Template:Resolved is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Archives

Archive 1 (2007)

As the previous section shows, there are good reasons to unprotect this, or at least step down protection to semiprotection. The main reason for protection was, as pointed out above, that this template had "a bullseye painted on it". I just removed that, so are there any other remaining concerns that outweigh the disadvantages of protection? — Sebastian 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "bullseye" refers to this template being transcluded widely, so that a vandal editing it would upset a large number of pages. I find it unfortunate that templates like this are protected from being edited by trusted users, but umm.. I think it's probably going to stay that way, sorry. —Pengo 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitewide update on this: See WP:Template editor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment a resolved tag with the reason "content dispute" will sound like this with my screen reader JAWS: "Resolvedcontent dispute". By default, most screen readers don't distinguish between fonts so the words are just run together. I didn't notice this before when the word "Resolved" was linked, because JAWS puts all links on their own line. Can someone therefore add spaces or something to separate the word "Resolved" and any reason? I'd do this myself if I knew which way would look alright. Graham87 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a space. How's that? —Pengo 09:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds better, thanks. I was just thinking that it would sound even nicer if there was a comma as well after the word "resolved". Of course that would only be needed if a reason was given so it would have to be within the #if statement,. In fact, the space is only needed in there as well ... I am fully aware that it would be much easier for me to make the change than just grumble here. :-) Graham87 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change made. Graham87 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed it to full-stop right after "Resolved", as the comma was displaying outside of the box, which looked as if the template was broken. — Edokter • Talk • 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks that sounds good. Graham87 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So a template like this does exist--yay! I find templates mostly through Category:Wikipedia templates and Wikipedia:Template messages; not having this template in one or more functional template categories means that people like have less of a chance running across it. I'm still pretty new, so I'll leave it to others to figure out what the best categorization might be. Libcub (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the screen reader JAWS, if a link description is a space, it will say the link title instead. Therefore the recently added link [[Template:Resolved| ]] is read as "Template:Resolved" which is kinda annoying. Would there be any problems using Template:Click to create a link to Template:Resolved? Or should the link be removed altogether? I plan to do the latter in 24 hours if there are no objections. Graham87 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for raising this on the talk page—and my apologies for not noticing it. At least you bothered to raise the matter here; another editor has simply taken to consistently reverting, which I find rather irritating. That's another matter, though. I personally support the idea of ((click)), and I find it convenient that some sort of link is inserted (there was, I believe, previously one, but it is no longer present, it would seem). Does anybody have any objections to using click? Anthøny 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony, sorry for the blanket reverting, but can you please read the various section above this one, regarding the inclusion of a link to this template, as well those with regard to the image used? It is also a matter of consistency between the various other templates listed in the documentation. So please propose any changes here first. — Edokter • Talk • 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I get for jumping into an edit without reading the talk page first :) I have reverted myself, although I would still suggest that a link to the template is useful, simply because it provides, by extension, a link to the template's documentation, and in particular the section explaining that ((resolved)) does not "lock down" a thread, nor put an impassable bar to extending further discussion. I have, however, restored the green image; I will, however, in a moment replace the green tick with a better-looking tick, which should improve the appearance of the template, whilst retaining the desirable "more-visible" feature of green images. Regards, Anthøny 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, that image is ususally used in !voting templates, and it isn't consistent with the other templates like ((unresolved)). I don't think that's a good choice. Also, this template is used quite heavily, so please keep edits to a minimum. — Edokter • Talk • 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was the link added in the first place? It didn't seem to even be clickable for me. —Pengo 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new circular icon is hideous. If this weren't protected I'd revert the change. As far as I can see, this change was not discussed even though the template at the top of this page explicitly states that "all substantial changes should be proposed first on this talk page, and the edit made by an administrator if a consensus is found to do so." Did I miss the discussion?

As to exactly why I think the icon is hideous: One does not "check" a round bubble. One fills in round bubbles. One checks boxes. Further, the circle is way too big compared with the check mark. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotta agree, it's pretty bad. I just reverted and I'm going to drop him a line to let him know that it wasn't a particularly well-accepted image, and something like that should probably have a bit of discussion behind it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say it's a hundred times neater than the current tick, no? Perhaps that's just me :/ Anthøny 09:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to change ((done)) to have the same look and feel as ((resolved)), I've brought it up here but it didn't garner much response. Any reasons why the change can't be done? ^Khukri 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((done)) is ment to be used inline at the beginning of a comment, while ((resolved)) is used on top of a section/thread. They should not be made to look alike. — Edokter • Talk • 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I put ((resolved|~~~~)) it does not show the signature. I need to include 1=; but, why? It seems like an inconvenience to include the 1=. Could this be changed? (Since this template is editprotected; otherwise, I'd do it myself.) Gary King (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed. Anthøny 09:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did you do? I see no change. Not that there should be any; putting "1=" is a standard requirement for unnamed parameters when the parameter (in this case Gary's sig) contains a "=" character. — Edokter • Talk • 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an example:

Resolved

 – Here is an example of this template now being fixed. Anthøny 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That output is produced by the code ((resolved|Here is an...)). Note the lack of "1=" :) It was a fairly trivial-looking change, primarily because template syntax is exceptionally petite and fine. Check out here to view my change. Anthøny 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, that breaks the template when no parameter is given, so I've reverted it. People will have to use 1= if they know there is an "=" character iincluded in the paramter; that is standard practice. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I get it now. Makes sense. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't make any difference for screen reader users if the "." was changed to a ":" in Template:Resolved, and it would be more grammatically correct, because people rarely start their resolved reasons with a capital letter. Either that or use Template:Click as I mentioned above. Graham87 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A colon would be a bit odd when no comment is given. — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True. Perhaps parser functions could be used so if there is no comment, a colon is not displayed and if there is one, a colon is shown. Graham87 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trivial to fix with parserfunctions, if this hasn't been done already. NB: ((Click)) is deprecated these days. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editprotected)) For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, the purely decorative icon in this template should not have a link; please see WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Please install this obvious sandbox patch. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I would have done it myself if I'd found this message earlier. Graham87 03:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, well then shouldn't it also have |alt=√  added to it? It won't link but it would still show up as an image with no description. Being a fancified checkmark it should just be replaced by a checkmark (and prevented from butting up against the follow-on text), per the same guideline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should it use that particular alt text? Just curious. Graham87 11:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:ACCESS and WP:ALTTEXT. Short version: For images that effectively are nothing but text, the alt text should be text in the image, so that for blind users it is as if there was no image, only text. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've specified that no alt text should be used. I got confused by your use of the √ symbol, which my screen reader JAWS reads as "v". As for the use of a colon in the resolved tag, does it matter that many people start the explanation with a capital letter because they're used to the period/full stop being there? Many people will type something like "((resolved|The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.))" which would be output as "Resolved: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." Graham87 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird. Why would JAWS read a checkmark character as the letter "v"? I was suggesting what should be the right thing, which is to replace text in an image with the corresponding real text, but I guess JAWS itself doesn't do the right thing by reading text correctly. D'oh. I wonder if it will do this with the HTML character entity code? I guess no alt text is better than "v", of course. I don't think the colon is a problem. A lot of people capitalize what follows a colon anyway, unless it is a list. Using a period or a colon would need to be a conditional, since it shouldn't be a colon if there's no additional text. Period/full stop in both cases is probably okay. Back to alt text: Test cases of other ways of specifying a check (tick) mark with various entity codes follow in a list. Do all turn out as "v" in JAWS?

1. ✓
2. ✔
3. ✓
4. ✔

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All your examples turn out with absolutely nothing at all - JAWS doesn't recognise those characters. I'll do the colon thing at some point, but that will have to wait until I'm more awake - it's 12:40 AM here! Graham87 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bummer. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 12:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What am I doing wrong here? I'm trying to make an example of the resolved template using a colon - User:Graham87/sandbox is the template and User:Graham87/sandbox2 is the testing ground - but it's not working. Graham87 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beats me; I messed with it a little bit but I'm tired and my head exploded. Remind me and I'll try again after some sleep. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 12:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured out the solution. It seems that the colon on its own has special meaning for the extension, so I replaced it with an HTML numeric character reference. Graham87 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should make a minor change to this (and related templates that take a descriptive phrase as a parameter) to highlight the parameter text. e.g. turn:

Resolved

 – This is explanatory text

into:

Resolved. This is explanatory text

or:

Resolved. This is explanatory text

Or anything, really, that would set the reason off from whatever text follows. yes/no? --Ludwigs2 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose: The graphical box is already enough attention-getting for one line. There are accessibility reasons not to make any such material emphasized, as well, unless someone is intentionally emphasizing some particular part of it because it genuinely needs attention. Auto-emphasizing it either with italics or bold would hinder the ability to manually emphasize something actually important. Underlining has been pretty much banned by the MOS and by everyone with any background in Web usability. Blue would make it look like a link, which would confuse and frustrate (the main reason not to use underlining, incidentally). Really, it's fine as is, and you've not provided any rationale for why it would need any such change (which would definitely not be "minor"), just stated a desire to change it and other templates. Not broke = don't fix. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, the rationale seemed straightforward to me, so I neglected to state it outright. The standard use of these templates (I can't think of where I might have seen them not used this way) is to place them at the top of a section, or at the top of a pertinent block of text, to close a discussion and state its outcome. to that extent they are more akin to subheaders than to normal discussion text - e.g. they get placed out of the temporal flow of the debate, and contain over-arching or summary information. The problem I have with the current set-up is that the explanation for the tag seems to disappear into the subsequent text. for example (grabbing a random section out of the wikiquette archives), see Kikodawgzzz's use of minor edit flag. The substantive point of this use - the referred to wp:ANI comment - ought to stand out a bit, but in fact it is in a smaller font, un-highlighted, un-backgrounded, and un-etc.; it doesn't catch the eye at all. I almost want to invert the current formatting - take the bordered off-white style off the image (which stands out well on its own) and place it around the disposition text. or maybe include the disposition text inside the bordered area? Each of those approaches has downsides, of course, but does this make the problem make a bit more sense?? --Ludwigs2 14:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do understand where you are coming from now, but don't agree. Both this template and the ugly one used at the wikiquette noticeboard stand out because of their graphics; more highlighting would be overkill to me and probably to many others. I guess a good way to test that idea would be to manually change their appearance with ((Resolved|1=<span style="big-ol' fonts and stuff">Text here</span>)), do that all over the place for quite a while, and see what the collective reaction is. Anyway, even the templates used to enclose and "Please do not modify it"-label a closed RFC or other formalized, major talk-page debate is not in a bigger font size: ((Discussion top)) and ((Discussion bottom)). To my mind, those templates can be used for any talk page discussion which as been resolved one way or the other and in the case of which the resolution is of importance to highlight. The Resolved template's only purpose on regular talk pages is to save readers time - "I don't need to read this; it is old news (and here's optionally why)", not to alert every incoming reader of the outcome of something important. If we wanted to repurpose this template to do that, we might as well simply mark it deprecated and direct people to Template:Discussion top. Further, the Resolved template also has other, more esoteric and highly specific uses in certain types of processes, not talk pages, and thus we shouldn't muck with it in big ways w/o consensus from those process pages' more active editors. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, not a big issue. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any purpose to putting the resolved notice inside a box? We seem to be rather obsessed with putting everything in boxes even when it is completely unnecessary. This is generally considered a sign of poor interface design. The big green checkmark is certainly attention-getting enough without it. Would anyone care if I removed the box? Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the related templates (see the 'see also' section) are also boxed. I don't disagree with your statement, but if we decide to change this one we'd probably want to change all of them. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't find the idea objectionable. But please make a mockup first though so others can comment first. This template is used on a large number of pages, so we don't want to be messing with it unnecessarily. —Pengo 07:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serbian equivalent interwiki, sr:Шаблон:Урађено should be added in here. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 17:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any of the templates in the inline, content-level resolution tag family (like ((Done)) and ((Fixed))) can now be converted on the fly into a bordered, thread-level resolution hatnote tag (like ((Resolved))), with the Template:Resbox wrapper.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, is there a bot that archives messages marked with this template? I know Commons uses something like that and I imagine we had something at some point, but it's hard to find anything about it. czar 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer my own question, see User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. It's currently handling the threads at WP:RX. czar 19:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last changes in 2014 broke the default usage, e.g., ((Resolved|Updated both articles with 2007 data per clear consensus; they are now in sync. ~~~~)):

Resolved

And now requires |1=. But since it was done in 2014 and the documentation hasn't been updated since then, I'm not sure whether the best course of action is to revert the 2014 change that hadn't been implemented in the documentation or to update the documentation to match the change. I think it was smarter in its prior iteration, though it could be feasibly updated to take either param.  czar 19:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Czar: It would probably be best if it supported both, so all uses of it in archives and so forth would work. Also pinging SMcCandlish, who made the change. Graham87 08:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those changes didn't break anything; all they did is permit either numeric or word-based parameter names, without changing either parameter. Before the changes, one parameter required a number (or nothing) and the other required a word (or nothing, but it had to be second), which was confusing and inconsistent. A |1= or |reason= is only required if your sig (or the text of the message) include a = character, as many custom sigs do (e.g. in a <span style="something...">...</span>. Demonstration that it works as intended:

((Resolved|This is the message|Boo-yah))

Boo-yah

 – This is the message

((Resolved|2=Boo-yah|1=This is the message))

Boo-yah

 – This is the message

((Resolved|reason=This is the message|text=Boo-yah))

Boo-yah

 – This is the message

I've updated the documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]