This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Now that Magioladitis has fixed all of the articles in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, is it time to remove the old code from this template? I recommend we could do the following:
What do you think? GoingBatty ( talk) 04:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty I think for drafts, we can either convert to new style or send for MfD any STALEDRAFT that has not been edited for 3 or more years. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty In many cases in the talk space, adding nowiki tags was OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tag can be removed from many talk pages. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Now we are down to 27. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}
Technical 13, GoingBatty, MSGJ let's wait 7 days to check whether any new items will be added. For instance, this happened yesterday. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's weird but today I noticed 2 more items pop-up. Some server delay prevents us from showing all pages with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 I guess I could run my script against all pages transcluding the template. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Redrose64 and
GoingBatty: I ran my script against all pages transcluding MI. Approx. 40 pages fixed. there is a small chance that I may have missed some parameters not covered by my script but these would be really few. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that even if we remove the old style code we should keep the tracking category for some time. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Frietjes, GoingBatty, and Redrose64: et al. I guess Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters will catch any problems i.e. we can now use the sandbox version. Right? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|2=
). in the sandbox version, I merged these into
Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters since the additional tracked parameters will be removed at that point (and not just deprecated).
Frietjes (
talk)
15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter.)
GoingBatty (
talk)
04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Frietjes, GoingBatty, Redrose64, and Technical 13: et al. Sandbox version is now live! Please check for any problems. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)I am new to wikipedia and an editor has added this to a page I have edited. How can I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.75.224 ( talk) 10:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template uses the collapsible
class collapsing method; however, jQuery’s collapse method (mw-collapsible
) is available since MW 1.20, which is always loaded, so everything should be changed at one time to the Common.js version can be removed and thus the page load to be speeded up. Also, the “new” method works also without tables so (in my opinion) it’ll be semantically correcter. So please change
<table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;"> <tr><th style="text-align:left; padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;"> This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</span></th></tr> <tr><td>{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}} </td></tr></table>
to
<div class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%;"> <div style="padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;">'''This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues.''' Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</div> <div class="mw-collapsible-content">{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}</div> </div>
(The indenting has no effect, you can insert it or not; just it’s more readable here.) Thanks! -- Tacsipacsi ( talk) 10:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
to mw-collapsible
, if you say there is no difference in functionality. I'm more hesitant with the change from tables to divs, because all of our message boxes are built with tables. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem good to mix the two systems. Perhaps a discussion on
WP:VPT is the way forward? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
09:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
to mw-collapsible
, and so on. --
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This looks like an ugly hack. It's sending every template through this module. What does it do, and can it achieved in a more efficient way? Wbm1058 might be able to explain. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
class="hide-when-compact"
to hide stuff when in compact mode. I'll have a think if there is any way to do the opposite. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand the rationale and I appreciate the effort you have spent in achieving this, but I still don't like it for the following two reasons.
Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
att
and few
parameters. That's all unrelated to the display of orphan messages inside {{
multiple issues}}; I believe there is limited confusion over that aspect of it, and what confusion I've seen more revolves around template editors trying to understand how it works. I think at this point it is better to focus on removing redundant code from {{
Orphan}} and clarifying the intent and design of the att
and few
parameters. Bear with me, and after that we can revisit behavior inside multiple-issues if necessary. Best,
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)As issues are addressed and their templates are removed, when the last issue is fixed, then this template should be removed as well. I added a check for uses of this template where no issues are specified, which is now in the sandbox awaiting deployment. See Template:Multiple issues/testcases#No issues for test cases. If there are no objections, I will deploy this soon. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If only there was some way to determine how many issues are placed inside the template, then we could auto-uncollapse for one issue and auto-disappear for no issues. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
style="display: none"
) with another (find is an orphan
). And we would still have the problem of (less savvy) template editors not understanding what we were doing.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Hi, something that I and Gottagotospace noticed with the Template:Hoax is that it's far more serious than other cleanup messages because it implies a serious issue that could lead to unanimous deletion at XfD if true. While the Multiple Issues template is very useful for compacting different issues such as POV, lead cleanup, etc., it doesn't seem suitable that such a significant template like the hoax one should be placed in multiple issues where it's easier to miss. I propose that the hoax template support for this template be removed in favor of an additional tag.
The reason I think it'd make sense to remove this tag compared to others is because it conveys a fairly objective severity. Almost every editor on Wikipedia will agree with deletion of a hoax article (unless it's an article describing a hoax) so it's a relatively simple test at XfD. In comparison, a tag such as "may not meet the general notability guideline", while still an issue that can often lead to deletion, is often significantly more subjective and controversial. Other tags, such as ones based on neutrality or reorganization of article content, would almost certainly simply require cleanup rather than deletion. The hoax template, therefore, is in an entirely different class of template that conveys much more importance than any other, and I think including it in the multiple issues box underrepresents its significance since it can be easily missed.
So anyway, in conclusion I propose removing hoax template support from the multiple issues template in favor of the hoax template as a standalone template only. I'd be interested in hearing what other editors thought! Appable ( talk) 04:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
{{multiple issues}}
unambiguously mutes. I'm also interested to here the views of others.
fredgandt
11:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)|type=delete
on {{
hoax}} on the grounds that no amount of cleanup will fix a hoax article. Of course none of the other delete-type templates are grouped into multiple issues, so if this change sticks, then it seems logical to include it in this group. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)|type=
. You could submit an
AWB feature request to ask the developers to change AWB's rules, which are used by many bots. You could also contact the
Twinkle developers to see if they would need to change anything. Since anyone can manually add any template within {{
multiple issues}}, you may want to update the documentation at
Template:Multiple issues/doc and
Template:Hoax/doc to indicate why {{
hoax}} should not be used in {{
Multiple issues}}. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Just a first comment: If the person who adds hoax thinks the page has to be deleted for that reason why they do not add a speedy, prod or AfD tag too? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
At any case the page has only 4 transclusions. I am neutral. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template uses a <th>
element, which causes an accessibility issue (see
WP:LTAB). A non-table solution may be best in the long run, but for the moment, adding the attribute role="presentation"
to the containing table will do. This is also consistent with the other layout tables in message boxes (see
Module:Message box, line 457, :attr('role', 'presentation')
).
<table class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;">
<table class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;" role="presentation">
Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 07:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of the "see how" link to
Help:Maintenance template removal following the words "improve it", include a link to that page at the end of the text but displaying as "Learn how & when to remove these template messages". This will make the wording consistent with single-issue maintenance templates such as {{
Unreferenced}}
; it will stand out more and is more appropriate, as the Help page is about tag removal as well as article improvement. Mockup
here
: Noyster
(talk),
11:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
|removalnotice=
to get that message, but so does this template, somehow. I think "hard-coding" it in the current sandbox version may not be the best way to go. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
14:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)|removalnotice=
didn't work initially, or that implementing a fix for removalnotice to work involved much more work, I suppose. |talksection=
intended for this change as well? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)|talksection=
since Noyster hasn't replied about it yet. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:Multiple issues to 7 July version of /sandbox ( compare)
The presence of a <th> implies the right side of the box (starting with "This article...") is a data table, nested inside another data table, the whole box (containing the "!" icon and the text). Rewriting the contents as a <div> can avoid confusion for screen reader users (see WP:LTAB). Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 07:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
|1=
. Top/bottom margins are now 0.2. I'll sync in half a day, unless there are comments. Thanks :) —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
05:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
|1=
? Right now it hides everything. Might make sense to remove the collapsing completely if no |1=
.
Matt Fitzpatrick (
talk)
07:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Now that Magioladitis has fixed all of the articles in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, is it time to remove the old code from this template? I recommend we could do the following:
What do you think? GoingBatty ( talk) 04:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty I think for drafts, we can either convert to new style or send for MfD any STALEDRAFT that has not been edited for 3 or more years. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty In many cases in the talk space, adding nowiki tags was OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tag can be removed from many talk pages. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Now we are down to 27. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}
Technical 13, GoingBatty, MSGJ let's wait 7 days to check whether any new items will be added. For instance, this happened yesterday. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's weird but today I noticed 2 more items pop-up. Some server delay prevents us from showing all pages with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 I guess I could run my script against all pages transcluding the template. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Redrose64 and
GoingBatty: I ran my script against all pages transcluding MI. Approx. 40 pages fixed. there is a small chance that I may have missed some parameters not covered by my script but these would be really few. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that even if we remove the old style code we should keep the tracking category for some time. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Frietjes, GoingBatty, and Redrose64: et al. I guess Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters will catch any problems i.e. we can now use the sandbox version. Right? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|2=
). in the sandbox version, I merged these into
Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters since the additional tracked parameters will be removed at that point (and not just deprecated).
Frietjes (
talk)
15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter.)
GoingBatty (
talk)
04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Frietjes, GoingBatty, Redrose64, and Technical 13: et al. Sandbox version is now live! Please check for any problems. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)I am new to wikipedia and an editor has added this to a page I have edited. How can I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.75.224 ( talk) 10:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template uses the collapsible
class collapsing method; however, jQuery’s collapse method (mw-collapsible
) is available since MW 1.20, which is always loaded, so everything should be changed at one time to the Common.js version can be removed and thus the page load to be speeded up. Also, the “new” method works also without tables so (in my opinion) it’ll be semantically correcter. So please change
<table class="collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;"> <tr><th style="text-align:left; padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;"> This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues. <span style="font-weight: normal;">Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</span></th></tr> <tr><td>{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}} </td></tr></table>
to
<div class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%;"> <div style="padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0;">'''This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} has multiple issues.''' Please help '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it]''' or discuss these issues on the '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]'''.</div> <div class="mw-collapsible-content">{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}</div> </div>
(The indenting has no effect, you can insert it or not; just it’s more readable here.) Thanks! -- Tacsipacsi ( talk) 10:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
to mw-collapsible
, if you say there is no difference in functionality. I'm more hesitant with the change from tables to divs, because all of our message boxes are built with tables. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem good to mix the two systems. Perhaps a discussion on
WP:VPT is the way forward? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
09:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
to mw-collapsible
, and so on. --
Tacsipacsi (
talk)
17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This looks like an ugly hack. It's sending every template through this module. What does it do, and can it achieved in a more efficient way? Wbm1058 might be able to explain. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
class="hide-when-compact"
to hide stuff when in compact mode. I'll have a think if there is any way to do the opposite. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand the rationale and I appreciate the effort you have spent in achieving this, but I still don't like it for the following two reasons.
Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
att
and few
parameters. That's all unrelated to the display of orphan messages inside {{
multiple issues}}; I believe there is limited confusion over that aspect of it, and what confusion I've seen more revolves around template editors trying to understand how it works. I think at this point it is better to focus on removing redundant code from {{
Orphan}} and clarifying the intent and design of the att
and few
parameters. Bear with me, and after that we can revisit behavior inside multiple-issues if necessary. Best,
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)As issues are addressed and their templates are removed, when the last issue is fixed, then this template should be removed as well. I added a check for uses of this template where no issues are specified, which is now in the sandbox awaiting deployment. See Template:Multiple issues/testcases#No issues for test cases. If there are no objections, I will deploy this soon. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If only there was some way to determine how many issues are placed inside the template, then we could auto-uncollapse for one issue and auto-disappear for no issues. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
style="display: none"
) with another (find is an orphan
). And we would still have the problem of (less savvy) template editors not understanding what we were doing.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Hi, something that I and Gottagotospace noticed with the Template:Hoax is that it's far more serious than other cleanup messages because it implies a serious issue that could lead to unanimous deletion at XfD if true. While the Multiple Issues template is very useful for compacting different issues such as POV, lead cleanup, etc., it doesn't seem suitable that such a significant template like the hoax one should be placed in multiple issues where it's easier to miss. I propose that the hoax template support for this template be removed in favor of an additional tag.
The reason I think it'd make sense to remove this tag compared to others is because it conveys a fairly objective severity. Almost every editor on Wikipedia will agree with deletion of a hoax article (unless it's an article describing a hoax) so it's a relatively simple test at XfD. In comparison, a tag such as "may not meet the general notability guideline", while still an issue that can often lead to deletion, is often significantly more subjective and controversial. Other tags, such as ones based on neutrality or reorganization of article content, would almost certainly simply require cleanup rather than deletion. The hoax template, therefore, is in an entirely different class of template that conveys much more importance than any other, and I think including it in the multiple issues box underrepresents its significance since it can be easily missed.
So anyway, in conclusion I propose removing hoax template support from the multiple issues template in favor of the hoax template as a standalone template only. I'd be interested in hearing what other editors thought! Appable ( talk) 04:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
{{multiple issues}}
unambiguously mutes. I'm also interested to here the views of others.
fredgandt
11:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)|type=delete
on {{
hoax}} on the grounds that no amount of cleanup will fix a hoax article. Of course none of the other delete-type templates are grouped into multiple issues, so if this change sticks, then it seems logical to include it in this group. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)|type=
. You could submit an
AWB feature request to ask the developers to change AWB's rules, which are used by many bots. You could also contact the
Twinkle developers to see if they would need to change anything. Since anyone can manually add any template within {{
multiple issues}}, you may want to update the documentation at
Template:Multiple issues/doc and
Template:Hoax/doc to indicate why {{
hoax}} should not be used in {{
Multiple issues}}. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Just a first comment: If the person who adds hoax thinks the page has to be deleted for that reason why they do not add a speedy, prod or AfD tag too? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
At any case the page has only 4 transclusions. I am neutral. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template uses a <th>
element, which causes an accessibility issue (see
WP:LTAB). A non-table solution may be best in the long run, but for the moment, adding the attribute role="presentation"
to the containing table will do. This is also consistent with the other layout tables in message boxes (see
Module:Message box, line 457, :attr('role', 'presentation')
).
<table class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;">
<table class="mw-collapsible {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsed}}" style="width:95%; background:transparent;" role="presentation">
Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 07:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of the "see how" link to
Help:Maintenance template removal following the words "improve it", include a link to that page at the end of the text but displaying as "Learn how & when to remove these template messages". This will make the wording consistent with single-issue maintenance templates such as {{
Unreferenced}}
; it will stand out more and is more appropriate, as the Help page is about tag removal as well as article improvement. Mockup
here
: Noyster
(talk),
11:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
|removalnotice=
to get that message, but so does this template, somehow. I think "hard-coding" it in the current sandbox version may not be the best way to go. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
14:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)|removalnotice=
didn't work initially, or that implementing a fix for removalnotice to work involved much more work, I suppose. |talksection=
intended for this change as well? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)|talksection=
since Noyster hasn't replied about it yet. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Multiple issues has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:Multiple issues to 7 July version of /sandbox ( compare)
The presence of a <th> implies the right side of the box (starting with "This article...") is a data table, nested inside another data table, the whole box (containing the "!" icon and the text). Rewriting the contents as a <div> can avoid confusion for screen reader users (see WP:LTAB). Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 07:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
|1=
. Top/bottom margins are now 0.2. I'll sync in half a day, unless there are comments. Thanks :) —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
05:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
|1=
? Right now it hides everything. Might make sense to remove the collapsing completely if no |1=
.
Matt Fitzpatrick (
talk)
07:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)