Template talk:Unresolved
Can we remove the link?
[edit]See Template talk:Resolved#Can we remove the link?. — Sebastian 04:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Category for this template
[edit]There exists Category:Unresolved questions or requests, which {{Unanswered}} uses. Perhaps this template should use it as well? (note, I'm not that good with template coding and probably wouldn't be able to make the necessary changes.. so don't go all "sofixit" on me!) -- Ϫ 02:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is there consensus about adding this category? --SMS Talk 13:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's no consensus not to.. -- Ϫ 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this template is intended to categorize unresolved threads, but merey as a visual indicator in archives and such. — Edokter (talk) — 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? The primary use of this is flagging discussions (not in archives) that must reach resolution (e.g. because a policy issue has been raised) but which have failed to do so; its point is to draw attention to them and get them resolved. This template really should never appear in archives, where it should be replaced with
{{Stale}}and (when possible) a pointer to a newer thread trying to resolve the issue, or with{{Resolved|Moot.}}if the debate is no longer applicable. If something gets bot archived while still bearing{{Unresolved}}it should be unarchived. {{Unanswered}} is just a recent, larger version of it. - Anyway, this category is not in there now because it didn't exist when this template was created, or I would have added it, selectively. I would set this up so that it does this categorization when it appears in any talk namespace other than "User talk:", and not otherwise (some people probably temporarily use it in draft documents in "Wikipedia:" namespace and in "User:WHOEVER/sandbox" and such, for their own annotation purposes, and no one but the involved users care when it appears in "User talk:".) So, I suggest it needs a namespace switch. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The code in Template:Unresolved/sandbox should do it: I can confirm that it does not categorize when in user talk space, does not categorize when in a non-talk space, does categorize correctly when in non-user talk space, and does not categorize when– Testing, testing, 1-2-3...
Unresolved|nocat=y. Anyone non-amendable to this change? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? The primary use of this is flagging discussions (not in archives) that must reach resolution (e.g. because a policy issue has been raised) but which have failed to do so; its point is to draw attention to them and get them resolved. This template really should never appear in archives, where it should be replaced with
- Then we have a problem, because over 75% of the transclusions come from archives. That's a whole lot to clean up. This template was indeed intended solely as a visual marker. If unresolved discussions need categorization, {{unanswered}} is the better choice. — Edokter (talk) — 18:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Archive bots
[edit]As this discussion can attest, it would be great if this template and the one mentioned in my post above would be recognized by archiving bots. -- Ϫ 13:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- No kidding! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)