|
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
== Protected edit request on 6 December 2015 ==
{{edit fully-protected|Module:Citation/CS1|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please implement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=693983077&oldid=693938950 these] changes from the sandbox to restore the ability to use "#" in the "episode-link" parameter of {{tl|cite episode}}, which was possible until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Citation/CS1&diff=prev&oldid=693863469 these recent changes] to the module. This problem was discussed at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Spurious_.27Check_.7Cepisodelink.3D_value.27_error.3F_in_Template:cite_episode|Help talk:Citation Style 1]]. As explained there, linking to individual episode entries is valid, widely done and works, but now an error is displayed for no apparent reason. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:This module, given its wide usage, is usually changed about once a month. Also, the discussion there does not seem finished. I've disabled the edit-protected request for both reasons. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Izno}} I'm not sure what the update frequency has to do with this problem. As it stands now, there are likely thousands of articles displaying warnings that will confuse editors. These errors shouldn't be displaying and weren't yesterday. When the fix is so simple, I don't see why it shouldn't be fixed. Since you're not somebody who can fix the problem, I'm reactivating the request. Best let an admin sort it out, since only admins can edit this module. As for being still under discussion, there are two parts to the thread at Help talk:Citation Style 1. The issue regarding {{tl|!}} is still being discussed but there's no reason why this can't be fixed. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 17:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::<p>Please don't revert another editor's {{para|answered|yes}}.<p>The technical "fix" may be trivial, but it is not sensible at this time without ''other people agreeing to implement it at this time''. (And just because someone made the supposed fix in the sandbox does not mean they necessarily agree with it.) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::There is nothing stopping an edit request being reactivated. In fact there are specific instructions in the template that say {{tq|Set the {{para|answered}} or {{para|ans}} parameter to no to reactivate your request.}} Only admins can satisfy the request since this template is fully protected and, since you are not an admin, nor do you even hold the Templateeditor permission, you can't adequately satisfy the request. This problem was not a problem before recent edits. Nor were many other problems that have cropped up since the changes. This indicates that the changes were not adequately tested before implementation. I've been writing code, both personally and professionally, for 40 years and would never have made such changes without adequate testing. Granted, much of my professional work was mission critical, dealing with issues of national security, but I can accept that there is not an urgent need to revert the changes fully because these errors are not affecting "the mission" too much. However, implementing a simple change that merely reverts the addition of an error is to be expected. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 08:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::<p>{{tq| consensus should be obtained before formally making the request.}} (from [[WP:Edit requests]]). The ''standing consensus'' in the context of these modules, as I have already pointed out, is that the main template is synced from the sandbox only once in every while. If you are willing to challenge that standing consensus, please do so. Reactivating an edit request is not how you are going to get a change made either to the template ''or'' the standing consensus.<p>{{tq|Please do not add the {{tl|edit protected}} template merely to attract attention to the change, as it clutters up the relevant edit request category with unactionable requests.}} also from [[WP:Edit requests]]. (Re)activating this edit request has the exact effect proscribed by this sentence.<p>Administrators/templateeditors may be the only editors able to respond to a fully-protected edit request in the affirmative (that is, may implement the changes). However, I see little reason why any editor responding in the negative could not do so, where that editor knows of a consensus against that change (whether because of evaluation of an RFC related to that change or because of standing consensus as in this case).<p>{{tq|changes were not adequately tested}} I would tend to agree that the module does not have a robust set of test cases, but that's not relevant to this specific request; in fact, an editor on [[Help talk:CS1]] has raised that concern in one or the other of the recent threads after this update. Aside: It is, however, a monumental task with a module of this size.<p>The rest of your commentary is ''ad hominem''/argument to authority and thus irrelevant. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Consensus isn't necessary to request that a change that effectively broke a template be reverted. Before the change there was no error. After the change there was an error when there shouldn't have been. You have to use a little common sense here. The whole point of adding {{tl|edit fully-protected}} ''is'' to draw attention to an edit request. The particular section that you've quoted from is about the possibility of a request being controversial. It is meant to stop people saying things like "please add a parameter to display an image" and using a template drawing attention to a discussion that really needs to be fully discussed. A request to implement a simple change to remove an error introduced by an editor is hardly controversial.
::::::{{tq|I see little reason why any editor responding in the negative could not do so}} Of course any editor can respond, but the point that you are missing is that you are clearly not in a position to action the request so, while you can comment, you are not in a position to demand that the edit request not be reactivated, which is what you seem to be doing. It's really up to somebody who can action the request to make that demand. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|AussieLegend}} as far as I can tell from the comments [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Spurious_.27Check_.7Cepisodelink.3D_value.27_error.3F_in_Template:cite_episode|here]], it's agreed that this will be fixed at the next round of updates. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that seems to be the case but, in the meantime, editors are going to be confused when they see misleading warning messages about things that are actually perfectly OK. For me, that's a big headache in the TV project. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 14:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
== endode ==
| 