![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lots of sites put up "welcome slashdotters/farkers!" notices when it happens. Maybe we do the same? Maybe we should recommend that they try to remember to link to a known good revision instead of the live page? - Omegatron 06:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ideally, we would leave articles unprotected so the slashdotters could try it out and convert to our ways. :-) Allowing vandalism so easily gives them a bad first impression though. Here are the comments I could find about Wikipedia from having Peltier-Seebeck effect linked [1]:
Other comments I remember seeing elsewhere on slashdot [2]:
Notice the lack of comments like this:
I, for one, think that this is an unacceptable first impression. We can stick our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that the vandalism is being dealt with effectively, or we can do something about it.
Unfortunately, I don't really know what to do about it. :-) I think a slashdotted template might be a good idea. " Welcome slashdotters! Yes, you really can edit this article. Really. You don't even have to log in. Yes, that means you can vandalize this article. Please don't. If you want to experiment with the wiki, head for the sandbox. Also, in the future, we would appreciate if you link to a known-good revision of our articles instead of the live version. This will remove the major incentive for vandalism and help both of us out. Why in the world would we leave our site so open to attack? Click here for more about our philosophy" - Omegatron 15:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of encouraging people to link to a known good revision. Because of the temporary nature of a Slashdot posting, nobody who views the story will be viewing an article revision that is more than a day or two old. Besides, Wikipedia links in Slashdot posts are usually science or math articles, and such articles are unlikely to need to change significantly during the time of Slashdotting. Linking to a known good revision has the effect of protecting the page without the effort of finding an admin to do it, and without all the unsavory side effects. It should take away the incentive for most trolls, since their, uh, "work" won't be seen by most, but those who insist on seeing the live article can still do so with a single click. Aerion //talk 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Slashdot logo is fair use only, and this template is certainly NOT fair use. Ral 315 WS 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Says who? it's talking about slashdot - it's as much fair use as slashdot's own use of the caldera logo in SCO stories [or any of a million other examples] is. -- 128.210.35.130 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that for all popular articles, there should be a very prominent link at the top of the wikipedia article pointing to a well-moderated and unvandalized (I'm American, and Americans like to use "z"s instead of "s"s) version of an article that has a permanent link. This would greatly increase the reputability of Wikipedia for research purposes.
For instance, this would allow one to simply reference the "peer-reviewed" article in a research paper, while keeping the ability of anyone to edit the main article. When an article is voted-in as a "popular" article in need of the "peer-reviewed" service, a timetable for re-reviewing the main article (if edited) is decided upon (for instance, every 1 month or every 3 months or whatever).
For the Slashdot effect, a system could be enabled which allows a temporary version of any article to be "locked" so that, if it is a "popular" article, the latest "peer-reviewed" version would temporarily replaced the "main" article for 24-48 hours, and if it is not yet voted a "popular," then the latest version which has been left unedited for a certain period of time (say, 6 hours or 2 days) is put as the "default" article temporarily for about 24-48 hours.
This same model should also be applied if and when other ultra popular news websites cite a Wikipedia article. Also, when linking a wikipedia article to a major news website, the news website should be strongly encouraged to link directly to the latest "peer-reviewed" or (if not a popular article) the latest "stable" article (i.e. the last version left unedited for 6 hours or 2 days or whatever). Until that practice of direct linking to a reviewed or stable version of an article is used very widely by popular news websites, the previous model that I proposed for treating the "Slashdot effect" should be used.
I do understand that this may mean a lessening of the power of the average user, but with great popularity comes great responsibility.
As a general rule, the default displayed page should still remain the most recently updated version, since this is required for mistakes to be corrected and for Wikipedia to continue to grow.
What do you think? Robotbeat 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Slashdotted has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Slashdotted. Thank you. -- Yath 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The TfD discussion can be found here. - Splash talk 19:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we clarify what the appropriate use of this tag is? In short, I think the tag should 1) be used only on the article's main page, 2) should be removed once the high-traffic situation is over (eg. in the case of Slashdot, around 6 - 48 hours after the article was posted), and 3) should include the specific URL of the page as often as possible, so that editors know when the high-traffic is over. These issues were touched upon in the AfD discussion, but the tag is still new, so it would be nice to have these clarified. The purpose of the tag seem to be 1) to disuade vandals by warning them that lots of editors are watching, and 2) to let editors know that they should watch the page more closely. If you believe that the first one is more important, then a shorter stay on the main article may be warranted. If you believe that the second one is more important, then a longer stay on the Talk: page may be warranted. I wanted to clarify these usage-suggestions ASAP so fewer people are upset if this tag is removed after some time, or if the tag is added to a main article page. -- Interiot 21:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
On the Paul Hellyer page, there are unnecessary spaces after the name of the internet site. Does anyone know how to fix the template to eliminate them? HistoryBA 19:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Might it be possible to change the image from the default to the slashdot logo, if the sitename=slashdot, or the google logo if the sitename=google/gmail? But only for a few of them? I think that would be prettier, and satisfy those with needs of having a {{ slashdotted}} template. - Mys e ku rity 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use this template if it was not linked from a slashdot article, but instead from a highly-rated/early comment? -- Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but how prominent does the link have to be [on a website structured similarly to slashdot, fark, etc] to qualify?
What is the line stating "All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the page history." for? Looking at the history page I don't see anything particular extra markings next to the edits. Is it just a general reminder of what a wiki is and that all edits are logged? If that's all it's for it could probably be replaced by a more general statement. Peter Nelson 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a talk page or Wikipedia:Village pump discussion somewhere that explains why we need this template, and assuming we do, why it warrants so much screen real estate? 66.167.136.230 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
Can this template go on the talk pages of articles rather than the actual article? The template is really distracting as it was here at the top of Christmas. It makes it seem like the goal of wikipedia is to get 'high traffic' rather than being an encyclopedia 203.129.39.180 12:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose collapsing the site and url arguments down into one, and using MediaWiki's inherent external/internal link syntax, rather than relying on increasingly complicated if statements:
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org }} | {{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] }} |
{{High-traffic | url=http://site.org }} | {{High-traffic | site=http://site.org }} |
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org | date=~~~~~ }} | {{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] | date=~~~~~ }} |
{{High-traffic}} | {{High-traffic}} |
{{High-traffic | site=siteName}} | {{High-traffic | site=[[siteName]]}} |
as far as I can tell, not possible | {{High-traffic | site=[[siteName (some long title)|siteName]] }} |
The issue that promted this suggestion is that for Half-Life 2 mods, we really want to do something like this, but apparently can't:
eg. neither of these work anyway:
The change would require an update of some of the backlinks, but there are approximately ~40, so this is not a hindrance. -- Interiot 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and added "this message should only be placed on talk pages" to the template (as shown on {{ controversial}}). From a quick look at the template uses it is mostly being added to talk pages, or has been moved there. This message is aimed at editors, and as such it should be placed on an articles talk page. It offers no utility to users reading the article. Thanks/ wangi 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just edited the template to make all arguments required on the KISS principle - keep it simple. I have seen far too many uses of this template without both the URL and date, thus making the decision when to remove the template a hard one. If all arguments must be given then it's much more simple... Thanks/ wangi 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The date should be wikilinked so that it is auto-formatted according to user preferences. This would mean always putting the date in ISO ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, and adding an optional time field for those who want to include a time. Or, we could just not allow inclusion of the time — which would keep the template simple and reduce the problem of what timezone the editor is talking about. ··gracefool | ☺ 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that pages using the template should be added to a category, possibly Category:Articles linked from high-profile sites (or something to that effect), and for the date to be piped after the category. As a category page automatically arranges the articles in alphabetical order of the piped keywords, having the date parameter as the piped keyword would arrange the articles in that category. This would allow for easier category cleanup, and removal of templates once the high-traffic period has gone away, plus, it could centralize the articles that use this template. Thoughts? —This unsigned comment was added by Mysekurity ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
The template language is a bit erroneous and too specific. It was very confusing to come across this template on an article page rather than a talk page (see this revision). Additionally, the link is to the Wikipedia article, which isn't clear; I first read it that Wikipedia had linked to the site.
I propose that the template be simplified and changed as below. I also propose that the template always be added to whatever page is appropriate, whether that is the article page or the talk page (having the language not be specific in the template itself means it can be placed on any page, not just the talk page).
I've also added ~~~~~ to automatically insert the date and time that the template was added, these data become static once the page is saved. (The link will have been created earlier than the timestamp, but an accurate time would probably be difficult to come by.)
— Chidom talk 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have listed Template:slashdotted at RfD. -- Random832 T 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think something in the code here is breaking the layout at Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Timing-related_messages. I couldn't see at a glance and don't have time now to look further.. Thanks :) - Quiddity 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we use this template to point to a talkpage as being the target? E.g. slashdot linked to User talk:82.148.97.69 today.
Can a code guru either add a switch for this minority-usage, or fork the template to Template:High-traffic-talk? Thanks. — Quiddity 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider a novice Wikipedia reader (or just someone following an information link) who comes across a page with the {{ High-traffic}} template on it. What useful information should it impart? "Linked from a high-traffic site" sounds like some sort of inane boast, unless the reader understands the consequences.
As I understand from skimming this talk page, the reader might usefully be advised something like
To be useful, there should be a link to this info in the template box, perhaps labeled "why this matters". I'd go ahead and add a stub of this explanation, but I'm not experienced in template editing, and I also don't know where the explanatory note goes—perhaps {{Template:High-traffic/Explanation}}? Also, if there's a mechanism to make links on the explanation page point back to the original archived version, the current version, and the diff, that would be useful. – Dan Hoey talk 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is wondering why I made such a big change to this template, check out the before and after shots of Wikipedia talk:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Happy‑ melon 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
page=
parameter, and incorporated a fix into the date display so that wikilinked dates do not break. I'm less sure about changing the formatting - I personally think it looks better in the tabular form, even with only one entry. However, if you disagree, feel free to change it: the code below will result in a display identical to the old version for single entries (that is, entries without a specified date2=
parameter):{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk {{#if:{{{date2|}}}|collapsible {{#if:{{{date4|}}}|collapsed}}}}" |- | {{#if:{{{date2|}}}|[[Image:Web traffic.png|{{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|25px|50px}}|float left|News]] !{{#switch:{{{page|}}}|talk|Talk=This talk page has|both|Both=''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' and its talk page have|''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' has}} been linked-to from {{#if:{{{site2|{{{date2|}}}}}}|multiple high-traffic websites|a high-traffic website}}. |[[Image:Web traffic.png|{{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|25px|50px}}|News]] !'''On {{{date}}}, {{#switch:{{{page|}}}|talk|Talk=this talk page was|both|Both=''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' and its talk page were|''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' was}} [{{{url}}} linked] from [[{{{site}}}]], a high-traffic website.''' }} <br><small>All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in <span class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|action=history}} its revision history]</span></small> {{#if:{{{date2|}}}| {{!-}} {{!}} {{!!}} {{{!}} width=90% style="background:transparent" {{high-traffic/row |small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date}}}|url={{{url}}}|site={{{site}}}|lang={{{lang|}}} }} {{#if:{{{date2|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date2}}}|url={{{url2}}}|site={{{site2}}}|lang={{{lang2|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date3|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date3}}}|url={{{url3}}}|site={{{site3}}}|lang={{{lang3|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date4|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date4}}}|url={{{url4}}}|site={{{site4}}}|lang={{{lang4|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date5|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date5}}}|url={{{url5}}}|site={{{site5}}}|lang={{{lang5|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date6|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date6}}}|url={{{url6}}}|site={{{site6}}}|lang={{{lang6|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date7|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date7}}}|url={{{url7}}}|site={{{site7}}}|lang={{{lang7|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date8|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date8}}}|url={{{url8}}}|site={{{site8}}}|lang={{{lang8|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date9|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date9}}}|url={{{url9}}}|site={{{site9}}}|lang={{{lang9|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date10|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date10}}}|url={{{url10}}}|site={{{site10}}}|lang={{{lang10|}}} }} }} {{!}}} }} |}[[Category:Articles linked from high traffic sites|<noinclude>*</noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]<noinclude> This template adds articles to [[:Category:Wikipedia as a media topic]]. {{documentation, template}} </noinclude>
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lots of sites put up "welcome slashdotters/farkers!" notices when it happens. Maybe we do the same? Maybe we should recommend that they try to remember to link to a known good revision instead of the live page? - Omegatron 06:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ideally, we would leave articles unprotected so the slashdotters could try it out and convert to our ways. :-) Allowing vandalism so easily gives them a bad first impression though. Here are the comments I could find about Wikipedia from having Peltier-Seebeck effect linked [1]:
Other comments I remember seeing elsewhere on slashdot [2]:
Notice the lack of comments like this:
I, for one, think that this is an unacceptable first impression. We can stick our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that the vandalism is being dealt with effectively, or we can do something about it.
Unfortunately, I don't really know what to do about it. :-) I think a slashdotted template might be a good idea. " Welcome slashdotters! Yes, you really can edit this article. Really. You don't even have to log in. Yes, that means you can vandalize this article. Please don't. If you want to experiment with the wiki, head for the sandbox. Also, in the future, we would appreciate if you link to a known-good revision of our articles instead of the live version. This will remove the major incentive for vandalism and help both of us out. Why in the world would we leave our site so open to attack? Click here for more about our philosophy" - Omegatron 15:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of encouraging people to link to a known good revision. Because of the temporary nature of a Slashdot posting, nobody who views the story will be viewing an article revision that is more than a day or two old. Besides, Wikipedia links in Slashdot posts are usually science or math articles, and such articles are unlikely to need to change significantly during the time of Slashdotting. Linking to a known good revision has the effect of protecting the page without the effort of finding an admin to do it, and without all the unsavory side effects. It should take away the incentive for most trolls, since their, uh, "work" won't be seen by most, but those who insist on seeing the live article can still do so with a single click. Aerion //talk 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Slashdot logo is fair use only, and this template is certainly NOT fair use. Ral 315 WS 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Says who? it's talking about slashdot - it's as much fair use as slashdot's own use of the caldera logo in SCO stories [or any of a million other examples] is. -- 128.210.35.130 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that for all popular articles, there should be a very prominent link at the top of the wikipedia article pointing to a well-moderated and unvandalized (I'm American, and Americans like to use "z"s instead of "s"s) version of an article that has a permanent link. This would greatly increase the reputability of Wikipedia for research purposes.
For instance, this would allow one to simply reference the "peer-reviewed" article in a research paper, while keeping the ability of anyone to edit the main article. When an article is voted-in as a "popular" article in need of the "peer-reviewed" service, a timetable for re-reviewing the main article (if edited) is decided upon (for instance, every 1 month or every 3 months or whatever).
For the Slashdot effect, a system could be enabled which allows a temporary version of any article to be "locked" so that, if it is a "popular" article, the latest "peer-reviewed" version would temporarily replaced the "main" article for 24-48 hours, and if it is not yet voted a "popular," then the latest version which has been left unedited for a certain period of time (say, 6 hours or 2 days) is put as the "default" article temporarily for about 24-48 hours.
This same model should also be applied if and when other ultra popular news websites cite a Wikipedia article. Also, when linking a wikipedia article to a major news website, the news website should be strongly encouraged to link directly to the latest "peer-reviewed" or (if not a popular article) the latest "stable" article (i.e. the last version left unedited for 6 hours or 2 days or whatever). Until that practice of direct linking to a reviewed or stable version of an article is used very widely by popular news websites, the previous model that I proposed for treating the "Slashdot effect" should be used.
I do understand that this may mean a lessening of the power of the average user, but with great popularity comes great responsibility.
As a general rule, the default displayed page should still remain the most recently updated version, since this is required for mistakes to be corrected and for Wikipedia to continue to grow.
What do you think? Robotbeat 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Slashdotted has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Slashdotted. Thank you. -- Yath 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The TfD discussion can be found here. - Splash talk 19:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we clarify what the appropriate use of this tag is? In short, I think the tag should 1) be used only on the article's main page, 2) should be removed once the high-traffic situation is over (eg. in the case of Slashdot, around 6 - 48 hours after the article was posted), and 3) should include the specific URL of the page as often as possible, so that editors know when the high-traffic is over. These issues were touched upon in the AfD discussion, but the tag is still new, so it would be nice to have these clarified. The purpose of the tag seem to be 1) to disuade vandals by warning them that lots of editors are watching, and 2) to let editors know that they should watch the page more closely. If you believe that the first one is more important, then a shorter stay on the main article may be warranted. If you believe that the second one is more important, then a longer stay on the Talk: page may be warranted. I wanted to clarify these usage-suggestions ASAP so fewer people are upset if this tag is removed after some time, or if the tag is added to a main article page. -- Interiot 21:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
On the Paul Hellyer page, there are unnecessary spaces after the name of the internet site. Does anyone know how to fix the template to eliminate them? HistoryBA 19:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Might it be possible to change the image from the default to the slashdot logo, if the sitename=slashdot, or the google logo if the sitename=google/gmail? But only for a few of them? I think that would be prettier, and satisfy those with needs of having a {{ slashdotted}} template. - Mys e ku rity 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use this template if it was not linked from a slashdot article, but instead from a highly-rated/early comment? -- Random|[[User talk:Random832|832]] 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but how prominent does the link have to be [on a website structured similarly to slashdot, fark, etc] to qualify?
What is the line stating "All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the page history." for? Looking at the history page I don't see anything particular extra markings next to the edits. Is it just a general reminder of what a wiki is and that all edits are logged? If that's all it's for it could probably be replaced by a more general statement. Peter Nelson 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a talk page or Wikipedia:Village pump discussion somewhere that explains why we need this template, and assuming we do, why it warrants so much screen real estate? 66.167.136.230 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
Can this template go on the talk pages of articles rather than the actual article? The template is really distracting as it was here at the top of Christmas. It makes it seem like the goal of wikipedia is to get 'high traffic' rather than being an encyclopedia 203.129.39.180 12:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose collapsing the site and url arguments down into one, and using MediaWiki's inherent external/internal link syntax, rather than relying on increasingly complicated if statements:
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org }} | {{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] }} |
{{High-traffic | url=http://site.org }} | {{High-traffic | site=http://site.org }} |
{{High-traffic | site=siteName | url=http://site.org | date=~~~~~ }} | {{High-traffic | site=[http://site.org siteName] | date=~~~~~ }} |
{{High-traffic}} | {{High-traffic}} |
{{High-traffic | site=siteName}} | {{High-traffic | site=[[siteName]]}} |
as far as I can tell, not possible | {{High-traffic | site=[[siteName (some long title)|siteName]] }} |
The issue that promted this suggestion is that for Half-Life 2 mods, we really want to do something like this, but apparently can't:
eg. neither of these work anyway:
The change would require an update of some of the backlinks, but there are approximately ~40, so this is not a hindrance. -- Interiot 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and added "this message should only be placed on talk pages" to the template (as shown on {{ controversial}}). From a quick look at the template uses it is mostly being added to talk pages, or has been moved there. This message is aimed at editors, and as such it should be placed on an articles talk page. It offers no utility to users reading the article. Thanks/ wangi 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just edited the template to make all arguments required on the KISS principle - keep it simple. I have seen far too many uses of this template without both the URL and date, thus making the decision when to remove the template a hard one. If all arguments must be given then it's much more simple... Thanks/ wangi 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The date should be wikilinked so that it is auto-formatted according to user preferences. This would mean always putting the date in ISO ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, and adding an optional time field for those who want to include a time. Or, we could just not allow inclusion of the time — which would keep the template simple and reduce the problem of what timezone the editor is talking about. ··gracefool | ☺ 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that pages using the template should be added to a category, possibly Category:Articles linked from high-profile sites (or something to that effect), and for the date to be piped after the category. As a category page automatically arranges the articles in alphabetical order of the piped keywords, having the date parameter as the piped keyword would arrange the articles in that category. This would allow for easier category cleanup, and removal of templates once the high-traffic period has gone away, plus, it could centralize the articles that use this template. Thoughts? —This unsigned comment was added by Mysekurity ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
The template language is a bit erroneous and too specific. It was very confusing to come across this template on an article page rather than a talk page (see this revision). Additionally, the link is to the Wikipedia article, which isn't clear; I first read it that Wikipedia had linked to the site.
I propose that the template be simplified and changed as below. I also propose that the template always be added to whatever page is appropriate, whether that is the article page or the talk page (having the language not be specific in the template itself means it can be placed on any page, not just the talk page).
I've also added ~~~~~ to automatically insert the date and time that the template was added, these data become static once the page is saved. (The link will have been created earlier than the timestamp, but an accurate time would probably be difficult to come by.)
— Chidom talk 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have listed Template:slashdotted at RfD. -- Random832 T 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think something in the code here is breaking the layout at Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Timing-related_messages. I couldn't see at a glance and don't have time now to look further.. Thanks :) - Quiddity 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we use this template to point to a talkpage as being the target? E.g. slashdot linked to User talk:82.148.97.69 today.
Can a code guru either add a switch for this minority-usage, or fork the template to Template:High-traffic-talk? Thanks. — Quiddity 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider a novice Wikipedia reader (or just someone following an information link) who comes across a page with the {{ High-traffic}} template on it. What useful information should it impart? "Linked from a high-traffic site" sounds like some sort of inane boast, unless the reader understands the consequences.
As I understand from skimming this talk page, the reader might usefully be advised something like
To be useful, there should be a link to this info in the template box, perhaps labeled "why this matters". I'd go ahead and add a stub of this explanation, but I'm not experienced in template editing, and I also don't know where the explanatory note goes—perhaps {{Template:High-traffic/Explanation}}? Also, if there's a mechanism to make links on the explanation page point back to the original archived version, the current version, and the diff, that would be useful. – Dan Hoey talk 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is wondering why I made such a big change to this template, check out the before and after shots of Wikipedia talk:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Happy‑ melon 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
page=
parameter, and incorporated a fix into the date display so that wikilinked dates do not break. I'm less sure about changing the formatting - I personally think it looks better in the tabular form, even with only one entry. However, if you disagree, feel free to change it: the code below will result in a display identical to the old version for single entries (that is, entries without a specified date2=
parameter):{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk {{#if:{{{date2|}}}|collapsible {{#if:{{{date4|}}}|collapsed}}}}" |- | {{#if:{{{date2|}}}|[[Image:Web traffic.png|{{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|25px|50px}}|float left|News]] !{{#switch:{{{page|}}}|talk|Talk=This talk page has|both|Both=''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' and its talk page have|''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' has}} been linked-to from {{#if:{{{site2|{{{date2|}}}}}}|multiple high-traffic websites|a high-traffic website}}. |[[Image:Web traffic.png|{{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|25px|50px}}|News]] !'''On {{{date}}}, {{#switch:{{{page|}}}|talk|Talk=this talk page was|both|Both=''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' and its talk page were|''[[:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]'' was}} [{{{url}}} linked] from [[{{{site}}}]], a high-traffic website.''' }} <br><small>All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in <span class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|action=history}} its revision history]</span></small> {{#if:{{{date2|}}}| {{!-}} {{!}} {{!!}} {{{!}} width=90% style="background:transparent" {{high-traffic/row |small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date}}}|url={{{url}}}|site={{{site}}}|lang={{{lang|}}} }} {{#if:{{{date2|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date2}}}|url={{{url2}}}|site={{{site2}}}|lang={{{lang2|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date3|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date3}}}|url={{{url3}}}|site={{{site3}}}|lang={{{lang3|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date4|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date4}}}|url={{{url4}}}|site={{{site4}}}|lang={{{lang4|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date5|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date5}}}|url={{{url5}}}|site={{{site5}}}|lang={{{lang5|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date6|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date6}}}|url={{{url6}}}|site={{{site6}}}|lang={{{lang6|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date7|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date7}}}|url={{{url7}}}|site={{{site7}}}|lang={{{lang7|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date8|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date8}}}|url={{{url8}}}|site={{{site8}}}|lang={{{lang8|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date9|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date9}}}|url={{{url9}}}|site={{{site9}}}|lang={{{lang9|}}} }} }} {{#if:{{{date10|}}} |{{high-traffic/row|small={{{small|}}}|date={{{date10}}}|url={{{url10}}}|site={{{site10}}}|lang={{{lang10|}}} }} }} {{!}}} }} |}[[Category:Articles linked from high traffic sites|<noinclude>*</noinclude>{{PAGENAME}}]]<noinclude> This template adds articles to [[:Category:Wikipedia as a media topic]]. {{documentation, template}} </noinclude>
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |