User talk:MZMcBride

Main page
Hi MZMcBride - I have reverted some of your main page edits, because they are not, imho, improvements. Resizing the images makes the page dull, and your modifications to the version list don't make any sense - they make it harder to read and introduce unnecessary bulletting. If you disagree with these changes then we should discuss it further - please don't undo them until a consensus is reached. --HappyDog 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Users, System administrators, Developers, and News boxes all use bullets. I see no reason to not use bullets on the Current versions box, it's the only box that doesn't use them, which looks awkward. The icons in the three boxes are far too large and serve no purpose other than decoration. They also expand the screen size unnecessarily while providing little to no benefit to the reader. Having them in the dark grey bar keeps them consistent with the icons for the News and Current versions boxes. But I'm glad someone finally noticed my changes. : - ) Thoughts on what I've said? --MZMcBride 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been away for a while, so sorry about the slow reaction... :-\0
 * "The icons [...] serve no purpose other than decoration" - From an informational point of view, perhaps. But from a UI point of view, I completely disagree.  The icons have a very important dual purpose - Firstly they make the main page more colourful and welcoming, and stop it being a set of textual box-outs that are very hard to get any kind of handle on, and Secondly, they help identify the 3 different types of person this site is aimed at, at a glance.  They draw the eye to the appropriate text area, they delineate the fact that different levels of user have different needs and the same icons are re-used in other sections of the site which provides an important level of cohesion, and based on this, the front-page emphasis is actually pretty important.
 * Re: the bullets. This is not a big deal, but I don't think they're really needed here.  I don't think that there is any confusion caused by not having the bullets, therefore adding them is not necessary - it's just extra screen clutter that adds nothing from the user's point of view.  Personally, I think they should also be removed from the news section, though they have some pertinence to the other parts of the page.
 * --HappyDog 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the purpose of the icons, I just don't understand why they must be so large. Surely they can be the same size as the ones in News and Current versions boxes, which still serving their function as tools for identification. --MZMcBride 19:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, for the reasons mentioned above. In what way is their current size causing problems? --HappyDog 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the explanation.... it just looked a bit odd. Anyway, feel free to join my wiki, and you can have sysop and bureaucrat status!! Thanks, AP aka --Sunstar NW XP 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta imports
Hi MZMcBride, could you please always use Template:TalkFromMeta and Template:EndTalkFromMeta when importing from Meta? Thanks for your help. -- :bdk: 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try to remember. :-) Perhaps the instructions at Meta should be updated? --MZMcBride 01:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, feel free to add something about it there :-) Adding these templates is kind of "common" for most of us here, so I guess nobody stated it explicitly somewhere on Meta yet.
 * And, another issue: could you please only use Special:Import for further imports? This will leave an automated "origin link" to the Meta page in question in the page history (which isn't done through "file upload" importing), see also the differences in the log ("x revisions from meta:yz" vs. "x revisions" only). -- :bdk: 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to use transwiki importing, but it doesn't work. ;-) It's broken, gives an error about no import sources being found or something. So I've had to do manual exports from Meta and manual imports here. If you can find someone to fix the problem, I'll happily use transwiki. But I think it's going to be broken for a long while. --MZMcBride 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * tss, thanks for the additional notes on IRC ;-) -- :bdk: 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tranwiki importing with revisions was actually disabled five days ago because imports with a large number of revisions were causing problems. I got Brion to re-enable imports up to 1000 revisions; I still got the "could not read import file," but after pressing Import a few times it worked.  Did you try button-mashing? :D —Emufarmers(T 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki/it
Thanks, very very thanks. --Ivocamp96 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:InstallationNav
I have reverted your recent changes to this template. Please see this comment for details. --HappyDog 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Test. - Rjd0060 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too, hello, 2, 3, 4. -- Tim Starling 01:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To-do (hopefully tomorrow)
--MZMcBride 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Centralize this: Test framework deployment
 * Inform RobLa

Pokeswap (talk)
i am still working on the coding. since it is removed does that mean it is less likleyto get help from developers i just keep adding to it slowly.

what is a sandbox

Userinfo template
FYI this appears on all the WMF wikis including the ones I can't edit    Thorncrag    00:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed: . Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken template
Template:Vve, which you created and which is being used at Current versions, seems to be broken. Note how the "view" and "edit" links at the latter page don't actually point to the right places. Also, should the latter page maybe be moved to a different namespace, since it clearly relates to templates used on this wiki, not to the MediaWiki software in general? Finally, are either of these pages even necessary, since they're both only used on one other page? Thought I'd let you decide what to do about this... - dcljr (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, diff. Krinkle (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for User:Wrecked 'im? Damn near killed 'im!
Hi, I thank you very much for your work with Gerrit reports. I left some feedback at Talk:Gerrit/Reports/Oldest open changesets. Sending here a reminder just in case.--Qgil (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. No problem, though it'd be great if you or someone else were willing to take over the maintenance of these reports. :-) Thanks for dropping a note here, I've finally updated the reports to support the requested functionalities. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories in mediawiki sidebar in Vector skin
How to show categories and subcategories in sidebar of Mediawiki 1.20.3 in

Vector skin. Please help me please.I have used CategoryTree extension but

dont know syntax is rightly used in LocalSettings.php  I got one website using

this http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/fr/Accueil

Please tell me how to dislplay categories in vector skin? --Ksanjeet (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Ksanjeet

Productization vs. Integration
Hey. I know the word is jargon and it is ugly. But integration is too vague and glosses over a lot of detail of what making a thing permanent means. It doesn't make sense even among the people who would otherwise understand all that "productization" implies. Before we start moving all our docs, I'd prefer to try and agree on a term that is clearer as well as less stupid than productization. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think integration loses much (if any) meaning. Do you have suggestions for a better term? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At least in the context of E3 and what we typically mean by productization, perhaps "rollout" is okay. Or something similar... permanent launch, permanent release? Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really think any of your suggestions are better than "integration," but I don't really care among them. I was going for "not productization," so any of those are fine with me. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems we've gone with "launch." I've updated a few pages accordingly. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)