Template talk:High-traffic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 November 1. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Usage 2 Welcome slashdotters/farkers 3 Slashdotter first impressions 4 Removed Slashdot logo 5 Eliminating Slashdot-induced Vandalism 6 TfD nomination of Template:Slashdotted 7 Usage 8 Spacing 9 Specific instances 10 Comments 11 Edits notice 12 Rationale 13 talk pages 14 Proposed argument change 15 On talk page... 16 Keep it simple 17 Wikilinked date 18 Category 19 Simplify? 20 Slashdotted 21 Breaking code at list

[edit] Usage

{{High-traffic|site=siteName|url=http://site.org|date=17 November 2005}}

On 17 November 2005, Template:High-traffic was linked from siteName, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

The template can be removed after the high-traffic situation has passed. This tool allows you to list only the Talk: pages that use the template.

[edit] Welcome slashdotters/farkers

Lots of sites put up "welcome slashdotters/farkers!" notices when it happens. Maybe we do the same? Maybe we should recommend that they try to remember to link to a known good revision instead of the live page? - Omegatron 06:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea. I would also link to here from one of the Wikipedia:Template messages pages? Peter S. 08:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdotter first impressions

Ideally, we would leave articles unprotected so the slashdotters could try it out and convert to our ways.  :-) Allowing vandalism so easily gives them a bad first impression though. Here are the comments I could find about Wikipedia from having Peltier-Seebeck effect linked [1]:

• "Bad pics at wilki - Certainly isnt what i was expecting"
• "damn editable encyclopedias - I don't know if anyone has noticed yet but the wikipedia entry to the peltier effect linked from this post is now headed at the top with two images, a poo and a peenie (as my 6 year old nephew would call them). Um...."
• "The Wikipedia link... - ...appears to have some informative material, but the images -- uhh -- don't seem to go with the text."
• "Someone put a perverted picture on the wiki"
• "Did anyone actually look at the wikipedia link for peltier effect. Have a look :)"
• "Here's a better link [google.com] for the Peltier effect. Also it won't have pictures of a penis."

Other comments I remember seeing elsewhere on slashdot [2]:

• "Without these services, the quality of publications would sink to the marginall level quality of most of the stuff on the Internet (including the fascinating but supremely unreliable Wikipedia)."
• "I'm also of the opinion that there should be some sort of cost of entry to access the complete tome of science. Something has to set it off from blogs and wikpedia's"

Notice the lack of comments like this:

• "Wow! An encyclopedia that anyone can edit! What a great idea! I totally see how this would be an advantage!"

I, for one, think that this is an unacceptable first impression. We can stick our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that the vandalism is being dealt with effectively, or we can do something about it.

• If I might interrupt here for a bit, I think that that's just the vocal minority. I and everyone I know (that knows how to use a computer) think Wikipedia is the website of the Gods and that it works great. Just my two cents, feel free to remove this line if it is impertinent to the subject. Poromenos 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really know what to do about it.  :-) I think a slashdotted template might be a good idea. "Welcome slashdotters! Yes, you really can edit this article. Really. You don't even have to log in. Yes, that means you can vandalize this article. Please don't. If you want to experiment with the wiki, head for the sandbox. Also, in the future, we would appreciate if you link to a known-good revision of our articles instead of the live version. This will remove the major incentive for vandalism and help both of us out. Why in the world would we leave our site so open to attack? Click here for more about our philosophy" - Omegatron 15:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of encouraging people to link to a known good revision. Because of the temporary nature of a Slashdot posting, nobody who views the story will be viewing an article revision that is more than a day or two old. Besides, Wikipedia links in Slashdot posts are usually science or math articles, and such articles are unlikely to need to change significantly during the time of Slashdotting. Linking to a known good revision has the effect of protecting the page without the effort of finding an admin to do it, and without all the unsavory side effects. It should take away the incentive for most trolls, since their, uh, "work" won't be seen by most, but those who insist on seeing the live article can still do so with a single click. Aerion//talk 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that linking to a known-good revision is quite such a clearly good idea. This is largely because it amounts to page-protection by the back door. There is little reason why I (non-Slashdotter), should come along to the article, make a perfectly good edit and then discover that, actually, Wikipedia's not interested in that right now. There would be the problems of choosing a "known-good" and who would have the authority to choose it, revert to it and eventually un-choose it. Presumably this would require an admin at some point, and we might as well just have them protect the page; at least that way nobody's edits will be discarded. Reports to WP:AIAV are often dealt with pretty quickly, and there's no need for 3RR with clear vandalism. Slashdot should also take a more responsible attitude and ask their users to behave themselves because their misbehaviour damages the image of Slashdot, and by proxy, their image too. -Splash 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't understand your comments. Maybe you don't understand mine. I meant "When you submit a Slashdot story with a Wikipedia link, go to the history tab and click the latest revision. Then link to that URL instead." This way, all visitors will come here and see this instead of feces. It may be slightly out-of-date or there may be slight problems with them editing the page, since they don't realize there's a newest live version or they don't notice the WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. But I think that outweighs the horrible first impression we are giving a lot of intelligent potential contributors.
2. You think Slashdot can prevent people from trolling or vandalizing by asking nicely?  :-) - Omegatron 21:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. I understand a bit more clearly now, thanks. I'm still unclear on where you mean to post that message though. The template on the article and that above message...on Slashdot? That might make sense. What would be the ramifications of the editing of an out-of-date version of the page, though? So basically, we'd draw the curtains while the vandalism was going on, if I udnerstand correctly. We'd still let real people edit it, and would retain their edits, but would still have to revert the trolls since the actual article would still show their artwork. That's not quite as protectivist as I thought, and sounds better. We should perhaps also post notices on WP:AN and WP:AN/I when such an article is linked and have a horde of rollback buttons and blocks to hand.
2. Well, quite. They are not completely innocent though; I'm sure they could block those of their users that we report to them as vandalising a linked article. -Splash 23:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Slashdot would be interested in blocking the IP addresses of people that have allegedly vandalized Wikipedia, especially with proxy server IP addresses. I like the basic idea, though, asking for historical links to be used instead of live. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have made this suggestion in reply to a story, anyone got any mod points? :-) — PhilHibbs | talk

1. We would put that message in this template, and then put {{slashdotted}} at the top of an article that's been linked to. Then when some of them see it they will know why it's being vandalized, and will see the message that they should try to use an old revision next time they link to us. I don't know what you mean by "draw the curtains". If they do link to an old revision, then everyone who clicks the link will see the old revision and will never see any vandalism. Trolls will not have as much of an incentive to vandalize since people clicking on the link will not see it. But we're not protecting the article, so people can still edit it.
2. I don't think we are going to get any help from Slashdot in preventing vandalism of our pages. - Omegatron 14:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Slashdot logo

Sorry, but the Slashdot logo is fair use only, and this template is certainly NOT fair use. Ral315 W_S 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a FAQ entry on Slashdot where CmdrTaco says he has no problems with people using their icons (which the logo you removed was one of) so long as someone e-mails him and asks permission (which I suppose someone could do). And as the anon says, this template talks about Slashdot, so it's reasonable to include a mini-logo. -Locke Cole 02:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Says who? it's talking about slashdot - it's as much fair use as slashdot's own use of the caldera logo in SCO stories [or any of a million other examples] is. --128.210.35.130 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating Slashdot-induced Vandalism

I think that for all popular articles, there should be a very prominent link at the top of the wikipedia article pointing to a well-moderated and unvandalized (I'm American, and Americans like to use "z"s instead of "s"s) version of an article that has a permanent link. This would greatly increase the reputability of Wikipedia for research purposes.

For instance, this would allow one to simply reference the "peer-reviewed" article in a research paper, while keeping the ability of anyone to edit the main article. When an article is voted-in as a "popular" article in need of the "peer-reviewed" service, a timetable for re-reviewing the main article (if edited) is decided upon (for instance, every 1 month or every 3 months or whatever).

For the Slashdot effect, a system could be enabled which allows a temporary version of any article to be "locked" so that, if it is a "popular" article, the latest "peer-reviewed" version would temporarily replaced the "main" article for 24-48 hours, and if it is not yet voted a "popular," then the latest version which has been left unedited for a certain period of time (say, 6 hours or 2 days) is put as the "default" article temporarily for about 24-48 hours.

This same model should also be applied if and when other ultra popular news websites cite a Wikipedia article. Also, when linking a wikipedia article to a major news website, the news website should be strongly encouraged to link directly to the latest "peer-reviewed" or (if not a popular article) the latest "stable" article (i.e. the last version left unedited for 6 hours or 2 days or whatever). Until that practice of direct linking to a reviewed or stable version of an article is used very widely by popular news websites, the previous model that I proposed for treating the "Slashdot effect" should be used.

I do understand that this may mean a lessening of the power of the average user, but with great popularity comes great responsibility.

As a general rule, the default displayed page should still remain the most recently updated version, since this is required for mistakes to be corrected and for Wikipedia to continue to grow.

What do you think? Robotbeat 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been suggested many many times in various ways. You all need to band together.  :-) — Omegatron 22:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, see I was (am) a pretty new Wikipedian, so yeah. But, you're right. We're all like "oh! Let's do this one thing!" But then it never happens. Robotbeat 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Slashdotted

Template:Slashdotted has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Slashdotted. Thank you. --Yath 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the responses on TFD have been "keep if generalized to cover links from all high-traffic sites". I've made an example of what it might look like if so generalized. --Damian Yerrick 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's good and all, but most of them say "keep or generalize". I don't know of many other sites that would link and cause problems by it like Slashdot can. Also, it definitely shouldn't be a talk-page template. (See my comments on the TfD page for my reasoning). -Locke Cole 02:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The TfD discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 19:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Can we clarify what the appropriate use of this tag is? In short, I think the tag should 1) be used only on the article's main page, 2) should be removed once the high-traffic situation is over (eg. in the case of Slashdot, around 6 - 48 hours after the article was posted), and 3) should include the specific URL of the page as often as possible, so that editors know when the high-traffic is over. These issues were touched upon in the AfD discussion, but the tag is still new, so it would be nice to have these clarified. The purpose of the tag seem to be 1) to disuade vandals by warning them that lots of editors are watching, and 2) to let editors know that they should watch the page more closely. If you believe that the first one is more important, then a shorter stay on the main article may be warranted. If you believe that the second one is more important, then a longer stay on the Talk: page may be warranted. I wanted to clarify these usage-suggestions ASAP so fewer people are upset if this tag is removed after some time, or if the tag is added to a main article page. --Interiot 21:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing

On the Paul Hellyer page, there are unnecessary spaces after the name of the internet site. Does anyone know how to fix the template to eliminate them? HistoryBA 19:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. Perhaps the "external link" icon (which immediately follows the link) is not displaying properly for you. (Click here to see an example of what the banner should look like.) —Lifeisunfair 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The "external link" icon appears on the link you just gave me, but not on the Hellyer page. I can't explain why. HistoryBA 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I referred you to an image file (not to an actual template). What browser are you using? —Lifeisunfair 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6.0. HistoryBA 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And other images are displaying normally? Have you tried clearing your cache? —Lifeisunfair 00:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I just launched Internet Explorer 6, and I saw the same phenomenon that you've described. I don't know what's causing the problem, but it isn't limited to this template. —Lifeisunfair 00:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It occurs in IE6 whenever an external link is forced to wrap. The problem is that the external link image doesn't wrap but the space for the it is still left after the link. Another example is at the bottom of my user page. My wikibreak is starting for real now, so please email me if you find a fix for this. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 00:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific instances

Might it be possible to change the image from the default to the slashdot logo, if the sitename=slashdot, or the google logo if the sitename=google/gmail? But only for a few of them? I think that would be prettier, and satisfy those with needs of having a {{slashdotted}} template. -Mysekurity 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As usually is the case with templates, the above wouldn't qualify as fair use. —Lifeisunfair 02:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Your sn is perfect for the answer ;). Thanks and happy editing. -Mysekurity 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me why it wouldn't be fair use to have a slashdot logo. --Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 09:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (EDIT) First of all, it's not at all clear that a green "/." has enough of a creative component to be copyrightable at all. There may be a trademark issue, but "fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks. Slashdot itself seems to think that its use of corporate logos when reporting about a particular company is fair use, and i'm not convinced they're wrong.

[edit] Comments

Is it acceptable to use this template if it was not linked from a slashdot article, but instead from a highly-rated/early comment? --Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not specific for slashdot anymore, but any high-traffic reference is ment _→AzaToth 09:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but how prominent does the link have to be [on a website structured similarly to slashdot, fark, etc] to qualify?

[edit] Edits notice

What is the line stating "All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the page history." for? Looking at the history page I don't see anything particular extra markings next to the edits. Is it just a general reminder of what a wiki is and that all edits are logged? If that's all it's for it could probably be replaced by a more general statement. Peter Nelson 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It already is "a more general statement"; it replaced the text "Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism," which unfairly assumed bad faith on the part of visitors referred to Wikipedia by Slashdot. —Lifeisunfair 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

Is there a talk page or Wikipedia:Village pump discussion somewhere that explains why we need this template, and assuming we do, why it warrants so much screen real estate? 66.167.136.230 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

Please see the deletion debate for the rationale. I opposed this template's existence, but was outvoted by a vast majority of users. Also, when I generalized it (per consensus), my version was much smaller than the current one. —Lifeisunfair 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages

Can this template go on the talk pages of articles rather than the actual article? The template is really distracting as it was here at the top of Christmas. It makes it seem like the goal of wikipedia is to get 'high traffic' rather than being an encyclopedia 203.129.39.180 12:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's been some debate regarding the appropriate location for this template. The present coloring is indicative of talk page placement, so the answer to your question is "yes." —David Levy 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed argument change

I'd like to propose collapsing the site and url arguments down into one, and using MediaWiki's inherent external/internal link syntax, rather than relying on increasingly complicated if statements:

Current	Proposed
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org }}	{{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] }}
{{High-traffic | url=http://site.org }}	{{High-traffic | site=http://site.org }}
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org | date=~~~~~ }}	{{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] | date=~~~~~ }}
{{High-traffic}}	{{High-traffic}}
{{High-traffic | site=siteName}}	{{High-traffic | site=[[siteName]]}}
as far as I can tell, not possible	{{High-traffic | site=[[siteName (some long title)|siteName]] }}

The issue that promted this suggestion is that for Half-Life 2 mods, we really want to do something like this, but apparently can't:

{{High-traffic | site=[[Steam (content delivery)|Steam]] }}

eg. neither of these work anyway:

{{High-traffic | site=Steam (content delivery)|Steam }}

{{High-traffic | site=Steam (content delivery)<nowiki>|</nowiki>Steam }}

The change would require an update of some of the backlinks, but there are approximately ~40, so this is not a hindrance. --Interiot 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On talk page...

I've been bold and added "this message should only be placed on talk pages" to the template (as shown on {{controversial}}). From a quick look at the template uses it is mostly being added to talk pages, or has been moved there. This message is aimed at editors, and as such it should be placed on an articles talk page. It offers no utility to users reading the article. Thanks/wangi 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

... and someone was bold and removed it. As someone pointed out, the color scheme used is the one used for talk page templates (see Wikipedia:Template standardisation). However, I personally think it might have some use on article main pages as a vandal-deterent. If so, I don't think it's good to preclude the template's use on articles, though perhaps users should be enouraged to put it on Talk: pages most of the time. --Interiot 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case I guess we better try and come up with something to add re instructions for use? Anytime this template is added to an article it goes through a couple of iterations of reverts to and fro the talk page...

And with regards to vandal deterent — I think it's more like a red flag! Thanks/wangi 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree about placing it on the talk page. The utility to the reader is to alert him/her that there is a high probablity that the version he/she is looking at could be vandalized. It's kind of a reader beware warning.--208.65.192.1 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it simple

I have just edited the template to make all arguments required on the KISS principle - keep it simple. I have seen far too many uses of this template without both the URL and date, thus making the decision when to remove the template a hard one. If all arguments must be given then it's much more simple... Thanks/wangi 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinked date

The date should be wikilinked so that it is auto-formatted according to user preferences. This would mean always putting the date in ISO ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, and adding an optional time field for those who want to include a time. Or, we could just not allow inclusion of the time — which would keep the template simple and reduce the problem of what timezone the editor is talking about. ··gracefool |☺ 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I think that pages using the template should be added to a category, possibly Category:Articles linked from high-profile sites (or something to that effect), and for the date to be piped after the category. As a category page automatically arranges the articles in alphabetical order of the piped keywords, having the date parameter as the piped keyword would arrange the articles in that category. This would allow for easier category cleanup, and removal of templates once the high-traffic period has gone away, plus, it could centralize the articles that use this template. Thoughts? —This unsigned comment was added by Mysekurity (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

We already have the "What links here" link. I oppose the creation of an even more convenient page, which would serve as a one-stop shopping list of prime vandalism targets (by informing vandals of exactly which articles are receiving the most attention from impressionable newcomers). —David Levy 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Whatlinkshere is that it doesn't sort by date. The advantage of having a category would be that it could be sorted by date, and would therefore be more useful.::One thing that particularly disturbs me about your logic is that you assume vandals are likely to seek out these articles just because they are higher-trafficked. By that reasoning, what would stop them from looking at the Whatlinkshere page? Both require the editor (or vandal, as the case may be) to be familiar with Wikipedia. The advantage of a category is twofold: the aforementioned date ability, and the usefulness of Related Changes. Just as editors monitor Featured Articles and other high-profile pages, or linked articles with Related Changes, they would be able to monitor this category. I seriously doubt there are that many determined and knowledgable vandals that this would be their biggest target, and yes, I've done a good deal of RC patrol and vandalism reverting. -Mysekurity 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You answered your own question. The "What links here" link already allows editors to monitor all of the pages in question (and already assists vandals). Arranging the articles by date of template insertion would create a page that clearly informs vandals of exactly when new articles receive increased exposure. —David Levy 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of a category, however, is that it could be sorted by time of inclusion, and would thus be more useful to people monitoring. -Mysekurity 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see this as a bigger aid to vandals than to well-intentioned editors. The latter group can simply add all of the tagged articles to their watchlists (and remove them when frequent vandalism no longer appears near the top). Vandals can't expect to hit all of the articles before being blocked, and sorting by date would tell them exactly which ones to attack. —David Levy 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The disadvantage of a category would be that it would allow seriously determined vandals, who have infiltrated Wikipedia and want to wreck havoc, to have a slight advantage. I honestly don't think it will cause that much more vandalism than what happens now (from my experience, more vandalism from these high-trafficked linked sites are from people who come from the external site, not someone who goes around vandalizing for the hell of it). The CVU has a page of high-vandalism articles that they watch; do vandals attack pages off that list? I'm guessing not. This would just help people out, and would seriously not be a big hinderance at all. If you're that opposed, I'm willing to drop it, but it would be nice to hear from some other voices, no? -Mysekurity 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm merely stating my opinion.

For the record, this template's previous incarnation ({{Slashdotted}}) contained a category. When it was decided at TfD that the template was to be generalized, I argued against carrying such a setup over (for the reason cited above). I performed the conversion myself (on 14 November 2005), and I urged everyone involved to consider my argument (and hopefully discuss the matter) before creating a category for the new template. No one stepped forward to oppose the lack of categorization, nor did anyone explicitly express approval (which was entirely implicit). To my knowledge, this is the first relevant discussion that has occurred since that point in time. —David Levy 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is I remember you as Lifeisunfair (before the RfA and all that...) and I was intrigued to see your comments, like "I seriously doubt that many people regularly check this template's associated category for new entries", which I agree with. I kept waiting to see where you would pipe in in the discussion, but I forgot you changed your name! But back to the questionm, I had some thoughts about a category or the Whatlinkshere page. The issue as I see it then is why have this template at all if it calls attention to the fact that the articles are high profile (discussed and declined in the TfD). A category and the Whatlinkshere page are basically the same in terms of usefulness to a very determined vandal. I think this is a case of Wikiparanoia, in thinking that the big bad vandalbots are going to use the categories and mess things up. It's been a good while since we've had any really serious attacks, not that anyone really has that much time on their hands anyway. I propose we try out this category, or, at the very least, we get more oppinion on the matter. I see now that there really isn't any formal discussion about this on the TfD, and I'm glad you and I are finally talking about this. In any event, I'll see you around, and always keep in mind that life is, in fact, unfair. Thanks, Mysekurity 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplify?

The template language is a bit erroneous and too specific. It was very confusing to come across this template on an article page rather than a talk page (see this revision). Additionally, the link is to the Wikipedia article, which isn't clear; I first read it that Wikipedia had linked to the site.

I propose that the template be simplified and changed as below. I also propose that the template always be added to whatever page is appropriate, whether that is the article page or the talk page (having the language not be specific in the template itself means it can be placed on any page, not just the talk page).

I've also added ~~~~~ to automatically insert the date and time that the template was added, these data become static once the page is saved. (The link will have been created earlier than the timestamp, but an accurate time would probably be difficult to come by.)

The high-traffic internet site [{{{url}}} {{{site}}}] created a link to this page on or around 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC). All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

—Chidom ^talk  04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdotted

I have listed Template:slashdotted at RfD. --Random832^T 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking code at list

I think something in the code here is breaking the layout at Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Timing-related_messages. I couldn't see at a glance and don't have time now to look further.. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the display problem with a newline. It shouldn't have changed anything else elsewhere. --Quiddity 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)