Wikipedia talk:Template editor

Criteria for revocation - Reversing ones own actions

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":

• Administrators are responsible for their actions, as such if they feel granting this right was in error they may reverse their own decision.

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)

Perhaps there should also be some sort of time restriction – this probably shouldn't be a valid reason several months or years after the right was granted. - Evad37 [talk] 01:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gif Userboxes

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)

Where do all the template editors hang out?

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)

The infobox internally uses the Olympic Games flag template {{flagIOC2}}, which returns a flag icon with link to "... at the ... Olympics". The "(country)" disambiguator is not necessary for these suffixed links, though if the |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.

Since this project page concerns the template editor user right, it is the wrong page for questions like this. The concerned template's talk page is the most logical place to ask; if you anticipate a lack of response there, a centralized page you could post at regarding template problems would be WP:VPT. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I'll ask at WP:VPT, as the links to the Georgia disambiguation page still exist. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The code does work (see a comparison). I've changed it in the sandbox only, so the live template still needs to be changed. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't checked the history to see that the live template wasn't edited yet. Thanks! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Template editor and cascade protection

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)

• Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Can you explain why this template requires "full protection," when "template protection" -- edits limited to administrators and template editors -- has obviously been adequate protection since 2013? I believe situations such as this widely used template are exactly why template protection exists. Qualified template editors may still make revisions, and editors may make edit requests on the template talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I recommend you reread my original statement, specifically the part pertaining to cascading-protection. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Template editors cannot edit a cascade-protected page, even if the page has template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I now understand your request: you want to remove the cascade protection, leaving only template protection, correct? BTW, weirdly, I edited your request for Template:Birth date and age, not this one, but my edit posted here. I have encountered this problem from time to time in the past, when the displayed "edit" button for one section opens an edit dialog window for a different section on the same page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Actually, the exact opposite. I'm requesting that "full protection" be "technically" put back on the template since having a "template protection/cascading-protection" combination causes a glitch with Wikipedia's interface, giving template editors a "edit" option on the page when they actually cannot edit the page. I have no opinion on wherever or not the cascading protection should be removed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I think this is unnecessary. What if the templates are removed from the list of cascading protected items? Then we'll get another RFPP to downgrade to template protection. We're not changing anything by fully protecting it. A misleading edit button is trivial. NeilN, any thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

When I saw the mass nominations I stopped and asked Fuhghettaboutit what they intended. [1] Waiting for an answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @NeilN: I noticed that common denominator too. I hope we get a response on this since I'm having trouble understanding this myself. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @MusikAnimal: I have to respectfully disagree with this for a couple of reasons. For one, this method, and this point, seems a lot more effective than requesting an interface update, given my experiences with that (cannot find a diff for the life of me right now though.) And two, if cascading protection is also meant to move protect a page, that is bypassed when a page has template protection/cascading-protection; I have the template editor right, and for some odd and probably unintentional reason, I don't have the ability to edit these pages, but I can move them. If cascade-protection is supposed to do what it is intended to do, placing template protection on it as well causes several software hiccups. Either we fix the problem (the interface) or we put a bandage over it until the problem is fixed (fixing the protection settings issue, though it's more like weakly stitching the wound per the "page move" issue I states above). Not doing anything, such as declining these requests, is like saying we refuse to do anything to fix a problem. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more of a flaw (or a bug) in the MediaWiki software (feel free to file a phab report). There must be tons of other templates under cascading protection that still have edit buttons. Should we protect all of those too? What if cascading protection is removed, say when the templates are no longer on the main page. Now the high-risk is gone so I have to unprotect all those templates. I'd rather the reason for protection live on the parent template or page, where the cascading protection was actually applied. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/cx2) When the template editor right was first established, I started changing a bunch of templates from full protection to allow template editors and admins to edit but received pushback here. I'm not sure, but it seems we may have never have had the discussion about lowering the protection level of many templates to allow the template editor right to function. Anyway, I was unaware these templates were using the old cascading protection method. Certainly it does not make sense to have a template say it can be edited when it can't. But the question seems to have become which direction to go: remove them from cascading protection so their current protection level actual matches, or restore full-protection so they aren't falsely advertising the ability to edit by template editors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no strong feelings, just wanted to share my 2c. My main point is there must be a lot of templates that falsely advertise that they can be edited. It's not just these that have cascading protection. And from a programming perspective, which I know doesn't really apply, I like to think of the single cascading protection on the parent page as the "refactoring" point, whereby the protection functionality exists and can be managed in one place. To be fair, a lot of these templates are probably also used in the MediaWiki namespace and should be fully protected anyway, but for those that are not, protecting them individually doesn't make much sense to me. You still can edit it, who cares if there's an edit button? If you went to make an edit but can't, make an edit request and we'll do it for you — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment unrelated to the discussion above (sort of): I've tried a few times to reorganize this section so that the discussion about these templates, as well as the other templates related to this discussion, are "pulled away" from the other unrelated requests so that other admins can answer unrelated requests without having to scroll through this, but I've now received 4 edit conflicts, so I have to give up. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Yes let's do this. I will try too — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Alright! Done, minus the requests to lower protection. Does Twinkle not let you mass-request protection and format it like this? Or is that yet another thing I have put on the to-dos? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  @MusikAnimal: Twinkle does not. In fact, I don't think it is capable of mass-nominating any group of pages since it performs the functions only on the page that is being viewed (and the respective noticeboards/user talk pages as a result). That, and it's a bit helpful to use when editing with the desktop version of Wikipedia on a mobile device. (I was "cherry-picking" through Category:Wikipedia fully-protected templates from the top alphabetically to see which ones needed protection fixes of sorts.) :) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be the right forum for discussion of the meta issue, so unless others chime toward a consensus in that we should be removing them from cascading, and since it was an undiscussed change at the time done, in a few hours I'll change them all back to full protection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: No opposition here. Just don't forget about Twinkle's batch protection feature! (Use it on this page and select the appropriate page). Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal, Fuhghettaboutit, and NeilN: Either way, before this entry is archived, is there any agreement that we may need to move this discussion elsewhere to determine a complete resolution to this ... Especially considering that this list is just "(symbols)-C" on the list? Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, hmm, I suppose If there were to be discussion it would be at Wikipedia talk:Template editor (maybe advertising at the pump), but it seems to me this discussion is just a prompt for a different discussion (if at all). Who cares about these few templates. The issue is whether there should be some mass lowering of protection to allow the template editor right to be more functional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Agreed. If anything, this list is proof that change needs to happen on the template editor front. Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, move the discussion. Basically, I'm in favor of anything that make editors' lives easier but doesn't give admins RSI protecting/unprotecting :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping @Steel1943, Fuhghettaboutit, and MusikAnimal: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating page to incorporate material from excellent talk discussion?

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:

• Demonstrate proficiency among HTML, CSS, wikitext, template syntax, PHP, parser functions, and Lua.
• Demonstrate usage of sandbox testing.
• Among edits, does not make fussy minor edits to unprotected templates that have high transclusion (a lack of understanding why is not a minus, but meeting this is a plus, as it potentially demonstrates some understanding or logical reasoning about some of the backend processes)

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)

A clarification, I wouldn't change text in the granting criteria in the slightest (without further discussion). — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new subsubsection at Wikipedia:Template editor#Other considerations on good faith. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction between WP:TPE and WP:EDN

• Original wording: [2]
• My inaccurate change: [3]
• Johnuniq's change (they seem dissatisfied with it — "aiming for more precision in lead, but wording is a bit klunky"): [4]

Premise

WP:TPE reads:

It also allows those editors to edit edit notices, all of which are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.

My understanding of this is as follows:

1. Template editors can edit all edit notices.
2. All edit notices are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.

The first sentence there is not relevant to my comment. The second sentence I parse as meaning:

1. No edit notices are editable by any user who is not either 1) a template editor or 2) an administrator.

That I then understand to mean:

1. All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators.

Premise

WP:EDN reads:

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.

My interpretation of this is:

1. All users can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk space.
2. Only administrators and template editors can change other edit notices.

I conclude from the first point:

1. Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk namespace.

Which leads me to consider that:

1. Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change some edit notices.

I then would restate that as:

1. Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors.

Conclusion

Given the two resulting statements:

1. All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators.
2. Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors.

I would conclude that those two sentences of WP:TPE (first point) and WP:EDN (second point) contain a logical contradiction.

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)

The WP:TPE text is mostly correct, it just needs to note the exception that users can edit notices for their own user/talk pages – perhaps a footnote or parenthetical comment could be added, and the words "all of" removed. - Evad37 [talk] 12:32, 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)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for the ping. I personally respectfully disagree, because the statement says that editnotices for non-userspace pages are now "allowed". I don't think it suggests that TEs can't edit userspace editnotices, and nowhere is the word only present. Please feel free to revert my wording though. update: I added the suggested footnote... does sound like a good clarification. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 03:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A small follow-up (a bit on the side): Note the possibility of this and this with a non-admin non-TE account. It might make sense to impose restrictions on "/Editnotice" (and "/Emailnotice"?) subpages, similar to how we're doing it with user css and js pages, but I suppose that's a discussion for WP:VPT. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As editnotics are mostly custom templates, I'd be more comfortable with TE and Admin edit and move only. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: It sounds like you found a bug. Please consider reporting it. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata RFC

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)