Template talk:Ed

Documentation

Example: {{ed|Train_topics|this box}} in Template:Train topics provides a link "Edit this box" in e.g. Train, in small letters.

See also

• Template:Ed(edit talk links history)
• Template:Edi(edit talk links history)
• Template:Ed (edit · talk · links · history) at Meta
• Template:Edi (edit · talk · links · history) at Meta

{{editprotected}} please use {{documentation}} 16@r (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions before 2006

Some of the following subsections are now obsolete, e.g. limitations in early versions of MediaWiki templates, or the rejected WP:AUM. -- Omniplex 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross-language portability

I tried to replace "Template" with {{ns:10}}, which by itself gives Template, but it did not work. Apparently localurl does not allow a variable in its first parameter, although it allows another parameter in it.

Therefore, in an other language, translate both Template and Edit (the 2nd only).--Patrick 23:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit link on Template:The Beatles

Hey guys- I think that the "edit" link on this template is non-standard, is unnecessary, and frankly looks kinda weird, but a previous author wants to keep it. How can this be resolved? Is this edit link at all standard? If so, it should be placed on all of the other links at Wikipedia:Template_messages. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I am in favor of an edit link on many or perhaps even all templates. The whole principle of a wiki is that you can edit the page; this should include the template part. It is more convenient this way, and otherwise newbies would not even know how to do it.

On a very small one like {{a}}, giving ā, it is perhaps not practicle: if unlabeled, like {{A with edit link}}, it would be confused with a link to a page that explains the character. Besides, it puts too much emphasis on it, and may underline it.--Patrick 12:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The template in question is now deprecated. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 20:24, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

However, I would put it at the bottom right, that seems more standard.--Patrick 23:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This template and printing pages

I consider this template quite handy to make it easier to allow modification of an included template. Yet the ugly part is when the article is printed, as then this link gets expanded to the full URL (which is correct for normal external links). Is there any stylesheet magic which can hide this template in printed articles? andy 08:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added

@media print { .editlink { display: none } }

to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, that seems to work. For other skins one can do the same (see m:help:user style for the file names).--Patrick 11:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that change...

I thought I was editing it on my own wiki, which I had up in a different tab. My bad.  :(

- Lendrick

Protection

In response to repeated vandalism (which was repaired repeatedly by User:Boothy443), I have protected this template from editing. If it should be unprotected for any reason, please contact me or another administrator to make it so. - Mark 05:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NetBot (Robot replacing Template:Ed (per WP:AUM))

... User:NetBot (User_talk:NetBot) (Robot replacing Template:Ed (per WP:AUM)) ....I don't see this makes sense, since {{{Ed}}} is not edited and so not extra serverload made. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am replacing instances where this template was placed inside other templates. The problem isn't just when Template:Ed is edited... it comes every time a downstream page is edited or parsed. Having a template within a template causes an avoidable extra set of database calls and produces inaccurate and over-abundant Whatlinkshere information. -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

of course you replace it within other templates, that's what WP:AUM is about. What has it to do with Whatlinkshere? But plz, can you confirm WP:AUM applies? I think you could vote this template for deletion in the way you work now. I think the most important us for this template is actually in other templates, because templates are hard to access. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree, this template is good to have, but it should be substed in use _→AzaToth 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read again WP:AUM it says the prob is caused by editing the template, but this template is protected and not edited. So AUM does not apply. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The same problem occurs on a smaller scale whenever a page using Ed is edited, or whenever another template in a page which also uses Ed is edited, or whenever a logged-in user who has not viewed the page before (or since it has last been edited) views the page. When the parser prepares the page, it reads the database once for the content, then once again for every template. So if a page uses four templates, then five database reads are required.

The simple answer is that whenever Ed is used, it should be subst:ed. --bainer (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not written in WP:AUM. Furthermoe what you say (if a page uses four templates) is not specific to template in a template. Your argument would call for general replacement of lots of templates . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other ed templates

Can someone please edit this and mention the related templates like Template:ed2, etc.? I found pages where people were using this incorrectly and needed to use ed2 instead. Thanks. wknight94 15:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussions

Add issures below as you see fit, sign with ~~~~

Meta features

First line on Meta:

<small class="editlink">[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} {{MediaWiki:Edit}} {{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]</small><noinclude>

First line here:

<small class="editlink noprint plainlinksneverexpand">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit {{{2|}}}]</small><noinclude>

How about adopting the Meta code, it offers an admittedly naive I18N using MediaWiki:Edit and a default for the hyperlink text, see Meta.

If that's okay the self-documentation (next lines) could be limited to

----
{{Lts}}, for details see the talk page or {{tim|ed}} on Meta.
[[Category:Internal link templates|ed]]
[[de:Vorlage:Ed]]
etc.
</noinclude>

With that we can edit see also here without {{editprotected}}. The output would be:

---

Template:Ed(edit talk links history), for details see the talk page or m:Template:ed (backlinks edit) on Meta.

{{editprotected}} -- Omniplex 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can the category Category:Internal link templates be added to the <noinclude></noinclude> bits of this template? Netscott 14:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the {{editprotected}} refers to this request. I've now added the category; are there any other changes that need to be made? AmiDaniel (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Add new template

Can you add {{Ed right2}} to the "See also" section? I created this template to remove the namespace parameter from {{Ed right}}. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sort key fix

Could an admin add the sort key Ed for Category:Internal link templates? — TKD::Talk 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I made this change, but also moved the documentation to a Template:Ed/doc sub-page to reduce the transclusion size of the page and allow future documentation/category updates like this to be made by any user - and without impacting the cache of pages using this template. --CBD 09:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why no template about protection

I was just wondering why there is not template on this template page saying that it is protected? There is one at Main. Snailwalker | talk 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

does not work for Special:MyTalk any more

Something changed, see this workaround edit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)