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a CSS compatibility template, not a tutorial on how to use CSS. Documentation on these template need to be concise, without going into too much detail, as these details always reflect on someone's personal interpretation of how such templates mustd be used. On mediawiki.org, that is not acceptable. Now stop edit warring. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have ignored my own alerts, and used FALSE assertions in an attempt to justifiy your deletion. This is NOT a cusus about CSS, but good practices for use on wikis, because many eople ignore them and the necessay padding on how to interpret the radius is justified.
 * You also do not want to include the default value of the radius and delete it, this is also abusive.
 * The doc pas is not significantly longer to read and interpret, and definitely not more complicate: a visible image of the effect says more than long comments and this is the purpose of the 2 examples added at end that you drop.
 * Templates are not enough documented about their effects, and people use them incorrectly, including this one (and this was the cause for me to complement it with just a couple of demonstrative examples, kept simple). And you should know that I initially created it on another wiki before it was imported there.
 * You have used your 3 reverts without discussing or notifying; now you are required to stop. If you want to continue you'll need to use a public discussion (not this page); but generally too many of your actions on this wiki are abusively deleting many things that peope find useful, always without discussion (and almost always without any justification, you did not even provide any justification in your 1st reverts for this template; so clearly you don't want to discuss and moderate your opinion with anyone). Verdy p (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, take the discussion to Template:Border-radius/doc to resolve the editing dispute instead of fighting over it on a user talk page. Starting a discussion there would likely lead to a third party's input not involved in the edit warring, therefore resolving the dispute. You're not going to get anything done on a user talk page though. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He's started the war and never accepted any change to this doc page, that did not delete anything (Edokter just refused to talk; immediately from its 1st deletion that was never explained, but he insisted and reverted a 4th time without replying to the subject). Apparetly he owns the page and dos not want anyone else to augment it; even if it is insufficient in its state (I did not want to abuse anyone, I had seen that people used the radius incorrectly; or did not know how to compute it consistantly because I had really seen truncated texts; this was absolutely not a tutorial about CSS; not much was given except speaking about the depediny with padding settings and line-height....
 * And much more than the text, these were two small examples showing things more clarly by an image speaking more than words about the possible undesirable effects. There are other doc pages about these formating templates that use many more examples; but the given examle is not very demonstrative, and not typical of the usage. And it does not show how this affects borders (because people incorrectly think that the inner frame of a border cannot be covered by the content-box (this is clearly refuted in the example I gave) and that the border box contains everything in the content-box (also false, the content-box can still overflow). Verdy p (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)