Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6 edit

Template:Number-one singles in India edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per G8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Number-one singles in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles listed in this navbox have been deleted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Edit template-protected edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit template-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Edit protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Edit template-protected with Template:Edit protected.

Both templates behave exactly the same when applied to a template talk namespace: Identical infoboxes, parameters, categories etc. —capmo (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the templates are essentially already merged, as their behaviour is all governed by Module:Protected edit request. They do, however, function slightly differently if they are pointed at a page that isn't protected - {{edit protected}} will say it's a protected edit request, but {{edit template-protected}} will say it's a template-protected edit request. So we can't actually redirect the templates to each other without changing this functionality. Also, you need to include {{edit semi-protected}}, which also works the same way and uses the same module. Also pinging Jackmcbarn, who has done a lot of work on the module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I first noticed this template yesterday, when editing Template talk:R from file metadata link. On that page it is used alongside with {{edit protected}}, and from the tests I made there with both I couldn't see the differences that you cite. They display the same messages and even categorize the page under the same category (Wikipedia template-protected edit requests). Regards, —capmo (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, now I get it: the slight difference that you cite only appears when they are used on a page that isn't protected. (But in that case, they wouldn't be necessary anyway.) —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also a 'data-origlevel' HTML attribute that would be affected by the merge, and a "force" parameter that overrides the automatic detection that would no longer function. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ping in to @Anomie:, whose very useful bot maintained table User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable could be impacted. — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pinging me. Based on the current output of the templates, AnomieBOT would not be affected with regard to normal correctly-placed templates, but would be affected by the lack of the differences noted above. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parenthetically, WP:EPH has stopped working with {{Edit template-protected}} since it's been tagged with {{Tfm}}. Much sad. Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed this too. Anyone know a fix? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had originally inserted the tag to the template/doc subpage, but it was moved to the template page. Maybe moving it back to /doc may fix this. —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since template-editor and administrator are separate editor categories, the categories implemented should be different, and template-editors should have their own notice list. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do, and I don't think that is gonna change, 65. Alakzi (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do, and that list is populated by the appropriate {{Edit template-protected}} template. Merging the template in will break that. When Jackmcbarn created the module, I was one of the ones that supported that in hopes of being able to merge them into one template. In order for that to be done, the module would be required to ALWAYS place the template in the correct category and show the correct version of the template on the talk page no matter what template was used. Apparently, this can not be done because I am always finding pages in the wrong category (heck, I even find unprotected stuff listed in the categories for full and semi protected requests, and that should NEVER be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is a way for this template be set up to verify what type of protection is on its corresponding non-talk page. But, then again, what if this template is placed on the talk page of a redirect in a different namespace? The fact that the message in the template displays the proper type of protection level (in practice) is helpful, especially if it is an edit request for a permanently, non-cascade protected page in the "Template:" namespace that a non-admin or admin notices needs its protection level lowered to template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I'm looking at this, the only alternative proposal I could see working is if {{Edit semi-protected}} is added to the nomination, then have all of their respective image, text, and category triggers set up by a parameter. So, for example, the current contents of {{Edit template-protected}} would show up if the parameter was set to "template-protected", or the current contents of {{Edit semi-protected}} would show up if the parameter was set to "semi-protected", etc. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need for more than one such template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the subtle differences in these wrapper templates make them distinguished enough from each other and the fact that merging would break that functionality. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for now, seems like there are still issues that prevent one from being redirected to the other. probably better to discuss this on the template talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The arguments given up till now against the merger have not been able to convince me that two templates (or three, if we include "semi-protected") are necessary, instead of only one. The examples given show that the templates considered for merger act the same in different situations, the only exception being when they are applied to a non-protected page; but why would someone ever consider using one of these templates on an unprotected page, if they can go and edit it directly? —capmo (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because sometimes people don't really understand what they're doing, see all the people who put requests for edits to articles on pages like Template talk:Citation needed or random policy pages' talk pages. It also happens sometimes when a page is protected but the protection expires before the request is answered. Anomie⚔ 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, thanks for the examples, I had forgotten that page protection can be temporary. That makes more sense now. —capmo (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_6&oldid=1138533832"