Template talk:SPI case status

Line break
In some terms, this doesn't require admin assistance. In others, it does. I would like approval to add a line break to this template, for aesthetics.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

New "awaiting info" status
Following some discussion on Vanja's talk page, it would seem that we need a new "status", or to modify an existing one. The current /  says they're to be used solely when the case's filer has made a CUrequest. However, sometimes the clerks have to ask for more information/diffs when a case a filed even without a CUrequest (Vanja made a nice little message for that, found at User:Vanjagenije/Moreinfo). At the present time, we are limited to leaving these cases in either  status, or   (but that isn't quite accurate either). We would either need a new set of statuses for when a clerk/CU requests more information but there was not initially a CUrequest, or we need to modify the existing "moreinfo" text not to limit its usage to when there was already a CUrequest. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the Clerks' noticeboard, but I'll also ping directly, since you've done a lot of work on SPI-related templates and procedures in the past few months. :) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why isn't  considered for that purpose? It says "An SPI clerk has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments."
 * I dunno, I've always got the impression "hold" was used more as a "wait and see what happens" or "wait until X/Y other thing is resolved" than a "we're waiting for the filer to provide more info". "hold" seems more like an internal "don't touch this case until the SPI team says so", not a "please provide additional evidence". Maybe it's just how I see it and that's not what actually is but that's how I see current common practice. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. We really need this status, so that the cases waiting for more information are not mixed with those that are not yet reviewed. By the way, my message (User:Vanjagenije/Moreinfo) is just a copy of DiffsNeeded, just without "CheckUser declined" part. Just now, I realized that the same effect is made by using, so my template is actually redundant.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, so yea, works for this purpose I guess, thanks for pointing me to that. But we really need a status to fit that and separate it from unreviewed cases. Another option would be for new cases to default to new "new" status, to make it clear they are unreviewed. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the status, if it could somehow cue the case filer that would be good otherwise they may think that we are doing something in the background. More evidence needed or Awaiting response or something along those lines. Sometimes, I think that people get confused concerning the cases.
 * I'd just change the wording of  to be for all cases where CU isn't needed and   for cases where CU has been requested (rather than it being for CUs to use). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with . No need to have two separate "more info" statuses for clerks and CheckUsers. I'm pinging other clerks/CUs to join this discussion: .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If changing the status makes it easier for our overworked Clerks, then you'll get no argument from me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Mike V • Talk 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as we don't lose one of the pretty colors, I don't care one way or the other, whatever is easiest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Without going as far as "losing" colors, me and have been discussing a tweaking of some colors -- we've already smoothened yellow to gold and slain the ugly limegreen, but we'll keep at it until it looks good to everyone. :p ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callanecc. I don't see why we need to distinguish between whether a clerk or a checkuser is requesting more information. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly couldn't give a damn. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is ✅. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You modified Template:SPI case status/core, but forgot to modify the documentation (Template:SPI case status/doc).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done now, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The GroupNotice also needs to be updated... I feel like this could be some sort of transclusion of our status list but I can't seem to make it work so I'll just fix it up manually. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also updating Template:SPIstatusentry/color. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Request
Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser and Category:SPI cases waiting for a CheckUser appear to be redundant. One of them should be removed from this template and deleted. —Guanaco 06:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging for some insight as DQ has been active on this template and was the creator of the forked category. Cabayi (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they may be redundant, and they could be merged eventually, but right now bots are dependent on both categories. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Thanks for the input . SPI is a specialist area where templates have meanings which aren't immediately apparent, and where bots do a fair chunk of the drudgery. Trust me, I got slapped down a few weeks ago for using a template which, despite a lack of warning, was meant for the use of clerks only. I'd let the SPI clerks & specialist admins look after the templates & categories in this area if I were you. Cabayi (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019
Please change the line

to

(add "has" before completed). This would then match the other statuses, which all have forms of "to be" before the operative verb in the status (except for, but that sentence has a different structure from the rest). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect usuage
Please change An SPI clerk .... → A SPI clerk, because "an" is the form of the indefinite article used before words beginning with a vowel sound as per Oxford English dictionary. 2402:3A80:1A44:53FA:2C79:9D3:6CBA:A2A3 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, true - however, "a" vs "an" is typically chosen for phonetic agreement (i.e. as spoken) rather than orthographic agreement (i.e. as written). As you say yourself, if the letter following the article makes a vowel-like sound, then "an" is the right choice.
 * "SPI" begins with the "ess" sound, which is vowel-like, and so "an" is the correct choice as far as I can tell. :)
 * (Pinging fellow TPE @Tamzin for a second opinion here as linguistics isn't my specialism - and I just know she'll love this question regardless ).  firefly  ( t · c ) 15:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen this go either way, "An SPI (ess pea eye) clerk..." vs. "A SPI (sockpuppet investigations) clerk..." but I've seen little (global) standardization. In this case I think changing "an" to "a" would look and sound very odd to me. That's just me, I could be wrong.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Like with most acronyms and initialisms, you won't find global agreement here, but anecdotally I say "ess pee i" and so do most/all people I've discussed SPI with aloud (which is like 5-10 people). Interestingly, I spoke with a British editor a while ago who said that in school they were taught to have "a"/"an" agree with the first written letter, and I've noticed at least one other Brit who does things that way, so maybe that's an EngVar difference to some extent, but I've also seen Brits take the same approach I do... Regardless, with both EngVar difference and preference-based differences, we tend to err on the side of "Whoever came first", unless there's a project-wide push toward standardization. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2022
Please sync this template with Template:SPI case status/core/sandbox. The sandbox changes update the colors to ensure all status colors meet at least WCAG AA Normal, which per MOS:COLOR is the minimum text should have against the background. The new colors can be viewed on Template:SPI case status/core/sandbox/doc, and a full comparison can be viewed at. Per request:. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  16:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created Template:SPI case status/testcases to show the differences. The one thing that occurs me is that (CU)MOREINFO and ADMINISTRATOR are meant to be fairly eye-catching, and your proposed changes make them significantly less so. Is there any way to preserve the flashiness while still hitting AA Normal?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've seen this; I'll probably play around with it over the weekend, although in general flashy and accessible aren't easy to achieve at the same time. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Asartea, Tamzin - I was curious and played about with this, as far as I can tell, the current colours for "more info" and "admin needed" meet WCAG AA, unless there's a specific font-size-dependent test I'm missing? firefly  ( t · c ) 17:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore me, I am an idiot - helps if you test the link colour too....... firefly  ( t · c ) 17:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed MOREINFO to use a different pink that still meets WCAG AA for link/visited-link text, but is slightly more eye-catching, let me know what you think. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah its the SPI clerk/Checkuser links which make this such a issue, but I do think they are important. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, Firefly, you had the exact same series of experiences as I did. Well, I think what we've got now is pretty good. The (CU)MOREINFO color is close to as eye-catching as before, and while there'll probably be one or two expressions of surprise at the change from bright-orange to bright-green for ADMINISTRATOR, eye-catching-ness is a greater priority than tradition here, so I'm going to implement this. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, and Template:SPIstatusentry/color as well. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
please change

|CUENDORSE |CUENDORSED |ENDORSE |ENDORSED =  – An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

to

|CUENDORSE |CUENDORSED= – A CheckUser has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case. |ENDORSE |ENDORSED =  – An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Because of clarifying CU and clerks Hhkohh (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pink check tick.svg Done --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)