Texas

Archives

Archive 1

Hi Jonesey95, John of Reading, or any (talk page stalker). At Talk:Planned Parenthood, the template renders: Click to show/hide further details., but it is not clickable (it is just plain text). Also, the template will render a show/hide link on other Talk pages I have seen this template used on and all that happens when you click on the show/hide link is that a one-line blank field of nothing opens up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the message, which was confusing, and then I adjusted the template to provide a collapsible section only if |comments= was populated. For some (probably historical) reason, the existence of |title2= was causing the collapsible section to exist, but the template shows up to three sources no matter what, so testing |title2= didn't make sense (to me). I removed the test for |title2= from the show/hide setting. Revert me if I did something wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the "id" parameter for, and how should it be used? All the examples include "|id=123456789", but there's no explanation of it. TJRC (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the section above Template talk:Backwards copy/Archive 1#Version number as parameter. Care to do the honours and document it? -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I will. TJRC (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done TJRC (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an attempt at describing what I am seeing. It looks like an error to me. Please advise if operator error in this case.

Talk:Portland, Oregon has this banner and there was a maintenance flag (green) for author= format. I tried several ways (author1=, 2, ect; vauthor=, and authorlist=) and the template either threw the flag or ignored authors (and date) all together. Attempted with only two as opposed to three with the same results. The current data in the parameter author= is the only way I could determine to display all three at once without it flagging to fix it.

If this causes confusion I apologize, I exhausted what occurred to me as a basic editor to solve the issue and felt it worth pointing out. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed the maintence error is affecting the banner on this article at the bottom, for an example of the issue. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparing the example banners in the article here itself, I believe the problem is if you list author2= it wants title2= and this might be linked to vauthor= and authorlist= as well. I did not test this, it is well past my realm of participation at this point. I would also note while I am here: No error flag at the top of the page when in preview that a parameter is being ignored or other problem like most templates I have worked with. Apologies for multiple posts. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Darryl.P.Pike: There's a suggestion at Category talk:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list#Template:Backwards copy that I'll try. GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template documentation says:

This template name, i.e., {{Backwards copy}}, should be used in preference to the redirect {{Backwardscopyvio}}, unless it has been confirmed that a reverse copyvio has occurred.

This seems to imply that {{Backwards copy} should be used if it hasn't been confirmed that a reverse copyvio has occurred. But Wikipedia:Copyright problems says:

If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know.

This seems to imply that {{Backwards copy} shouldn't be used if it hasn't been confirmed that a reverse copyvio has occurred; but it doesn't say what should be done in that case.

This contradiction should be resolved. Joriki (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template output links |id= but not |id2= for cases where different versions of an article were copied. (The current output suggests that |id= is the version that all backward copies were made from, which could cause confusion.) I used the comments section for a workaround in this edit, where the oldids are linked in collapsed text. I think that's probably the best way to handle it, to avoid clutter. Should I update the template documentation to address this outlier case? I'm not sure it's worth 'fixing'. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]