Template talk:LSR

This template is necessary for the "Latest_stable_software_release/XYZ" templates!
Do not change unless you really know what you are doing (consider all possible cases)!

---

Reverse order?

If the date were listed first, then the package-specific number, then sorting of tables (as for example in Comparison_of_Gnutella_software) would be much more useful. Gojomo 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template needs fixing

{{editprotected}}

99.9% of the articles that use this template preload incorrectly. They're preloaded with an empty article parameter and 99.9% of the editors forget to add this paramter so the link to update the version number is therefore broken. {{{article}}} should be changed to {{{article|PAGENAME}}} (which I think is correct) so that editors who miss this (as it's no pointed out they need to edit this anywhere) will be caught by the template itself. Q ^{T C} 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Space before comma

Can this template be update so that it doesn't insert a space before the comma following the date? It looks ugly. Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Points to older templates

I've noticed that many stable release templates moved recently (e.g. Template:Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox moved to Template:Latest stable software release/Mozilla Firefox. This template needs to be updated to match. -- Schapel (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated version

{{editprotected}} Please update this template from the code in {{LSR/sandbox}}. I've added a testcases subpage for the new code and also a documentation subpage. The companion {{LPR}} template also needs updating.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point, but I would suggest not putting the conditional check on a compulsory parameter. Otherwise, if it is omitted then the editor will get no feedback at all from the template. It is more useful, in my opinion, to see something like {{{latest_release_version}}} which shows exactly what the template is expecting. What do you think of my version in the /sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This was done on purpose. In this case, we don't want any output from either {{LSR}} or {{LPR}} if the version parameter is empty because otherwise the Infoboxes that transclude the subtemplates will contain gibberish (which is what this corrects). Tothwolf (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see how the version I had in /sandbox works from /testcases. Tothwolf (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. The background you provided on my talk page certainly helped. I can't help feeling that there must be a neater way to handle this ... but I haven't looked closely enough to give any suggestions! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think all of the software infoboxes need to be improved. I made some changes to {{Infobox OS}} when dealing with Linux and Linux kernel but all of the Infobox types that use the LSR and LPR templates really need to be redesigned to support this better. Right now I'm trying to document the usage of these templates and fix the things that won't involve major changes to a large number of articles. Tothwolf (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I propose a change to this template for the place for Macs and Windows Release. I'm encountering errors with Quicktime, as the latest Windows release is 7.6.4, while the latest Mac release is 10.. something. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we can add them individually without modifying the LSR template itself. According to [1] 7.6.4 is the current version for both the MacOS X and Windows though? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope it's not working. Only one LSR is showing in the article (the 10.0 version). Please check the article and NOT the template. Please help! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is odd because it seems to be working when I view both QuickTime and {{Latest stable software release/QuickTime}} as I can see both 7.6.4 and 10. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the page needed a purge. It's OK now. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 17 April 2010

{{editprotected}} This template, unlike the normal {{infobox software}}, writes release date and preview date in smaller size. But why? Apart from the fact that this extra small size is a strain on eyes (particularly mine), and the fact that it creates inconsistency in Wikipedia, why should this date be written in smaller font in the first place? Is date less important than version number?

I suggest that this part of the code:

{{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}|  <small>({{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}})</small>}}

To be replaced with:

{{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}| / {{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}}}}

Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Changed as requested. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
Please revert these changes. Changing the text style of such a widely used template should not have been done without some form of discussion. Changing the text style breaks fixed width version history tables which transclude the {{LSR}} template ({{Infobox software}} is of course not transcluded into tables). If the style used in {{LSR}} is changed at some point, the {{LPR}} template will also have to be modified at the same time as they are used together and should have the same style. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. It appeared to be trivial so i just went ahead and made the change - seems that was not the best thing i ever did though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern was the change broke tables such as Comparison of web browsers#Release history which are quite common within Category:Software comparisons and others. It was partly my fault as I accidentally used {{intricate template}} [2] [3] instead of {{high-use}} when I created /doc subpages for these two templates back in May 2009 (now corrected [4] [5]). {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} always were somewhat esoteric and not well documented or understood. I've been trying to help with that which is why I created /doc subpages. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But the concern remains. Those tables are also difficult to read. Moreover, any attempt to tag such small content for a problem, say {{citation needed}} or {{verification failed}}, will result in production of absolutely unreadable text.

If this issue can't somehow be mitigated, I recommend creating a new {{LSRv2}} (or some other good name), mark LSR as deprecated, ask users to cease using it if at all possible, ask people to convert to LSRv2 whenever possible and change {{infobox software}} so that it preloads LSRv2. It is done in five minutes and not a fly is hurt!

But are there no other alternatives? Is a migration not possible? Is there a large number of tables that are disfigured after this change? Let's assess the situation. Fleet Command (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While I had nothing to do with the design of the tables such as the one I linked to which are in widespread use, I don't see any reason to break something that has been so widely used for so long. The tables look fine with both FireFox and Internet Explorer at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. They also look fine on a MacBook Pro (17" display) with Safari. If you are using an extremely high resolution on a small display such as 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 on at 15" (or even some not-quite 17") then you are going to have readability problems with a lot more content than just text within <small></small>.
I don't see any reason to create a new template if we end up needing to change the text display for Manual of Style reasons. The way in which <small></small> is currently used in {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} does appear to be within the recommendations of the text formatting section though. Similar LSR/Infobox software template designs using <small></small> are also well established across other language wikipedias, for example, fr:MediaWiki, ja:MediaWiki, etc.
While I agree with you about the display of {{Infobox software}}'s |latest_release_version=, |latest_release_date= parameters having an inconstant look with LSR/LPR, correcting this will need to be carefully thought out. I was working on these templates last year but had to backburner the tasks due to some other stuff which was happening at the time. Going back to my notes and looking at other language versions of {{Infobox software}}, it appears that many wrap the date in parentheses. For example: ja:Template:Infobox software.
We also have some code in {{Infobox software}}, {{Infobox OS}}, {{Infobox programming language}}, and others [6] to handle preloading template text into a new version subtemplate: {{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:LSR/syntax}} This feature is currently disabled since we do an {{#ifexist:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|...}} check first and it appeared that the person who originally designed the code never quite completed it. It may be possible to borrow some code from the French Wikipedia versions: fr:Template:Infobox Logiciel, fr:Template:Dernière version stable, etc too. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Line break

{{editprotected}} When this template is used in an infobox (e.g. on Git (software)), there is a line break before the date part. This is caused by a line break in the source. I have fixed this in the sandbox, could you apply it? Thanks. Svick (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The {{LPR}} template should also be updated when updating this template in order to maintain a consistent look. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made the same change in {{LPR}}'s sandbox. Svick (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Age calculation is wrong

Seen on February 6, 2011, on the GNU Octave article: Stable release 3.2.4 (January 28, 2010; 11 months ago (2010-01-28)) [+/−] But that was over 12 months ago. Buster79 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

An editor has asked here how to make a list of release numbers and dates sort by date. As far as I can see, this could be done if the year, month and date were passed into this template as separate parameters. That would mean changing many pages, though. Any suggestions? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Extend template

Is it possible to extend the template so that in an article that includes the template only the version or only the release date can be shown if the template is included in a special way? (I am sorry, I don't know much about WikiMedia programming.) I would like to use Template:Latest stable software release/FFmpeg in Comparison of screencasting software but that article has one column for the version and one for the date (probably intending to make sorting easier).--Regression Tester (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference field

It might be valuable to include a hyperlink to release notes or another supporting reference for release version and date that are provided. In most articles this is done by supplying <ref> in latest_release_date field, but given the current format, the reference appears inside square brackets, which may not perfect. (See, for example Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Skype).

It would be the best to include one more filed into the template latest_release_reference for supplying a reference link. The link can appear at the very end of the template, outside of square brackets, or right after the version. At least, if the field is used, it will appear in the same place in all templates.