Template talk:WIP
Timestamp
Could this template include date/time, and possibly user? I've come across a few of these templates in use and the only way to tell how old (or defunct) it may be is to trawl through the entire edit history. I check in on the discussion pages as well, but often they're blank or it isn't clear whether anyone there actually has a project underway.
(I'm presuming here that the purpose of this template is to avoid users making conflicting edits while one user is managing a large update/overhaul/reformatting usw. of the article.)
Mandatory or automatic timestamp and username parameters would allow users to see whether or not the notice is current, and be able to follow up with the user/s nominated. Hopefully this would cut down on forgotten/abandoned articles (or at least people forgetting to remove this notice), and at the very least anybody who wants to go ahead with edits can leave a note on the correct user talk page (everybody takes breaks from their projects, but it would be nice if people could feel free to contribute during hiatuses).
It could be as simple as:
|
Attention Adept of the LEXICANUM!
This article is being created or revised as of 11:01, 8 May 2013 (CEST). (Notice placed by Prattlebarge.) |
Of course we could just throw ~~~~ at the bottom, but some people have custom signatures - hence the separate timestamp (~~~~~) and username (~~~). For the record, I have no idea how this would affect pre-existing transclusions of the template. I don't know an awful lot about warp portals at all, to be honest, so I'm keen to hear from the wizened old veterans on this one. --Prattlebarge 11:01, 8 May 2013 (CEST)
- Adding tildes doesn't work: It got compiled as my personal signature and was spread to all phenotypes. --DetlefK 17:15, 8 May 2013 (CEST)
- Thanks for testing, I'll look into alternatives. This kind of markup isn't my forte, though, so anyone weighing in would be appreciated. Other than that, would it be a welcome change? --Prattlebarge 18:09, 8 May 2013 (CEST)
- Okay, just so I don't forget to list it, {{REVISIONUSER}} and {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} may be applicable down the line, but it would require someone more familiar with parser functions (particularly for the timestamp formatting) although we could also utilise other magic words in that regard. I believe the two variables mentioned will always reference the last edit, which may not be best for the username use. Perhaps we could have a parameter which is {{REVISIONUSER}} unless otherwise entered. Still, more parsing than I can manage at the moment. That's all the R&D I could manage in the last hour, it's on my projects list though. --Prattlebarge 19:30, 8 May 2013 (CEST)
