Forum:New 'bug' template

Hello all, template gurus especially. I've made one that, considering the increasing trend to make our pages look smarter, I think is - for want of a better word - quite snazzy. I've made this one for Fallout 3 bugs, and I can put in the work to convert them if it requires manual work, however I'm sure (and hoping considering the amount of pages that a bot will be able to do it (which I'd also be able to do if someone was able to give me the programming to put in and run which GA has done before)). Enough intro though, here it is:

 Bug :

In code:  Bug :

Bear in mind I have only made one template that has been used before, and as such I'm still learning so please don't be too harsh ;). Tell me what you think and whether it's worth having/improving. -- GOTW '''User 00:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's snazzy, but where would this template be used? On pages like Fallout 3 bugs, Operation: Anchorage bugs, etc. as a header? Or would it be placed on every single page that has a bug replacing the Bugs section? --Kastera (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would replace the individual bugs, rather than a section. For example, one would add the Bug tmeplate, then the | then the templates for platforms it effects, giving the result of (example taken from Rivet City).

The result looks much neater and seperates out bugs nicely, as well as having links to the Fallout 3 bugs page in both the image and the word bug. -- GOTW '''User 15:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It does look neater and I'm all for separating bugs better (both in editing and reading). Only one thing bugs me (no pun intended). When the text runs on for more than two lines, the radroach has text underneath it; I would like it better if the text was all on the same margin and not indented in by the radroach. --Kastera (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll try that. Hopefully I can pull out some technical wizardry ;) -- GOTW '''User 17:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As per GW request, I have fixed the template as such. 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot GA, I couldn't do it Kas so I asked GA, but is that more to your liking? :) -- GOTW '''User 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. Just a brainstorming suggestion I'm putting out there: what if we used this template to sort the bugs into affected system with sections for all platforms, select platforms (for example: or ), and individual platforms (just , etc.). It could make it easier for end users to find bugs affecting only their platform, but it might also make it more difficult for editors to put in bugs (with them having to check if the bug is in another platform area and then relocate the bug to its new proper position. Thoughts? --Kastera (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the most important thing to consider with that though is that the majority of bugs are added as anons, rather than editors, who for the most part struggle to even put in the platforms, so I can't see that it would encourage them to do it more, but rather deter them with unnecessary red tape as they would have to establish what platforms it effect and if it's been put up before. Furthermore, if we were to sort bugs, I can't see how that would help as most people go to the page to see if there is a bug, rather than a compiled list. I think we'd end up putting in a lot of work for this, when no-one will really use it. So, from what you've pointed out, I think the trouble to us as editors outweighs the usefulness to 'punters'. -- GOTW '''User 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from. Probably would be too much effort on our part for something no wants. But that's what brainstorming is for! --Kastera (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is :p So overall, you'd be for implementing it? Is anyone else going to give their opinion? ;) -- GOTW '''User 18:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be a bit more forward. Porter, Ghost, I'd like to hear your opinions mainly, but I really would like to get more feedback from anyone. -- GOTW '''User 21:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time right now and I'll be away over the weekend, but I'll post a more thorough reply when I get back on Tuesday. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Visually, it seems unnecessary for single bugs, and it'd probably look worse for entire bug lists. Hard sharp dark borders between each list item? I imagine that separating them with just whitespace would be better for legibility. The "Bug" link at the start of the list item is also redundant, as most bugs are already in a Bugs section, and if they aren't, they probably should be. :\
 * It also seems like the template would unnecessarily interfere with editing. My primary concern is links: "|" is used to separate a link's target from its text, but it is also used to separate template parameters. This means that any named links within a parameter supplied to this (or any other) template would need to use the  hack, which is quite a bit less legible and intuitive.
 * IMO the only benefit this template provides is added spacing between bugs (a benefit which is nullified by the borders), and one could achieve that without a template, by simply wrapping the list in some DIV with a special classname, and then using stylesheets to increase the margin/padding on any list items contained within such DIVs. Such approach would be neater, both visually and in the article's code. ‹‹ DavidJCobb ›› 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say I disagree about legibilty, as it does in no way make it more difficult to read. Some lists can get very long, and as Kas was saying, it is a good idea to show that they are seperate in these instances.
 * I can, however, agree that perhaps the word Bug: is unecessary, and as such will remove that if there is a final version, as you make a good point.
 * As for your last points, is does not make it more difficult, and you do not need to use | in order to add links, and I don't understand what has made you think you would. Observe this example (as above) with links:
 * As you can see, it has no impact on links, or their coding. Lastly, neatness is a matter of personal opinion, and as such I won't attempt to challenge your view as it is yours entirely, and you are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Thanks for the feedback :) -- GOTW '''User 10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, it has no impact on links, or their coding. Lastly, neatness is a matter of personal opinion, and as such I won't attempt to challenge your view as it is yours entirely, and you are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Thanks for the feedback :) -- GOTW '''User 10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think DavidJCobb might be used to older versions of MediaWiki; I remember the issue he describes, but it is no longer present in the more recent MW releases. Pipes within links are now resolved correctly and the workaround template isn't needed anymore. -- Porter21 (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Well, I guess that does explain it. I know you're personally very busy Porter, but I think that we all know deep down that the deciding opinion will be yours, and that no-one would argue with it ;) So, tell me honestly, what do you think? -- GOTW '''User 11:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is to similar to the Sourcebox. It seems like you are trying to highlight the actual bugs, which to me is kinda pointless when they have there own section. I could understand using this template, when used in-line with the page content, but I do not know of instances where this is the case. Also, having multiple bugs posted in a list looks unsightly with the double line in-between each bug. Coupled with the horizontal line (bottom-border) used for level 2 headers for the sections only amplifies this. So I am of the same mind as DavidJCobb in regards to it being pointless for single bugs and looking bad for longer lists.

I understand the principle of trying to separate the bugs from each other for ease of reading, as long lists do in fact start looking like a massive mess. They can be hard to disguise each separate bugs at first sight, and harder to read through the mass of text, when there is no real breaks in the text (like paragraph break in free flowing text). This template does solve that problem, there is no denying that, but I do think that the issue can be solved in a better way. And lets face it, we have a hard enough time with new users adding the platforms template to new bugs, let alone formatting it with this template as well. 22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, one BC saying no is as good as them all saying no. Thanks Ghost, but maybe next time you could say this sooner so that I'm not waiting weeks for a decision? ;) -- GOTW '''User 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, bureaucrats are not some sort of "final ruling dispenser" in this kind of discussion; or at least, that's not how we'd like it to be. We just participate in these discussions like everybody else :) I'm aware that people tend to treat our opinions as final words though, which is part of the reason why I didn't reply sooner. Kastera seemed to be somewhat in favour of the idea, so I figured I'd wait and see what other community members think of it rather than posting myself and having the discussion end due to "the bureaucrat has spoken" syndrome ;)


 * As far as actual feedback goes, I would've mentioned pretty much a mixture of the things which were brought up by DavidJCobb and GA - I'm not a fan of inserting lots of horizontal lines into article sections, I think the design is too similar to that of the sourceboxes and repeating the word "bug" over and over again seems a bit redundant when you're having dedicated "bug" sections (it'd be a different matter if we didn't).


 * Still, I think it's good to have community members step up with ideas and suggestions, so I hope you're not letting yourself be discouraged to do so in the future :) -- Porter21 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)