Template talk:LSR/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reverse order?

If the date were listed first, then the package-specific number, then sorting of tables (as for example in Comparison_of_Gnutella_software) would be much more useful. Gojomo 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template needs fixing

{{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 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Space before comma

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)

Points to older templates

I've noticed that many stable release templates moved recently (e.g. Template:Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox moved to Template:Latest stable software release/Mozilla Firefox. This template needs to be updated to match. -- Schapel (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated version

{{editprotected}} Please update this template from the code in {{LSR/sandbox}}. I've added a testcases subpage for the new code and also a documentation subpage. The companion {{LPR}} template also needs updating.
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point, but I would suggest not putting the conditional check on a compulsory parameter. Otherwise, if it is omitted then the editor will get no feedback at all from the template. It is more useful, in my opinion, to see something like {{{latest_release_version}}} which shows exactly what the template is expecting. What do you think of my version in the /sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This was done on purpose. In this case, we don't want any output from either {{LSR}} or {{LPR}} if the version parameter is empty because otherwise the Infoboxes that transclude the subtemplates will contain gibberish (which is what this corrects). Tothwolf (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You can see how the version I had in /sandbox works from /testcases. Tothwolf (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done. The background you provided on my talk page certainly helped. I can't help feeling that there must be a neater way to handle this ... but I haven't looked closely enough to give any suggestions! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I think all of the software infoboxes need to be improved. I made some changes to {{Infobox OS}} when dealing with Linux and Linux kernel but all of the Infobox types that use the LSR and LPR templates really need to be redesigned to support this better. Right now I'm trying to document the usage of these templates and fix the things that won't involve major changes to a large number of articles. Tothwolf (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I propose a change to this template for the place for Macs and Windows Release. I'm encountering errors with Quicktime, as the latest Windows release is 7.6.4, while the latest Mac release is 10.. something. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we can add them individually without modifying the LSR template itself. According to [1] 7.6.4 is the current version for both the MacOS X and Windows though? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope it's not working. Only one LSR is showing in the article (the 10.0 version). Please check the article and NOT the template. Please help! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That is odd because it seems to be working when I view both QuickTime and {{Latest stable software release/QuickTime}} as I can see both 7.6.4 and 10. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the page needed a purge. It's OK now. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 12:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 17 April 2010

{{editprotected}} This template, unlike the normal {{infobox software}}, writes release date and preview date in smaller size. But why? Apart from the fact that this extra small size is a strain on eyes (particularly mine), and the fact that it creates inconsistency in Wikipedia, why should this date be written in smaller font in the first place? Is date less important than version number?

I suggest that this part of the code:

{{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}|  <small>({{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}})</small>}}

To be replaced with:

{{#if:{{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date|}}}}}}| / {{{latest release date|{{{latest_release_date}}}}}}}}

Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed as requested. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please revert these changes. Changing the text style of such a widely used template should not have been done without some form of discussion. Changing the text style breaks fixed width version history tables which transclude the {{LSR}} template ({{Infobox software}} is of course not transcluded into tables). If the style used in {{LSR}} is changed at some point, the {{LPR}} template will also have to be modified at the same time as they are used together and should have the same style. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done. It appeared to be trivial so i just went ahead and made the change - seems that was not the best thing i ever did though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 01:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern was the change broke tables such as Comparison of web browsers#Release history which are quite common within Category:Software comparisons and others. It was partly my fault as I accidentally used {{intricate template}} [2] [3] instead of {{high-use}} when I created /doc subpages for these two templates back in May 2009 (now corrected [4] [5]). {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} always were somewhat esoteric and not well documented or understood. I've been trying to help with that which is why I created /doc subpages. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
But the concern remains. Those tables are also difficult to read. Moreover, any attempt to tag such small content for a problem, say {{citation needed}} or {{verification failed}}, will result in production of absolutely unreadable text.
If this issue can't somehow be mitigated, I recommend creating a new {{LSRv2}} (or some other good name), mark LSR as deprecated, ask users to cease using it if at all possible, ask people to convert to LSRv2 whenever possible and change {{infobox software}} so that it preloads LSRv2. It is done in five minutes and not a fly is hurt!
But are there no other alternatives? Is a migration not possible? Is there a large number of tables that are disfigured after this change? Let's assess the situation. Fleet Command (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
While I had nothing to do with the design of the tables such as the one I linked to which are in widespread use, I don't see any reason to break something that has been so widely used for so long. The tables look fine with both FireFox and Internet Explorer at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. They also look fine on a MacBook Pro (17" display) with Safari. If you are using an extremely high resolution on a small display such as 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 on at 15" (or even some not-quite 17") then you are going to have readability problems with a lot more content than just text within <small></small>.
I don't see any reason to create a new template if we end up needing to change the text display for Manual of Style reasons. The way in which <small></small> is currently used in {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} does appear to be within the recommendations of the text formatting section though. Similar LSR/Infobox software template designs using <small></small> are also well established across other language wikipedias, for example, fr:MediaWiki, ja:MediaWiki, etc.
While I agree with you about the display of {{Infobox software}}'s |latest_release_version=, |latest_release_date= parameters having an inconstant look with LSR/LPR, correcting this will need to be carefully thought out. I was working on these templates last year but had to backburner the tasks due to some other stuff which was happening at the time. Going back to my notes and looking at other language versions of {{Infobox software}}, it appears that many wrap the date in parentheses. For example: ja:Template:Infobox software.
We also have some code in {{Infobox software}}, {{Infobox OS}}, {{Infobox programming language}}, and others [6] to handle preloading template text into a new version subtemplate: {{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:LSR/syntax}} This feature is currently disabled since we do an {{#ifexist:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|...}} check first and it appeared that the person who originally designed the code never quite completed it. It may be possible to borrow some code from the French Wikipedia versions: fr:Template:Infobox Logiciel, fr:Template:Dernière version stable, etc too. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Line break

{{editprotected}} When this template is used in an infobox (e.g. on Git (software)), there is a line break before the date part. This is caused by a line break in the source. I have fixed this in the sandbox, could you apply it? Thanks. Svick (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The {{LPR}} template should also be updated when updating this template in order to maintain a consistent look. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have made the same change in {{LPR}}'s sandbox. Svick (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Done both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Age calculation is wrong

Seen on February 6, 2011, on the GNU Octave article: Stable release 3.2.4 (January 28, 2010; 11 months ago (2010-01-28)) [+/−] But that was over 12 months ago. Buster79 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

An editor has asked here how to make a list of release numbers and dates sort by date. As far as I can see, this could be done if the year, month and date were passed into this template as separate parameters. That would mean changing many pages, though. Any suggestions? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Second this. At Comparison of BitTorrent clients there is a sortable "Latest stable" column, so that sorts the different software by the version number, which is meaningless. There is no way to sort software by most recently updated. It seems the template will give you the version number alone, but no way to just get the date. Can an optional parameter, or derived template, be added so you can get either version or date, defaulting to both so that it won't break any current uses? Barsoomian (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Extend template

Is it possible to extend the template so that in an article that includes the template only the version or only the release date can be shown if the template is included in a special way? (I am sorry, I don't know much about WikiMedia programming.) I would like to use Template:Latest stable software release/FFmpeg in Comparison of screencasting software but that article has one column for the version and one for the date (probably intending to make sorting easier).--Regression Tester (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference field

It might be valuable to include a hyperlink to release notes or another supporting reference for release version and date that are provided. In most articles this is done by supplying <ref> in latest_release_date field, but given the current format, the reference appears inside square brackets, which may not perfect. (See, for example Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Skype).

It would be the best to include one more filed into the template latest_release_reference for supplying a reference link. The link can appear at the very end of the template, outside of square brackets, or right after the version. At least, if the field is used, it will appear in the same place in all templates.

Nomination for deletion of Template:LSR

Template:LSR 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)

Any admin please tag the article with {{tfd|type=tiny|LSR}} so it will notify users of the TFD. Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We should scrap the notice "This page has been nominated for deletion" from this page. Nucleos (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Whenever the TfD officially ended... yes. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nucleos: The discussion above - from over three and a half years ago - concerns Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 15#Template:LSR, which has long since closed (23 June 2012). A fresh TfD has recently (21 January 2016) been raised, and is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Template:LSR. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New style

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created a new style for this template, which is located in the sandbox. Examples of the current and proposed style are available on the testcases page. Comments? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Something is wrong with case 5 – I'm looking into it... The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 08:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 08:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if no one has any objections, here goes...

Please replace all of the current code with the following: 

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

For an example, please see the sandbox and testcases. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Favor reversion. First of all, why was this approved if the style wasn't updated to match other variants, like {{LPR}}. Secondly, I see no discussion here and certainly no consensus from anyone but yourself. You did give a week for responses, unfortunately I don't believe anyone was aware of the discussion. On a side note, I am not particularly in favor of the edit because I didn't see anything wrong with the previous template, and the author gave no explanation as to what was wrong with the previous template. Therefore, I oppose this change. On a side note, I do commend you for taking steps to improve Wikipedia. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 02:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

At the time, I wasn't thinking about other templates, but LPR can be changed also (if necessary). I also didn't know where else to advertise the change. The discussion took place at Talk:iOS#Why are the stable/unstable release links including an "edit" action? about having a less "surprising" template as editors where saying that clicking to edit was not immediately obvious. I was just trying to improve the template, but if you still think the old style was better, you can go ahead and revert it (actually, post an edit request for an admin). Finally, I apologize for not indicating why I wanted to change the template. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I'll leave it as is. I've added an RFC tag so we can get greater community involvement, we should be able to determine whats best after some input. Again, thank you for contributing :) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I was brought in here by the RfCbot, but the testcase page doesn't show the difference between the versions. A compare and contrast would be helpful to getting input through the RfC. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. The current LSR template can be viewed on Wikipedia Software pages, such as in the Firefox info-box. The previous LSR template appears the way that LPR (Latest Preview Release) still exists. An example can also be found in the Firefox info-box. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 06:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to revert edit from User:Mr. Stradivarius to User:Plastikspork please because you use to click on the link to edit and it was much easer now it's harder you have to click on a small edit button please revert it to User:Plastikspork please 109.155.48.80 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Another style – what if we keep the current style, but enlarge the edit link to normal size (and maybe modify the latest preview release template too – that's another discussion). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
well if we keep the style can we remove the edit button so we just have to click on the links please 86.181.66.37 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to try not to laugh at this comment haha. I'm in favor of reverting to the old style, and I'm also interested in hearing Anonymouse's reasoning behind his style change. Again, I commend you for your work on advancing Wikipedia I'm just not sure if this is actually an advancement, or a regression. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 05:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually feel stupid now. I tried to clear my mind about what I already know (clicking the version number edits it), and thought about it intuitively. It doesn't make sense to click the version number to edit, it isn't intuitive at all. So in a surprise move, I actually support your edit, so long as you update the LPR. I do believe there is still room for discussion on this topic, as other users seem disgruntled with the change. I say go ahead and update the LPR, and if discussion says otherwise, we can easily revert it. Also keep the edit button small. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 05:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever we do, we definitely have to synchronize the appearance of {{LSR}} and {{LPR}}. Right now it is more than confusing (clicking "edit" for LSR, the version number for LPR and even having the "±"-Button in both cases from {{infobox software}}.
My proposal would be to remove the current "[edit]" link from LSR, and also the link from the version number in LPR. Then change the "±"-Button to actually read "[edit]" (so one knows what it really does) and probably move the link from {{infobox software}} to {{LSR}} or {{LPR}} respectively. What do you think? -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
+1 — the result is uggly, my believe is that the "±"-Button is the standard way for that. But I don't understand why some page don't have such a Button (see Firefox) (genium ✉) 10:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what I tried to point out before (but proably didn't explain it well): The [±] is part of {{infobox software}}. Since the article on Firefox uses an {{infobox web browser}} it isn't present there. To unify the appearance I therefore propose to only have one single button to edit the version number in {{LSR}} or {{LPR}} respectively and remove the corresponding buttons from the infoboxes.
The important question is how we should style the button (ultimately this will be the "standard way", since there is no standard by now): Personally I like the look of [±], however [edit] is much more descriptive. Since most editors changing version numbers are experienced anyway I'd probably go for a [±] button, too, now and revise my vote for the [edit] button from above. -- Patrick87 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed the code in sandbox so it looks good for me now, please check testcases. What do you think?
One difference is that the template now always shows the [±] button, therefore not being blank when the version number is edited out. I think this makes sense (and is the current behaviour in {{infobox software}}) but please let me now if this could cause any problems. -- Patrick87 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems really good to me :) — off-topic : I guess you have to edit links on wp.de at the same time. LSR is about news, so we could have those templates on wikinews, and the differents URLs on wikidata (interwiki)... Does this makes sense to you ? Not for now of course. (genium ✉) 14:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm neither familiar with Wikinews nor Wikidata, so I can't comment on this for now. -- Patrick87 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Since LSR and LPR are mostly used in {{infobox software}} I brought up the discussion also over at Template talk:Infobox software. We should consider both, the appearance of LSR and LPR alone as well as embedded into infoboxes when making the final decision on how to style these templates. -- Patrick87 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
please bring back the old style please bring back these codes
{{#if:{{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version|}}}}}}|
<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable 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>}}
}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}<!-- place categories and language links on the /doc page, not here! -->	
</noinclude>

86.173.149.162 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Since the discussion is getting quite unclear without any real consent I think it's time for some kind of poll (at least to collect the votes and to get an overview of opinions). Please feel free to comment on the poll below the table. Use the previous section for general discussion. -- Patrick87 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are the three styles currently under discussion (I already tried to fill in the votes according to discussion but feel free to rearrange yourself if I made a mistake):

Style 1 (old style) Style 2 (current style) Style 3 (my proposal)
1.2.3  (February 25, 2013; 11 years ago (2013-02-25)) 1.2.3 [edit]  (February 25, 2013; 11 years ago (2013-02-25)) 1.2.3 (February 25, 2013; 11 years ago (2013-02-25)) [±]
Pro 86.181.66.3/86.173.149.162 The Anonymouse Patrick87, Genium, Trewyy
Con The Anonymouse, Trewyy Patrick87, Genium, 86.181.66.3/86.173.149.162
Neutral Patrick87 Trewyy The Anonymouse
  • I think "style 3" is a good compromise between "style 1" and "style 2". I'm putting myself in the neutral section, for now at least. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So it looks as if we wouldn't get any more input on this. As it seems right now neither Style 1 nor Style 2 will get any consent. I'd offer to start applying Style 3 and to make all the necessary changes I proposed (that means editing {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} and adjust {{infobox software}} to fit the new style and other infoboxes if necessary). Any objections or should I go for it? -- Patrick87 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Since there don't seem to be any more objections...

Please change the template to 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 stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} ±]]</small><noinclude>
{{documentation}}<!-- place categories and language links on the /doc page, not here! -->	
</noinclude>

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

This style has been determined by consensus demonstrated above (see #Discussion and #Poll). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikinews

It would be nice to have this template on wikinews, I mean transcluding content from there. Please, let me know if this feature exists in the future... (#genium ✉) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a copy of this template on wikinews. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:LSR/preload

Could someone create and add template:LSR/preload please so people will find it easer to add the information needed to show so people doint have to put 

{{LSR
| article = 
| latest release version =
| latest release date = 
}}

It will be already there with the help of preload so could someone create it please

86.173.149.162 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's already there: [7]. The source is in Template:LSR/syntax. -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Cats being incorrectly included

I think this template is responsible for BlackBerry Tablet OS and FLTK being categorised in Category:Latest stable software release templates where they obviously don't belong. Someone's tried to be cute and have that cat in a includeonly on the doc page, which means that the doc page doesn't get categorised - but every article using the template does. That's clearly not right, those categories need to go in a noinclude in the main template rather than on the doc. Le Deluge (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an error in this template but it was an error in Template:Latest stable software release/BlackBerry Tablet OS and Template:Latest stable software release/FLTK respectively. I fixed it for you. -- Patrick87 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I hadn't realised they had their own transcludes, I always get lost in some of these complex templates! Le Deluge (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New style for Template:LSR

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

{{#if:{{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version|}}}}}}|
<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable 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 stable 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) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The old style was changed on purpose since most readers would expect some kind of release announcement or changelog behind a linked version number. Redirecting to an edit page would be confusing for them. We decided on the new style after some discussion (see above) since it's nearly as compact as the old style while removing the ambiguity of the edit link. Do you have any issues with the new style that explain why you want the old style back? -- Patrick87 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
ok the reason why I would like the old style back because it was easer to just click on the version the blue link hyper linking the version number to the template it self and was easer to just click it I have also included the + button like you proposed 109.151.163.1 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but in my opinion the edit button is still sufficiently large. As long as you're not editing hundreds of version numbers a day the little loss of comfort seems acceptable. Has anybody else the feeling the button is too small?
As stated before and in the discussion above the [±]-button was inserted in order to be able to remove the linked on the version number. There's no point in having two links with the same target. -- Patrick87 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
ok but coulden we have to button because it would have inserted your idea and the old style into one template 109.151.163.1 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
there is also an issue with the new template because it shows + twice if there is for example check out Template:Latest stable software release/iOS please fix it so it shows the + button once please 109.151.163.1 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


how about a style which like the old style shows the blue line under the version but instead of taking you to the edit page it would let you view it like a view buttons and have the + button next to it as an edit button 109.151.163.1 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
And in which way would this be better than the current style or even the old style? Two clicks would be necessary to reach the edit page of the template while the ambiguity of the linked version number still isn't solved. -- Patrick87 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
what I mean is it is simler to the old style but instead of the version number being the edit button it would be the view button and the + button would be an edit button Skybliei (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


hi I have tested some new codes and would like to include them in template:LSR please
{{#if:{{{latest release version|{{{latest_release_version|}}}}}}|
<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=view}} {{{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 stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} [±]]</small>
}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}<!-- place categories and language links on the /doc page, not here! -->	
</noinclude>

Skybliei (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

{{LSR}} Google Spreadsheets

Template:Latest stable release/Google Spreadsheets and Template:Latest stable software release/Google Spreadsheets have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Converting to module

Hi could we convert this template into module please. This is just a suggestion. 94.0.201.140 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit link

Now that this template is used in {{Multiple stable software releases}}, the edit link may be misleading. To fix this, please, in "{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}}" please replace "Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}" with "{{#ifexit:Template:Multiple stable software releases/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|Template:Multiple stable software releases/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}". This mechanism of determining the page to edit is in line with the way {{Infobox web browser}} picks the template to display.

The same action will be required for template:LPR.

I believe that this edit is uncontroversial. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Hi I am trying to add template:LSR to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Extension but it seems to not be working correctly please could I have some help. 86.135.248.241 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have also asked this question at Template talk:Infobox software. I'll try to answer there. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Optimization for mobile page

This template as well as {{LPR}} is used in many softeare related articles. The edit link is only desktop editor available, which is uncomfortable for mobile user. So please rewrite

{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}}
{{fullurl:Template:Latest preview software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|action=edit}} (in {{LPR}})

to

{{fullurl:Template:Latest stable software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}?action=edit
{{fullurl:Template:Latest preview software release/{{{article|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}?action=edit

If an user is using mobile browser, the above codes will take him/her into a mobile editor to update the version number. See my implementation here: zh:Firefox. --Great Brightstar (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha, my Chinese is not so good! So basically we are replacing a pipe "|" with a question mark "?" and the link for desktop users will not be affected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, please see their testcases, I have forked the source code from Chinese Wikipedia. --Great Brightstar (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: would you mind attending to this request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wilco. Updates to follow. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Great Brightstar:. Hello. Could you please provide a direct link to these "testcases" that you mentioned? I don't seem to be finding them.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see: Template:LSR/testcases, Template:LSR/testcases. You need a mobile web browser, or change the user agent on desktop web browser. The current source codes used in {{LSR/sandbox}}, {{LPR/sandbox}} are copied from Chinese Wikipedia, they are implemented for a long time. --Great Brightstar (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Etp|N}} Tests conducted do not show the requested change having any impact whatsoever. This state of affair is already in effect in Chinese Wikipedia but even there, clicking on the "[±]" link takes the editor to desktop mode. Nevertheless, I will pursue this issue until resolved.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Testing showed positive impact upon two of the tested platforms. (See below.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Core problem

Hi.

Our core problem here is that we need a link that opens the native source editor in both desktop and mobile Wikipedia site. I tried the following combinations so far, with no luck.

Updated on 2 Feb 2016
Syntax tried Rendering Test result
{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} [8] Failure
{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}?action=edit [9] Successful on Safari for iPhone and iPad
Failure on Firefox Mobile
{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} [10] Failure
{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}?action=edit [11] Successful on Safari for iPhone and iPad
Failure on Firefox Mobile
//{{SERVERNAME}}{{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} [12] Failure
//{{SERVERNAME}}{{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}?action=edit [13] Successful on Safari for iPhone and iPad
Failure on Firefox Mobile

Any idea?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: It seems to me some of them are not failed. 9, 11 and 13 can get the expected results on Firefox for Mobile and Opera for Android, depends on user agent. --Great Brightstar (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Great Brightstar. I am back from the dead and ready to work again. Can you tell me exactly which is working?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
9, 11 and 13 works on Firefox for Mobile especially in Android phones.--Great Brightstar (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I see down here. But I implemented the change anyway because it worked on Safari on iOS.
@Redrose64: Hi. Do you happen to know anything about this particular problem?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No; I never use mobile devices to edit, and use them to read Wikipedia extremely rarely (last time was about June 2015). I find them very difficult to use. I would say this is either a WP:HD or a WP:VPT matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: This is failed since revision 723011559, {{LPR}} also appearing this problem. What’s wrong with them? Great Brightstar (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You should probably file a bug report on that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this can be done just via modify the last revision, as you made in revision 702916363. --Great Brightstar (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Great Brightstar (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
On this page all the edit links works proper with both desktop and mobile browsers, this optimization can also get the effect. --Great Brightstar (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Great Brightstar (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I updated their sandboxes based on the latest revision, you can see the effect on text cases. For MediaWiki related bug, I can report to Phabricator later. --Great Brightstar (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
OK I was reported on phab:T147653. --Great Brightstar (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The developers seems do nothing for this even if the problem has already reported in phab:T52399. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I found you have made this template works proper on mobile web browsers in the latest revision, thank you very much! --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh~no, I made a mistake, I found you didn’t improved this template as well as {{LPR}}, but you made improves in Template:Infobox software/stacked instead. I suggect you should making similar implementation in this template for compatible purpose. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Now I found the edit link on mobile page is always direct to mobile editor, there is no necessary to work around this, thanks for everyone. --Great Brightstar (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted support for Template:Multiple stable software releases

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)

Help: Article shows old LSR version

3 1/2 days ago I updated the LSR box Template:Latest_stable_software_release/FreeRADIUS but the associated article, FreeRADIUS, still shows the old version. How can this be synchronized? Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@EnOreg: Hi. The article looks fine to me. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Really? So for you it shows version 3.0.12? I still see 3.0.11. This is very strange. --EnOreg (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@EnOreg: Try WP:BYPASS. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, purging the Wikipedia server cache did the job. Shouldn't this be automated, purging the cache whenever a template is updated? Anyway, many thanks for your help! --EnOreg (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as you are the only person to have such a problem in at least two years, I am going with "No!" as the answer. Rare occasions like this need rare treatments too. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, being the only one to report it isn't the same as being the only one to experience it. In fact, this being a server problem makes it exceedingly unlikely that I'm the only one affected. --EnOreg (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that I got correct contents shows that I was not a server problem.
Anyway, there is no use us arguing about it: The developer boys have some metric tools that we don't. And this isn't a problem we can solve through editing something. You can try filing a request on Phab but you need to provide steps to reproduce it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the various individual software templates be subpages of this page?

I note that Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Latest stable software release is where all the subpages for the various software applications are stored, yet this is the main template page, and Template:Latest stable software release is a redirect to this page. Shouldn't all of the software release dates become subpages of this current template location, not the old page that is now a redirect? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else think this template could be revised?

Today I was looking at Comparison of feed aggregators and decided to sort the page by latest release. However, this sorting was basically useless; instead of sorting by date as would be expected, it effectively sorted by version number, which is not a reasonable metric to order on; semantic versioning is not universal, nor always strictly adhered to, and even if it was knowing how many breaking changes the developers have made is not exactly useful to the Wikipedia visitor. I was intending to just edit this page to make that field of the table comparable to the other fields of the table by separating release/stable version numbers from dates, but then I realized that the table was populated with data from this template, bringing me here.

There are several different things I think could be done to this template, all of which would be an improvement:

1. Separating into two sub-templates for version number and date released, allowing pages to refer to whichever is relevant independently. 2. Eliminating the version number altogether as a field, as it is generally irrelevant from a user's perspective. Where it is not, it can be expressed within the article - or perhaps the article is best separated into multiple pages if different versions are treated as different, independently notable, products. 3. Changing formatting to allow for sorting by the date variable before the version number variable. 4. Adding comparable templates for first initial and first stable releases; although those in theory never update while this does, doing this would allow for consistency with this template, allow new page-makers to easily provide data on products without having to look up trivial datums themselves, and provide for easy and thorough error correction should Wikipedia's statement be inaccurate.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Shrug-shrug (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Migrate to Wikidata

Information about latest release is currently maintained separately in different languages. I propose to migrate the data to Wikidata so that we have a centralized reference. --Franklin Yu (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

after some investigation, I found that Wikidata already records software version under wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Software/Properties#software version identifier (P348). How about we making use of this property when it's available? --Franklin Yu (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI, frwiki (French language Wikipedia) migrated several years ago, deleted the category and all the templates. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Option to output date only

There is a request on Help desk for an option on this template to output the release date only. The template could then be used in tables containing a sortable column for release dates of different software types.

Similar requests have been made previously: #Anyone else think this template could be revised? and #Extend template. Could a template editor please consider this and respond?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LSR/Archive_1&oldid=1143435759"