Template talk:VIC

Documentation

I've changed the template to use {{Documentation}}. Superm401 - Talk 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was not aware of this possibility. It seems reasonable as the documentation is much lengthier than the template itself (is it also to improve performance?). The same kind of tweaks can probably be done to many other templates in the Category:Valued image templates. Any volunteers? -- Slaunger 09:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a significant performance difference. Besides reducing clutter, another advantage is that the template can be protected as needed, while still allowing documentation to be improved. Superm401 - Talk 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't thought of the protection issue. Good point. -- Slaunger 14:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sync User:Slaunger/VIC

I think User:Slaunger/VIC needs to be synced. In particular, the VIC-is-status-valid should be added here. Superm401 - Talk 08:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only the VIC-is-status-valid part of it. Other parts of it is outdated I think due to recent edits here (busy in real life right now, sorry). -- Slaunger 10:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Doc updated with two new examples:

1. A wrong status
2. Changing a nominated VIC to supported

--Slaunger 06:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New version

I made a new version of this template in my sandbox. It fixes a couple of little things that always bothered me, such as: the extra line breaks before the "Used in" and "Review" sections (this is caused by the workaround used to make the first bullet points work), the fact that "Nominated by" takes up two lines (and sometimes "Used in" does too), and the lack of an optional "info" or "rationale" parameter for the nominator. The new version also checks if people accidentally include the File: prefix or misspell the image's name. You can see it at work on User talk:Rocket000/Sandbox. Let me know what you think. Rocket000 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I like your improved template! Maybe the new "info" parameter should be called "rationale", "motivation", or "because"(!) (pick either) and I do think it is a good idea if it is put on its own line as it is not part of the review as you mention yourself in the example. A pleasure to experience your high quality template work again. Now, lets see, do we not have some of the same problems in {{VIC-thumb}} as well? Care to help work on a replacement of {{Assessments}} as well? (Actually, I was hoping you could be the driving force with respect to actual template implementation ). --Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I won't break anything as far as bots go, right? You never know what they rely on (I remember when I cause tons of closed deletion requests to be closed again by DRbot because I altered the {{Delh}} template. ;) I really want to do the Assessments template too, it's just a little overwhelming to start at it from this angle, but I'll try to focus in on it in the next couple days. Rocket000 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think you would break anything with respect to VICbot. There is this template which preloads the edit page when you nominate. That may need to be brought in line with the new fields. Maybe the new info/whatever parameter should be included in {{VIC-thumb}} as well? --Slaunger (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe {{VICs}} should now display the candidates on a single column? Unless you have a very high resolution, it's now almost impossible to avoid horizontal scrolling on COM:VIC, because of the new display size of the candidates (or maybe it's not wanted?). --Eusebius (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that wasn't intentional. :) Rocket000 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: default value for "used in"

Hi everyone,

I now that the "used in" parameter is optional but it is very interesting. However, the easy way to add it is to link to the the Special:GlobalUsage page for the file. But I think it could be improved if we set a default value in this parameter. My proposal is the next:

• By default, "used in" parameter, empty or not specified, would have a link to the Global Usage page for the nominated file.
• If someone would wants, it would be possible to specify some specific detail and it would be below the global usage link.

You can check my proposal in the sandbox template I created. I hope you like this proposal, and if there is something in which I haven't thought, tell me and I could try to apply it.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support: I think it's a great idea Ivanhercaz. It will save work for the thorough nominators and reduce the number of clicks for the thorough reviewers of nominations by less than thorough nominators! -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Thank you! Your comment makes me very happy. I have even been thinking about a counter, but at this moment I don't know how I could extract the sum of all. So at this moment my proposal is limited to that, but I think like you: it would facilitate the work of the reviewers. I am going to wait some days to know if someone else wants to give an opinion supporting or opposing to this idea, because I don't want to catch by surprise the most commons reviwers.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support It's a very good idea.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Archaeodontosaurus! I am going to wait until tomorrow. If nobody oppose, I will apply this change to the template. Of course, if it works wrong or it isn't fine received, it would be as easy to remove it as add it. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Change applied

Dear users interested in valued images and all the related stuff, but specially DeFacto and Archaeodontosaurus due their comments in this thread, the proposed change shown in the sandbox is already applied in the template. I also document the parameter and an example in the current documentation.

I hope this change will be well recived by the reviewers and nominators.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)