Forum:NRV/NRVc
Isra has recently made a new NRV template: Template:NRVm, which allows him to leave reasons in the nrv template. After consulting with Algorithm (ha ha, "con"+"insult"), I've come up with a way to incorporate this as an option into Template:NRV temporarily, and allow a transition. {{NRV|~~~~~}} is the default usage and what appears on hundreds of pages currently. The trick though was to make extra parameters optional, but not appear as {{{2}}} {{{3}}} etc if they were missing. So what I did was add this:
<br><span style="{{{3}}}display{{{3}}}:inline;display:none;{{{3}}}display{{{3}}}:inline"><br><span style="background-color: #fcfcff; border: 1px dashed #bb7799; margin-top:115px;padding:10px 10px 15px 10px"><tt>Reasons for tagging: {{{2}}}</tt></span><br></span>
This will only display the outer span if a third parameter appears, and is blank (two spans so I can have some line breaks outside of the bordered span, though I didn't really need to use a span specifically, but it was most convenient). Eg: {{NRV|~~~~~}}, {{NRV|~~~~~|}} and {{NRV|~~~~~|reason}} shouldn't show the box, but {{NRV|~~~~~|reason|}} should. However, I can't test it in too many browsers myself. Can ye all go to User:Splaka/test3 and tell me if the dashed outline box appears in the top 3 at all, or only in the bottom two?
Also, this bad code would (hypothetically) only be transitional until we get everyone to use {{NRV|~~~~~|}} by default, as a blank second parameter is easy to hack into invisibility (eg Template:Q. With such a setup, comments would appear with {{NRV|~~~~~|blah}} and not show with {{NRV|~~~~~|}} (but would be broken with {{NRV|~~~~~}} which is why we'd need a transitional one for ~3 weeks).
So, any problems with any mainstream browsers? Anyone have any objections? Anyone know how to get rid of this rash? --Splaka 10:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I, Zombiebaron, use Safari. It seems to experince problems that noone else sees. As such, all five of your boxes appear to have little dashed boxes. In order from top to bottom they read: "Reasons for tagging: {{{2}}}", "Reasons for tagging:", "Reasons for tagging: This page sucks.", "Reasons for tagging: ", "Reasons for tagging: This page sucks.". I hope this helps, cause I like the idea. --The Zombiebaron 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I checked it on both IE and FireFox. It works on both. Only on IE, it's kinda messed up, and overlaps a little. But IE sucks, and everything breaks on it. I'll take a screenshot if you'd like, just say the word.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you wanna screenshot of the Safari, just ask. --The Zombiebaron 12:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's ok, I can guess that it just doesn't support the css hack at all. Hmm. --Splaka 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yah Macs/Safari don't seem to support css and js in the same way as other stuff. For instance some stuff in my uncyclopedia.js only appear when I am on a Windows running Firefox (which isn't often), such as the Volte's Rollback thing. Never really bothered me much, although that may be your problem. --The Zombiebaron 00:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's ok, I can guess that it just doesn't support the css hack at all. Hmm. --Splaka 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Will allowing people to add a reason to NRV do anything useful? I have a hard time believing there will be reasons beyond "This page si teh s4x0r and teh gayz0r!!!" (or any equally useless message). I would assume that if a reason needs to be given to justify the potentially upcoming deletion, they would either use the VFD page, the edit summary, or the article's talk page. --SirNuke 06:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- I use NRVm not to give a reason for deletion, but to give specific instructons to be followed to avoid deletion. I put NRV on a lot of things that I think are Dead On Arrival, but which out of courtesy I do not insta-delete. NRVm is for me to tag pages that aren't good enough now, but which I can see being good if only my suggestion is taken. It is a way to give a page an ultimatum not just an scarlet S (for sucky). That said, while I have been glad to have it, I still use plain old NRV for the vast majority of pages. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to anything that makes {{NRV|~~~~~}} not work right, so can we please go with the versions where that works and you have to add extra crap when you want to leave a comment. Actually, wait, why do we need to leave comments on NRVs, isn't the point that there's no redeeming value? --Sir gwax (talk) 
14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that there is no redeeming value. But I agree, NRV should be left untouched and people should only use NRVm when they see a need to use it. That way it actually has meaning when there is a message. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Update
With the 1.7 upgrade, we now have fun things like {{if}}, {{switch}} and {{{1|}}}, so I've merged NRV and NRVm. See this and this for details. --Splaka 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)