Template talk:No permission since/en
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Update[edit]
Please see COM:VP#No permission since (file description pages) and Image permission (uploader talk page). Docu at 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. VP is now archived here Docu at 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Automated tools[edit]
With respect to this change in March, I have added back in the automatically generated notice since it is helpful for those who don't use automated tools and there's no explanation given on the talk page for why this should be made harder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Moonriddengirl: Only those who decided to disable the gadget in Special:Preferences cannot use the gadget, so that excludes new users, and IMO everyone else should be able understand the documentation at Template:Image permission. FDMS 4 08:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- But, FDMS 4, why should they have to? I have been using this template for years now, and it has functioned quite well. What is the trouble caused by the form in which it has presented the notice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Moonriddengirl: "Quite well", seriously :) ? Click, type, click, copy, click, click, paste, click instead of click? If you insist on using this method, how about adding an ID so that the text to copy is only displayed to you (personal CSS)? The problem I'm trying to solve is that very long templates are unlikely to be read by those who they should animate to take action. FDMS 4 10:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, FDMS 4, quite well. :) So far as I know, I have never failed to notify. It gives me the code every time. Does the template as written prevent automated follow-through from those using the gadget you mention? Or in some way discourage the use of the gadget? If not, I fail to see the problem in leaving it in its established version. If so, I'd be interested in hearing how. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- It makes the template more unlikely to be read by those who [it] should animate to take action.
- It is unnecessary and probably even confusing for (I guess) 98% of the users using it.
- Now, what is the problem with displaying the copy&paste text only to the very few users who really want it? After all, more than a month passed and apparently nobody misses it except for you. FDMS 4 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- FDMS 4, by that same argument, it displayed the notice for roughly 6 to 7 years, and nobody seems to have minded except for you. :/ The notice that it generates comes just above the language links. Can you tell me how this makes it unlikely that people will read what they need to see? Are there examples of people being confused by it? Was there a request somewhere for this change, or a conversation supporting it? Personally, I noticed and minded on the very first time I used the template after the change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- (I don't think "what is the problem with" arguments are useful in discussions like this, but anyway: Generally, few people care about template contents, unless they cause procedural and/or technical problems.)
- I follow a principle that instructions should be kept as short, precise and easily understandable as possible (this essay is probably related). Therefore, the question that should be asked in my opinion is not whether something causes problems, but solves problems for a significant number of users (depending on the problems).
- Honestly, there is absolutely no reason I can think of why anyone would not want or be able to use the gadget (I think it even works on mobile phones).
- FDMS 4 12:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:FDMS4, I don't believe there's been a demonstrated problem with this template. It's been in circulation for nearly a decade without issues that I'm aware of; CREEP is not involved. It's pretty stable. While I support the bulk of changes you made to the template, I can't support the one that decreases functionality for a subset of users. I realize that you may find the gadget useful, but not everybody uses it. The template as it is now should be functional for both groups, and I believe should remain that way. The main point is to facilitate finding and addressing problems, and the inclusion of the autogenerated notice that this template has always contained is a good step there, in my opinion. However, I'm happy to open up this up for other opinions as necessary by requesting feedback at the pump. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't think many people care about this, so I'll ask for feedback at the main template talkpages instead. There is no deadline :) . FDMS 4 12:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:FDMS4, I don't believe there's been a demonstrated problem with this template. It's been in circulation for nearly a decade without issues that I'm aware of; CREEP is not involved. It's pretty stable. While I support the bulk of changes you made to the template, I can't support the one that decreases functionality for a subset of users. I realize that you may find the gadget useful, but not everybody uses it. The template as it is now should be functional for both groups, and I believe should remain that way. The main point is to facilitate finding and addressing problems, and the inclusion of the autogenerated notice that this template has always contained is a good step there, in my opinion. However, I'm happy to open up this up for other opinions as necessary by requesting feedback at the pump. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- FDMS 4, by that same argument, it displayed the notice for roughly 6 to 7 years, and nobody seems to have minded except for you. :/ The notice that it generates comes just above the language links. Can you tell me how this makes it unlikely that people will read what they need to see? Are there examples of people being confused by it? Was there a request somewhere for this change, or a conversation supporting it? Personally, I noticed and minded on the very first time I used the template after the change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, FDMS 4, quite well. :) So far as I know, I have never failed to notify. It gives me the code every time. Does the template as written prevent automated follow-through from those using the gadget you mention? Or in some way discourage the use of the gadget? If not, I fail to see the problem in leaving it in its established version. If so, I'd be interested in hearing how. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Moonriddengirl: "Quite well", seriously :) ? Click, type, click, copy, click, click, paste, click instead of click? If you insist on using this method, how about adding an ID so that the text to copy is only displayed to you (personal CSS)? The problem I'm trying to solve is that very long templates are unlikely to be read by those who they should animate to take action. FDMS 4 10:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- But, FDMS 4, why should they have to? I have been using this template for years now, and it has functioned quite well. What is the trouble caused by the form in which it has presented the notice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Moonriddengirl and FDMS4: How about a compromise: Keep the text, but hide it in a similar manner as Template:Delete does it with its "further instructions". That would be one click more for those who want to do it manually, but since they are willing to do all that copy&paste-ing that shouldn't be too much of a problem for them, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me, User:El Grafo; as long as the functionality is not impaired, I'm happy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Collapsing usage information is a good idea – I don't have the CollapsibleTemplates gadget enabled though and am not a fan of it either, therefore I'd prefer mw-customtoggle. FDMS 4 13:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)