Template talk:Edit conflict

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Inline Templates This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates articles

I suggest we change this to

(ec)

It loosk nicer and the small tags mess it up currently.--Patton^t/c 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Hi, there used to be an option to add how many edit conflicts an editor has had on this template, but it was removed. I've readded this in the sandbox. If no number is added, it will still render (edit conflict), but if a number is added (I'll use 3), is shows up (edit conflict × 3). Could an admin please change it? Thanks, LittleMountain5 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the type of template (a typing aid template whose function is to allow quick addition of a small amount of appropriately-wikilinked text) that should be substituted rather than transcluded. Any objections to updating the documentation? –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, I have updated the template documentation to state that the template should be substituted. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Since the template now needs to be substituted, could an admin please copy the sandbox to the main template page? The ParserFunction needs a subst: to work correctly. Thanks, LittleMountain5 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one problem. What if people DON't subst this template? (edit conflict). I believe we have some tricks to deal with this, I'll try to find them. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Firstly I can see no advantages to substituting rather than transcluding. I think the ease of use should be the primary factor, and performance (even if that was an issue here) secondary.
2. There are indeed hundreds of transclusions of this template, and changing the code cannot be done without considering these.

Therefore I have disabled the request for now, pending further discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it either way. One possibility is just removing the ParserFunction altogether... then it should work both by transcluding or substituting. I don't think too many people use/know about it that parameter anyway. But... if I had to choose one or the other, I'd say transcluding is better because 1) It's faster to type in ({{ec}} rather than {{subst:ec}}), and 2) it's nicer on the page it's being used on (if the template is transcluded, {{ec}} will still be all that shows up, but if it's substituted, the code will be <small>([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]])</small> Sincerely, LittleMountain5 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the substituted wikitext being less "clean" than the transcluded wikitext, but I don't think that's really a concern when it comes to comments in a discussion. After all, users generally have no reason to read or edit the wikitext of others' comments. I would support removing the ParserFunction, not only because it's rarely-used but also because it does not help to convey information that is useful to others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained the advantages of substituting the template. I'm not sure it is good to remove functionality from the template. One user requested this change, so obviously he/she likes this feature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call it 'good practice'. For a template such as this one (i.e., "a typing aid template whose function is to allow quick addition of a small amount of appropriately-wikilinked text"), I would think that substitution would be the default option and one would need to have a reason to transclude it, especially when the difference between {{ec}} and {{subst:ec}} is only 6 characters. However, I certainly don't feel strongly about the issue, so please feel free to revert my change to the documentation page if you believe that transclusion is advantageous in this case.

As for the ParserFunction... well, it adds only a few characters of text even when it is substituted, so I don't really perceive it as being tied to the question of whether to substitute or transclude. No change is needed to the ParserFunction in order to implement substitution, since {{subst:edit conflict|3}} will produce

<small>([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]]{{#if:3| × 3}})</small>

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all I can say to this whole argument is that if this template mandates substitution, I will go and write a duplicate template that doesn't require it. don't fix what aint broke, and don't break something just because you think it needs fixing. --Ludwigs2 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There would hardly be any need for something quite so drastic, since you could simply choose to not substitute the template. Only a relatively small number of templates, such as {{prod}}, have actual built-in safeguards against transclusion (see Template:Error:must be substituted).

However, since it is clear that the consensus here is against requiring substitution even via the documentation only, I have changed the /doc page once again, this time to suggest substitution as an option only. With the current single parameter, the excess code produced by substitution is minimal.

I hope that optional substitution is acceptable to all. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I'm confused about the issue here. why would anyone want to subst a template like this at all? you're not suggesting that it's a performance issue, are you? --Ludwigs2 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Martin: "call it 'good practice'". I doubt that ~2,000 transclusions of a small template would significantly affect performance, but it is generally good practice to not transclude templates unnecessarily. That doesn't mean we should undertake to substitute existing transclusions of templates like this one, but I also see no disadvantage to using substitution here.

I personally don't consider typing an extra six characters (subst:) to be a burden, especially in light of the fact that I find it doubtful that most people use this template more than a few times each week, which is why it did not occur to me when I first started this thread that "ease of use" might even be an issue. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I've added the new safesubst parserfunction to the sandbox to clean up the code when the template is substituted. Tests here -- Nx / talk 09:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done --CapitalR (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this template? Whenever I encounter an edit conflict, I copy my text to the upper edit window and resubmit. Why would I need to make an issue of that? __meco (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Why does one need to publicize that they encountered an edit conflict? — Kudu ^~I/O~ 01:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here about to ask the same thing. I never did understand this. How is it important to the message of the post to let the reader know that you encountered an edit conflict? I really don't care. -- œ^™ 12:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (whether or not this was why the template was created) is that it clarifies that your comments have not been written with any consideration of the edits that were technically posted before you. i.e., if a discussion is moving quickly in some tangent direction, and you have posted late, you can make it clear with this template that you are replying to an older state of the discussion. NTox · talk 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template is used in-line, an ending space is required to give a good flow to the following text. Preferred is &#nbsp;. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add an example of {{edit conflict|3}}.

Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation page, on which the example would go, is not protected.  Added. LittleMountain5 18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea why {{contradict}} is listed as a “See also,” so I’m removing it. —Frungi (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALSO: "links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic". Hyacinth (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have to make some rational sense. We don't put things that are completely unrelated into See Also sections. Also that guideline you linked is a manual of style for articles, which has nothing to do with template documentation. Unless you can explain what {{contradict}} has to do at all with {{edit conflict}}, please stop re-inserting it. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict: "strong disagreement between people, groups, etc., that results in often angry argument"

Contradiction: "a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true"

M-W.com Hyacinth (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis added. Hyacinth (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An edit conflict is not a disagreement between people, it is a simple technical problem related to two people who happen to be editing a page at the same time, and the software rejects one of the changes. It is not a "conflict" in that sense at all - I think you're confusing it with edit warring. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that we also add a see also link to WP:EW? Hyacinth (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts have nothing to do with edit warring - you're confusing the two only because they have a similar name. Is English your first language? -- Netoholic @ 21:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]