Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Template:Usertalkcriticism
Latest comment: 9 years ago by PhantomTech in topic Edit notice creation request
Edit notice creation request edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Notice
When editing this template be aware that its intended use is for users to communicate a preference to other users. Changes made to the template should not change the meaning of any combination of parameters. For example, no change should be made that would result in a template with no set parameters expressing anything other than the user not being bothered by criticism. Parameters and parameter options may be added but all added parameters should be optional, with no affect if excluded when compared to before their addition. When parameter options are added old options should be kept and the result of their usage should remain the same. |
The edit notice is to prevent changes to the template that would change the meaning of what is displayed by people using it before the change. PhantomTech (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}}template. Please show a consensus that such a template is needed. Thank you. —{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)02:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)- @Technical 13: Isn't consensus only needed for controversial changes? Since the template this is for was just moved into the template namespace what makes this change controversial, or do all edit notice changes need consensus? If it does need consensus is a proposal being uncontested for a long enough time considered consensus? As a new template I doubt many users will notice the proposal without something like an RfC which, for something this small, seems like it would be unnecessary. PhantomTech (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- A link to any discussion would be good. It kind of works like protecting a page to me, if there has been no cause for adding such a message (it's new, was just moved like you said), then there is no cause for a preemptive notice. :) —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)14:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, didn't know that, thanks. PhantomTech (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- A link to any discussion would be good. It kind of works like protecting a page to me, if there has been no cause for adding such a message (it's new, was just moved like you said), then there is no cause for a preemptive notice. :) —
- @Technical 13: Isn't consensus only needed for controversial changes? Since the template this is for was just moved into the template namespace what makes this change controversial, or do all edit notice changes need consensus? If it does need consensus is a proposal being uncontested for a long enough time considered consensus? As a new template I doubt many users will notice the proposal without something like an RfC which, for something this small, seems like it would be unnecessary. PhantomTech (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
