Template talk:LPR

This template was considered for deletion on 15 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template is necessary for the "Latest_preview_software_release/XYZ" templates!
Do not change unless you really know what you are doing (consider all possible cases)!

Perhaps...[edit]

Some explanation of what this template does and how to use it would be appropriate...? JulesH 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs fixing[edit]

{{editprotected}}

99.9% of the articles that use this template preload incorrectly. They're preloaded with an empty article parameter and 99.9% of the editors forget to add this paramter so the link to update the version number is therefore broken. {{{article}}} should be changed to {{{article|PAGENAME}}} (which I think is correct) so that editors who miss this (as it's no pointed out they need to edit this anywhere) will be caught by the template itself. Q ^{T C} 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space before comma[edit]

Can this template be update so that it doesn't insert a space before the comma following the date? It looks ugly. Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit request - double-redirect needs fixing[edit]

Dunno how long this has been around, but it affects Featured article Opera (web browser), where in the infobox clicking on version number for either stable or preview release, traps the user in an edit window of a redirect. I already mentioned it on {{Software infobox}} where it also needs fixing.

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

Template:Latest preview release

with

Template:Latest preview software release

The same edit needs to happen in the template for stable releases. --Mareklug ^talk 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. Happy‑melon 11:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated version[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please update this template from the code in {{LPR/sandbox}}. I've added a testcases subpage for the new code and also a documentation subpage. The companion {{LSR}} template also needs updating.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change from preview to previous[edit]

Dear Wikipedia contribuitors,

could you please change the template so it reads "Latest previous software release"? That way it can be contrasted with the "Latest stable software release" that must be the "current" one. I apologize if I am wrong and, if I am, could you please explain this template to me.

Thanks in advance. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preview version can be compared to a pre-release version, which can sometimes be a beta or alpha version. See software release life cycle. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous space[edit]

In Firefox and other pages using the template there is a superfluous space between "three days ago" and a right parenthesis:

three days ago )

This should be fixed. -Mardus (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LPR[edit]

Template:LPR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Any admin please tag the article with {{tfd|type=tiny|LPR}} so it will notify users of the TFD. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Style[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~~Please change the template to match {{LSR}} with the following code:~~

{{#if:{{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version|}}}}}}| {{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version}}}}}} {{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}|<small>({{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}})</small>}} }} <small class="plainlinks">[[{{fullurl:Template:Latest preview software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} ±]]</small><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

(code taken from the sandbox and tested in test cases.)

This style has been determined by consensus demonstrated on the talk page for Template:LSR (see Template talk:LSR#Discussion and Template talk:LSR#Poll). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for {{LSR}} please use this slightly updated code: Template:LPR/sandbox&oldid=546256722&action=edit. -- Patrick87 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New style for Template:LPR[edit]

Hi I would like to have these codes included in template:LPR it codes include the + button and the old style


{{#if:{{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version|}}}}}}|
<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:Latest preview software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} {{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version}}}}}}]</span> {{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}|  <small>({{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}})</small>}} <small class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:Latest preview software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} [±]]</small>
}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}<!-- place categories and language links on the /doc page, not here! -->	
</noinclude>

109.151.163.1 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link on the version number was removed on purpose like in {{LSR}}. I'd propose to discuss the issue there (see Template talk:LSR/Archive 1#New style for Template:LSR) since both templates should be kept in sync anyway and arguments for one of them should always be valid for the other, too. -- Patrick87 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok 109.151.163.1 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template into module[edit]

Hi could we convert this template into module please. This is just a suggestion. 94.0.201.140 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit link[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Now that this template is used in {{Multiple preview software releases}}, the edit link may be misleading. Please, implement these changes to fix this issue. Similar change was made to {{LSR}} (see discussion). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 06:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted support for Template:Multiple stable software releases[edit]

Hi.

You might have noticed that today, I reverted the support for Template:Multiple stable software releases which was added on 27 April 2014. To find out why, you may study Template talk:Infobox web browser § The new stacked layout.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter to cancel the edit link[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In certain cases an article used {{Multiple releases}} to produce the latest stable release version, but used {{LPR}} produce the preview release, if this article using |ver layout=stacked to produce the edit links for multiple version numbers and dates, then {{LPR}} will create a duplicate link for the same purpose. So I suggest adding a parameter to allow {{LPR}} not to show the edit link, the source code is already available in {{LPR/sandbox}}. --Great Brightstar (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to an article where you expect your change would be useful? I'm not familiar with this template. Abjiklam (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done. @Abjiklam:, we don't need to agonize over simple requests like this that fix problems like redundant output; if it's harmless, please assume there's a legit reason for the request, or we end up with a template-editing backlog for no real reason, and requesters may end up opening pointless RfCs about trivia no one will object to.
@Great Brightstar: I've implemented this in more "normal" form as |edit= with any value;. I'll leave it to you to document the parameter and its purpose. It should be documented as something like "If |edit=no is specified, then [description here]. Any input, such as |edit=n or |edit=off, will also work." We pretty much never, ever hard code something like "no" as required input. Even when we want an on/off switch with explicit results for both, we'd use {{yesno}} to test for different positive/negative values. Here, we have no use for testing for a positive value, so we don't waste code on it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SMcCandlish

Would you please kindly test your edits before deploying them? It does not work. Here:

1.14.0 (February 22, 2009; 15 years ago)

See?

Also there is a template for testing "yes" and "no" answers and handling related idiosyncrasies.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, {{LSR}} is a different template from {{LPR}}. The code I did works just fine; see Template:LPR/testcases. If people want the same feature in {{LSR}} that can be done, but no one even mentioned it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Corrected that. It now says LPR and is not working. —Codename Lisa (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, re 'there is a template for testing "yes" and "no" answers ...' – Yes; I'll repeat what I already said: 'when we want an on/off switch with explicit results for both, we'd use {{yesno}} to test for different positive/negative values. Here, we have no use for testing for a positive value, so we don't waste code on it.' — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see the effect. BTW I made the same implementation for {{LSR}} in its sandbox page, I hope the new parameter could be also available in there. --Great Brightstar (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Great Brightstar:

Done. Please document the parameter at both pages, since you have the clearer idea how to describe the use cases in actual articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do it right now. --Great Brightstar (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: You misunderstood my intention. I am unfamiliar with the template and was asking for an example to make sure whatever change I introduced worked in context, and to find out if there are other possible optimizations. Don't jump to conclusions so fast ;) Abjiklam (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small tags removed[edit]

I have removed the small tags from this template and from {{LSR}} per MOS:FONTSIZE. Small text was displaying at 75% of the default font size in infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]