Template talk:Editnotice/Archive 1

Cascading protection

Using cascading protection largely defeats the purpose of putting the documentation on a separate page. — CharlotteWebb 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems unnecessary to have cascading protection on this one, since the only things transcluded into the template are put in the noinclude area. But on the other hand, the only users who will be using this template are admins, so I think the users of this template will have a problem updating the /doc. But then again, users from other projects will sooner or later visit here to put interwiki links here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see Pegasus removed the cascading protection. So this is now fixed.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you document the other parameters please? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Creating the edit notices

So, who actually gets to create these edit notices? I tried navigating to a page I'd like to create an edit notice for, and I was presented with a message saying that I was unauthorized to do so. SharkD (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The notices are in the MediaWiki: namespace, so only administrators can edit them. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what SharkD also wants to say (correct me if I'm wrong), but how do we get one of those messages of our own? Such as like a message that we can place on our own user page or user talk page for example. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Use an {{editprotected}} request on the MediaWiki_talk: page. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! SharkD (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New code suggestions

I copied the code to the /sandbox and did some clean-up. I removed the surrounding div tag and moved those styles into the head of the table instead. Were there any technical reasons that made that div tag necessary?

And I have several other things that I would like to change, but that I haven't added yet in the version in the sandbox:

I would like to change the image handling to be more similar to the mboxes:

• I think the image should have a cell that goes from top to bottom of the whole table, not just from top to bottom of the text cell height (excluding the header cell that is). This will make the image align in the middle of the entire table height.
• I think that the image parameter instead of just taking an image name should should take an image with usual wiki notation. Since that gives the template users much greater freedom. Like this:

image = [[Image:Nuvola apps bookcase.png|40px]]

And I suggest we change the background colour of the box to use #F9F9F9. That is the colour most of our other boxes use such as MediaWiki:Sharedupload, MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext, the table of content, and the "other pages message boxes" {{ombox}} and so on.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just base this on the {{mbox}} meta-template? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850: Yes, you are right about that. So I have coded up the {{fmbox}} "header and footer message box" which is an mbox compatible meta-template for the 100% wide system messages and similar.

I would appreciate if those that are interested would check it out and comment on its talk page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To div or not div

Nihiltres: I noticed you changed the code in the /sandbox from using a wikitable to using a XHTML table, and I agree with that that. It has several advantages, among others then we don't need to escape pipes "|" by transcluding in the {{!}} template.

But you also added back the surrounding div tag, that is you moved out the margin, border and padding styles from the table to a div tag. Every now and then I see people do that. What is the point of that? Is there some technical reason for doing that that we should know about?

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, actually all I did was change the table to XHTML style. I wasn't checking anything more advanced than that as I merely wanted ParserFunctions to work well as input without specifying a whole pile of {{!}}s. If you'd prefer to not use a div, feel free to change that, as I don't particularly mind either way. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, you of course based your sandbox code on the current code in the main template, instead of on the old code in the sandbox. I'll give it an overhaul later to merge all of the improvements we tested in the sandbox so far.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright warning

Could the "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." warning be moved into an edit notice? Can edit notices be piped into each other (i.e., so that certain inmportant notices such as this one are never overridden)? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

" copyright warning is (unsurprisingly) at MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning. Not sure what you mean by "piped together". An editnotice for an individual page will not override an editnotice for the page's namespace (it will appear directly below it), if that's what you mean. — CharlotteWebb 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently it doesn't appear directly below it. The editnotice appears at the top in a box, and the copyright warning appears below the edit field. I would like the copyright notice to be moved out of the way and toward the top in a box like the editnotice, so that I don't have to scroll between the edit and edit summary fields. SharkD (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That message is at MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and is not a function of the edit notice messages. A better user solution would be to add a class to the message so it does not show if you add a class display:none in your CSS. Discuss it on the message talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice notice

Should we encourage that a notice about the edit notice in an article be placed on the talk page? Something like:

This would help other editors to understand where the message is generated. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. And I think I can make such a message box that can automatically link to the editnotice. (I even think I can convert "/" to "-" so it will even work automatically for subpages.) I'll put it on my to-do list and think a bit more about it first.

Hey, such a template might even be convenient for us admins: First place the template on the talk page, and that gives you the correct link to the editnotice you want to create! :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we have too many talk page banners as it is. If anything we can add some links to this template, maybe like the "v • d • e" that appear on navboxes, so that people can quickly navigate to the "MediaWiki:Editnotice-{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}-{{PAGENAME}}" in question, so they can edit it or comment about it or whatever. — CharlotteWebb 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a better idea. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "v • d • e" links might be a nice option. So, to prepare for that and other similar uses I made the {{editnotice pagename}} meta-template. It returns the pagename for the editnotice for the current page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at {{tnavbar}}, but it only works with templatespace. We can either clone it (mwnavbar) or request a namespace parameter be added. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little bit more complicated due to the parser-function ciphering needed to determine the correct page title (see David's template). Adding special cases to tnavbar would negatively impact performance in the other 99% of the places it's used. I created this {{editnotice navbar}}: {{editnotice navbar}} which uses some code from the tnavbar (minus the esoteric format variables — we probably want editnotices to look the same anyway) and uses {{editnotice pagename}} to decide what title the three links should point to. — CharlotteWebb 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I propose we do this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

After a lot of verbosity I think this is ready to use. Just have to focus on the cosmetics of, like what color it should be, whether it should be part of a title bar, on the left or the right, etc. One known problem is that there is no reliable way to link back to the article from the edit-notice. Yes you could use [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] which would link to the article, but only from the edit screen of that article (to abort the edit perhaps), not from a screen where you are viewing the edit-notice MW page directly. I say figure out some way that looks good and add it (if you want this feature, otherwise you can chuck it ). Just don't turn this into some kind of vote. — CharlotteWebb 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we need a backlink; if you use the edit link to get from the article to the edit notice, then the browser back button should work just nice. I say put it in the header on the left just like navboxes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think somewhere in the upper right corner of the editnotice message box probably is the right place. Since it won't look good with the upper left corner if there is a left side image. Something like this:

And I would like to know if that looks good in Internet Explorer 6 and 7. It does look fine in my Firefox 2 and my Opera 9.

And a little detail: Some editnotices are for whole namespaces, see for instance MediaWiki:Editnotice-8. If such editnotices should be able to use {{editnotice}} then the "v • d • e" might need an option where we feed the pagename as a parameter. Or if we are really lazy we can simply have an option to remove the "v • d • e" links in those cases.

And I am pondering if we should perhaps drop the "e" link? Since most users can not edit the editnotices anyway, and I think most admins know that all they have to do is to "view" the editnotice and then click the "edit this page" tab.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks great in my Firefox 3. In Internet Explorer 7, however, I can only see the lower line and the lowest pixel of each of the two vertical lines above that. Nothing else from the little box. Sorry. Waltham, The Duke of 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in FF3, IE8, Safari 3, Chrome and Opera 9.5. However, if someone sets the headerstyle, it does not look so good:

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:35, 9 September 2008

Waltham: Right, so it doesn't work in IE 5 to 7. I got an IE 5.5 and got the same problem as you got in IE 7. So my little v-d-e box is out.

Gadget850: I know how to make the little box behave well when the header is set, but my example above was just a mockup. Anyway, it would still break in IE 5 to 7, so my little box can not be used.

So we need to use a normal transparent v-d-e navbar that is fully inside the template as usual.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How about on the bottom right where it does not interfere with the header or logo:

I have seen other boxes with the vde in this position. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As you see putting the navbar bottom right costs a whole empty line down there.

Having the navbar top right and handling the header is no problem. We can simply use an #if statement: If a header parameter is used then the navbar is inserted "float:right;" into the header. If there is no header parameter then the navbar is instead inserted "float:right;" into the message body text.

That's what I would have done with my previous navbar box. I just used the box since I thought it looked nice to have it sitting on the border like that. (But as we now know making the box sit on the border didn't work in IE 5 to 7.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but, then you get this:

How about adding another column:

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two options directly above, the first one looks awful because the "red links" are not visible against the red background (but would probably work fine with any other color background), and the second one looks awful due to lack of margin (I literally see

"ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Utv • d • e"

at the end of the first line... Firefox, Windows, low-res lappy FYI). — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We could just tell people to not use coloured backgrounds for the headers.

The message box standardisation has been going on for some years now, I myself have been involved for a year now. We thought we had just finished it when we deployed {{mbox}} and {{tmbox}}. And suddenly here comes the Wild West of the Editnotices. Oh, that reminds me, see my message in the next section.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On #1, that was the point I was trying to make. A blue background is going to be just as bad. On #2, I just stuffed it in. Just make the row three columns and put the vde in the right column. It will still look bad if someone sets the textstyle to red or blue. Either we add options to change the colors, or preferably just note that it is a bad thing. If we really want a backlink, we can add it under the vde. Basing this on one of the standard mbox meta-templates would not be a bad thing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sample using fmbox:

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess most of you don't know the {{fmbox}} yet: It is a "header and footer message box" which is an mbox compatible meta-template for the 100% wide system messages and similar.

Here are some variations using the {{fmbox}} that puts the navbar in the upper right corner:

I am not sure we should use the fmbox for this but if we do we still probably need the {{editnotice}} message box for these reasons:

1: The {{editnotice}} box can add the navbar and the header functionality.

2: The {{editnotice}} documentation can explain how editnotices work.

3: If we want the editnotices to be transparent as default then {{editnotice}} can handle that.

Pretty much like how {{notice}} and {{caution}} now are just convenient front-ends for the {{mbox}}. I would not like to add all the functionality directly into the fmbox since that would make it unnecessary complex and using that one directly would be less user-friendly than using the {{editnotice}}.

Using the {{fmbox}} would make maintenance of the {{editnotice}} box simpler, and would make it easier to handle images with proper padding (both on the left and right side). Calling fmbox would pay of even more if we decide to use the normal system message colours for editnotices. (The fmbox / ombox / table of content colours.) Since then any skinning of the fmbox done by other skins and by users would automatically also apply to the editnotices.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Colours for editnotices

I would like to draw the attention to an editnotice standardisation discussion: Should editnotices be transparent or have the "table of content colours"? Everyone is invited to voice their opinion at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice#Colours for editnotices.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for editnotices

So, with the new system, I create an editnotice at User:MZMcBride/Editnotice. But if someone wants to discuss the content of the editnotice itself and they post to User_talk:MZMcBride/Editnotice, suddenly that discussion appears above the edit screen when editing my talk page. There are two options:

1. Change the format for User_talk: pages to something like User:MZMcBride/Editnotice_talk
2. Find a different place to discuss the editnotices themselves

Also, the v • d • e links break currently on User_talk:UserName/Editnotice pages, e.g., here.

If somebody could take a look at these issues and fix them, that would be great. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, have you checked with the devs about the possible security issue that Simetrical and I brought up in the discussion at the Village Pump? As I wrote there:

There might be a serious security issue with the system messages such as the editnotices. They are sent to the browsers without going through the proper parsing. For instance HTML tags are not converted to XHTML tags, which to me indicates that it might be possible to add other non-allowed HTML instructions and script code and other things in MediaWiki messages. Things that normally are filtered away by MediaWiki when someone tries to put that in a page. Things that make it possible to attack the browsers. I have not tested if MediaWiki do the security filtering on the MediaWiki messages (and I am not sure I know how to test that). We should not open up those notices for everyone to edit, before we have checked that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed this with Simetrical. Currently, the editnotices pass through some of the pieces of the parser, just not all of it. Tags like <script> and <a> will not work; however, an unclosed <div> will cause issues on an edit page. That said, there are no (known) security implications to allowing users the ability to edit the notices themselves.

My testing was done at test.wiki (see here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: try writing what you want in User_talk:MZMcBride/Editnotice (or if you don't want anything, don't add anything), then add a non-ending <noinclude> so that the conversation is still there, but it is not transcluded onto the user talk edit page. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpage editnotices

Is there a change that can be made to allow editnotices to work on subpages? For example User:Scottydude/sandbox/Editnotice would be an editnotice for User:Scottydude/sandbox? I think this would be useful (and cool). Scottydude _review 04:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all you'd have to do would be to make the content of MediaWiki:Editnotice-2-Scottydude/sandbox be {{User:Scottydude/sandbox/Editnotice}}. In general, this is better implemented for users by using a page that can only be edited by the user or admins, like User:Scottydude/mysandboxeditnotice.js, for example. If you'd like such a setup, I can create it for you. (I will do this fastest if you post the request on my user talk page.) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in a .js or .css subpage is a hack and should probably be avoided. If there are issues, the page can always be protected. But it's very unlikely a vandal (or anyone really) is going to vandalize or cause problems on an obscure page like that. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what Scottydude is referring to is this:

We currently have a system that allows users to write their own editnotice for their user and user talk page. This is done by code in MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 which loads the editnotices from "User:Somename/Editnotice" and "User talk:Somename/Editnotice". However that code is currently written in such a way that it doesn't support making editnotices for subpages of user pages. I noticed that when I took a look at that code the same day as you MZMcBride made it. Did you code it like that on purpose or was it an accident? (I have been meaning to ask you that, just been too busy elsewhere.) I see no good reason why we should limit it like that. I think we should change it so users can make editnotices for any subpage in their user space.

I am even pondering if we should add some more functions:

We can make it so the users can make say a "User:Somename/Editnotice-all" that gets shown as editnotice on top of all their pages and subpages and talk pages. (But the page specific editnotice should of course also be shown if there is one.) Perhaps with a separate "User:Somename/Editnotice-alltalk". Perhaps with fall-back to show the "all" one on talk pages, if there isn't an "alltalk" one.

We can also make the same thing for the other namespaces. But then we should place such editnotices in the MediaWiki space, so they are automatically protected. For instance, some templates have several subpages. So we could put code in MediaWiki:Editnotice-10 that would load "MediaWiki:Editnotice-all-10-Tmbox" as editnotice for Template:Tmbox and all its subpages and talk pages. And perhaps with a "MediaWiki:Editnotice-alltalk-10-Tmbox" variant for the talk pages. (And of course with fall-back to the "all" one.)

Lots of possibilities here! And I know how to code up all that, it only takes some template code and no javascript. And since that code will only run in the edit windows it is not a performance problem at all.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Slash style editnotices

I have now spent a lot more thinking and experimenting on this. I have figured out how we can make a much more user-friendly system. It will be easier to use for both admins and users, and it can supply several new functions that the current system doesn't have.

See my explanation and examples over at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice#Slash style editnotices.

I will give you guys some time to look at it and respond before I announce my suggestion at the Village pump.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Update code

In practice, editnotice headers and other styles are being deleted. I have sandboxed a proposal:

• Uses standard {{ombox}}
• No header, in line with other message boxes
• The only image is the notice icon, as this is a notice box
• No style parameters— inline styles such as bold or italic can be used
• The only parameter is text

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Why would we remove customization options? If people don't want to use them, they don't have to, but I see absolutely no reason to remove them from the template. That simply encourages people to not use the template at all.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Since folks are running around removing headers and styles, I have already stopped using the editnotice system and have removed editnotices that I have created. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Border

Would it be possible to implement coloured borders and perhaps thickness into this template? I just think it might be a nicer alternative to the rather jarring headerstyle option. --.:Alex:. 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice category

{{sudo}} This template is in Category:Wikipedia editnotices, but the category doesn't get transcluded to the editnotices themselves, as the category is on the doc subpage. Shouldn't this category get transcluded? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this template should add pages that use it to Category:Wikipedia editnotices. The prefix list isn't enough because there are some editnotices that don't start with that prefix. Gurch (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, intuitively, Category:Wikipedia editnotices ought to contain editnotices. But the description of the category is currently: "This category contains pages pertaining to editnotices." So I think this requires more thought. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then either change the category description or make a new category called Category:Wikipedia editnotice templates. There should be some way to keep track of these things. Gurch (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What about those editnotices like {{Disambig editintro}} that do not use {{Editnotice}} at all and just call {{fmbox}} directly? Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... why isn't that one using {{editnotice}}? If {{BLP editintro}} does I don't see why that one doesn't, as they're basically the same thing. Gurch (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea either. {{Disambig editintro}} was created before {{BLP editintro}} but after {{editnotice}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Disabled, if a category is added to an editnotice, it will be shown at the bottom of the edit window ! Try to edit User:Cenarium for an example.Cenarium (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously <noinclude> tags would have to be added. Or do they not work with editnotices? Gurch (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work for editintros, but it does for editnotices. Cenarium (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

← The noinclude tags + category would have to be added to every actual editnotice though. I don't think anyone has yet found a way to transclude stuff only one level without some code on every page, just like template documentation does.
With some massive parser function use (and one of the string hacks) we could prevent categorization anywhere we don't want it though:

{{#if:<!--
-->{{#ifeq:{{Str left|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|21}}|MediaWiki:Editnotice-|1}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq:{{FULLROOTPAGENAME}}|Template:Editnotices|1}}<!--
-->{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:User}}|{{ns:User talk}}={{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||2}}|Editnotice|1}}}}<!--
-->|[[Category:Wikipedia editnotices|{{main other|:}}{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]}}

That should get all but the special BLP and DAB editnotices. Amalthea 11:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, should it even try to categorize the user editnotices? Or should they better be excluded as noise? Amalthea 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, you can find them all (excluding user editnotices) listed at Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Editnotice- and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/. Amalthea 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think the idea for putting them in a category is to also track recent changes to all of them via Special:Recentchangeslinked (at least that is what I would prefer). Unfortunately as the current MediaWiki configuration is set up, the editnotices appearing above the edit window forms are not being treated the same as a regular template trancluded on a page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Well, for what it's worth, I am planning to do some tweaks to editnotices anyway (as discussed at WT:Editnotice), and part of it will be providing a backlink from the editnotice as displayed at the top of the edit page to the actual editnotice template (something like this or this), which would necessitate providing the name of the editnotice to the editnotice template. With some additional parser function magic we could categorize the template pages without an artifact at the bottom of the editpage, e.g. {{#ifeq:{{{page}}}|{{{FULLPAGENAME}}}|[[Category:Wikipedia editnotices]]}}. I'll keep that in mind once I get to that part. Amalthea 00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

images

Due to this recent change, invocations that only supply a image name are busted.[1] There is a comment above which indicates the new calling convention of supplying the full image syntax is preferred. I dont much mind, but we need to pick one approach and fix all existing usage, otherwise people will copy and paste and grumble when it doesnt work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by routing the parameter through {{image}}, which accepts all kinds of ways to declare the image. Amalthea 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentation for parameters

So how come there's no documentation for the parameters?

How am I supposed to know what are valid inputs for:

| header =
| headerstyle =
and
| textstyle = 

 ?

Wikipedia:Editnotice doesn't give any examples of what to fill in these fields either. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the parameters and some examples. Anyone know what |id= is? Any objections to removing the namespace and the list, as these are better documented at Wikipedia:Editnotice? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Showing up twice

When I edit my talk page, the notice shows up twice, one under the other. Does anyone know why? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it. Amalthea 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this standard?

It's very annoying to me to show up at a talk page and see a redlink in the corner pushing the bar down. I'd love to know why this was made standard on talk pages. It's a useful template but forcing it up there is not going to make anyone's experience better. ResMar 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ResMar. You have come to almost the right place. The red "Page notice" link you see on user talk pages is added by the editnotice system, not by this template. So I have copied your message to Wikipedia talk:Editnotice#Why is this standard? and responded there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ID

If |id= is not specified, then the editnotice fails validation because it creates a blank id. This needs to be made optional. I have to run away for a bit, but will look at it if no one else gets to it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is actually in {{fmbox}}, so I have proposed a fix there. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Expiry date

I suspect that most edit notices eventually become unneeded or out of date. I'm wondering whether adding an expiry parameter might be a good idea, so that the notice won't appear after a certain date. Even if the exact expiry date is not known, making it last for a year might be better than making it last forever. The expiry date could always be extended if the notice is still needed. I'm concerned that we may have a lot of irrelevant edit notices out there, which will take a lot of time sorting through some day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Amalthea 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is some warning such as a notice on the article talk page and/or creator talk before expiration and a method to renew the editnotice. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An automatic reminder on the editnotice itself could certainly be arranged. I'm not sure any further warning system could be achieved without a bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some proposed code is on Template:Editnotice/sandbox. I've been using Template:Editnotices/Page/1982 Lebanon War and 1982 Lebanon War to test it. Any checks or comments would be appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added this code. Please let me know of any problems. I will update the documentation shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit notice at WP:Help desk is not displaying properly - the text beginining "This page is only for questions..." is formatted wrongly. I'm pretty sure it was OK yesterday, so is this a side-effect of the edit to {{Editnotice}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, a extra space was causing this I believe. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've restored the code and removed the space, looks good now. Cheers, Amalthea 11:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight bug: when editing an editnotice the /notice of Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices is also displayed. I'll have to improve the check to ensure that it's only displayed on the page of the actual editnotice (not any editnotice). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this can be remedied, by not actually using Template:Editnotice on Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices. 117Avenue (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the editnotice to disappear after the expiry date? If so, you'll need to update it with my edit to the sandbox, which closes the #ifexpr. Also, shouldn't it go into a category where admins are alerted, and either delete it or change the expiry? 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing categorization via parser function doesn't work, I'm afraid, you always need a (null) edit or purge for that. Amalthea 09:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the purpose of it expiring if there is no way of seeing the ones that have? Pages are automatically purged every week. 117Avenue (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the current code is correct actually. It should always display on the template itself, but not on the article when it has expired, obviously. And in fact the >1 is not required if you are only using ifexpr to compare between zero and non-zero - try it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it is comparing it with 0, then the first 1/0 should be swapped, because currently, even if its expired (0) it is still 1 for being on Template:Editnotices. 117Avenue (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the intended behaviour. I wanted it to appear on the editnotice template page even when expired. But it won't appear on the article as an editnotice when it has expired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So when it is displaying while editing an article, its FULLROOTPAGENAME isn't Template:Editnotices? This is still new to me, since I am new to making edits in the Template:Editnotices space. A disclaimer will need to be added to the documentation, instructing not to use expiry when using it in a different space, as it will cause the box to disappear. 117Avenue (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, PAGENAME returns the name of the current page, so on an article this will be the name of the article. The meaning of your last sentence is lost on me though. I suggest you try it and either convince yourself that it is working properly or else give an example of where it is not working. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If this template is used on a different space, with an expiry, it will disappear. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it's not supposed to produce any output if it has expired! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the documentation still needs to be updated to include information on the expiry parameter. -- œ^™ 09:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I haven't forgotten ;) Will do shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a tweak to Template:Active editnotice is in order. Can someone double-check this for me? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to be negative, and for not bringing this up earlier (I was only aware of the new feature now), but this is really, really annoying - especially because those who are explicitly declaring that an editnotice will apply indefinitely (by means of expiry=indefinite) are still faced with an ugly "This template is set to never expire. Please insert an expiry date" messagebox. AGK [•] 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think it is important that the expiry date is displayed somewhere on the editnotice template, otherwise it would cause more confusion ("why isn't the template displaying?"). I suppose the information about setting the parameter could be left out, when the parameter has been set. Feel free to make the change to Template:Editnotice/notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2012

Update the page with the code on Template:Editnotice/sandbox. This will allow users to change the size of the picture with retaining the original size for other users.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 15:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, and added |imagerightsize= too in case someone wants the two images to be different sizes for some reason. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Another image related edit request on 15 Febrary 2012

It would be nice if the right side image box could have 2 images side by side (if you don't have much text in the box, there's a lot of whitespace left), I'm not quite sure how to get it to work a bit out of touch with wikicode I actually tried subst'ing it and making my own version but because there's so many ifs and stuff subst'ing it just breaks it horribly:

User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/editnotice

Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have to be added to {{fmbox}} which is quite widely used, that would in my opinion be too much feature creep. If it's only needed for your editnotice I think it can be handled there by passing the desired structure directly. I've made changes to your editnotice that I believe do what you asked for.
Amalthea 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice Showing Twice

Hi. Does anyone know if this is a bug with Editnotice, or is it just me? Whenever I go to edit a page with an Editnotice on it, the message displays twice. I've noticed this on protected pages, deleted pages, and user talk pages... Here is a screenshot of the problem:

—JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 04:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not actually an edit notice.
FWIW, I know there used to be a problem with wikEd that used to display some notices twice, do you happen to have that enabled? Does it also happen if you log out?
Amalthea 08:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this also happens with editnotices...any notfication that appears before the edit box, it would seem. And yes, I have Twinkle enabled. Do you know if there's a fix for this? I guess it's not a big deal, but it's a little annoying. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle won't do that, I think wikEd did. If it still does you'll have to ask at WT:wikEd, I don't know the first thing about it. Amalthea 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, wikEd...okay, thanks for your help. Much appreciated. —JmaJeremy^TALK_CONTRIBS 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• wikEd still does it and I had started working on a fix, but never finished it... I'll get back to it someday... Technical 13 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Starting date

Hi, Just wanted to check if there is any interest of having a starting date just as we have a parameter for expiry date. I realize it might not be used that often but sometimes (if there are consensus) there could be use for a starting date. For example there was a consensus a week ahead of 2014 FIFA World Cup to have an editnotice (for editors not to live update) and with a start date the editnotice could start being shown when the tournament starts and not immediatelly. I dont know how hard it would be to implement it, but I thought I would see if there are any interest in such parameter. QED237 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No interest for this? Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

Could someone undo the last two edits. They completely broke my editnotice. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What is broken about it? It is appearing when I go to edit your page. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The images in the editnotice templates shouldn't be that big. (BTW I'm speaking about the editnotice for my user talk page.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no |imagesize= parameter, thus images will show at original size. Use standard image syntax. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

fixed the typos, sorry about that. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It now works as it should. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no |imagesize= documented. --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I started to add it, but when I tested it on the British-flag example, I couldn't get it to work. Have I missed something, Frietjes? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, the imagesize parameter will only work if you specify the image using just the image name (and not the full image syntax used in the example). Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Frietjes, it's been added to the /doc. – Paine  22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect category

Category:Expired editnotice is currently full of edit notices that have no expiry time set. The problem is that {{#time:U|{{{expiry}}}}} does not return an error when "expiry" is blank; instead it returns the current timestamp. I believe I've fixed this in Template:Editnotice/sandbox but would like a second opinion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put a slightly simpler version on the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your code looks good. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)