Help talk:Reference card

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Could do with a rework[edit]

Have any experts actually read the card recently? It needs a few changes! I'd love to give it a makeover once I've got the hang of the rest of the system but I'm still currently a customer of things like that card.

I'd be grateful if someone who knows what they are doing could fix it, starting with spelling, format and content.

Cheers Jon

Reference Card PDF corrupt?[edit]

I downloaded to my desktop and Adobe Reader 7.0.8 said it "could not open Image Wiki-refcard.pdf because it is either not a supported file type or because the file has been damaged"

Shoot me, I am an idiot. I misread the link to the download page as the file link. So I have edited the page to make it clearer to the brain-dead -- Anon 13-Oct-2006

I tried to open the file with Acrobat Pro 7. No joy. Svanslyck 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes in Reference_card[edit]

4 single quotes have no associated wiki formatting. It should be 5.
Anyone, please correct it. -- Anon 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing -- Dimas.yusuf 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the definition list syntax may be incorrect. I thought the following makes a definition list:

Definition
List

137.82.44.211 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Under Links, "reserach" should be research? 137.82.44.211 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Under Basic Formatting:
<nowiki> is "in-line" (not "in box").
Under Tables:
|- style="background:grey" is preferred.
Martin Leese216.123.197.16 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

rv rv Help:Reference_card[edit]

Moved from m:Help talk:Editing to get that in one place:

I was rather annoyed when I was almost ready to have Help:Reference_card in shape for a proper help page, copied to w:Help:Reference_card, with H-langs:Reference_card, Ph:Reference_card, Phh, and what else, before I found that media links don't work between different Wikis, and worse the PDF doesn't work with my viewer. At least H:h on w:en: can now also handle the "no parameter" situation. -- Omniplex (w:t) 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Refcard/acroread[edit]

Copied / moved from w:User talk:Omniplex adding w: where needed

Hi, in an edit comment you wrote that the help:reference card is not acceptable since it doesn't work in acroread 3. I think it is a bit unfair to blame the refcard for bugs in outdated software; acroread is currently at version 7.

Also, I saw that you removed the link to the refcard from w:Help:editing with the comment "Transwiki". I'm afraid it will be hard for people to find the refcard without the link. Cheers, AxelBoldt 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Acroreader 3 is the most recent for my platform. It supports links and at least one colour, that should be more than necessary for a reference card if it's designed to be printed on a single A4 page with a black & white printer - I can't judge what it does because it doesn't work here. The P in PDF was meant to be portable, but sadly it turned out to mean proprietary. They even added "scripting" as in MS DOC <shudder />
And I was seriously pissed by Help:Reference card: I saw that you edited the copy of w:Help:Editing on w:, and thought that it should be simple to get the ref card in shape for export/import. See above, it needed a header and a footer and two auxiliary templates on Meta plus two auxiliary templates on w:. Eventually I was at this point, ready to remove the m: in the "See Also" links of w:Help:Editing. That was the moment when I tested its links on w:, and found that the PDF is broken. Therefore I reverted or "db-author-ed" (delete because author = me screwed up) all, and imported the last state of Help:Editing. Meanwhile you had found the correct place (= Meta) to add the link, but I wanted to get the last state before this futile adventure and reverted it.
Later Patrick reverted it back to your version, see my comment above (was in Help talk:Editing). "Transwiki" is an impressive name for copy and paste, if you want it as is on Meta you can either copy and paste the actual (= your) version on Meta, or because the diff is a single line fix that directly. But don't revert it on w:, the copy where you first tried to add the link was already outdated. Of course all states of this help page are dubious, but that's unrelated to the Reference card link. -- Omniplex 11:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Has your TeX to PDF/unknown_version_better_than_3 tool options to create PS or maybe even XHTML?

Does GSview/ghostview work on your platform? The refcard works fine in ghostview, and of course one can also use TeX and dvips to produce a PostScript version of it. I don't think it is reasonable to limit the help choices of all users just because one platform doesn't have an up to date PDF viewer. The PDF file accords with current specs and is not "broken".

I've an older (2001-04) GS working fine for most PS files I ever tested. It used to have difficulties with PDF where Acroreader 3 worked. Some tools like OpenOffice can create perfectly nice PDFs working with Acroreader 3. I've deleted my old AcroDos, that was version 1 for DOS. Adding new features incompatible with old viewers is a bad idea for something claiming to be "portable". Especially if they are severe security risks. As far as I'm concerned burn all PDF - unless the only alternative is DOC ;-). -- Omniplex (w:t) 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence "if you want it as is on Meta you can either copy and paste the actual (= your) version on Meta, or because the diff is a single line fix that directly." What diff is a single line? What do you mean by "if you want it as is"? Where should I copy the actual version? AxelBoldt 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You added the link later also here. I copied the last version before this addition to Wikipedia. So if you want the link back in a fresher version also on Wikipedia one line (= your link) is missing. But from time to time somebody will copy the complete page from Meta to Wikipedia, sooner or later your link will show up also on Wikipedia anyway if it's not removed again here. -- Omniplex (w:t) 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Maybe a stupid idea, how about offering a PNG version in addition to the PDF? For an example see w:en:E-mail_authentication#_note-2 = 2.
Thanks, I will add the link back to w:Help:Editing. A PNG version of the refcard is linked at help:reference card. AxelBoldt 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
PNG works for a first impression. I'd replace "full details" by "more details", most help pages I've seen need work. -- Omniplex (w:t) 23:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Link in caption is to an image PDF?[edit]

Doesn't work -- clicking causes download of html page as PDF. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.197.70 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2007.

It's a link to an "image description page", the default for any media file: Image:Wiki-refcard.pdf. From there one can download the pdf.
Although possibly you mean your webbrowser is misinterpreting the link based on the file extension. I don't know how to fix that. (what browser are you using?) Quiddity 01:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)