Template talk:Old peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Namespaces[edit]

This template now works for all namespaces.--Patrick 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template doesn't update[edit]

When a page changes names, the archive link doesn't work anymore (as in Talk:Alternative biochemistry, where I added a link afterwards).

I'm no expert in wikisyntax... can someone please fix that if it's possible?

You can "fix" it if you subst: it before you move it. Alphax τεχ 03:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

This edit reverted my newly-introduced edits without a sufficient explanation and also featured a redirect which had been correct before. Is there a reason this user is reverting this edit (which (s)he has done before) without opening a discussion on the talk page. I find it unwise to place "This article" at the beginning of the template when the other talk page temples begin with "PAGENAME". What makes this template special? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New Icon[edit]

The new icon looks more suitable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonphamta (talkcontribs) 14:49, June 22, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It looks much better now. Afonso Silva 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

{{oldpeerreviews}}[edit]

Hi, I've created a new template for use on pages that have undergone more than one peer review. It presents the links to the peer reviews in a list instead of inline. Let me know if you find it useful and any suggestions or questions any of you have! -- Renesis (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

editprotected[edit]

Please add a date parameter. "|date= " would be good to identify when the peer review occurred without opening the archive. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a potentially useful feature. Perhaps you could add your proposed code to Template:Old peer review/sandbox and then wait to see if anyone has any objections, before reactivating the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. This adds a parenthetical date to the end if the date parameter is supplied.
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=12/21/2012}}
{{Old peer review/sandbox}}
I've seen other templates use parenthetical dates so I did it here. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a small italicized date in the month year format would be clearer? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that would also work. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=21-12-2012}}
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=2012.12.21}}
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=2012 December 21}}
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=21 December 2012}}
{{Old peer review/sandbox|date=December 21, 2012}}
Though you have to handle the date format properly for it to be extracted. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Editrequest[edit]

Can someone add a date parameter to this template? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. From the discussions above, it appears to already have a date parameter... You'll need to be much more specific if you want something else. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 05:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: There is nothing in the discussions above to suggest that the proposal had actually been implemented. A quick check of the template's edit history shows that those edits made since 26 November 2011 do not mention {{{date|}}} or equivalent. Perhaps MSGJ (talk · contribs) remembers why it wasn't done? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
moved to Template:Old peer review/testcases Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It clearly doesn't work, so I don't see why you say it's working Technical13. The source code shows no evidence of a "date" parameter. The sandbox version clearly has a date parameter, so I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. But if I have to spell it out here, then the simplest chage is to add
{{#if:{{{date|}}}|({{{date}}})}}
to It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. becoming
It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|({{{date}}})}}
-- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll admit, I was going by the examples directly above this section which appear to indicate that it was implemented and working as of a couple years ago. I apologize (I didn't actually look at the wikitext of the above section), and will see if I can work this up in the sandbox and then we'll just need to wait on MSGJ to see if there was a reason it wasn't implemented. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I've made some edits to the sandbox for how I would implement adding dates to this template... Examples of the use of this are:
moved to Template:Old peer review/testcases Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Questions, comments, ideas? Redrose64 — MSGJ — 70.50.151.11: — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 13:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The new version of the sandbox looks good to me. Though other templates don't seem to have separate date and archivedate parameters unless I'm just not seeing that. They usually just have the initiation date (like the OldXfD templates) Having an archive date option is fine by me, since it works without needing to specify it. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why the coding for |date= needs to be so complicated. {{citation needed}}, for example, is always used with a date - and performs no validation, just passing it unchanged through to {{fix}}; which itself performs no validation, displaying it as-is and also passing it unchanged to {{Fix/category}}. The only validation that the latter performs is to ensure that a category exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, I'm fairly neutral on this, as long as the text entered into the |date= parameter is grammatically correct. I've modified the /sandbox and /testcases page to what I think you were asking for. Take a look and confirm that is what you meant. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to expect users to put |date=in May of 2012, or |archived=in September of 2013. Put the "in" and the comma into the template code, forget the "of" (which is not just discouraged by MOS:BADDATEFORMAT, it's in the row "Do not use these formats" under "unacceptable"), and suggest usage like |date=May 2012 or |archived=September 2013. That would be consistent with other templates which expect a month and year in a date parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have with that is what happens when someone decides to use "16:46, March 10, 2014 (UTC)" or "16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)" as a date? The result would be:
This is kind of the reason I had the slightly more complex code in there that would allow any date format to be entered and always output a properly formated result. As far as the "Month of year" goes, MOS:BADDATEFORMAT does not apply to talk page banners, so that comment is entirely out of scope. That said, I'm willing to talk it over to find a mutually neutral "proper" date format solution. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you point to any other talk page banners which expects full date/time stamp, or which output the date as "month of year"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we try to use the same date parameter handling as other templates first, and then choose a more complex one later? (and RfC it so that most templates will use similar date formatting) The old saw of the enemy of the good or adequate is perfectionism. Since other templates use a rather bare date parameter handling mechanism, it's obviously usable. If we implement more progressive error handling, it should be a second step, not the first. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rose & 70.50.151.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I don't see this as a regular maintenance tag. I see it as more of a Notice of previous attempt to delete, which doesn't use the parenthetical date, it uses an in-line version as I suggested. As far as the "month of Year" wording goes, I "think" it is proper grammar used in the context of a sentence, but like I said, I'm willing to discuss an alternative. I think that the template should be "smart" enough to not care what is passed in to the template, it should return a consistent output. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2016[edit]

There is one more space after the period, please fix the typo. 333-blue 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The wrong sentence:

...is now archived.  It may contain ideas you can use to...

The correct sentence:

...is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to...

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Updating 4000+ pages to remove a space seems the kind of change that protection is here to prevent. No objection to this change happening as part of a less trivial edit, but not on its own. Bazj (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 12 July 2016[edit]

Please remove one of the   . It's creating two spaces. I disagree with the decline reason above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done per WP:DWAP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)