Template talk:QICtotal

Copied from User talk:Dschwen

Hallo Dschwen. Müsste der Text nicht von „Running total“ in „Result“ oder ähnlich geändert werden, sobald das Resultat feststeht? --Leyo 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dschwen. Shouldn't the text be changed from „Running total“ to „Result“ or similar as soon as the outcome is decided? --Leyo Dschwen (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Aeehhh... na ja, prinzipiell hast Du recht, aber das waere a) redundant zur Farbaenderung der Nominationsbox, und b) komplizierter als wegen a) noetig ;-). KISS-Prinzip. --Dschwen (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Uuuhm... well, in principle you are right, but that would be a) redundant to the color change of the nomination box and b) more complicated than necessary due to a) ;-). KISS principle. --Dschwen (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ich finde, dass es insbesondere auf Archivseiten etwas komisch wirkt. Ich habe mir verschiedene Möglichkeiten überlegt (Text abhängig vom Alter der Signatur, von der Nominationsbox-Vorlage, von der Seite {aktuelle Kandidatenliste oder Archiv}; kleine Änderung durch den Bot beim Archivieren), wobei nicht alle umsetzbar wären. Umgesetzt habe ich etwas einfacheres (siehe Vorlage). Ist es vorgesehen, dass die Vorlage schon vor dem Ablauf der 48 Stunden eingefügt wird? Dann wäre mein Vorschlag wohl weniger geeignet und du darfst ihn gerne rückgängig machen oder abändern. --Leyo 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks a bit weird, especially on the archive pages. I thought about different options (text depending on the age of the signature, depending on the nomination template, depending on the page, small change by the bot while archiving), while not all of them would be feasable. I implemented something simpler (see template). Is the template supposed to be inserted before the 48h have passed? Then my proposal would not be useful and you may very well revert it or modify it. --Leyo --Dschwen (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no! This is wrong, the QICtotal box now shows a "result" while the nomination is still being discussed. There should only be a result when the discussion is closed, and closure is not after a set time, but when discussion is finished - no sooner than 48 hours after the last comment.

In the original manual implimentation of this running total, the "promote"/"decline"/"more votes?" in "()" brackets was a comment and each was followed by a "?" (ie "promote?", "decline?", "more votes?"). When the nomination was closed "Running total" was changed to "Result", and the "promote"/"decline" was made bold and the brackets and "?" were removed.

To simplify things to aid automation, I would suggest just leaving it as "running total" even when archived - changing it is redundant as the promotion/decline is indicated by the QIC template used (and its colour). --Tony Wills (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we have an english translation of (a summary of) the beginning? Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations. Why not simply add an optional parameter, set when we close the nomination, that would make the display switch to a "final" version? Something like (for the user): {{QICtotal|2|3|~~~~|closed}} Then the closure of the nomination would remain manual, and yet we could have a customized message. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That would work fine, except all the current archived nominations would be left open (unless you care to edit them all, which IMHO isn't a sensible usuage of resources). You could of course have it default to closed, then you'd just have to edit the current and future nom.s - perhaps the "open" parameter could be "undecided". Of course this still means you have to edit two things when closing the nom.

I suppose the ideal is for it too look at which template it is inside (promote/declined/nomination), but is that even possible?

A third option is to incorporate the QICtotal logic into the "promote/decline/nomination" templates but that is "the tail wagging the dog"

I still tend to agree with Dschwen - KISS :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The second option is not possible as far as I know. The other two suggested options look fine to me.

Another possibility would be to wait until the 48h are over until “QICtotal” is added, but others might not agree here. --Leyo 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in talking about solutions when we don't even agree that there is a problem to begin with :-). (Nonetheless option two would be possible using ugly CSS hacks. But just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.) --Dschwen (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new layout

Hi, I've just changed the layout for a try. It' meant as a proposal, hoping that the change attracts others to further improve (or, if it is not liked, to revert) it. Any comments welcome. -- H005 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)