Template talk:attention
when a page needs attention by someone versed in a particular field
See current discussion in the Grease pit.—msh210℠ 17:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind: don't see it: instead see the template's documentation, above, which is an implementation of that Grease pit discussion.—msh210℠ 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
visible on the page
See current discussion in the Grease pit.—msh210℠ 17:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind: don't see it: instead see the template's documentation, above, which is an implementation of that Grease pit discussion.—msh210℠ 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Calling templates in templates
The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Msh210.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
You might want to look at the version of overage you left. By calling a template inside the null parameter of {{attention}}, you confused MW somehow, and left some plain-text html code in the ety. I've fixed it, but I thought you'd like to know. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up.—msh210℠ 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Technical details: the problem is that (1)
{{prefix}}evaluates to wikitext that includes HTML tags, and (2) due to a fairly recent change, the second parameter of{{attention}}is no longer totally null, but rather, it ends up in an HTML title="" attribute. (Overall, it was a good and useful change IMHO; this is the first time I've encountered/heard of a drawback.) The result is that {{attention|en|{{prefix|over|age}}?}} now evaluates to the wikitext ]<span id="attentionseekingen" class="attentionseeking" lang="en" title="<span class="mention-Latn">]</span> + <span class="mention-Latn">]</span>]?"></span>, which MediaWiki understandably gets confused by. I've addressed this by wrapping the parameter in <nowiki> tags. —RuakhTALK 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)- Thanks. I suppose attention could use {{{2}}} iff
{{isValidPageName|{{{2}}}}}. Would that work?—msh210℠ 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suppose attention could use {{{2}}} iff
- *tests a bit* Yes, that would work. But it's a trade-off: it means that {{attention|en|{{prefix|over|age}}?}} would no longer break horribly, but it also means that {{attention|en|<nowiki>{{prefix|over|age}}</nowiki>?}} would no longer display the title. And it wouldn't fix issues with double-quotes in the parameter. All told, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. —RuakhTALK 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll leave it for now. Thanks, gentlemen.—msh210℠ 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- *tests a bit* Yes, that would work. But it's a trade-off: it means that {{attention|en|{{prefix|over|age}}?}} would no longer break horribly, but it also means that {{attention|en|<nowiki>{{prefix|over|age}}</nowiki>?}} would no longer display the title. And it wouldn't fix issues with double-quotes in the parameter. All told, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. —RuakhTALK 19:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category name
I'd like to change the categories created by this template to use "terms" in the title rather than "words". Many entry titles in the categories have a space so the more general "terms" seems better. --Bequw → τ 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that other templates so categorize also: you'd need to change them, too.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Changed. I'm just waiting for the categories to resettle, before I make sure all the old ones in Category:Words needing attention by language can be deleted. --Bequw → τ 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Moving <span> before category.
Currently, the template puts the ] part before the <span> part. I'd like to suggest that we re-order them, and put the <span> first. The difference is that wikitext like this:
# definition #: ''example sentence'' <span id="..." ...>...</span>]
puts the <span> in a separate paragraph (<p>), whereas wikitext like this:
# definition #: ''example sentence'' ]<span id="..." ...>...</span>
appends the <span> to the end of the example sentence (or whatever else is there — a definition, a quotation, anything).
—RuakhTALK 00:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Special:expandtemplates (using the code
:foofollowed immediately by a copypaste of the transclusible part of the template, or by that copypaste with the categorization stuff switched with the span) isn't showing me that difference. (Both ways situate the span at the end of the usex AFAICT.) - If you're right that the way we have it makes a new paragraph and the way you want to switch it to leaves the span on the usex to which the attention tag was applied, then why switch it? Seems appropriate to leave the span attached to the usex to which the attention tag was appended.)
- Are you sure? Special:expandtemplates (using the code
- —msh210℠ (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think we must be miscommunicating. Take a look at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/title=%D7%97%D7%97%D7%97?oldid=17032924&action=edit; as you can see, an editor has requested that the entry receive attention from a Hebrew-speaker. Now take a look at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/title=%D7%97%D7%97%D7%97?oldid=17032924; as you can see, it looks as if the editor had requested that the translation of the quotation receive attention from a Hebrew-speaker. (Maybe my above comment shows up differently in your browser from how I intended it to? In my browser, my sample wikitext shows the spans/cats as being on a separate line from the example-sentence, but your comment makes it sound like you're not seeing those line-breaks?) —RuakhTALK 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- My brain was at fault, not my browser. I understand now, and support the change.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think we must be miscommunicating. Take a look at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/title=%D7%97%D7%97%D7%97?oldid=17032924&action=edit; as you can see, an editor has requested that the entry receive attention from a Hebrew-speaker. Now take a look at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/title=%D7%97%D7%97%D7%97?oldid=17032924; as you can see, it looks as if the editor had requested that the translation of the quotation receive attention from a Hebrew-speaker. (Maybe my above comment shows up differently in your browser from how I intended it to? In my browser, my sample wikitext shows the spans/cats as being on a separate line from the example-sentence, but your comment makes it sound like you're not seeing those line-breaks?) —RuakhTALK 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do things so insanely complicated?
Why isn't it so that if someone (e.g. an administrator) marks a new user's submission with the attention tag. this gets automatically added to Category:....<type of word>s needing attention and this category also appears in the entry of the word itself? This would be a way simpler way to do than this CSS kludgery...To make myself clear again: this category never appears in the entry itself. Must be purpose, although it would not hurt if the category got auto-added. -andy 77.7.105.41 20:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you wish to see what "hidden categories" a page belongs to, you can create an account, visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and enable the "Show hidden categories" option. As for "this CSS kludgery", the purpose of that is to mark the position in the entry where the attention is requested. (This is important for large pages when the request is applicable only to a small part, e.g. to a word mentioned in an etymology section.) —RuakhTALK 04:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
RFM discussion: June 2014
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
As msh210 noted on the talk page some time ago, it's wasteful to make editors check two cleanup categories... particularly because I didn't even know this template or its categories existed until I stumbled onto Category:Questions about German entries just now quite by chance! How many other questions go unanswered because people don't know this template and its cleanup categories exist? - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. I, too, wasn't aware of the categories. I suppose
{{question}}should redirect to{{attention}}, though that doesn't draw the template user's attention to the additional capabilities of{{attention}}. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)- I also agree. As a side note, I think it should be an error to leave the second parameter empty. Quite often, people just put the template on a page with no apparent indication of what the problem is. —CodeCat 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be useful. When I check entries and there's no reason given for the tag, it's hit or miss as to whether or not I can figure out on why it was added: maybe there's something wrong and I'm not seeing it, maybe there was something wrong but someone cleaned it up without noticing or removing the tag, maybe there was never anything wrong to begin with... Requiring the second parameter to be filled would encourage people to leave helpful notes on what they think is wrong, while still allowing them leave vague notes ("double-check entry") if they really thought that was best.
If the error would be visible, we should probably defuse current uses first, though, e.g. by having a bot add "double-check entry" to them all, possibly along with a cleanup category. Someone who adds a new reasonless{{attention}}tag and sees it produce an error message ("please add a reason" or whatever) is likely to add a reason, but that isn't going to happen on pages where the tag was added months ago. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)- I've created Category:attention lacking explanation and modified the template to fill it. It will take some time though. —CodeCat 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Youch, there sure are a lot of pages with unexplained attention tags... - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Some templates include it as well, so those can be fixed first it might cut the number down quite a bit. —CodeCat 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to have peaked at 4300 entries. I noticed that about 1000 were Vietnamese and Chinese entries where someone had supplied the (argumentless) tag after a question on a talk page, and (in the case of the Vietnamese entries) then redundantly tagged the entries, so I went ahead and cleaned ~950 of those up with AWB. (In a number of cases, the question that prompted the tag had been resolved.) - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've noticed a lot of Vietnamese entries were created with the attention tag already on, as if the creator were saying "Hi, I just created a Vietnamese entry; could someone double-check it for me? KTHXBAI." Not very helpful at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to have peaked at 4300 entries. I noticed that about 1000 were Vietnamese and Chinese entries where someone had supplied the (argumentless) tag after a question on a talk page, and (in the case of the Vietnamese entries) then redundantly tagged the entries, so I went ahead and cleaned ~950 of those up with AWB. (In a number of cases, the question that prompted the tag had been resolved.) - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Some templates include it as well, so those can be fixed first it might cut the number down quite a bit. —CodeCat 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Youch, there sure are a lot of pages with unexplained attention tags... - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've created Category:attention lacking explanation and modified the template to fill it. It will take some time though. —CodeCat 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be useful. When I check entries and there's no reason given for the tag, it's hit or miss as to whether or not I can figure out on why it was added: maybe there's something wrong and I'm not seeing it, maybe there was something wrong but someone cleaned it up without noticing or removing the tag, maybe there was never anything wrong to begin with... Requiring the second parameter to be filled would encourage people to leave helpful notes on what they think is wrong, while still allowing them leave vague notes ("double-check entry") if they really thought that was best.
- I also agree. As a side note, I think it should be an error to leave the second parameter empty. Quite often, people just put the template on a page with no apparent indication of what the problem is. —CodeCat 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've redirected Template:question to Template:attention. I suggest that a bot modify instances of explanationless {{question|language code}} to {{question|language code|?}} or something of that nature, because the template seems to always be used right next to, below, or sometimes above a question on a talk page (indeed, it used to throw an error if it was used outside the Talk: namespace). I think a bot could also replace instances of explanationless {{attention|vi}} with {{attention|vi|double-check entry, check talk page for specific questions}}, and then either (a) stop so that we could see that was left in Category:attention lacking explanation with all the Vietnamese entries gone, or (b) just proceed to do that to all explanationless instances of
{{attention}}. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to remove id="attentionseeking{{{1|}}}{{{id|}}}"
- If
{{attention|qqx}}is used twice, it produces two elements with the ID ofattentionseekingqqx, which is invalid. - For instances of
{{attention}}of a certain language, one can use.attentionseeking:lang(qqx)in CSS. - Who would take the time to fill out
|id=?
@Erutuon and @Dixtosa (User:Dixtosa/common.css).
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely bad to use id here. I prefer
class="attention-seeking attention-seeking-qqx"becauselang="qqx"normally signals that there's whatever-language text in the tag. — Eru·tuon 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)- That's an excellent point regarding
lang. I wouldn't mind. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's an excellent point regarding
Suggestion
I think this should probably categorize when used in the Talk namespace. Special:WhatLinksHere shows that this is transcluded on hundreds of talk pages, but they currently aren't being categorized in any way, which defeats the whole purpose of the template. 70.172.194.25 09:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)