Template talk:Purge button

editprotected

File:Crystal 128 reload.png → File:Crystal 128 reload.svg --Olli (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

editprotected

Image is too big ATM. Pls change |64px| to |45px| --Olli (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Too big for what? Where are you using it? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: An iconsize parameter has been added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Floating box text doesn't match

It's petty, but I notice that when you hover over the image the floating popup text box says "Update this page". But when hovering over the text below it the caption reads "Purge this page" instead. Ideally in this case the hover-text should match the text under it, and I realize that an easy fix would be to just simply change all the text to say "Purge", but still, "Update this page" is preferable as it sounds more friendly to newbs. Can this be fixed without having to directly edit the code in {{purge}}? -- œ^™ 04:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Having just taken a look, I think it's {{purge}}'s code that will need the edit. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This can be extremely easily done without changing purge templates code. Contact me if you want to know how. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Replace with this

{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|center|<center>}}<div class="messagebox" style="float:{{{1|left}}};width:{{#expr:{{{iconsize|64}}}+2}}px;font-size:smaller;margin:0 0.5em;text-align:center;">
[[File:View-refresh.svg|center|{{{iconsize|64}}}px|link={{fullurl:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|action=purge}}|Update this page]]<div style="padding:0.5em 0 0.15em;line-height:1.2em;{{{textstyle|}}}"><span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{abbr|'''Update<br/>this page|Update this page}}''']</span></div>
</div>{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|center|</center>}}<noinclude>{{clear}}<!--(to separate template and Documentation boxes)-->{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

Please implicate the above changes VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Temporal Sunshine Paine  01:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Paine Ellsworth VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

Testing single link version

Search engines, screen readers, and Tab keyboard navigation parse this template as two redundant "Update this page" links. Mouse and touch users might expect the whole box to be click/tappable, due to its button appearance, but there are dead spots around the text, and inside the borders.

The version now in the sandbox should fix both these problems. See testcases. I haven't checked other browsers, though, especially old Internet Explorer versions. If anyone finds a browser-specific problem, please let me know. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Purge not working

Is it just me or it is normal for purge buttons not to work? I have been updating content on this portal now and the subpages I am transcluding on it, despite being updated are not reflecting. Danidamiobi (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You asked exactly the same question at Template talk:Purge#Purge button not working and Template talk:Purge box#Purge not working; please respect WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Answered at Template talk:Purge#Purge button not working. - dcljr (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Update icon

Update this page

I suggest we update the icon. We've updated much older icons in the past, and this one looks especially old. I've done some research, and I found this really nce icon that is in the public domain. It was created by @Kevin Payravi in theis discussion:

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 May 25 § Autistic editor asks: am I splitting hairs or just respecting copyright?. It would be perfect for this template. On the right is how it might look.

Or do you have other suggestions? FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's see how the other "replace icons that are fine with flat codex-style icons because some people like those better" discussions at WP:VPR#RfC: Update messagebox module with new Codex icons go, instead of having WP:MULTI all over the place on individual templates. If you've made similar suggestions already at other templates, I'd recommend you retract them in favor of that centralized discussion as well. Anomie⚔ 15:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Bureaucracy. FaviFake (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Anomie Oh right I forgot about that discussion! Thanks. I'm not sure what to do, how do i add this proposal to the existing discussion? Should I move this section there, as a subsection? WP:MULTI says these discussions should be moved all in one place, but I'm not sure where, in the case of an RfC.
I will propose another discussion about the sandbox icon, but that doesn't follow the old (current) style and the replacement I'm proposing is currently used on wikipedia, so I'm not planning to follow the RfC.FaviFake (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just wait to see how that discussion turns out with what's there already. Anomie⚔ 15:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks! FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Update this page

The RfC has ended! I've reopened the discussion. So, what do you think? FaviFake (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the RFC ended without support for using flat icons, I see no reason to change the icon here. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the RFC ended without support for using flat icons
No, the RFC ended without support for switching to the icons proposed by the nominator, which didn't include the purge icon. The "old" icons considered in the RfC were much less "glossy" than the current purge icon.

Do you have any other reasons for opposing? FaviFake (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Picking nits like that doesn't really help your case IMO. Do you have any reason for changing it other than that you like this new one better because you think the current one is "old"? Anomie⚔ 14:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the current one looks old, and its unnecessary complexity and visual differences from modern refresh icons make it harder to understand its purpose. We can't really base this discussion on policies and guidelines, afaik. (updated) FaviFake (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to implement the change in the sandbox and turn this into a TPER, for the reasons above, if that's fine by you Anomie. FaviFake (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If you do, chances are whoever responds will see lack of consensus for the change. But I can't stop you from trying. Anomie⚔ 17:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I'd love to hear why you oppose this change, so we can discuss it and come to an agreement. So far you've only mentioned an unrelated RfC. FaviFake (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I've already stated my position. I'm not going to entertain endless "discussion" over it until you're satisfied, or feigned ignorance over how an RFC that did not reach consensus for changing to flat icons relates to your proposal here to change to a flat-style icon. You're welcome to try the TPER, or seek other opinions, or give up. Anomie⚔ 18:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody would ever come to an agreement if all involved parties simply stated [their] position without ever explaining why. The essay you linked to is about a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view. I do not see how that's relevant; i'm neither partisan, biased, nor skewed in my editing of this template.

Since it has come to a standstilll 12 days after being re-opened, I have listed this dispute at WP:3O. FaviFake (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, I am responding per request for third opinion from FaviFake. The crux of the matter here is that these seemingly minor changes to icons are far from uncontroversial and for context the template has 18K+ transclusions, hence the template is protected. That RfC demonstrates how split the community are on such icon changes; for example there was consensus for changing the unblock icons, but not for block icons, and now they are effectively unmatched as that's what the community decided was for the best. Furthermore if you read the RFC before discussion for this, what appeared like a simple update via edit request turned into a somewhat contentious multi-part RfC. I believe this is the main reason why Anomie opposes (but can't be certain), because this would not be an uncontroversial, maintenance-style edit. As otherwise suggested, you are welcome to submit a request at WP:TPER, but it seems clear without talk page consensus this wouldn't be implemented. The only benefit would be in order to "get it out of your system", which is not something I recommend here. This would need building broader consensus for the change, such as what happened recently at Village Pump with the RfC in question, especially if you have ideas for other icons also (per your original consideration). I otherwise don't want to appear to take sides here and I have no genuine opinion on the actual change in question which isn't the issue here I believe. However I would recommend to Anomie to take a little extra effort in explaining the context behind certain things and fundamentally why you object to such a change, or why others would. I was surprised to read "feigned ignorance" as a response, from an admin no less, when from my perspective I can understand why FaviFake wouldn't understand the relationship between that RfC and this proposal; unless there is some broader editing history involving icon changes and actually "not getting it" in play here. We can't expect editors to "get it" when it's not adequately explained what we want them to get in the first place. Hopefully this response joins the dots as to the opposition at present. I otherwise have no intention on involving myself any further in this discussion. Regards, CNC (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like an adequate summary. I note the block template icons in the RFC may have been more !voting against the old icons than actually supporting the new ones.

Regarding "feigned ignorance", I'm temperamentally inclined to call a spade a spade and I don't see a reasonable confusion between an RFC about adopting flat icons and this proposal to change a non-flat icon to a flat icon after that was pointed out at the start. As for broader history of "not getting it", you're welcome to check Special:History/User talk:FaviFake and form your own opinion, although it may be difficult to investigate due to the user's choice to quickly "archive to history" all discussions. Anomie⚔ 23:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Update this page

Update this page

Thanks for your summary CNC. The reason I don't think the RfC proposal applies in this case is that the icon simply uses a much different style from the icons the RfC tried to change. I fully agree I'd be relevant if it were in a similar style, but while the RfC icons were smooth and didn't have too many shadows or fading items, this one is more detailed and more visually complex.

Of course I wouldn't use a TPER for this case; I only asked Anomie if they agreed with the change. You recommended
building broader consensus for the change, such as what happened recently at Village Pump with the RfC in question, especially if you have ideas for other icons also. Other icon proposals I have made are at:

• Template talk:Essay § Icon
• Template talk:Documentation § Update sandbox icon to match all other templates
• Template talk:Maintenance category § Should an icon be added?

Which do you think would be the best way to get more engagement on these discussion? A VP RfC proposing all 4 together? Or the same post but without being an RfC, since these icons aren't as widely noticeable? A link to each discussion posted to the VP? Something else? FaviFake (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As a template editor I was asked to comment here. Personally don't see a big deal in a change...as in every new generation of editors would like to see updates related to what they see in the world outside Wikipedia. With oldtimers dislikinjg random changes. That said...this debate about non-flat icon to a flat icon (that I have not followed) seems to be a problem all over for changes. With the example at Template talk:Essay#Icon I belive we will need a wider talk to make sure we are not wasting time dealing with edit requests of this nature. Moxy🍁 15:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks moxy. There seems to be consensus that these icon updates should be discussed more. Do you have a specific preference for a dispute resolution venue?

Also, I wanted to point out that I didn't create Template talk:Essay § Icon as a TPER but rather as a discussion; it was then boldly implemented a few hours after I created the thread and reverted once other editors commented. FaviFake (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

U should join Wikipedia:IRC - you seem like your going to be a full timer....this will let you join ongoing talks about the backside of Wikipedia aswell as reader facing issues. Lots of us there watching but dont comment much...but guides us to talks like this. Moxy🍁 15:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like all my conversations to remain on Wikipedia itself rather than an external site. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Since this discussion has become stale and you're the only other editor to have partecipated, would you oppose or support this change? So we can at least have a 2-1 consensus :) FaviFake (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I'll have to advertise this at the VP? I've tried every other dispute resolution venue :( FaviFake (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried dropping the stick? Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)