Content deleted Content added
→df and mf with bad values: Reply |
→df and mf with bad values: questions |
||
Line 112:
:I'm afraid cruft like that accumulates when parameters are not closely checked. The module copied what the templates did because I didn't want to create too much fuss when the module was introduced. However, it's stable and if you're able to attack the maintenance I can implement your change. I'll do that in the next few days and will ping you when done. If I disappear, please remind me. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I can do that, that isn't a problem. I've been working on cleaning templates that I've worked at with {{tl|Start date}} and others in which I've implemented [[Module:Date time]] to handle validation. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Gonnym}} I'm working on this and it's finished apart from checking and thinking about the following question. The function <code>yes()</code> accepts parameters like <code>fix=yes</code> but not <code>fix=YES</code> or <code>fix=Yes</code>. That was my choice because parameters like that were introduced with Module:Age and so consistent parameter values could be required. However, lots of articles use <code>df=Y</code> or <code>df=Yes</code> etc. I would prefer to avoid lower-casing the value because wikitext like <code>df=yEs</code> is ugly and I don't think it should be accepted. Also, not lower-casing is more efficient in the module. So, I'm wondering what to accept. My plan currently accepts df=y, df=yes, df=Y, df=YES. Should we try that and see what happens? My error check only examines the <code>df</code> parameter. Any junk can still be entered for <code>mf</code> because it is ignored as it is the default at enwiki. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
|