Template talk:Dated maintenance category

DMCA?

I guess the name of this template is an abbreviation. So what is the full name of this template?

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading the documentation, I'm still not sure what it's about, or what it is supposed to be used for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question; I suggest a rename as the first thing I thought was DMCA. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is Dated Month Category Applier. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dated maintenance category. Dated maintenance category articles. Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

It could start to pose a problem. I saw {{DMCA}} in the list of templates while I was editing Multi boot, and like Jack Merridew, I initially guessed meanings related to a 1998 U.S. copyright statute: "articles that are or have been subject to an OCILLA takedown request" or "articles about copy protection or U.S. anti-circumvention law". Templates can't have disambiguation pages, can they? Besides, why is "dated" needed if "month" is in the title? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting "DMCA" in the searchbox would lead you here. No need to make assumptions about things that can be checked. And where and in which title did you see the word "month"? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail it. I was looking at Debresser's comment. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice game, BTW. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not categorized?

{{editprotected}} Somewhat absurd for this to be an uncategorized template. May I suggest Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates as a stop gap? MrZaius^talk 06:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Could you add it to the doc page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added that category to all these templates by putting it on the documentation. Same for the protection template (which may now be removed from the template pages). Debresser (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick request

Can someone who understands this template's use a touch better than I add an example to Template:DMCA/doc, along with a line or two of introductory prose? That would have headed off the discussion above, and made the template's purpose more clear. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Renamed and merged

Per the discussion above, I have renamed the template to something more descriptive. I have also merged it with {{DMC}} as they had very similar functions. This avoids having to maintain two different templates and documentation pages. I have done this with a new parameter onlyarticles which, if set to "yes", prevents categorisation in non-article space. So we have the following logic. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

		Namespace
		mainspace	other
onlyarticles	yes	Categorise	Don't categorise
	no	Categorise	Categorise

Where in the discussion above did you see a consensus to rename it? There was 1 editor who suggested it. I for one like the short name. That is the main point of this template, that it is short. And in general I think names should be short, especially for templates. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you keep the redirect? Debresser (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say I did see a consensus as such, but several editors turned up here expressing confusion as to the purpose and the name of the template and this was my solution. In general, templates should have a descriptive name I think. This is useful to explain what it does at a glance and has the descriptive name in categories, etc. Abbreviations are appropriate as redirects. Currently {{DMC}} redirects here, and {{DMCA}} passes its parameters directly here just adding onlyarticles=yes. This was the way that I merged the two templates. There is no intention to make editors type the long name when they are using the template. {{DMC}} and {{DMCA}} are perfectly fine and operate just as they did before. Does this clear up the confusion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm happy about it, but since you have a point, I'll rest my opposition. Do I understand correctly that Template:DMCA is still meant only for article namespace and Template:DMC still for other namespaces? And what about Template:Dated maintenance category, where should it be used? Did I see correctly that is can be used on either article as well as non-article namespace and will act as would DMCA or DMC respectively? Or is that dependend on use of that new parameter? If so, then that just complicates things and I have no idea how to use it. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I said above that {{DMC}} redirects to this one. Therefore the function of the two is exactly the same. (Without the articlesonly it will categorise in all namespaces.) The DMCA automatically adds this parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I propose to remove the articlesonly parameter from this template. That is what DMCA is for. Why add a function that is fullfilled by another template? Remeber WP:IFITAINTBROKE?

BTW, DMCA should be renamed to "Dated maintenance category articles" and DMCA returned into a redirect there. To keep symmetry. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Both templates were very similar in function. There was only the restriction of the namespace with the DCMA version. Therefore it does not make sense to have two different templates (and maintain both documentation pages). That's why I merged them, and now there is effectively, only one template (this one). Without the articlesonly parameter, this will not work. Question (if you know more about how this is used): is there likely to be a need to restrict the categorisation to other namespaces in the future? For example, only on File pages or Categories? That may affect the optimum coding of the template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely we will in the future need a restriction to files only.

I see what you mean. I propose a compromise: remove the option of the articlesonly parameter from the documentation. I have no problem with using that in templates, but I think it would be ridiculous if editors would start using it as a way of "recreating" DMCA.

What do you say about turning DMCA into a redirect to {{Dated maintenance category articles}}? Just as DMC redirects to {{Dated maintenance category}}. Logical and unambiguous. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The only minor problem I have with your proposal is that "Dated maintenance category articles" doesn't seem grammatically right to me :) I agree that there is no need to use the articlesonly parameter directly. (Although perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the documentation, just for the curious person who sees it in the code and wonders what it's for?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'd forget about grammar in this case. Don't we do that a lot? :) Debresser (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Possibly) Dated maintenance category

how could this be extended to create a (possibly) dated maintenance category? For example:Category:Articles_needing_expert_attention is broken down by month, so using this:

{{DMCA|Articles needing expert attention|from|August 2009}}

properly adds the article to: Category:Articles needing expert attention from August 2009. However, the more topic-specific are not broken down by month, so using this:

{{DMCA|Science articles needing expert attention|from|August 2009}}

incorrectly adds the following category (red linked): Category:Science articles needing expert attention from August 2009. This category doesn't exist, the correct category is: Category:Science articles needing expert attention

I'm trying to mod a template that calls this dynamically constructs the category name, but I'm not sure how it would check if the category contains subcategories by month. Cander0000 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Use {{DMCA|||Science articles needing expert attention}}. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Print problems

{{edit protected}} The current version caused white problems in print.

Please replace

{{#ifexpr:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{onlyarticles|no}}}|yes|0|1}}
 |{{#if:{{{3|}}}
  |[[Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}]]
  {{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}|
   |[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}
  |[[Category:{{#if:{{{5|}}}
   |{{{5}}}
   |{{{1}}}
  }}]]
 }}
 {{#if:{{{4|}}}|[[Category:{{{4}}}]]}}
|}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

with

{{#ifexpr:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{onlyarticles|no}}}|yes|0|1}}
 |{{#if:{{{3|}}}
  |[[Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}]]
  {{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}|
   |[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}
  |[[Category:{{#if:{{{5|}}}
   |{{{5}}}
   |{{{1}}}
  }}]]
 }}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{4|}}}|[[Category:{{{4}}}]]}}
|}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Still have some problems (but less of them), try

{{#ifexpr:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{onlyarticles|no}}}|yes|0|1}}
 |{{#if:{{{3|}}}
  |[[Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}]]<!--
-->{{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}}
    |<!--
 -->|[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]<!--
-->}}
  |[[Category:{{#if:{{{5|}}}
               |{{{5}}}<!--
            -->|{{{1}}}<!--
           -->}}]]<!--
-->}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
      |[[Category:{{{4}}}]]}}<!--
   -->|<!--
  -->}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done as well. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge {{DMC}} with {{DMCA}}/{{DMCAT}}

I don't know why we need several templates for this when {{DMCA}} and {{DMCAT}} seem to do little but pass their arguments through to {{DMC}}. What gives? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So how would you propose to pass those parameters? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The only logic I can see being abstracted here is the "onlyarticles" parameter, which is "yes" for {{DMCA}} and namespace-dependent on {{DMCAT}}. There's already a namespace check in {{DMC}}: why are two required? Just use {{DMC}} for everything. Am I missing something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible bug?

Today, September, when I open Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from August 2010, the intro text says: Articles in this category contain statements that may become dated originating from December 2010. Am I right that I do not expect December here? -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) tweak link -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Train2104, 6 November 2010

{{edit protected}} Can we wrap this around the current contents of the template?

{{#ifeq:{{FULLROOTPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Template messages|<!--Don't categorize-->|
Current template contents
}}

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please revert and/or ping me if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cat use dmy dates and Template:Cat use mdy dates

There is a crying need for {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} templates!

Users running scripts in good faith end up changing the date format to DMY and adding the {{Use dmy dates}} tag to articles about American subjects (and to a lesser degree MDY and {{Use mdy dates}} to British articles).

Unlike {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}}, the {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} templates should probably be visible.

With such templates in place, script writers could — should! — look for tags in an article's categories.

There will still be the occasional ambiguous article which resides in both an American category and a British one, and scripts should ignore such articles, possibly creating a list for manual inspection.

A case in point is Alexandra Ansanelli, who is in Category:New York City Ballet principal dancers, Category:American ballet dancers and Category:Principal dancers of The Royal Ballet. The first two would be tagged with {{Cat use mdy dates}}, the last {{Cat use dmy dates}}. And Alexandra Ansanelli is not sui generis; athletes change teams more often than ballet dancers! — Robert Greer (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why this is necessary. {{Use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} already categorise - see Category:Use dmy dates and Category:Use mdy dates. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What Robert means is the categories themselves should be tagged. This would perpetuate the idea that one dating style is "British" and the other "American", which has always seemed both false and unnecessarily divisive to me. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

Unfortunately, there are editors running scripts that blithely change all dates to DMY and put {{Use dmy dates}} in the headers of articles about the likes of Megan Fairchild — who was born in Utah, studied ballet there and at the School of American Ballet in New York City and has spent her entire career and adult life dancing for New York City Ballet.

These scripts do nought but perpetrate and perpetuate "the idea that one dating style is 'British' and the other 'American'" — and are enough to drive one crazy!

The people running them become understandably snippy if I merely revert their edits, even if I do so with a "good faith" remark, but I've got better things to do with my time than fix mistakes — yes, mistakes — that wouldn't make it past a junior-high-school English teacher and am capable of becoming — equally understandably, I hope — snippy as well.

I suggested to one — who has been most cooperative — that he modify the script he's running to search the categories to which an entry belongs for the words "American" and "British", but he apparently is not a programmer and asked whether I could do so for him (I am a full-time faculty member and have taught programming at City University of New York — but — again — I've got better things to do with my time than fix somebody else's buggy code.)

I suggested that he contact the original author of the script and any of its recent editor, but it then occured to me that if entire categories, such as Category:The Royal Ballet, New York City Ballet, American ballet dancers and English ballet dancers, could be tagged for DMY or MDY format it might ease their task.

Parenthetically, even British editors with whom I've been in contact agree that American usage — other than the military — is overwhelmingly MDY (British seems to be somewhat more mixed.) — Robert Greer (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Entirely by chance I met yesterday an Englishwoman who has lived in NYC for the past twenty years and asked her about dates; without hesitation she said that the US and UK use precisely opposite formats.

I can sympathize with not wanting to be "unnecessarily divisive" but no lesser authority that GB Shaw observed that, "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."

Or if you prefer Wilde, "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language."

There are two dating styles, one of which "is 'British' and the other 'American'".

I am not asking that we on Wikipedia "perpetuate the idea", rather that we acknowledge the fact.

To pretend otherwise is "false", and doing so will merely result in Wikipedia being a thoroughly mediocre reference work. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough might or might not be right about the degree to which Americans use one date format and the British another. But I will not accept his argument in this forum. If he can't win his argument by challenging WP:STRONGNAT at WT:MOSNUM then I consider his argument lost. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, being right and winning arguments have never been the same thing, even before Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

• The idea of how to implement the intention behind the suggested template needs to be further explained; I am unconvinced how this solves the perceived 'problem'. It may be possible to create a list of articles to work on using AWB that will take account of such a template, but it seems an unnecessary complication with many logistical issues for a modest script this mind cannot resolve. Without meaning to pour cold water on the idea, the manner in which this discussion and proposal have so far been actioned has failed to get me on board. I now feel like a non-solution has been given to me as if it were a solution, and I am now supposed to somehow 'get on with it'. One of my main concerns is how I can program a script so as to drill down into one or more of the categories (as opposed to the article itself) to find information on the "right" date format to align an article's dates with. Wouldn't it be simpler to just start from the categories upwards with my dates script and tag all the articles in the categories with a {{dmy}} or {{mdy}} template? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I will "drill down" the Category:Ballet tree between now and Thanksgiving — and do a little house-cleaning in the process. I don't expect your script to have to crawl through it; every relevant article should belong to at least one category that is tagged, but there will always be individuals that have to be done manually, Alexandra Ansanelli, Alessandra Ferri, Diana Vishneva, Angel Corella and others. — Robert Greer (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Should you chose to do it use the list comparer, "what transcludes (all NS)" _> Template:Cat use dmy dates => filter cats only => category members, then the same for dmy, compare and the only list 1 are good "dmy" candidates, the only list 2 are good mdy candidates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Sounds like it may be a function within AWB. If so, I can't avail myself of it. :-( --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

There is a discussion involving potential changes to this template at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Fixing the problem in other templates. Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion linked above, and its follow-up discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New information, have now reached a consensus. Please apply these changes to Template:Dated maintenance category.

For those who don't want to read through the discussions, here's a summary: This template often outputs a category, but does not do so under some conditions (e.g. in user sandboxes if onlyarticles=yes). If a template based on this one (such as {{Use British English}}) is the only thing on a line, there will be a visible gap if it outputs no category. With nothing left on the line after template expansion, it's a blank line so causes a gap. This is inconsistent and confusing for editors. My proposed change makes this template output a soft space ( ) if it does not output a category, ensuring the line it is used on is not left blank.

Demonstration using a sandbox page:

• without the proposed change (gap at the top)
• with the proposed change (no gap)
• view sandbox source

– PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I participated in the same discussion, and second this request. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Glad to see this sorted out. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this causes problems with inline templates such as {{as of}}, see Template talk:As of#Weird whitespace issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Debresser and PartTimeGnome: Using User:John of Reading/Sandbox I have verified that replacing the hard-coded space with a <nowiki /> fixes both the original problem - blank lines - and the new problem. Any objections? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections here. Please also change the explanation inside the remark when you make the edit. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I now think the correct fix is actually an unconditional <nowiki />, to be output in addition to the zero/one/two category statements. I've posted at Template talk:As of#Weird whitespace issue. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to switching to using <nowiki /> either. I was worried something like this might happen and did some testing before we made the change, but I evidently didn't test enough. Sorry 'bout that. There's no harm in making it unconditional, though I'm not certain it'll do anything for the italic title issue mentioned at the other discussion. I'll take a closer look and comment over there in a bit. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think making it unconditional won't hurt. Indeed, I'd also like to know if that will solve the Italic title issue. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does fix that issue, though I prefer the other proposed fix. See my comment at Template talk:As of#Weird whitespace issue. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "other proposed fix"? I understand you proposed to add it to both templates, no? Debresser (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made the edit to this template. The article Punch (magazine) has the right combination of templates to demonstrate the problem in mainspace; before my edit, there was whitespace at the top of the article, and now there is none. I won't be doing anything to {{italic title}} unless someone can find an article where another <nowiki /> will make a visible difference. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant John's other proposed fix, the one to {{italic title}}; sorry for the ambiguity. It would have been my preferred fix if only doing one of them. I also said (in the other discussion) "There's no harm to doing both, of course". – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)