Template talk:Infobox tennis match

Yes, a problem
With your recent edits, matches that have fewer than 5 sets show the scores with an extra blank line under the player name. See Battle of the Surfaces. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, there was an extra "]" at the bottom of the 2008 federer final. I undid your change. I think it needs more testing. Maybe I can have a look at it before you think it's ready? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that it needed an immediate revert for these. I was in the process of fixing the conditionals to hopefully remove the blank lines; I'll be deploying it in a sec. After that I'll look at the Federer final. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a revert was needed. Why not update template:x8 or something? This recent edit completely screwed up the 2008 wimbledon final. Come on, be patient. No need to bust things up. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Having an article broken for thirty seconds is not a reason to go scrambling for the undo button. It isn't my fault that a brand-new template was deployed on a high-profile article before it was cleaned up. I'll take this to a sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't my fault that a brand-new template was deployed on a high-profile article before it was cleaned up. Well, it works. No reader cares about the inner-workings of the template, the text on the page is the same to them. From a reader's standpoint, nothing is wrong. I don't disagree with the changes you're making, but I do disagree with your method of just making changes to the template without adequate testing. Certainly it is right to test a change to a template first. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * New changes look good. Thanks &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fixed now anyway. For what it's worth, sorry for snapping: yes, I should have deployed it in a sandbox and tested exhaustively first, but when a template is only deployed on a handful of articles the fallout for making changes to the live code is usually minimal. It would have been fixed ten minutes ago if not for the edit conflicts, and very few people would ever have noticed. It's also worth pointing out that the previous code had some fairly serious accessibility issues which would have made it difficult for blind readers to make use of it, so it's not true that nobody cares about the inner workings, but that's water under the bridge. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Accessibility issues... certainly not something I consider! Whoa. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Recent changes removed ; is that inappropriate for some reason? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. See CAT. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll have to check that those articles are still in that category. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)