Template talk:Purge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Purge/sandbox)
Jump to: navigation, search

Confirmation needed?[edit]

Why is the confirmation needed (MediaWiki:Confirm purge) is it possible to disable or override this? Freestyle(NL) 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The confirmation is not needed.
--Meno25 15:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Update to use WP:DOC. —Dispenser 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]


Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki links:


Thank you in advance, Julian 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. CMummert · talk 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Please change the link Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits to Wikipedia:Transclusion. /SvNH 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not done, per WP:R2D. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I confused this template with another where the link text included "costs and benefits". /SvNH 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit protect request: add parameter[edit]


Change this:

<span class="plainlinks" id="purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{{1|Purge}}}]</span><noinclude>
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->

To this:

<span class="plainlinks" id="purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} {{{1|Purge}}}]</span><noinclude>
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->

This is to add the page= parameter to the template so that a different page can be specified (i.e. {{Purge|page=Article}} and {{Purge|purge this page|page=Article}}).

--Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 08:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Aervanath (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove id="purgelink"[edit]


Please remove "id="purgelink"" because it disallows color to be used to change the color of the "purge." I wish to change the color to blue so it doesn't look like an external link. MathCool10 Sign here! 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the presence of the id has anything to do with this, though the id should be removed because there is no guarantee that this will be only used once per page. As a side note, it's usually best to let links have their default color, rather than forcing them to have a particular color. --- RockMFR 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see the point of changing the default color; it looks more natural anyways. -download | sign! 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding title[edit]

I have added the title "purge this page" to the "Purge" (current version:Purge) link. This changed version is in the page {{Purge/sandbox}}. I think that the sanbox version is better. I request to anyone of the Admins to replace it. The source is given below. --Amit (Talk | Contribs) 12:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<span class="plainlinks purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} <span title="Purge this page">{{{1|Purge}}}</span>]</span><noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>

How does that help? I don't see any difference. MathCool10 Sign here! 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see now, but it's not that useful. MathCool10 Sign here! 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the text to as shown in the code (with a span title). MC10 | Sign here! 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the code from:

<span class="noprint plainlinks purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} <span title="Purge this page">{{{1|Purge}}}</span>]</span><noinclude> {{pp-template}} {{documentation}} </noinclude>


<span class="noprint plainlinks purgelink">[{{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}} {{#ifeq:{{{title|}}}|yes|<span title="Purge this page">}}{{{1|Purge}}}{{#ifeq:{{{title|}}}|yes|</span>}}]</span><noinclude> {{pp-template}} {{documentation}} </noinclude>

so that you can remove the span title with the parameter title=no if you want to. MC10 | Sign here! 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it really worth it? Why would you want to specify title=no? I think it might be better just to decide whether to have the span title or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The span title is useful in most situations, but in some it isn't, such as {{actions}}. MC10 | Sign here! 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I still think it is not worth to complicate the code for such a trivial benefit. And I can't see why it would not be useful on {{actions}} anyway (although that template does not even use this one currently!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to concur. If the title is found useful, it should be used everywhere. In the same spirit, {{Actions}} should probably have titles for all the other actions as well.
Of course, I'm not really sure if the title is useful in the first place. If anything, it should explain what purging means. Amalthea 08:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Try what I changed it now. Force |title=yes as a parameter in order to have the span title. This causes little change to most purge links and still keeps the span title. MC10 | Sign here! 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: You haven't explained why this span title is not required on {{actions}}. You have now placed four protected edit requests for this tiny tweak. Just saying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Make span title editable[edit]

It would be helpful if the span title added from the above discussion were a parameter with "purge this page" as default so that one could have some control over what that says and what function "purge this page" will accomplish (e.g. refreshing counts) as it may not be clear. ProtectorServant (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: plain language[edit]


Please change the link text from {{{1|Purge}}} to {{{1|Refresh}}} and change the link annotation from <span title="Purge this page"> to <span title="Refresh this page"> .

Reason: The present language is not sufficiently clear for readers who do not have a technical background.


  1. To a layperson, the plain English meaning of "purge" is to remove, get rid of, or expunge. This is not what is meant with respect to content to which this template is applied.
  2. To speak of purging the cache describes a technical means to an end. The proximate end is to bypass or refresh the cache but the true end, from the reader's perspecitve, is to render a fresh, updated version of the page.
  3. Although there is a distinction in technical parlance between merely refreshing a page view and refreshing the source from which the page is loaded, readers who are familiar with this distinction are unlikely to be misled if it is labeled "Refresh" but readers who are not aware of it may be baffled when it is labeled "Purge."

Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Purge" has been used in its present, idiomatic sense on Wikipedia for years. See WP:PURGE. There is a distinction between "refreshing" a page and "purging" it. This really needs discussed before any changes are made, so disabling the request for now. It may be best getting a wider discussion going at the Village Pump. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this will need discussion because it has indeed been used here for a long time. It is one of those little things that make Wikipedia seem geeky to the general public. (Confession: I am a retired geek. My request is not meant to be anti-geek, but to better serve the reading public.) I am well aware of WP:PURGE and the distinction you refer to, as indicated in my point #3 above.

To amplify on point 3:   A reader might wonder why there is a "Refresh" button on the page when their browser already has a refresh function. They might assume it is something related but different. They might surmise that it is something specific to the time-sensitive information being displayed. They might try their browser's function and be disappointed by the result. The might try the link and find it (surprise) more refreshing. These remarks apply equally well to those who are, and who are not, conversant with the caching architecture used on Wikimedia's servers. The same cannot be said for "Purge". A little ambiguity, when it is not misleading, is far better than jargon that signifies little to the uninitiated.

To amplify on points 1 and 2:   "Purging the cache" is a self reference to the infrastructure that serves Wikipedia's content. "Purge" is not an apt description of the action a reader would intend to perform on the content they are viewing, unless their intent is quite different from what the link does. To be clear, I am thinking about the perspective of a general reader who might wonder why they would want to "get rid of" the content, and is not thinking about, or even aware of, getting rid of cached data behind it. (For contributors, who need to find the applicable template, it might be good to mention it in the lede section of WP:REFRESH because it is somewhat buried in the page.)

I considered "Update" instead of "Refresh", which some websites use for this purpose, but I thought it could be confusing in a context where most pages are peppered with "[edit]" links. I would be open to other suggestions for plain English words that commonly denote the action an ordinary reader would intend to perform on the content they are viewing.

I am posting a note at WP:VP and WP:PURGE to solicit community review this idea. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea. "Purge" is just a word to me now, but it was somewhat confusing when I first tried to figure out what it was and how it worked. Note that the URL uses &action=purge. If at all possible, another &action= should be designated for the new term (leaving the old in place, of course). I don't know if that's possible, while the change to the relevant MediaWiki pages would be fairly simple. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The reason I suggest changing MediaWiki pages as well as the template is because if this is changed, pieces of the interface such as MediaWiki:Nosuchsectiontext should be changed to reflect the new usage. Doing this piecemeal would cause more confusion than the status quo. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a techy type, I support this change. "Purge" is jargon. "Refresh" is commonplace. We should consider that the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia are just that; visitors. They don't know about the years of use of the word "purge" or do they care. They don't know where to find detailed instructions or policy and guidelines (yawn) pages. They may want to refresh the page though. Whole hearted supportfredgandt 13:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Anyone who is using this template in its default wording in mainspace should be shot; if such uses are identified, then fix them individually. Changing the template would alter projectspace uses (where jargon is more acceptable) and confuse existing users, with little mainspace benefit. I would support changing the title text to something like "Purge the cache of this page", to be clearer. And finally, "refresh" could confuse readers about the browser, as Aunt Tillie doesn't experiment when she sees something like that, she just says "computers are confusing!"; "update" looks too much like "edit", although it might be appropriate in specific contexts; and I've yet to see a reasonable alternative. --NYKevin @109, i.e. 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    I don't approve of shooting people, but you are right that the default language is wrong. The default should be something that is appropriate for nearly all uses, including project space. Geekyness in project space is a significant factor in deterring readers from becoming contributors. Let's not shoot people for failing to override the default, let's make the default useful so they don't have to. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, what language do you propose? As I just pointed out, "Refresh" is a non-starter in mainspace anyway, so it will still need to be overridden. Everyone already knows what "purge" means in projectspace, and in mainspace it needs to be on a case-by-case basis anyway, so there's nothing wrong with the current language. --NYKevin @881, i.e. 20:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - 'Refresh' is clearer, and anyone who uses an Internet browser should understand what it means, even if the functionality of the 'Purge' template isn't quite the same as refreshing a browser window. Whereas some newbies might be reluctant to push a 'purge' button for fear of accidentally deleting valuable data - it does suggest destroying or getting rid of something. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

More than a month has passed since the last comment/response above, so I am reactivating the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to assess whether the discussion has been adequate to form a consensus. (4 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 call for discussion) If not, I will advertise it for broader participation. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose The whole system is known as purging — see Wikipedia:Purge. Please obtain consensus to have that page moved first. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: To me "purge" sound completely ununderstandable.
    (Leaving out that I think about other meaning first :-) ), this technical meaning is worse than what Ningauble's first message pointed out: "purge" is even not actually related to "bypass or refresh the cache" but only to an half of it, just clearing out the cache. So it's not related to getting again the (newly rebuilt) page, and it's not plain and immediate by a "layperson" to foresee the result (maybe he/she even thinks it is about taking away a (wrong) page from Wikipedia!)
    But, however, I feel that the suggested "Refresh" is confounding and misleading too, as there is the more known browser's Refresh or Reload function (client side cache)
    We have to find out a better expression (Maybe: "rebuild (the page)", "get again (the page)", "resend" ... I have to think about this)
    Answering to Nyttend: Off course all the related page will be changed.
    -- (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    (As requested, I've improved the lead section of WP:REFRESH, mentioning reverse proxy ( = server side) cache. I've mentioned the applicable template in the appropriate section, as I don't think it's needed in lead section -already too long and crowded-)-- (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: If the change can be made easily. I seriously doubt this change can be made without a lot of work and moderate ramifications. SChalice 18:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The chances are high that if you don't know what purging means in the context of MediaWiki, you don't need to do it. I would support expanding the text to "purge cache" since that's a bit more clear, but as far as I can tell no need has been demonstrated to move away from "purge." --Chris (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Class/style template parameters[edit]

Would anyone object to me changing <span class="noprint plainlinks purgelink"> to <span class="{{{class|noprint plainlinks purgelink}}}" style="{{{style|}}}">? I'd like to be able to insert custom CSS into this link. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Span title is wrong when page parameter used[edit]

The tooltip (span title) "Purge this page" is incorrect when the "page=" parameter is used. It should be deleted in that case or replaced with something correct. Set theorist (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


i think that cloudy176 ref from here, still thanks to that user. http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tools lol.Jiawhein (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Why does this template use a module. Can someone help me out. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)