This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It is widely considered acceptable for an administrator to reverse their own actions if they feel they were in error. I propose the following addition to "Criteria for revocation":
I feel this is descriptive of our existing practices and not proscriptive, I feel the page should reflect this as the criteria can be viewed by some as an exhaustive list of the only reasons that are acceptable. I am of course happy to have the specific wording adjusted by someone more talented at language than myself. Criticisms and suggestions are of course welcome. Chillum 20:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we would want to add something about how reversing your own action does not impeded another administrator from choosing to extend the right themselves? Chillum 20:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a template ({{ Infobox sports competition event}}) that, through a country parameter, is causing a link to the Georgia disambiguation page (see 2015 World Judo Championships – Men's +100 kg). I've looked through the template (and subtemplates) and can't seem to figure out how to get the link to go through Georgia (country). Is there a better place to ask how to fix this than here (if so, I'll ask there)? - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
|games=
parameter is empty, the result is a link to the country article, which is a dab page for Georgia. In the
sandbox I made a change to use {{
flagcountry}} instead if the |games=
parameter isn't set.Copied from here -- NeilN talk to me 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Indefinite full protection: Please revert the "protection downgrade" from permanent protection to template protection. This page is cascade-protected; a cascade-protected page with template protection creates a misleading "edit" option on the page when no one (except admins) can actually edit it. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ping @ Steel1943, Fuhghettaboutit, and MusikAnimal: -- NeilN talk to me 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to mention this long discussion among very established template/module contributors (you guys) from 2013 that I found today. Personally, this was some of the best reading I had on a WP talk page in a long time. Some of the material there delves into some back-end concerns without getting technical, and is worthy to publish on this main page itself in my opinion. There's discussion for the reason for protection (vandalism / transclusion / risk / trust / competence concerns), mention of MediaWiki's job queue, and notes about the implications of changes made to templates with high transclusions. I think it's quite good reading for any new or potential template editor.
FYI, from that discussion, what I got out of it was a potential revision of granting criteria #5 and #6 to:
Anyway, if I have the time, I might volunteer to incorporate some of the discussion into the main page. Let me know if anyone else had other thoughts. — Andy W. ( talk · contrib) 04:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It also allows those editors to edit edit notices, all of which are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.
All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages, but editnotices for other namespaces can be created and edited only by administrators and template editors.
Could folks weigh in on how you think this should read? Thanks! :) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹| T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: The recent edits have restored the suggestion that TE editors can edit editnotices only for non-userspace pages. My wording (which I agree was not ideal) was trying to avoid that inaccuracy. I suspect that a simple generic statement with a footnote would be best, as mentioned by Evad37. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The page mentions:
Per RFC consensus, it's best to seek consensus before adding Wikidata functionality to a template or module. Wikidata is still relatively new, so this may change once it has been more integrated. For instance, it's easy to imagine that within a year or so it would be wholly non-controversial to add a fallback Wikidata option in case a certain parameter isn't specified... But more complex stuff will probably remain worth discussing.
The Wikidata Phase 2 RFC was 3 years ago; perhaps it's time to remove this now, given the consensus (which was a result of the newness) is clearly somewhat redundant. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. There is a discussion relevant to this policy/guideline at |ANI. Hobit ( talk) 18:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Are users able to construct Userboxes on their own? And how userboxes with gif affects other users?
Ras Benjih/ RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed using a red padlock rather than a pink padlock for template protection. If you have a comment, please visit Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for template protection. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, guys. After participating in an ANI case, it occurred to me that the rights and responsibilities of Template Editors in the event of a dispute is not clearly and properly voiced here. Admins Floquenbeam, GoldenRing, Dennis Brown seem to expect a level of accountability on par with that of two admins in dispute. Of course, the level of accountability expected of two admin is described in Wikipedia:Administrators:
Administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.
[~snip~]
When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.
This is clearly what Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown had expected of Template Editors. When I explicitly asked this, Dennis Brown replied: That's a valid comparison. With higher privilege bits comes the higher expectations of conduct and accountability.
Floquenbeam said it in his own words: Just be patient, spend the extra 5 minutes discussing, and resolve it like peers, instead of opponents.
This is not what this policy says at this time, and this not what one of the disputing Template Editors had done. The policy currently forbids wheel warring, so one of Template Editors thought that he can revert his colleague and hold his own favorite revision hostage until his demands are met; and if his colleague dared reinstating the change without the ransom, the colleague can be reported to ANI and his TE right removed. (I must say, in all probabilities, this Template Editor did this all in good faith, thinking he is doing the right thing and that his demands were probably in the interest of improving Wikipedia. The problem is, that's what everyone in dispute thinks.)
So, I propose the following addition to this policy:
Dispute with a fellow Template EditorA Template Editor should not revert the edit of his peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the Template Editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting Template Editor to demonstrate his revert is not out of sheer reflex. When a Template Editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another Template Editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.
Alright. I think that's it. Suggestions and out of the box insight are welcome. FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor who has the template editor permission and an editor who does not have this permission are having a dispute about a template. Can someone please look into this to provide advice or tell me the best venue to ask for additional input? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am asking this here for want of knowing a better place.
I came across a need for an inline tag to flag text requiring attribution where none of the tags I could find addressed what I was wanting - having made what I thought was an exhaustive search. See also Inline cleanup templates. My intended use is as a copy editor, to tag text requiring the attention of a content editor in a collaborative review process.
I have started creating such a template ( User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6) and its documentation ( User:Cinderella157/sandbox 5). The new template {{Template:Attribute}} is based on {{Template:Clarify}} in respect to its functionality and parameters.
I have now found that Template:Attribution needed does exist. It is similar in intent but it lacks the functionality that is associated with {{Template:Clarify}}. There is good guidance for usage at Template:Attribution needed but my documentation is based on examples and how these might be resolved. It would also indicate its relation to other tags - when use of this tag is preferred and when it is not. My documentation also addresses the enhanced functionality and parameters that arises from basing the template on {{Template:Clarify}}. This part of the documentation is essentially the same as at {{Template:Clarify}}.
While my drafts are still incomplete, I can see value in merging my drafts with the existing template and documentation. The template would have enhanced functionality and the documentation would benefit from the addition of example based guidance for applying and resolving the tag.
My questions are:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposed template revision is available at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6/doc. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done thankyou. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Would a kind template editor please come to help us out over at Template talk:Taxonbar#LepIndex link? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that I am WP:BOLDly modifying "A template editor should not revert the edit of his peer ..." to read "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer ...", pursuant to MOS:GNL. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, this is a notice that I have started a discussion about adding an addition rule to the guidelines for granting for Page Mover and Template Editor user rights. Please feel free to comment. Alex Shih ( talk) 17:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Template editors: there is a small backlog at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. Please could you give them some attention? Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
People who watch this page might be able to contribute to the list at m:Which templates should be global? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please look at this? Template_talk:Infobox_language/genetic#? Isingness ( talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Should it be formalized for this template editor procedural policy page that administrators, at their discretion, may assign the template editor user right on a temporary or trial basis (presumably within the existing "Guidelines for granting" section)? This is already a common practice for TE that may as well be included in the policy page. It is currently formalized in WP:Event coordinator. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 20:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Wikipedia:Event coordinator defines some criteria for choosing a temporary or permanent grant of the permission:
- Any administrator may permanently grant the user right on request to any editor with an established record of editing on the English Wikipedia who is engaged in outreach events.
- Any administrator may at their discretion temporarily grant the right to a user with minimal experience on the English Wikipedia who is hosting or staffing an outreach event.
What guidance do you propose for differentiating on granting TE? Cabayi ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Could a kind editor please amend Template:DNZB so that it can accommodate more than author? Schwede 66 19:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|authors=
which makes me think that was the intended behaviour.
Primefac (
talk)
20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Update to WP:Template editor and WP:Template limits ( permalink). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm struggling to parse the sentence The deprecation of other templates used within a given template, provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus.
in section
Changes that can almost always be made unilaterally. At the moment I interpret it as Replacement of deprecated templates used within a given template (using suitable replacement), provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus
. I.e. this item is about code cleanup in template X, which uses template Y after that template Y was deprecated by consensus. But I'm non even 60% sure it is a correct interpretation. Could someone clarify this please? —
andrybak (
talk)
23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:TPEGRANT point #1 currently states The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year.
In the last few months (both here and at other PERM/perm-like locations) I've seen editors that registered in the early 2010s but only started editing in 2018 or 2019. My question is - are we more concerned with someone's sign-up date or their "active-editing" period? This is mostly just to see what folks think, but if I were to make a "proposal" it would be to change "be a registered Wikipedia user" to "have been editing Wikipedia".
Primefac (
talk)
13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
On a somewhat-related note, is there a reason our guidelines are a subpage? We don't have that for any of the other sections, and I can't think of a reason why it would need to be sequestered (especially since the main page is only semi-protected and the subtemplate has no protection). Primefac ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
refactoring so we can transclude this in multiple pages. It is transcluded on three pages in total. — andrybak ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose this change, additions shown in bold (note: italics are original):
Remember that template-editorship, just like adminship, can never be allowed to become some sort of privileged position within debates among editors. Being a template editor puts you in a complicated position, because any edit you make that requires this privilege is at once both a normal edit and a privileged action.
Any objections? If there are no objections within a few days, I will add it. If I forget, any other editor is welcome to do so. If there are objections, then there should be discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering what is the opinion of changing the current template editor image, to make it more recognisable & adding a bit more color than just the brackets. I made a quick example at File:TemplateEditor.svg & it is shown on the right next to the current image. Thanks, Terasail [✉] 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
For most, the additional graphical element is in the bottom right, takes up 50-70% width-wise. — andrybak ( talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Template editor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the sentence where someone is removed for blatant vandalism add “not limited to template vandalism” like for page mover it says “not limited to page move vandalism” so it says “If the editor preformed any blatant vandalism(not limited to template vandalism). Thank you much! 104.246.113.199 ( talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
If you use this right for anything even vaguely resembling vandalism ....
The same goes for vandalism that doesn't involve this right. This is, fundamentally, an administrator-level right ....
[old text]to
[new text]in section
[section name]." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
if the editor preformed any blatant vandalismto
if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism, not limited to just template vandalism, like with WP: PAGEMOVER. 104.246.113.199 ( talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This article describes how to become a template editor but has nothing to say on how the 'ordinary Joe' can request a template to be written. For example, I would like to turn my ugly hatnote :
For the notation
⟨ ⟩
,/ /
and[ ]
used in this article, see grapheme, phoneme and International Phonetic Alphabet respectively.
into a template in the style of {{ Contains special characters}}. How would I go about requesting that? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hatnote|...}}
or somesuch). If you want it to have it show up like the box in {{
contains special characters}}, then I would suggest starting there - see if the text can be added into the existing structure (go to the template talk and post there). Hope this helps somewhat, feel free to clarify if I've missed the mark on anything.
Primefac (
talk)
17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) (please do not
ping on reply)
Coming here from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS.
Wikipedia:Template editor#Wise template editing mentions "If the failure is particularly egregious, any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense.".
I added the same statement to WP:Template editor#Criteria for revocation to ensure clarity.
ProcrastinatingReader, you have reverted this change. My edit ensures that the statements in the guidelines are properly stated. Please advise what is the issue? Would you prefer that the true and full guideline remains inconsistent in two different sections? Thanks, Lourdes 01:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, I have previously noted that several sections on this page have some duplication. I can't see that I've said that in the local archives but I recall making some other points on the matter too. -- Izno ( talk) 01:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make a campaign box template, can I make it in my sandbox, do I need to make a page for it? Do I need to ask a template editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruhOfficial ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
There are several reasonable requests for edits at Template talk:Infobox law school, a template that is protected but apparently is not watched by many people. Other than using the standard edit protected request template, is there an appropriate way or place to draw the attention of editors who have permission to edit the template? ElKevbo ( talk) 05:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It is widely considered acceptable for an administrator to reverse their own actions if they feel they were in error. I propose the following addition to "Criteria for revocation":
I feel this is descriptive of our existing practices and not proscriptive, I feel the page should reflect this as the criteria can be viewed by some as an exhaustive list of the only reasons that are acceptable. I am of course happy to have the specific wording adjusted by someone more talented at language than myself. Criticisms and suggestions are of course welcome. Chillum 20:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we would want to add something about how reversing your own action does not impeded another administrator from choosing to extend the right themselves? Chillum 20:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a template ({{ Infobox sports competition event}}) that, through a country parameter, is causing a link to the Georgia disambiguation page (see 2015 World Judo Championships – Men's +100 kg). I've looked through the template (and subtemplates) and can't seem to figure out how to get the link to go through Georgia (country). Is there a better place to ask how to fix this than here (if so, I'll ask there)? - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
|games=
parameter is empty, the result is a link to the country article, which is a dab page for Georgia. In the
sandbox I made a change to use {{
flagcountry}} instead if the |games=
parameter isn't set.Copied from here -- NeilN talk to me 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Indefinite full protection: Please revert the "protection downgrade" from permanent protection to template protection. This page is cascade-protected; a cascade-protected page with template protection creates a misleading "edit" option on the page when no one (except admins) can actually edit it. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ping @ Steel1943, Fuhghettaboutit, and MusikAnimal: -- NeilN talk to me 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to mention this long discussion among very established template/module contributors (you guys) from 2013 that I found today. Personally, this was some of the best reading I had on a WP talk page in a long time. Some of the material there delves into some back-end concerns without getting technical, and is worthy to publish on this main page itself in my opinion. There's discussion for the reason for protection (vandalism / transclusion / risk / trust / competence concerns), mention of MediaWiki's job queue, and notes about the implications of changes made to templates with high transclusions. I think it's quite good reading for any new or potential template editor.
FYI, from that discussion, what I got out of it was a potential revision of granting criteria #5 and #6 to:
Anyway, if I have the time, I might volunteer to incorporate some of the discussion into the main page. Let me know if anyone else had other thoughts. — Andy W. ( talk · contrib) 04:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It also allows those editors to edit edit notices, all of which are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.
All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages, but editnotices for other namespaces can be created and edited only by administrators and template editors.
Could folks weigh in on how you think this should read? Thanks! :) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹| T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: The recent edits have restored the suggestion that TE editors can edit editnotices only for non-userspace pages. My wording (which I agree was not ideal) was trying to avoid that inaccuracy. I suspect that a simple generic statement with a footnote would be best, as mentioned by Evad37. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The page mentions:
Per RFC consensus, it's best to seek consensus before adding Wikidata functionality to a template or module. Wikidata is still relatively new, so this may change once it has been more integrated. For instance, it's easy to imagine that within a year or so it would be wholly non-controversial to add a fallback Wikidata option in case a certain parameter isn't specified... But more complex stuff will probably remain worth discussing.
The Wikidata Phase 2 RFC was 3 years ago; perhaps it's time to remove this now, given the consensus (which was a result of the newness) is clearly somewhat redundant. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. There is a discussion relevant to this policy/guideline at |ANI. Hobit ( talk) 18:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Are users able to construct Userboxes on their own? And how userboxes with gif affects other users?
Ras Benjih/ RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed using a red padlock rather than a pink padlock for template protection. If you have a comment, please visit Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for template protection. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, guys. After participating in an ANI case, it occurred to me that the rights and responsibilities of Template Editors in the event of a dispute is not clearly and properly voiced here. Admins Floquenbeam, GoldenRing, Dennis Brown seem to expect a level of accountability on par with that of two admins in dispute. Of course, the level of accountability expected of two admin is described in Wikipedia:Administrators:
Administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.
[~snip~]
When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.
This is clearly what Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown had expected of Template Editors. When I explicitly asked this, Dennis Brown replied: That's a valid comparison. With higher privilege bits comes the higher expectations of conduct and accountability.
Floquenbeam said it in his own words: Just be patient, spend the extra 5 minutes discussing, and resolve it like peers, instead of opponents.
This is not what this policy says at this time, and this not what one of the disputing Template Editors had done. The policy currently forbids wheel warring, so one of Template Editors thought that he can revert his colleague and hold his own favorite revision hostage until his demands are met; and if his colleague dared reinstating the change without the ransom, the colleague can be reported to ANI and his TE right removed. (I must say, in all probabilities, this Template Editor did this all in good faith, thinking he is doing the right thing and that his demands were probably in the interest of improving Wikipedia. The problem is, that's what everyone in dispute thinks.)
So, I propose the following addition to this policy:
Dispute with a fellow Template EditorA Template Editor should not revert the edit of his peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the Template Editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting Template Editor to demonstrate his revert is not out of sheer reflex. When a Template Editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another Template Editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.
Alright. I think that's it. Suggestions and out of the box insight are welcome. FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor who has the template editor permission and an editor who does not have this permission are having a dispute about a template. Can someone please look into this to provide advice or tell me the best venue to ask for additional input? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am asking this here for want of knowing a better place.
I came across a need for an inline tag to flag text requiring attribution where none of the tags I could find addressed what I was wanting - having made what I thought was an exhaustive search. See also Inline cleanup templates. My intended use is as a copy editor, to tag text requiring the attention of a content editor in a collaborative review process.
I have started creating such a template ( User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6) and its documentation ( User:Cinderella157/sandbox 5). The new template {{Template:Attribute}} is based on {{Template:Clarify}} in respect to its functionality and parameters.
I have now found that Template:Attribution needed does exist. It is similar in intent but it lacks the functionality that is associated with {{Template:Clarify}}. There is good guidance for usage at Template:Attribution needed but my documentation is based on examples and how these might be resolved. It would also indicate its relation to other tags - when use of this tag is preferred and when it is not. My documentation also addresses the enhanced functionality and parameters that arises from basing the template on {{Template:Clarify}}. This part of the documentation is essentially the same as at {{Template:Clarify}}.
While my drafts are still incomplete, I can see value in merging my drafts with the existing template and documentation. The template would have enhanced functionality and the documentation would benefit from the addition of example based guidance for applying and resolving the tag.
My questions are:
Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposed template revision is available at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6/doc. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done thankyou. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Would a kind template editor please come to help us out over at Template talk:Taxonbar#LepIndex link? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that I am WP:BOLDly modifying "A template editor should not revert the edit of his peer ..." to read "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer ...", pursuant to MOS:GNL. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, this is a notice that I have started a discussion about adding an addition rule to the guidelines for granting for Page Mover and Template Editor user rights. Please feel free to comment. Alex Shih ( talk) 17:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Template editors: there is a small backlog at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. Please could you give them some attention? Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
People who watch this page might be able to contribute to the list at m:Which templates should be global? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please look at this? Template_talk:Infobox_language/genetic#? Isingness ( talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Should it be formalized for this template editor procedural policy page that administrators, at their discretion, may assign the template editor user right on a temporary or trial basis (presumably within the existing "Guidelines for granting" section)? This is already a common practice for TE that may as well be included in the policy page. It is currently formalized in WP:Event coordinator. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 20:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Wikipedia:Event coordinator defines some criteria for choosing a temporary or permanent grant of the permission:
- Any administrator may permanently grant the user right on request to any editor with an established record of editing on the English Wikipedia who is engaged in outreach events.
- Any administrator may at their discretion temporarily grant the right to a user with minimal experience on the English Wikipedia who is hosting or staffing an outreach event.
What guidance do you propose for differentiating on granting TE? Cabayi ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Could a kind editor please amend Template:DNZB so that it can accommodate more than author? Schwede 66 19:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|authors=
which makes me think that was the intended behaviour.
Primefac (
talk)
20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Update to WP:Template editor and WP:Template limits ( permalink). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm struggling to parse the sentence The deprecation of other templates used within a given template, provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus.
in section
Changes that can almost always be made unilaterally. At the moment I interpret it as Replacement of deprecated templates used within a given template (using suitable replacement), provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus
. I.e. this item is about code cleanup in template X, which uses template Y after that template Y was deprecated by consensus. But I'm non even 60% sure it is a correct interpretation. Could someone clarify this please? —
andrybak (
talk)
23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:TPEGRANT point #1 currently states The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year.
In the last few months (both here and at other PERM/perm-like locations) I've seen editors that registered in the early 2010s but only started editing in 2018 or 2019. My question is - are we more concerned with someone's sign-up date or their "active-editing" period? This is mostly just to see what folks think, but if I were to make a "proposal" it would be to change "be a registered Wikipedia user" to "have been editing Wikipedia".
Primefac (
talk)
13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
On a somewhat-related note, is there a reason our guidelines are a subpage? We don't have that for any of the other sections, and I can't think of a reason why it would need to be sequestered (especially since the main page is only semi-protected and the subtemplate has no protection). Primefac ( talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
refactoring so we can transclude this in multiple pages. It is transcluded on three pages in total. — andrybak ( talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose this change, additions shown in bold (note: italics are original):
Remember that template-editorship, just like adminship, can never be allowed to become some sort of privileged position within debates among editors. Being a template editor puts you in a complicated position, because any edit you make that requires this privilege is at once both a normal edit and a privileged action.
Any objections? If there are no objections within a few days, I will add it. If I forget, any other editor is welcome to do so. If there are objections, then there should be discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering what is the opinion of changing the current template editor image, to make it more recognisable & adding a bit more color than just the brackets. I made a quick example at File:TemplateEditor.svg & it is shown on the right next to the current image. Thanks, Terasail [✉] 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
For most, the additional graphical element is in the bottom right, takes up 50-70% width-wise. — andrybak ( talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Template editor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the sentence where someone is removed for blatant vandalism add “not limited to template vandalism” like for page mover it says “not limited to page move vandalism” so it says “If the editor preformed any blatant vandalism(not limited to template vandalism). Thank you much! 104.246.113.199 ( talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
If you use this right for anything even vaguely resembling vandalism ....
The same goes for vandalism that doesn't involve this right. This is, fundamentally, an administrator-level right ....
[old text]to
[new text]in section
[section name]." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
if the editor preformed any blatant vandalismto
if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism, not limited to just template vandalism, like with WP: PAGEMOVER. 104.246.113.199 ( talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This article describes how to become a template editor but has nothing to say on how the 'ordinary Joe' can request a template to be written. For example, I would like to turn my ugly hatnote :
For the notation
⟨ ⟩
,/ /
and[ ]
used in this article, see grapheme, phoneme and International Phonetic Alphabet respectively.
into a template in the style of {{ Contains special characters}}. How would I go about requesting that? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hatnote|...}}
or somesuch). If you want it to have it show up like the box in {{
contains special characters}}, then I would suggest starting there - see if the text can be added into the existing structure (go to the template talk and post there). Hope this helps somewhat, feel free to clarify if I've missed the mark on anything.
Primefac (
talk)
17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) (please do not
ping on reply)
Coming here from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS.
Wikipedia:Template editor#Wise template editing mentions "If the failure is particularly egregious, any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense.".
I added the same statement to WP:Template editor#Criteria for revocation to ensure clarity.
ProcrastinatingReader, you have reverted this change. My edit ensures that the statements in the guidelines are properly stated. Please advise what is the issue? Would you prefer that the true and full guideline remains inconsistent in two different sections? Thanks, Lourdes 01:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, I have previously noted that several sections on this page have some duplication. I can't see that I've said that in the local archives but I recall making some other points on the matter too. -- Izno ( talk) 01:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to make a campaign box template, can I make it in my sandbox, do I need to make a page for it? Do I need to ask a template editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruhOfficial ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
There are several reasonable requests for edits at Template talk:Infobox law school, a template that is protected but apparently is not watched by many people. Other than using the standard edit protected request template, is there an appropriate way or place to draw the attention of editors who have permission to edit the template? ElKevbo ( talk) 05:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)