MediaWiki talk:DRN-wizard.js

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Interface-protected edit request on 9 April 2024

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

On line 191, which has the DNAU parameter, please change the 14 to 28, so that cases are not archived for one month unless the DNAU is removed. (The DNAU is removed by a bot when a case is marked as closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Xaosflux. Corrected much sooner than the misattribution of moved drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interface-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

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

Please change line 347 from

'<p>This forum is designed to only assist with issues regarding the content of articles and isn\'t able to assist with concerns about other editors behaviour. Is this an issue only about another editors behaviour?.</p>'

to

'<p>This forum is designed to only assist with issues regarding the content of articles and isn\'t able to assist with concerns about other editors\' behaviour. Is this an issue only about another editor\'s behaviour?.</p>'

Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interface-protected edit request on 26 December 2024 Suggestion

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

On line 234, please change "2000 characters" to "300 words", which is more meaningful to editors and can be easily checked with common tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon The tool appears to be enforcing/checking the 2000 character limit by itself, do want us to remove that logic as well ? Sohom (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sohom Datta - If there is code in the tool that enforces the limit, then leave the code alone and leave the message consistent with the code. If there is code that prevents walls of text from being entered in creating the case, then leave it alone as doing something useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Per above. There is indeed code that prevents you from writing more than 2000 characters. Sohom (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interface-protected edit request on 18 January 2025

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

I'd like to adjust the format of the template to the below, to better section the user user statements and assist in the TOC on DRN.

On line 64, please amend maxlength: 2000 to maxlength: 1000 - shortens max length of dispute description to 1000 characters.

From line 229 to 236, change the code from the current code:

//User statements
var currentUser = mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' );
for ( userIndex = 0; userIndex < this.involved_users.length; userIndex++ ) {
var user = this.involved_users[ userIndex ];
if ( user != currentUser ) {
report += '==== Summary of dispute by ' + user + " ====\n<div style=\"font-size:smaller\">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>\n\n";
}

to


//User statements
report += '=== Summary of dispute from contributors ===\n\n';

var currentUser = mw.config.get('wgUserName');
for (userIndex = 0; userIndex < this.involved_users.length; userIndex++) {
    var user = this.involved_users[userIndex];
    if (user != currentUser) {
        report += ';Summary of dispute by ' + user + '\n<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 1000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>\n\n';
    }
}

Thanks! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been discussed before by DRN volunteers (cc @Robert McClenon who made a request about changing this code-path above)?

(I will note that to implement this fix a few more changes need to be made around line 64) Sohom (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the issue of the limit on the length of opening statements in the next few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, you mentioned you were going to review this. Can you please do so as discussed? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done (as to the immediate edit request) - after a consensus for the change is ready please change the =yes to =no above to reactivate, along with a message below. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]