Template talk:Uw-copyright-new

Questions left on their talk page also?
Maybe modify questions sentence:
 * If you have any questions about this you are welcome to visit me at my talk page or you can ask here on your talk page and I will respond.

? Joja  lozzo  17:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea only if the person who leaves the template watches the page. :) I know that I myself would probably miss a note left on a student's talk page at this point, and I believe that most "new page patrollers" have pretty full plates. There's a real risk that any questions left at the person's talk page won't be seen, unless they put helpme in front of it, and then it might not be seen by somebody who actually understands copyright concerns.


 * I appreciate your fixing my coding. I'm rubbish with that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Icon
Noticed 's on the icon for this template. I agree, it's a little off-putting and non-specific. Out of Copyright, seems appropriate. Any problems with changing the template to use this? I'm also tempted to reformat somewhat, as it is rather a wall of text and will cause tl;dr issues for many newcomers. Cheers, Basie (talk)
 * I like your alternate proposal, Basie. I'm also personally open to anything that makes it easier to digest this chunk. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion involving this template
Please see Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding bold style to bullet items or text
A version in the sandbox is undergoing development to add an optional bolding feature for bullet items. (Inspired by this discussion.) An initial version appears to work on very basic tests, but this is *not* thoroughly tested, and may break 100 different ways. Functionally, this will be a non-breaking change with no impact on existing wrappers, APIs, etc. that transclude the template (and since it's substed, it should matter even less). Usage might be like this:
 * – bold bullet three of the body text

Revision 1114540972‎ appears to be working, but still requires unsubsting code to be added for parser conditionals, and a test cases page to be created (forthcoming). The next step is to provide bolding for specific text strings shorter than an entire bullet item. This could look like this:
 * – bold the given string in the body text (1st occurrence)

Please consult the sandbox doc here → Template:Uw-copyright-new/sandbox/doc for a description and examples.

This latter function (boldtext param) requires use of a subtemplate to prevent recursion, and appears to work for one test in revision 1114574084, but is still in testing. Also, I believe there will be an exclusion for pipe character and curlies in the boldtext param, but haven't tried that yet.

I wasn't planning to mention this upgrade proposal so soon, but an eager editor moved an early version to live before it was quite ready, and I had to undo it, but it should be ready fairly soon. (If it's really *that* urgent, we could just forget about boldtext for now, roll back to rev. 1114540972, add the unsubsting code, doc, and testcases, and just release the version with only the bold param.‎)

The other thing is that before releasing anything, I wanted to discuss the functionality and especially the parameter naming, with a broader group. It would be worth spending the time to get buy-in from more editors and get this right, because if this gets released and starts to be adopted, it might become a de facto standard for other templates if editors wanted similar functionality upgrades to other templates. Once that happens, the genie is out of the bottle, and it will be hard to change the parameter names and functionality after that point, so before that happens, let's air this a bit. (The first thing that occurs to me is that 'bold' is limiting, and 'style' is more general; but perhaps too much so? Maybe just bolding is enough; too many possibilities or options might make it less useful if it's less clear. I feel unsure about this, and would love to hear from actual users of single-use templates how they might want to use such a feature.)

User:Whpq, as you were the original inspiration for this idea, you should have dibs on first response. Meanwhile, I'll poke around and see where I might link this from. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC) added clarifying text, by Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Listed at: WT:Template index/User talk namespace, WT:WikiProject Templates.
 * Pinging: Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Listed at: WT:Twinkle. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Listed at: WP:ENB. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a great feature to add. I understand the need to carefully consider the parameter name. Perhaps something like "emph=" as the reason for this is to emphasize one specific element or portion of a message. Would it be possible to integrate this with Twinkle? Perhaps post a notice about this discussion at the Twinkle talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like it would make more sense to have one parameter for each paragraph, e.g. bold1, bold2, etc, so that something like yes would bold that particular bullet point. It would save on some of the recursion, avoid the need for a subtemplate, and make updating a little easier.
 * Regarding Twinkle, I'm not sure that this sort of change would be possible - TW only allows for so much customisation, and as far as I'm aware it is limited to "do you want to include the page name". I'm not saying it cannot be done, just that from what I know about the tool, it's not just a case of turning something on (or off). Primefac (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Twinkle as a whole could really use better integration of parameters for templates. Parameters help with personalization, which per below is so important for getting recipients to think "this is a message specifically to me with relevant info" versus "this is a generic information dump and I don't have time to read it". I've requested this in the past with regard to the welcome template. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The current solution is radio-button like, and Primefac's is checkbox-like. I had originally planned to use Primefac's suggestion of b1, b2 etc, but rejected it initially for two reasons:
 * the only specific use case I have, is from Whpq and is about emphasizing a single bullet as the reason for placing it.
 * the more you emphasize, the less it matters, sort of like lots of shouting in messages.
 * One technical point to correct because I wasn't clear above: only the 'boldtext' function requires subtemplating, not the 'bold' function, so having yes would not save on recursion or subtemplating; that's readily doable with simple #if statements. The subtemplate is only necessary for the boldtext param (or at least, I see no easy way to do it without it). If we decide not to implement 'boldtext', then we can dispense with the subtemplate.
 * But this is exactly why I wanted to have this discussion, so I appreciate Primefac's comment, and wonder what others think about the radio-button vs. checkbox-style (multiple vs. single-bold) idea. Plus, I'd *really* like to hear from potential actual users of this template, as to how they would use it in the real world. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)  updated by Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is interesting! In general, the more targeted we can make templates, the more human and readable they'll be. If there's only one bullet point that applies to someone, I think it'd be best to give them only that bullet point and then just link to WP:Copyright or similar for more details. Also, the implementation here is really elegant, but even so, I worry a little that the parameters being introduced are overly complex. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Complex for whom, users of it, or template writers? If the latter, we can discount that; imho template changes or upgrades should benefit 1) readers, 2) users (transcluders), and 3) template writers, in that order. If you think it's too complex for readers, then I really would like to hear an elaboration on that point; maybe it's fixable? Also, wrt just giving them the one bullet point, do you see that applying to uw-coi or uw-dab? Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the "only that bullet" idea would be very easy to implement; would 3 seem good, or can you propose something? Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to users (2), and I agree with your priority ranking. I don't think there's really a way to simplify, though; it's inherently slightly complex functionality.
 * For the "only that bullet" thought, I think it'd probably make most sense to have unique templates for that, and to then have their body transcluded here. But I'm not a regular copyright warner, so others might have a better perspective. So long as we're offering readable, targeted information to recipients and not forking templates, we should be on a good path. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Listed at Twinkle, per request. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoping to stimulate some feedback from users of Uw-copyright-new, I compiled a list of users who have placed several of them: (roughly in frequency order). Your thoughts on the proposal above to add two new params (bold and boldtext) would be appreciated. To see some sandbox examples of how it will look in action, please go to Template:Uw-copyright-new/sandbox. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This template is large and probably somewhat overwhelming, particularly for something targeted at new editors, and being able to highlight the appropriate bullet should help. I would definitely use the "bold" feature if it were available. I currently use Twinkle, so of course that would depend on some tweaks to Twinkle. I would probably not use the "boldtext" option. No comment on the technical aspects of implementation. Meters (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I find it rather overwhelming too; especially bullet four which I find really over the top. This should probably be taken up in another discussion, or maybe just be the subject of a few bold edits to improve the wording. Thanks for your feedback about new param usaability as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to ping, thank you, ! This seems to be a thoroughly good idea and has my support; I've no comment on the details of the implementation, but compatibility with Twinkle (if feasible) should probably be a priority.
 * Since I'm here, I have two suggestions:
 * Replace "Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials." with "Please see Donating copyrighted materials." – the details of the release aren't needed here
 * replace "If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page" with "If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page" – it's usually preferable to continue a discussion where it began.
 * Thanks to all who've worked on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noticed your wording improvements at the template doc; thanks for that. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My feedback is similar to others' above. To date, I have exclusively used Twinkle to leave this template; in addition to the convenience of not having to manually subst this template, I also like that Twinkle incorporates the "Wikipedia and copyright" section header and an edit summary of  That being said, I really like the idea of bolding the relevant point(s), and if this were implemented now I would certainly give it a go (but might ultimately default to Twinkle's efficiency). I also think "bold" is sufficient, not "boldtext". DanCherek (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dan, thanks for your comment. I don't know much about Twinkle, but my understanding is that changes here at the Template can be picked up with some minimal effort by volunteers there (but I don't know how that works). So, if we go ahead, Twinkle would be notified of the change, and then could adopt it there as well; that is the point of the first banner at the top of the Template /doc page. Currently, the proposal would only allow bolding one point at a time, but an alternative proposal would allow bolding any, or all of them. I just worry that the more you bold, the less effective it is, so not sure how to deal with that. As far as section header, what header does Twinkle provide? We could emulate that. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think one at a time is sufficient, and agree that too much bolding could defeat the purpose. Twinkle currently places the text under a == Wikipedia and copyright == heading, rather than the generic "Month Year" one that it uses for other templates. (I think the idea is that this template is generally given once and then uw-copyright is used for further violations.) DanCherek (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea! I don't have the technical knowledge to help, but I place this with a mix of Ultraviolet and Twinkle--the former for convenience if the page titles are getting really funky. I think only being able to emphasize/bold one point would be best. It'd also probably be in best interest to shorten the template where possible; for brevity if anything else. I find that clearly explaining it can produce the best results. I've always found this template to be overly wordy and complicated; the cv-new template should be as clear as possible. But I'll probably start a rewording of the template soon, after I finish with the rest of the extremely wordy directions on WP:CPN :) Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 03:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if you do so, can you drop a note here so I can resync the sandbox with your changes (and with the wording changes by JLaN)? I've been busy on other things, and RL may keep me away a bit, but shooting for early November to implement the bolding stuff, if there's no objections by then. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot Of course; no promises I'll even get around to it before you :) RL has me busy as well, and I'm not even halfway through my changes at CPN. Cheers, thanks for doing this! . Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 17:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything to add, this sounds helpful, thanks for working on it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pattern match issues with trailing blanks
Just noting that some of the complications regarding pattern matching of boldtext may relate to how Template:Str rep (which is transcluded by this template) does pattern matching of patterns with trailing blanks; this is discussed at Template talk:Str rep. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was tricky, but has now been fixed in sandbox rev. 1114879258‎. It concerns the surprising (to me) fact that blanks in parameter values *are* considered as significant in some cases (see H:PARAMETER for details) and the presence of convenience blanks surrounding the pattern (param2) and replacement text (param3) to str rep was causing the failures to match strings (param1) that end in punctuation, rather than a blank between words. In particular, these two examples are evaluated differently:
 * ⟶ Dogs chase mice.
 * ⟶ Dogs chase mice.
 * Note that in the first example, the search pattern is not, which fails to match because in the search string, 'cats' has a period after it, but in the pattern, there is a significant blank after it. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, I've rewritten Template:Str rep/doc, which should hopefully prevent such confusion in the future. Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Released
This seems to have rough consensus, or at least, the discussion quiesced and no objections were raised, so I've released this. (There is also a new testcases page.) These are non-breaking changes, but I've left courtesy advice notices at Twinkle and Ultraviolet (Red Warn) just to let them know anyway.

By the way, I agree with User:Meters's comment above about how long and overwhelming the message is, especially for the newbies for whom it is ostensibly designed, and would welcome initiation of a discussion on how to improve it. Bullet four would be a good place to start. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I just used Twinkle to place message intending to manually bold the text as I have done in the past. This happened.  It didn't substitute in the text. -- Whpq (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's due to my oversight in protecting substitution. Will roll back for now, and fix in the sandbox first. Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Whpq, sorry I was busy with some other stuff, but it's fixed now. Can you run a test with Twinkle, the same way you ran it before when it broke? You can use my Talk page if you want; I created a section called and you're welcome to run a test of uw-copyright-new via Twinkle there. Thanks for your patience, Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I tested on your talk page. Twinkle puts the message at the bottom; I don't get to control where Twinkle places it.  The new version of the template does substitute properly.  As such, I've reverted the test warning.  Thanks for fixing it, and thanks for putting in all this effort to improve the template.  It's appreciated.  Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)