Wikipedia talk:Template index/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Template naming conventions

I've suggested standardizing template naming, at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Template naming conventions. If you're frustrated with typing template names and constantly guessing at the right capitalization and spacing, please chime in. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:46 z

Template table

I think it would be great to have something like the French table... --  A l a i n  R 3 4 5
 ^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Identification of template

Which template do I add to the top of an article to identify it as having many red links in it? NorthernThunder (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't add one to the top as red links are encouraged on this site. What is the article that you have in mind anyways? We recently had a user create templates which basically threatened users with blocking because their pages created too many red links. The templates were deleted, but it brought up the idea that people should be allowed to add red links to pages because they establish notability (most of the time) and they can help to get the page created someday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I had no specific page in mind. I just thought a template should be made to encourage Wikipedians to get rid of red links. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While it might seem to be a good idea, red links aren't all that bothersome as they exist everywhere from featured articles to stubs with no one objecting. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected template often used wrongly

The template {{Unreferenced}} indicates an article with no sources, but it is often or usually used on articles which do have some sources. It could be redirected to {{Refimprove}}, or the wording could be changed to say "insufficient" sources. Simply changing the wording or redirecting to Refimprove would solve this problem. Becritical (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation overkill template

I'm wondering if I should go ahead and create a template for the overusage of citations in articles. It's becomming a pain to find one fact with ten citations (yes, they are out there). I'll create it soon if no one objects to it, but people are starting to overcite sources which already have an establshed notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for assistance

I need assistance in creating the following template as I am not too skilled with them.

This article is about a disaster that has recently occurred. Editors contributing to this article should

• Include facts that discuss the event dispassionately and reflect accurate reporting.
• Remove any claims or statements that are not cited to a reliable source.
• Patrol external links, and any remove any questionable links to sites that may be spam or false aid organizations as soon as possible. Move all contact information to aid organizations to external links.
• Maintain consistent spelling and grammar and a professional level of writing throughout the article
• Maintain consistent and full citations that include authors if any are named, title, URL or page number, publication, publication date, and retrieval date if the source is online.
• Use estimates of casualties from the highest authorities, and provide a range in the case of conflicting reports or initial estimates.
• Check for dead links in news sources every 24 hours.
• Welcome new users and anonymous IPs who edit the article, even if they vandalize. Ask for administrative action in blocking problematic users before asking for article protection.

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Template on talk page with little symbol on main page?

Would it be viable to create a system where full tags would go on the talk page and automatically add a small icon relevant to this tag (such as a small scale for a neutrality issue) in the upper right corner on the article page so that editors know there is something "wrong" with the article but readers won't be disturbed by the currently intrusive tags? Sud Ram (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I Totally agree with this suggestion, because the maintenance tags are so disturbing MaenK.A._Talk 11:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea but I can see it meeting opposition because most editors wouldn't know that a scale meant that there was a neutrality issue. A big, bold template does the trick of alerting the user of some sort of issue and it possibly could motivate them to fix it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for something like neutrality or a current event a larger icon could be created with some sort of subtitle such as "Neutrality?" or "Current Event" etc... so that anyone reading Wikipedia, even non-editors, could understand that there is something to be worked on. If there is any sort of icon in a clearly dedicated area of all Wikipedia pages that editors and readers can identify as an "icon tag" section, then anyone can figure out the issues and click if they are interested. Sud Ram (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Perhaps someone here knows the answer. Is the use of refs in infobox templates deprecated or discouraged? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK no. Occasionally it is necessary to reference certain content in infoboxes, and I've seen it done often enough. -- œ^™ 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Invalid HTML in Episode list template

{{Episode list}} produces invalid in HTML in some cases; please see Episode list#Invalid HTML. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Template for creating duplicate pages

Is there a template for informing new users not to make duplicate pages? Sometimes new users do this, thinking it's the proper thing to do if something is referred to by two or more names, when of course the proper thing is to make redirect pages. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent example of a new user doing this: Saint Francis Xavier School and St. Francis Xavier Elementary School. I went ahead and made a template in my user space for my own purposes. Does anyone think it's worth putting this in the template space?

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you created a set of articles with different titles but with the same content, such as your recent creation of Your page here. This practice should be avoided because it can be confusing and can lead to content forking. If you wish to have multiple titles serve as search terms, place the content in only one appropriately named article, and redirect the other articles to that one. Although I have already fixed the problem, please be aware of this issue if you create additional articles. Thank you. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Firstredirect}}. But of course your custom template is perfectly fine to use too. There's also {{Duplication}} for when you want to tag an article's section as a duplication of another existing article. -- œ^™ 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Firstredirect}} is perfect. Thanks! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New section:Removing article maintenance tags

Not finding any guidelines on removing templates from articles, I have added a section here. Hopefully, I've written what is embodied in custom in a way that is universally accepted. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree with that. It can permit tendentious editors to place a template promoting a change that the community has opposed, saying that the burden lies with those removing the information. I am thinking of one specific case where an editor was the lone advocate of adding information to the article lede who then went silent for a while, returned, and templated the page claiming that a new discussion must take place and accusing those (me) who removed the template with reference to the previous discussion of vandalism. This section adds ammo to their belt. Moreover (and possibly more importantly) this page is neither a policy nor a guideline (nor an essay), and so should not take a stand on editing choices. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But the problem remains of there not being any guidelines on when it is appropriate to remove tags. Is there another page where you think we could have this guidance? -- œ^™ 04:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there is one. There is, however, a rather laborious procedure for bringing a page to guideline status. If someone feels there needs to be a page explaining the rules about template usage, the first step would be to write a user essay. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 05:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline on removing templates is BRD. As it is on adding them. Custom dictates a mild preference for leaving them in, in contested situations - custom combined with wording "may have a problem with LGM" not "has a problem with LGM". Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleancat

Template:Cleancat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Image overlays on maps

Hi, it was suggested that I post here... I've created a template for placing overlays on map for showing paths, routes, etc. I was hoping that I could simplify the creation and display of routes or paths of the many maps out there. Can somebody with some template experience tell me whether this is actually a good idea? Somebody mentioned that this may prevent access to the underlaying map (although that could be replaced via a tables of links). Can anybody help with tamplates associated with maps, or image overlays? Thanks, Sladew (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC

FYI, there's RfC going on on the color of "expand" message boxes at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#.22Expand.22_templates. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting in touch with a template author

I recently discovered a template that will adjust historic currency statements to current dollars. I have some suggestions to improve the operation of this template. Example: "A gallon of milk cost US$4.00 in 1985 ${{Inflation|US|4.00|1985|r=1}} in today's dollars)", which is rendered as "A gallon of milk cost US$4.00 in 1985 ($11.3 in today's dollars)".

What would be the best way to get ahold of the author to make a suggestion? Tobeprecise (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're referring to Template:Inflation its creator was User:Alexander Gieg, but if you have a suggestion for improvement it's best to post it on the template's talk page. Furthermore, as you already know, Wikipedia is a wiki and you can edit any page you want, and since noone owns any article or template, you should be bold and directly make whatever improvements you may have yourself, you don't need to ask the author. However in the case of Template:Inflation it is a High-risk template and is thus protected from editing, so you need to make an editprotected request on the talk page. -- œ^™ 23:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I discovered as I looked carefully at the template page that my intended suggestion was already available within the Inflation template! Tobeprecise (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Reopened

Just a note that a while back i created this as a simpler alternative to {{relist}} Simply south..... 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

FYI, there is a discussion going on here regarding a possible alternative to template messages. LordVetinari (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new {{not possible}} tag

I encountered at least two situations in which a statement in Wikipedia was :

- referenced by a book which was not online and not in the public domain

- describing an impossible phenomenon
Obviously, the editors either missunderstood the referenced book, or intentionally gave it a prefered spin.But there was nothing I could do, because I don't have the books.That's why I propose the {{not possible}} tag for these situations.What do you think ?Stefan Udrea (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think not, IAW the initial paragraph of WP:V. Perhaps WP:DUE might have applied in the situations you describe. I'd be interested in specifics about those cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new template: Misuse of flagicons

I am suggesting a "Misuse of flagicons" or similar template to help flag articles that contravene the proper use of flagicons per MOS:FLAG. I first encountered this abuse on various heavy metal music genre band list articles, and it was on those pages that I actually learned about the proper and improper use of flagicons. I have now recently joined Wikiproject Martial Arts, and am now trying to cleanup a vast amount of articles where these flags are misused or used improperly. A template would be very helpful to identify problem articles, and to categorize for ease of access, so someone like me doesn't have to dig through links to find problem articles.--3family6 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On lists: proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices

See Category talk:Hatnote templates for lists. Proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for content dispute/cleanup templates for use in template name space and the changes to policy/guidelines required

I have noticed, as many probably have, that a number of templates are either in dispute, usually in terms of neutrality or other issues, or in need of cleanup/maintenance. Since there are not template-specific tags, these usually end up as non-viewable in the template page. I am suggesting an expansion of the model used in notifying the community if template deletion discussions to other issues, following the standards set forth for articles, but tweaking existing policies/guidelines as needed, or even creating new ones to cover templates.

Templates are often significant part not only of simple navigation, but often are part of conveying useful encyclopedic information, and of joining a series of related articles into coherent forms that establish meta-information on the topics included. These content aspect of navboxes and other template is often a source of contention even in subjects that would otherwise be uncontroversial, and I believe that one of the reasons is the inability to easily generate community attention to discussions regarding templates, which often means only vested editors are involved, creating a polarized environment in which resolving issues is intractable. Finding ways to increase editor input might lead to wider consensus diminishing and even resolving the controversies involved.

Likewise, templates have become more and more complex as the wiki markup for them has evolved, requiring more and more technical knowledge to be able to effect significant changes. This often leads to outdated and un-mantained templates piling up, often because those editors in contact with the templates do not know how to fix these issues at a technical level, but also because those who posses the technical know-how often are unaware of the issues, and there is no easy way for them to monitor and identify issues in templates they are not regularly in contact with.

This is an attempt to gather community consensus for/against the general idea of a specific set of templates for use in tagging other templates, both for the purpose of dispute resolution and for the purpose of cleanup, and a policy/guideline framework. The idea is to create a framework, subject it to wide discussion, and then via other discussions flesh out the framework. I am not generally presenting a concrete proposal for action in terms of actual templates, policies etc, but rather the principle that this is needed. Further RfCs and discussion would be needed as the ideas are fleshed out.

Proposed framework:

Policy/Guidelines

1. Determine if any policies/guidelines need to be modified, updated or created in order to implement this, and list the changes in a page in the Wikipedia namespace
2. Develop wide consensus around these proposals
3. Implement changes when consensus emerges

Technical

1. Creation of a standard "blank" template to be used as a basis in tagging other templates.
2. Creation of a basic set of templates using this "blank", based on the applicable policy/guidelines, and following the well-established visual standards used in article tags, these would setup the expected standards of usage for future templates
3. Creation of appropriate categorizations for monitoring of tagging
4. Creation of javascript tools to facilitate the inclusion of tags

I hope I am not barking up the wrong tree here, but I feel the time have come to accept that viewing templates as simple navboxes is no longer tenable, and a coherent view and sufficient tools is deserved by the community.--Cerejota (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a 'citation incomplete' template.

I'd like to request a 'citation incomplete' template. Not to be confused with the existing {{citations broken}} or {{format footnotes}}, which deal with (resp.) sources and footnotes. This would be specifically for where a source (or reference?) is incompletely cited, lacking basic details of publication such as author, title, date, or publisher. – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Check these out…

Category:Inline citation cleanup templates
{{Page needed}}	{{pn}}
{{Author missing}}	{{author?}}
{{Author incomplete}}
{{Title missing}}	{{title?}}
{{Title incomplete}}
{{ISBN missing}}	{{ISBN?}}
{{Year needed}}	{{year}}
{{Date missing}}	{{date?}}
{{Volume needed}}	{{volume needed}}	{{issue needed}}
Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates
{{Request quotation}}	{{qn}}
{{Cite quote}}
{{Full}}
{{Additional citation needed}}	{{additional citation needed}}
{{Better citation}}	{{better citation}}
{{Self-published inline}}	{{self-published inline}}
{{Third-party-inline}}	{{third-party-inline}}
{{Primary source-inline}}	{{psc}}
{{Citation needed (lead)}}	{{cnl}}	{{fact (lead)}}
{{Citation needed (lede)}}	{{cnl}}	{{fact (lede)}}
{{Circular-ref}}	{{circular-ref}}
{{Check cite}}
{{Verify source}}	{{vn}}
{{Failed verification}}	{{fv}}
{{Dead link}}
{{SCIRS}}	{{SCIRS}}
{{SCICN}}	{{SCICN}}
{{MEDRS}}	{{MEDRS}}
{{Medical citation needed}}	{{me-fact}}

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What?? Where did those come from?!

I don't know how I missed the inline-cleanup ("* missing") templates; they'll work. But it would still be nice to have a general {{citation incomplete}} tag. I suppose {{full}} or {{citation broken}} would work, but they are ambiguous, not very intutitive. Could "citation incomplete" be setup as a synonym for "full"?

As long as I am embarassing myself: is there, or could we have, a {{Section needed}} (or perhaps "section number needed"?), analogbous to "page needed", for those cases where a section or paragraph number is more appropriate than a page number?

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Using correct nomenclature on Aviation Templates

At the bottom of this [[1]] template, are the statements:

"Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics. Deadliest incident shown in bold smallcaps."

Since ICAO definitions as to the meaning of "incident," Vs "accident," are quite clear and precise, I propose that the above statement be changed to read:

"Accidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics. Deadliest accident shown in bold smallcaps."

Doing so would make the nomenclature consistent with most other Wiki Aviation articles. 66.81.52.217 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove

See post relating to this template at [2]. {{Reflist}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldumpo (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Template media in Sister projects, MediaWiki

In Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects#MediaWiki is listed the {{media}} template, I think it's no right, I've put a notice in talk page. --79.50.131.134 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NOINDEX for all template messages

I discovered that Google will give WP template pages when doing a search. See [3] as an example. Template pages are not for public consumption - they are only of use to readers as part of another page. They are part of the project since they are not content pages. The millions of visitors who come to WP via a search engine are not interested in a template page. Therefore I propose that we add the NOINDEX template or just the magic word itself to all template messages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, do we have any evidence they actually visit the templates? :) The article on [subject] is normally the primary link; I would imagine templates about [subject] are a long way down the search results. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Google searching for things like templates can often be useful to editors if the on-wiki search is proving unproductive. I would suggest NOINDEX should be reserved for cases when templates show up in likely topic searches, but not be applied preemptively on the entire name space or to entire classes of templates. Monty₈₄₅ 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally find Google to be an effective way of finding our template pages, more so than our in-house search in a few cases. I'd be a little sad to lose that ability. Still, I admit that I'm pretty impressed and surprised by that search result placement for "Information", though. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Alan's search (at google.co.nz) places Template:Information as a second result for "Information". Searching at google.com myself does not give any Wikipedia template within the first 60 entries. I suggest that it is possible that Google has fixed what seems to me like a big mistake in their thinking about ranking, but hasn't rolled that out completely, and that it might be premature for us to step in and help them. I do see "Template:Information" on the top 10 results if I search for both words ("Template information"), but then, I'd personally hope to. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The above evidence suggests this was a temporary issue, and people actually use Google to find templates pages here on purpose anyway. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would probably not want a link to a WP template unless I had specified "template". But that seems to be more of a Google issue than WP. And I don't know what we could — or should — do to make that happen, given that sometimes I might want to search for templates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is easy enough to search for templates using the Wikipedia search function. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean that it's the only method people use. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote templates and carriage returns

The standard behaviour for a hatnote template such as otheruses, about, and dablink is to add a carriage return at the end. For example in the Life and death article:

For articles with similar titles, see Life and death (disambiguation).

"Two eyes" redirects here. You may also be looking for Binocular vision.

This behaviour is undesirable as there are articles with two or sometimes more such hatnotes. The preferred behaviour would something like this:

For articles with similar titles, see Life and death (disambiguation). "Two eyes" redirects here. You may also be looking for Binocular vision.

Which can be the norm if there is no carriage return at the end of these hatnotes. Can the carriage return be removed? Would such a change create problems at certain articles? -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus that this should be the preferred behavior. Hatnotes of different kinds are on different lines because they are different messages with different purposes. No one's going to read a huge, line-wrapped hatnote that rambles on about 2 or 3 different things. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that hatnotes for different purposes should be on new lines. If a page has three or more hatnotes I would suggest considering whether or not they are all necessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Messages for new-article creators

An RfC discussion is currently taking place at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Users interested in enhancing new-user retention/new article retention are invited to join the discussion.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus

FYI, YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) is removing the specialized classes from various template messages and replacing it with class wikitable. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only questionable

The documentation said, until I just amended it, that cn was used for questionable claims. Actually it is appropriate for anything that is is not obvious. For example, to say that the picture on a cathode-ray tube (as in older television receivers) is built up by a fast-moving spot is not questionable, but not obvious to all readers, and needs a source. Pol098 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No template link for Biographies

There are several here: Wikipedia:BLP#Templates. But I don't see any mention on the page. What has to be done to get them there? I'm sure lots of people look for them. Will mention on that talk page too. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to test template changes

I'd like to play around with enhancing an existing template, perhaps try a bit of programming, perhaps WP:LUA, but without breaking Wikipedia. Is there a guide on how to go about this safely-ish. --Iantresman (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Create a new page called "Name of template/testcases". Make a new section, and then do whatever you want. Philroc (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently disputed in lawsuit

Hello, I have an entire article I'm editing where the whole company is the subject of a court case. Who owns the company, when it was founded and who founded it are all disputed. Do we have a template for this like a box at the start acknowledging that the whole article is basically admitting that we're taking a neutral point of view but everything in the article is up for debate? Thanks.Blythwood (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

simon steele says all this is true

the Premeir of the movie "THE METAL YEARS" was set at the CINERAMA DOME,,,,,not the Wiltern, and the Music sound trak was mostly done By "SIMON STEELE" '...the scored parts and alot of music example the Gazzari Dancers, whole parts of songs,,, Gazzari Shuffle when Bill has the tie thru his legs,, the scraping guitars, the cow bell ring for Gene Simmons,,, the drum kicks for aAlice cooper,,, thru the whole film,,, and never saw any recognition for all that music or the Idea that Penelope AND SIMON came up with the Idea for the film.....AMEN...THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION PART ll THE METAL YEARS simonsteele@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.87.222 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a warning/information article-box for new phenomena (e.g. genres)

Here's an example: let's say there's a new literature / cultural genre emerging -> it's notable enough to have its own article but on the other hand not that much detail is yet known of it / it's still in its infancy and not fully formed. Aside of there not being much article-relevant information available or appropriate too much of a fixed definition might stop this new phenomenon from forming, finding, shaping itself and might misdirect it - not by any information on the page but by presenting said information as fixed definition. If there was a warning/information-box on top of the article that said something like "this is a new phenomenon - not much is yet known [...]" people could be made aware not only of the reason why there might be comparatively few information on the page but also to take the presented information as what it is. For this reason I'm requesting such a box - if this is the wrong place to ask about this or if this already exists pls forward me to whatever is the right place. --Fixuture (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

This thread started off at User talk:Gamingforfun365 and was moved here via Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Talk namespace. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your simplifications and improvements of maintenance templates have all (I think) been reverted. They are not improvements, and the templates do not need simplification. These templates are viewed by thousands of people, and have been drawn up by multiple editors. If you think you have a suggestion that should be implemented, please discuss first on the talkpage of each template. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: See #Warning templates above. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

where I wrote "Hi, I see that you have been creating new warning templates, as well as altering some existing templates. Where were these changes discussed?" (since removed) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 If this guy doesn't engage in conversation, I think his changes should simply be undone en masse. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: First of all, what conversation? Secondly, I believe that it is good to have some degree of simplification so that reading would be faster, so, from my point of view, they are improvements, and I would like to include that as a suggestion. I just did that because I thought that it would be uncontroversial. Also, I know that many people read those templates. Am I doing something wrong (with the WP:BOLD policy)? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I should've clarified above that WP:BOLD is a guideline, not a policy, and that changing existing pages and templates that are highly used should usually be proposed on the talk page first (and you should always check the talk page before making major edits to check that there isn't a consensus against such a change). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to try to reach a consensus here. What were your opinions about my simplification? I meant no harm but help. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not the thing that should be decided by one person, or even three. Changes to the uw- series of templates should be prediscussed at WT:UW, not on a user talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, I will move this discussion there. Only, this is not about user warnings. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Locking templates

Because these templates apparently require for us to seek a consensus for each, why will not we just lock all of these widely used templates exclusively for administrators? That would encourage for us to use the talk pages of them first. Anyways, what are your views upon simplification? It is handy for me because it makes reading faster and because it takes up less space, but I do know that minimal ambiguity is important. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in the NIE template

The following mistake results in a widely propagated inaccuracy to an out-of-copyright citation at Wikipedia.If it can be fixed, the correction will propagate widely, and result in improved information accuracy in the encyclopedia.

The template:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

should reflect the fact that the editors of this first edition were: Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, and Frank Moore Colby (see Template:New_International_Encyclopedia).

Instead, it presents the the third editor as "F. Moore" (presenting the middle name, omitting the surname).

Please, indicate here how this might be fixed (or, if easily done, execute the correction yourselves)? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: You posted exactly the same q at Help talk:Template#Error in the NIE template. Please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject for Article Revision Tag Acceptance

The WikiProject for Article Revision has implemented a few special template tags, including {{Article under repair}} and {{Article lost cause}}, however I'd like to establish consensus about their usage.

{{Article under repair|date=(September 2015)|note=We're working to bring this article up to Wiki standards}}
{{Article lost cause|date=(September 2015)}}

Firstly, I'd like to go over what the project is intended to do. The primary purpose of it's establishment is to take article stubs, or direly incomplete articles — specifically articles which could bear useful information, and improve them. The tags serve as a fundamental part of this process. The custom templates allow for members of the WikiProject to notify other editors (as well as patrollers) that the article should be cut some slack as we are working to establish the article.

The lost cause tag also serves a major role in this process. By using the lost cause tag, it notifies other editors and patrollers the article likely is not up to standards, and potentially will never be (without critical intervention or resources). This simply serves as a means to allow for notices to be sourced.

If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to leave them here. ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 06:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question for Ex Parte: in one sentence, what is the key question that you hope to have answered by this RfC? VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was BOLD and simply deleted the RfC notice. Both templates have already been deleted. During the deletion discussion the RfC author apparently agreed this entire subject is moot.[4] I have no objection to someone restoring the RfC notice, if it still serves any purpose. Alsee (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag for unpatrolled NP

I think it is insane that a page can acrue thousands of edits by a multitude of editors over many years and still be unpatrolled. There is no easy way to find out if a page is patrolled or not, so a tag should be created that reads "This page has not yet been accepted by NPP" and automatically added to all unpatrolled articles. I think a sizeable amount of articles would be removed from the New Pages Feed and save us time. L3X1 (distant write) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Media template

Was looking for a banner that metions that an article is solely or heavaly sourced to media outlets. Do we have one of this nature?...if not we should make one.--Moxy (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it justifiable to use template in Wikiproject?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am building a WikiProject and I have attached {{new page}} on the top of it. Nevertheless, a user claimed that the templates apply to "articles" only and Projects are not classified as a type of article. Soon after, another user nominated the project to be candidate articles for deletion, which really disturbs me.

I am looking forward to the reply. Thank you for your time in advance. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bit of a problem

I've left a note at Template talk:SECR Ships about a problem with it. Could someone who understands templates have a look, and advise? Thanks, Moonraker12 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to Redrose64 for fixing this. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Add profile photo

How to add profile photo in Wikipedia Sampras kaunds (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. --Bsherr (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Please move this discussion to an appropriate venue. Thank you, - FlightTime Public (open channel) 14:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you update the date?

Can one update the date in a template message (such as {{More citations needed}} or {{Expand section}}) or an inline template (such as {{Citation needed}} and {{Original research inline}}) if the article is checked again?

For instance, if {{More citations needed}} was added to an article in August 2016 and then I check if the article still needs more citations, could I then change the date to December 2024?

I recall reading a description of the |date= parameter saying that the date is the last time the article was checked for the relevant issue, but I cannot remember which template documentation that was. Most documentations seem to say that the date in the |date= parameter is the date when the template was added to the article. Perhaps I’m just confusing these message templates and inline templates with the |access-date= parameter of the citation templates such as {{Cite web}}, where the date can be updated if the article is checked again for the relevant information. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 04:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to update the date (there have been discussions in the past), since we sometimes need to know if an article has been e.g. unreferenced for a long time. Updating the date hides this information. Never use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} since that would make the date dynamic and not static. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: All right. That makes sense. I would like to see some of these discussions just to see what people said, but I assume you don’t have them handy.

I’ve never considered using magic words for dates in these templates. That was just something I did so that my post will always show the current month and year. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 10:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, I remember reading such discussions, but I really don't remember when (it could have been any time in the last nine years), or where (it could have been here, at the talk page for one of the templates, or on a user talk page). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine. I won’t update the date in such message templates and inline templates as I’ve done a couple of times recently. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Did anybody recall where the advice is shown? I've got a user who is altering lots of date parameters to |date=January 2019 in various templates, sometimes when making other changes to an article, but usually not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've notice a fair amount of that recently, but I think mostly for such as "use XXX dates", here, for example. - Donald Albury 22:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That one's OK, because Kind Tennis Fan (talk · contribs) did amend one of the dates from mdy to dmy to be consistent with the other dmy dates in the articles. When this is done, amending a |date= parameter in the {{Use dmy dates}} is fair. The user I'm having a problem with is just altering the |date= parameter and not making date formats consistent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Here due to discussion notification on {{Use dmy dates}} (talk). Last year we also had the opposite of Redrose64's date change user. A user who was reverting updates to the 'Use dmy dates' template because they thought that the date field in the template was there to signify when consensus on the article's date format was reached. - X201 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

When making the date formats consistent for an article, as I did using a script for The Bahamas at the link here, then the script which is used automatically changes the Use XXXX dates template to the current monthly date (January 2019) in this case. The |date= parameter shouldn't be changed unless one is making the dates consistent. On other templates, such as {{Citation needed}}, the monthly date shouldn't be changed to a new month, because the original date indicates for how long the article has had sourcing issues for. Otherwise, editors may assume that the template requesting citations has only been put in recently. That would be misleading. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that would benefit by the participation of interested watchers of this page. The discussion is located here. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Uw-nonfree wording (repost)

I previously brought this up for discussion before, but it was archived at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 16#Uw-nonfree wording after having received only a single response. Even though that response seemed to be in favor of a change, I'm not sure if that's enough to be WP:BOLD and edit the template's wording. So, I'm posting about it again. Bascially, nothing has changed from my previous post and my suggestion still is to change the wording from "We always appreciate when users upload files" to something along lines of "We always appreciate when users upload files or add them to articles". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Support: it makes sense to use the same set of actions in the first sentence as the second one. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Template messages → Wikipedia:Template index – The page should be renamed to reflect its current contents. It has been a long time since it contained only template messages. It is now an index (or directory) for all kinds of templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, I fail to see how /Compact tables of contents (currently the third section in the table) are message templates. See also the page's blurb on WP:Templates: Wikipedia:Template messages, an index of all standard templates used on Wikipedia, grouped into topic-specific headings. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support yes having this page name could cause confusion, it contains far more than message templates. And why not rename Template:Wikipedia template messages too. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, have been confused by this title before. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think maybe they were called "template messages" in the software originally, but in practice everyone has referred to them as just "templates" for a very long time. Wikipedia:Template index would be a much clearer name. the wub "?!" 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the new name is clearer. Curiocurio (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Per all above. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Template index/Deletion needs to be split

This needs to be split or other action taken to get it out of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I recommend splitting of Wikipedia:Template index/Deletion#Speedy deletion since it appears to be the most straightforward solution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion. I've modeled the preamble and bottom stuff (categories, "see also", etc) after the original page. And updated the base page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Template index

I can't see where templates used in administration or arbitration matters are listed. They aren't on the Wikipedia space list, which is where I would think they would be. Is there some master list somewhere for administrative use? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Liz, the Template index is missing a lot of templates. For arbitration matters, there is Category:Wikipedia arbitration templates. "Administration" is a very wide topic (cf. Category:Wikipedia administration). Could you please clarify what you mean? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I meant templates used by administrators for warnings and notices. Sorry, it's hard to remember what I was thinking about six months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)