Module talk:Parameter validation

Module improvements

Following up from Template_talk:Infobox_station#Parameter_validation:

1. Userspace: No, perhaps not. Depends entirely on the template, but for infoboxes I suppose that may be correct. Editors may use a infobox on their main userpage though. Should that be categorised, if they're using invalid params? The module has flexibility to allow templates to do as they choose, so it's mostly a question of what's the sane default.
   • However, it is worth noting that bots may use these categories for maintenance work. Bots can be approved for non-articlespace work. And it's generally more performant to have them look over a precise category of params, than go through all transclusions or have to setup temporary cats for each run.
2. Hmm, yes, that would be a good idea. I will see what I can do.
3. The config page doesn't currently have knowledge of the number of entries in the list, which lies in the module. We can do "unknown parameter(s)"?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)