Template talk:Resolved/Archive 1

If there were an "All-Wikipedia Best Template Award", I would nominate this immediately
This has to be one of the best templates ever conceived on WP. What an amazing time-saver for everyone. I use it darned near daily (cf. Wikipedia talk:Notability (and/or archives thereof ca. Nov. &amp; Dec. 2006, Jan. 2007), WP:CUETALK, Talk:Albinism, Talk:Cue sport, Talk:Godwin's law, User talk:SMcCandlish, etc., etc.) &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

XHTML fix
This template needs  added to the end of it, so that it does not booger page display. Doing so might, however, booger extant uses of it (wherein people like me have already added said code after it.) Bears some experimentation. Maybe AWB can help fix those. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted the HTML twiddles; haven't experimented yet, but will get back to you with results from "live" experiments. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Initial results: The "clear" fix did add extra whitespace, as predicted, in places where the old version of the template was used, but the results are not bad at all. To the extent they need to be fixed, I could probably do it all myself on a boring afternoon.  This looks promising!  One comment: I kinda miss the box around the "√", but maybe just because I was used to it. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Big fat, happy tick
''&#91;This discussion was copied over from Talk:Godwin's law, as it is off-topic there. 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)&#93;''

This talk page is the only place I've seen this: "" I have mixed views, so is there a WP page on its use?--Shtove 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedia templates are self-documenting, either at the template page (Template:Resolved in this case), their talk pages (Template talk:Resolved) or (rarely) in HTML comments in the template code. This one is documented at the template page itself (the first link).
 * Anyway, the Resolved template isn't particularly old, but I'm personally a huge fan of it, and use it as much as possible (where it genuinely applies!) to promote it. It is an amazing timesaver when it comes to figuring out from a talk page what issues remain out-standing and what work needs to be done on an article, and even saves the casual onlooker time and effort by dissuading them from urging support for a NPOV fix or whatever that was already made 18 months ago.  If I'm activistic about anything at all with regard to WP internals, it is increased use of this template.  :-)
 * PS: As the template's own docs say, if you disagree that a topic is actually resolved, simply remove the template and keep on discussing.
 * PPS: I'm copying this discussion over to Template talk:Resolved, and actually marking this topic "Resolved" here since any further discussion of this template should go its talk page, this being the Godwin's law talk page.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: More templates in this series
I propose more templates in this series, including the following:
 * Moot - for topics not "resolved" per se but made moot because circumstances (the article text under discussion, etc.) have changed to such an extent that the discussion is no longer relevant; I frequently use Resolved for this purpose but would like to be able to flag this circumstance more accurately.
 * Moribund (or some other term for "dead issue") - for topics that simply never get any response, because no one cares after 6 months or so. I also often use this template for that but would love to be able to be more specific as to why people should skip this and move on.
 * Chat - for content-free topics that are not of any interest to other readers ("Oh, by the way I really loved what you did with the Weasel snorkeling article last week. Reminds me of the time my uncle cut off his toe with the chainsaw.") Would serve both to indicate to article talk page readers that the topic can be skipped, and to remind people to take personal chatter to user talk.  Used on user talk pages, would simply indicate that the topic is of personal, not general, concern and safely skipped, w/o any pejorative sense.

Note that I not propose any POV tags of this sort, such as "Nonsense" or "Irrelevant" or "Troll", etc.

They'll all need their own icons/colors.

And a Village Pump posting to get them noticed and in-play, perhaps?

&mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Icon/color ideas: Moot = "/". Moribund = "...".  Chat = dunno, is there some kind of UTF-8 smiley face or something?  Colors, not sure.  Initial take:  Moot = yellow (i.e. "caution" - someone had issues/idea, and they may come back in some other form.)  Ditto with Moribund.  Green for Chat.  No use for red yet.  Maybe if there were a similar template meaning something like "heated, ongoing debate, do not archive yet no matter what" we might could use it for that.  NOT proposing such a tag at this time; I think that would need longer thought as to consequences/fallout. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge, but still issues
Did a merge to (I hope!) resolve conflict between "no link to template" and "blatant link to template" positions, but at least in Safari browser under MacOS X it doesn't actually work. I suspect this is because of the (seeming; I may have missed something) XHTML-breaking misuse of a table-related element, namely  outside the context of a table. For me, the would-be link is just inactive bold text. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Link in previous ver. didn't work either. I didn't introduce a bug; I failed to fix one. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmph. But it is inside a table... Weird. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Made it valid XHTML (must have &lt;tr&gt;), but still no dice. Replaced "&#91;&#91;" internal wikilink with "&#91;" external link which worked fine. Conclusion: WP does't like wikilinks inside bare HTML tables. Ergo, use a wikitable.  Too sleepy to try myself right now. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you haven't worked it out yet: it gives the link as "inactive bold text" when you look at it on the Template:Resolved page because it is a link to the Template:Resolved page, and therefore has nowhere to go, so it bolds it. —Pengo 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! I really was tired!  It ought to be converted to a wikitable anyway, since this is a wiki, but I'm glad it works! &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Documentation improvement proposal
I propose replacing the "Purpose" section of the documentation with the following:

Template talk:Resolved/Redraft1

after folks have had time to edit it to consensus satisfaction.

&mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved documentation to an unprotected subpage Template:Resolved/doc. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 23:13Z 


 * Dox have evolved some, but I think that my redraft has material that would make for a good merger. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the documentation to a subpage so it wouldn't be affected by protection of the template. If no one objects when you propose something innocuous like editing documentation, just go ahead and make the changes :)  Bold, Revert, Discuss... —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:42Z 


 * Yah, I know; just been busy with other stuffs. It's still on my to-do list. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New extra text
Parameter 1 to the template now optionally specifies extra text or signature to add to the right of the template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 23:14Z 


 * By the way, this comment feature completely rules. Much better than just declaring a topic "Resolved" without saying on what basis. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"1=" in documentation
I put the "1=" back in the example. I realize it's unnecessary in this particular example, but many people have "=" in their signature due to fonts/styles, and will get bit by this unless they have experience with putting signatures inside templates. For example, myself, and the probably second person to sign inside template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 08:26Z 
 * No worries. I was completely oblivious to this being a possible issue. Thanks. —Pengo 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, it was missing again in the default version. I've fixed it, for the very reason you gave. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:59Z

Restoring original checkmark
I think the original checkmark should be restored (though at a size that makes the template not get any larger.) The plain green checkmark is used primarily for idenfying pages as official Wikipedia Policies. The use here is thus confusing and misleading. I haven't put up an editprotected request just yet, since there should be time for discussion. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * &lt;Ahem&gt; That means that some discussion should ensue. :-) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what it would look like:

Resolved


 * See Check_mark_templates for other choices too. I don't really care too much and from the deafening silence I'd say go ahead and change it to whichever one you like :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:40Z 

Swap out the code above for the active template. The green checkmark is widely used for a) tagging official WP policy pages, b) in votes/!votes of various sorts, and c) to mark admin actions taken (as opposed to refused), in certain contexts. The use "carries weight" as it were, while the red, boxed checkmark is rarely seen outside (the original version of) this template, and thus will not be confused with something having any air of authority.  No obejctions above. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Did anyone notice that the template has been adopted by WP:ANI now? I think this will help spread use of it. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I claim credit for introducing it to AN/I :) I forgot where I first saw it... —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-27 14:18Z 

Box height
Can someone decrease the vertical padding by 2 or 3 pixels? The bottom is often cut off by the underlying text. BTW. Why is this template protected? This is hardly a high-profile template. Seems more like a WP:OWN protection... --Edokter (Talk) 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "WP:OWN" accusation: I created this template and I'm certainly not afraid to allow others to edit it (and it has been modified and improved greatly). It was protected by someone else, not at my request. Here's the protection log entry: 10:07, 8 March 2007 Misza13 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Template:Resolved (Heavily transcluded all over the site; has a bullseye painted on it; in short, WP:HRT. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change) —Pengo 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to point any fingers, it just struck me as odd. My apologies. I'll copy the code to the sandbox (for preview ability) and post back the changes for approval, and hopefully, incorporation. --Edokter (Talk) 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think one small change might resolve the bottom cut-off. Can someone change   to  ? --Edokter (Talk) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What browser/platform are you using? (Done, btw) —Pengo 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the 6px result looks fine to me in Safari. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Using IE6. The bottom was sometimes cut-off because placement of text on the next line appears to be governed by the small text behind the box; not the box itself. You can see the effect by increasing the padding to something like 16px. --Edokter (Talk) 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest testing new results with a really long (2 line or longer) "|1=" in multiple browsers. The only time I've seen the effect that I think is being described it was when the parameter was long. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I still see the bottom being cut. Select-all makes it re-appear. So it's a render bug in IE. (Although the smaller box looks slightly better.) --Edokter (Talk) 17:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How about...
Why not put the extra text in the box?

Examples:

Resolved

Resolved

Code:

--Edokter (Talk) 11:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * God, please no! The current implementation is great, the new version would produce inconsistent results all over the place and makes them look like alerts/warnings.  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer not expanding the main box that way, but I'm open to other proposals for style changes. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:36Z 

More please
Just saw this template for the first time - what a great idea. Surprised there are not more like it, like "Unresolved" (duh), "Comments requested", "Any objections?" etc. They would make it a lot easier to see at a glance the status of a talk page without having to read through very wordy justifications etc. Actually let me expand on those a bit:
 * "Unresolved": Would be used to indicate that there is an outstanding problem that is still in need of an answer, in the asker's opinion.
 * "Comments requested": The person writing is simply asking for opinions, so don't hold back. If you're not feeling opinionative, skip this section.
 * "Any objections?": The person is intending to carry out some action like an edit to the article within a couple of days if there are no objections. Could be followed up with a "Resolved" or "Stop, objections" template.
 * "Driveby suggestion": The person is making a suggestion, but that's it. They're not following the article, they're not coming back, they're giving their two cents and hope someone picks up on it and does something useful with it. To avoid the problem of someone replying with "Sounds good, go ahead".

Obviously these would all be accompanied by text. I think a pure meta-conversation waged with templates would be...um...bad. :) Stevage 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read above, you'll see I once proposed a similar expansion and no one liked it enough to even bother to comment. I think the underlying reason is that if every topic on page has a tag like this, they won't stand out any longer; one will spend almost as much time reading and parsing and judging topic-label templates as one would reading actual topics to make up one's own mind.  As to specifics, "Unresolved" is the default; "Comments requested" is what virtually all talk page posts are, pretty much by definition; "Any objections?" is implicit in the nature of Wikipedia talk page proposals/debates; and "Drive by suggestion" is redundant with "Comments requested", in essence.  I think what you propose could lead to the meta-conversation you wish to avoid.  PS: My own variants ("Moot", etc.) weren't any better, mind you. :-)  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I don't agree that reading a 1-word description takes as long as reading a whole paragraph. I also don't agree that virtually all talk page posts are "comments requested". Often they are "There is a problem here", or "Please stop doing X". Nor do I agree that "Any objections?" is somehow "implicit": Most of the time people change stuff without asking. Other times they're not able/willing to make the change themselves, so they explain what they want and hope someone else does it. A third possibility is that you yourselves are planning to make a change which other people may object to: that's "any objections?". Stevage 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern I have is with vandalism by way of false alarms. From what I gather, there are templates which users can leave on personal talk pages for requesting assistance. How have these worked out? --Aarktica 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, given my work with Esperanza, I was wondering if there are other similar templates available to handle cases where issues are without a definitive resoution. Such as when an absent-minded user asks for help via EAR, but fails to follow through for a solution... --Aarktica 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like stale fits the bill for the latter question. --Aarktica 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A question and a semi-suggestion
What is the purpose of the following text? That is, why is there so much space?

Also, if you wrapped the code  with noinclude tags, it would remove the template at the top which is redundant to the templates displayed in the documentation page, would it not? --Iamunknown 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Looks like left over old code. As it is noincluded, it is of no consequence at all; should probably be removed, but not worth some admin's Editprotected time to fix that alone.  Just fix it on next editprotected-with-an-important-purpose.
 * 2) If we did what you suggest, the template would stop working completely. I'm not sure you grok with fullness how includeonly and noinclude work yet.  :-)
 * — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that I do. My format does, however, appear to work at Template:Stale and that template's counterparts.  --Iamunknown 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redundant spaces. Iamunknown, &lt;includeonly&gt; would do what you're suggesting, but it's nice to see the template by itself outside the template documentation box so one can easily see what the template itself inserts. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 01:27Z


 * I understand. Thank you.  --Iamunknown 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: "it's nice to see the template by itself..." Yes. I undid its disappearing act at Stale, too. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 02:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Inappropriate includeonly" SMcCandlish? You've got to be kidding me.  Oh well, I've removed the "inappropriate includeonly" tags at Stuck so you don't have to bother with me or my inappropriate actions anymore.  Regards, Iamunknown 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressed in user talk. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
I don't see what purpose Stale serves. Because: other than it has a different icon. I'm not rushing to slap up merge tags; as "the gang's all here", figured it was worth just talking about. — SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; looks like WP:WQA created this for their own purposes. I think as a general use template it is indeed redundant with Resolved, but their particular use of it seems to have a distinguishable purpose in their processes. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

double sig?
Result of

is
 * [[Image:☑.svg|20px|Resolved]] Resolved

What's up? ··coe l acan 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One of your sigs is in a #if, so it's not displayed. What's the problem? —Pengo 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's not a problem, per se. Just wondering if this could be cleaner. Is this the only way to do it? ··coe l acan 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it clear but not subst'ing it. Personally I can't stand subst and see little need for it these days. —Pengo 08:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

forced white background
editprotected This template should not have a forced white background but should, instead, inherit the existing background  or, simply, not have any background specification at all. The same goes for every other template on Wikipedia. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually like the forced white background here, as it helps the template stand out. Any other opinions? --ais523 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering this is generally used on boards like AN and ANI, which have a light blue background, the forced white background makes it stand out a lot more. There's no reason to change this. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure there is--that reason is customizability. Why force other people's design ideas down other people's throats? The checkbox alone makes the template stand out; the white background is unnecessary and distracting and even painful to look at if the surrounding background color is darker (as in my case). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could strip out the inline CSS and embed it into the monobook style sheet; that would allow users to turn off the background color in their personal monobook.css files, while leaving everyone else unaffected. There's already a "resolved" class; all we'd have to do is extend that to ".resolved span" and voila. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm just not buying that argument. We "force other people's design ideas down other people's throats" all the time. It seems like you want massive, project-wide changes that would affect everyone just to suit your own personal opinions, which just isn't going to happen.


 * I've disabled the editprotected request. This issue seems to have received appropriate attention. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's a way I could disable it in my custom CSS (not necessarily monobook.css, incidentally--I use simple.css, for example), great, but I have been unsuccessful thus far in overriding template-specific styles. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "C" of "CSS" is for "cascading"; your personal stylesheet is overridden by the inline styles, which is why you can't get around them. Once the style is added to the main style sheet, you shouldn't have any problem with it. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can write !important in your own styles to indicate that they should override even styles given on the template, if you wish. --ais523 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the syntax for doing this in this specific case? This is the code:  But this doesn't work when I add:   to my custom CSS. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That should work, but I make no promises; I didn't know that the !important flag overrode inline styles (probably because I've never been in an environment where I've had to do that). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be


 * Didn't work. :/ ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The semicolon goes afterwards, I think:  I'm not very sure, though, because it doesn't come up very often. --ais523 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The semicolon is used to separate CSS declarations; when there's only one, usually the semicolon isn't needed. That said, maybe it is with "!important". If I've got time later today, I'll hunt down where the "resolved" class lives and add the rest of the code, which will allow for easier overriding of the style. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the semicolon is needed, but if it's between the !important and the declaration, then the !important isn't applying to the declaration but to the non-existent declaration after the semicolon. --ais523 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, removing the semi-colon worked:  Thanks! ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) OK, now I need help in removing the background from closed AfD debates. This is the tag:  but   doesn't work. :( I even tried just,  ,  , and even  ! But still no good... :/ ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding on user's talk page, as this is an issue that has nothing to do with this template. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Large date and time
My use of the template here resulted in large date and time. The template page shows small date and time. Is there a way for me to fix my post to have small date and time? Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because your sig's font tags are closed improperly; they should be closed after they've been opened. I've fixed the example; you should make the change to your sig. Tiny little fix, and not an uncommon mistake. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. My was not properly closed. Thanks!  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor fix.
Please change: to Alt text should not be used for decorative images, only informative ones, and should so not be used when the alt text is simply exactly the same as the text that the image highlights! D'oh. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (sorry to sound so dramatic about it, but web accessibility is a pet cause of mine... plus I'm doing two websites right now, so I'm already in that mode anyway) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is incorrect. Any decent web developer will tell you that all images need an alt tag. How is a non-visual browser (someone who is blind and using a screen reader, or is viewing a website with images turned off) supposed to know what that is? "☑" isn't a standard character; if they're on an older machine (like in some poorer libraries), they may not see anything but a blank character, making " .svg" a horribly unhelpful clue as to what it is. We're making a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but more importantly, that anyone can use; removing features that would assist, for example, a blind reader, runs contrary to that goal.
 * Um, actually I've been a web developer since the web existed, and the accessability consensus I've been aware of since the earliest times is to leave alt tags off of images that serve no informative, only a decorative, purpose, so that they simply do not appear for blind readers at all. If something has changed in the last couple of years, I'm unaware of it, and would be curious what that is.  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a Unicode character not being a standard character.  Given that Unicode has subsumed pretty much all other character set standards, of course it's a standard character.  If the image in question were part of an article, illustrating a topic, I would agree with you; any time I encounter a caption free image in an article I add a caption to it.  This situation, of decor in a template, is not similar.  An alternative, if I really have missed something (e.g. maybe the most popular screen reader software is lame in this regard, and does not skip over undescribed images, or something else like that), would be to restore the "|" for the the alt caption, but simply put &amp;  there. Either way is fine by me, but it is not an accessibility boon to make blind users have to listen to redundant descriptions of purely decorative, non-informative graphics.  A third option might be to modify this entire series of templates to use some kind of message there, like "|Topic resolution template: ".  I'd be happpy with any of those.  But outright redundancy is out of the question.  What blind user is possibly going to want to hear "resolved resolved" read to them? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Editprotected
 * This is in regard to this edit: . Edit summary says "per talk request" but no such request is apparent, and the issue was not closed (see above).  To actually resolve it, replace the "Resolved" caption inside the Image... with "☑" (a standard Unicode symbol that actually represents the image in question); having "Resolved" as the image alt text is out of the question, as it is both inaccurate, and "user hateful" to people who actually need alt text, since it will render the template as "Resolved Resolved". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, the editprotected request was fulfilled 5 weeks ago. Second, you made the suggestion for the change and even included the code above for copying and pasting. Now it seems that you want something else. What might that be? --MZMcBride 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request pending clarification. --MZMcBride 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I provided code for no alt text. EVula insisted that there should be alt text.  I disagreed, based on something like 17 years of doing this stuff.  EVula further insisted that it be, and had it changed to, "Resolved", which I know is a bad idea.  I'm willing to compromise on their being something there, but it should be "☑", so that the template, for blind or text-only users reads "☑ Resolved" (in modern text-to-speech 'ware, this should come out as something like "boxed checkmark Resolved") instead of "Resolved Resolved".  Due to the non-usefulness of that, I say no alt text at all, and just have it be invisible, since it serves no purpose but decoration for sighted, graphical-UI users; but as I said, I'm willing to compromise on "☑", at least for now. EVula objected on Aug. 2 to "☑", but the objection, that it "isn't a standard character" is completely counterfactual (it's a standard Unicode symbol, just like ₤ and ≥).  Ergo the (now-restored) editprotected. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to work out a compromise with EVula on this issue before we make changes to the template itself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what this is; see my last msg. above. EVula has had 41 days to respond to the point that there is nothing wrong with the "☑" character, and has not done so.  That is way more than enough time to declare the objection stale at best, and move on. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, there is no alt text. What do you want changed? --MZMcBride 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I don't particularly care that much anymore. While not very helpful in a non-visual environment, there are also about a thousand better things for us to argue about. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably the alt text "☑" is to be added. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Must've changed again when I wasn't looking (tends to happen when one's watchlist is well into the thousands...) If EVula wants that symbol or something in there, then it's up to EVula to seek an editprotected. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, just because someone loses track of a conversation doesn't mean they are automatically acquiescing or anything (easy to have stuff slip by when you've got 1900+ items in your watchlist, and only look back at the past 12 hours or so at a time).

Unique Sig
As you can see, I have a unique signature. When I mark discussions as "resolved" on WP:EAR, not only does my signature not appear, but my reason for marking it remains invisible. I have to manually input " J-stan ". Is there a way to make my unique signature show up?  J- stan  Talk Contribs 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See similar issue above; there is an XHTML error in your signature (namely you are overlapping  and   (which renders in the final code as  ); it is not a general problem, nor a bug in the template. I believe this will fix it:   —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't working. maybe I should put and lines to it somewhere?  J- ſtan  TalkContribs 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wrapped it in tags, and it still doesn't work. J- ſtan TalkContribs 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to specify the parameter explicitly:  - unnamed parameters do not handle HTML well. Миша 13  10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks, that got it to work. J- ſtan TalkContribs 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Graphics change introduced display problem
The recent return to the boxed checkmark has resulted in the check image butting up against the bottom border of the template. See above; this didn't used to be the case; a comparison of the code there and what is presently in the template might elucidate the source of the problem. (NB: I am seeing it in Safari under MacOS X; haven't bothered firing up other browsers to see if it shows up there as well; as I say, this wasn't happening at ALL before, so something broke in the interim.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Actually, the manually entered sample code in the previous thread now also shows this problem; I suspect that the image itself has changed in the interim. In any event, it would seem to need some bottom padding or margin to resolve this new ugliness problem. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm this is also happening here on Safari 3 / OS X 10.4.9  --Parsifal Hello 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image not showing in IE6
Please rename ☑.svg or use an image that doesn't have exotic unicode in it's filename. On 10 September, code has been added to Common.js that enables displaying PNGs with proper transparency on IE5.5 and IE6. However, the filter used for displaying PNGs (ImagAlphaLoader) apparently has a problem with exotic names (though this is the first one I encouter). This results in the checkmark, and possibly other PNG with unicode characters that are not part of any installed character sets, not to show in IE5.5/6. Unicode is generally discouraged in filenames anyway, so please change the filename or use a different checkmark. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, while exotic Unicode symbols like this are probably not a good idea in filenames, using Unicode in filenames is perfectly acceptable. Unicode is the only way to represent characters from certain languages. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It being in the filename shouldn't have any bearing on the display; what does User:DennyCrane/Userbox Process look like? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's give some people a little bit of time to try to work out the kinks in the updates to MediaWiki:Common.js before changing this template. --MZMcBride 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can tell you already there is no way to fix this in common.js, as the filemname is parsed client side. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blank. And it does have bearing in the display in this case. Unicode normally shouldn't be a problem, however in this case the filename is parsed through a clientside filter; and this character is not part of any standard codepages/character set, and the parse fails. And I don't even know what characterset this symbol is part of... (I do know it is supposed to look like a boxed checkmark. But in all fairness, why not name it "Boxed-checkmark.svg"?) I also brought it up on Commons. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't do anything drastic. I'm pretty confident that I can tweak the script to make it work properly, but you'll have to wait until I have access to a computer running IE6 so that I can test it and know for sure. I have experimented with this on IE7 and I ought to be able to apply the same coding to IE6. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for panicing. And thanks for fixing it onece again, Dot. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the link?
As someone wrote above, this template is vulnerable to attack because it "has a bullseye painted on it". Is there a good reason why is has a link to the template under the word "resolved"? If we removed it, we could at least lower the protection level to semiprotected. Another reason for cutting the link is that we should only use links when they're helpful. If we use them when they have no meaning then it's like crying wolf - people will ignore them when they do have a meaning. &mdash; Sebastian 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we make it prettier
This template is really ugly. Could we make it prettier? Like how about something more along these lines:


 * 1)  [[Image:Tick_green_modern.svg|26px]] Resolved
 * 2)  [[Image:Artículo bueno.svg|24px]] Resolved
 * 3)  [[Image:Yes check.svg|24px]] Resolved
 * 4)  [[Image:Vista-clean.png|28px]] Resolved
 * 5)  [[Image:Gtk-ok.svg|28px]] Resolved
 * 6)  [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_clean.png|26px]] Resolved
 * 7)  [[Image:Crystal Clear action apply.png|26px]] Resolved

-- Dan Leveille TALK 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. I like the first one more, though the tick is a bit blocky. —Pengo 00:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch of others. :P -- Dan Leveille TALK 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support #3. I'll make this like a vote so other people might feel compelled to join in. I've changed the template to the #3 style for now because I like it, and it's better than the existing one. —Pengo 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yey. Well that was easy. -- Dan Leveille TALK 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's much better with the green tick. It's much easier to notice the template when scrolling through talk pages now.  .: Alex  :.  21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit protected templates if you don't know how
Can someone revert the last change please, it isn't making the template prettier it is causing part of the documentation to be transcluded. Always check your edits and revert back if they didn't work please, especially on a protected template. Jackaranga (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jackaranga (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. —Pengo 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)