Last modified: 2013-02-07 01:17:59 UTC
The form that appears below the edit window when editing a template with the TemplateSandbox extension enabled does not have any pointer to the TemplateSandbox documentation. This is problematic as there's no explanation of what the box is, how it works, etc. It just says: --- Preview page with this template Page title: [_________________________] [Show preview] --- Some kind of "what is this?" feature is needed, at least for now, I think. I tried to request that the "Preview page with this template" MediaWiki message be changed to include a "what's this?" link, but the message is not parsed (cf. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Templatesandbox-editform-legend&oldid=529062236#Add_pointer_to_docs>). I'm not sure why this is. The message should either be parsed and/or there should be a pointer to the TemplateSandbox documentation from the input area below the edit window. The "Usage" section of the template's documentation is good, it's just impossible to figure out how to find that page on mediawiki.org (<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TemplateSandbox>) from the edit window.
What this function does is pretty obvious to anyone who knows how templates work. Which should mean anyone editing a template page.
Is there any reason the message isn't being parsed? I don't really want to argue about this feature's discoverability/usability (though I'm right, if for no other reason than it's a big new input box on the edit window that needs at least temporary explanation), I'd be perfectly content to just get the message parsed. Then this can become a local thing.
Gerrit change #39767
Gerrit change #39768 adds (empty) messages that can be customized to add help links. It's not possible to make the legend parsed while continuing to use MediaWiki's utility classes for constructing the HTML.
(In reply to comment #3) > Gerrit change #39767 (In reply to comment #4) > It's not possible to make the legend parsed while continuing to use > MediaWiki's utility classes for constructing the HTML. Well, I stand corrected. It just needs a slightly lower-level use of those classes. Let's apply both changesets, IMO.
Shall we consider this bug fixed now?
Yes, let's.
