Template talk:Editnotice
Template:Editnotice is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
|
|
== )
==..
Any objections to sync Template:Editnotice/notice/sandbox to live?
@MSGJ: The issue is that the expiry notice for an editnotice as {{Editnotices/Namespace/Module}} is incorrectly pointing to the mainspace page Module rather than a link to, say, the Module namespace. Currently, at {{Editnotice/notice/sandbox}}, I put in special cases for editnotices with a prefix "Template:Editnotices/Group" and "Template:Editnotices/Namespace". (I don't know if there are other special cases.) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing this. I don't have time to check your code right now, but will try and find time later today — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confident to sync what I have, but I can wait. I did some preliminary testing by switching the prefix and seeing its output, and it looks okay to me. The thing that's left to resolve is whether there are other special cases. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me.There are no special cases that I'm aware of. (I must say I can't stand all the <!-- --> stuff you've added to the code. But this is just my personal preference.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- Tweaked the code a bit. I don't think your code would work for subpages (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy/preload). Please check my revised code. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: Further tweaks. If we don't have a default case, no need to print "(for )". I'm planning on syncing in about 12 hours. Thanks for the review! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Live. I left the prefix to check the full 2 base levels to avoid a weird case like "User:Example/Namespace/Module" or something. Thanks for looking this over — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking good on pages like Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and Template:Editnotices/Namespace/TimedText — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: Further tweaks. If we don't have a default case, no need to print "(for )". I'm planning on syncing in about 12 hours. Thanks for the review! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confident to sync what I have, but I can wait. I did some preliminary testing by switching the prefix and seeing its output, and it looks okay to me. The thing that's left to resolve is whether there are other special cases. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Auto-tag G8
@MSGJ, Redrose64, Callanecc, Nyttend, and Amalthea: who were involved at some point in editing the page in question
I have a suggested change for {{Editnotice/notice}} in its sandbox. (Special:Diff/726208381/727286188) What it does: for page and protection editnotices, if the target page does not exist AND is not specially create-protected in any way, we automatically tag it with WP:G8 for deletion. I've tested this in preview mode on Template:Editnotices/Page/Add article (protected) and Template:Editnotices/Page/Addd articlee (and the {{db-g8}} box pops up). It depends on the fact that {{editnotice}} is used in the first place, but should help. Do you think this is a good idea? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand parser functions one bit (except for stuff like {{{1}}} being used for fillable parameters), so I can't comment on whether your proposal should be implemented. However, I think the idea itself is great: why shouldn't these pages be auto-tagged, if it's possible? Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Was thinking about this a bit more. The only slight problem might be that the G8s cannot be declined, unless the target page is re-created. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- [Assuming that the template does as designed] Why would this be a problem? I can't understand why you'd want to decline it, unless (1) the page shouldn't have been deleted, in which case undeletion or recreation is correct, or (2) the editnotice somehow needs to be moved to a new title. Do we ever intentionally have editnotices for nonexistent pages, e.g. "Template:Editnotice/Willy on wheels" existing with a message of "Don't create this page. We mean it!" I can't see why we'd do that, since there's no real point to saying "Don't create this title", unless the page has been recreated so many times that we should protect it. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Salt detection prevents db-g8 from showing up at Template:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here, for example. And actually, the "decline" problem is not too bad (sometimes I have lapses). The 4 ways to decline: 1. recreate the target; 2. blank the notice; 3. use an fmbox instead; 4. salt the target. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think we're in agreement here; I can't imagine why we'd need an editnotice for an unsalted target, and the protection log excerpt at top will serve the purpose of an editnotice for a salted one. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Salt detection prevents db-g8 from showing up at Template:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here, for example. And actually, the "decline" problem is not too bad (sometimes I have lapses). The 4 ways to decline: 1. recreate the target; 2. blank the notice; 3. use an fmbox instead; 4. salt the target. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- [Assuming that the template does as designed] Why would this be a problem? I can't understand why you'd want to decline it, unless (1) the page shouldn't have been deleted, in which case undeletion or recreation is correct, or (2) the editnotice somehow needs to be moved to a new title. Do we ever intentionally have editnotices for nonexistent pages, e.g. "Template:Editnotice/Willy on wheels" existing with a message of "Don't create this page. We mean it!" I can't see why we'd do that, since there's no real point to saying "Don't create this title", unless the page has been recreated so many times that we should protect it. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Was thinking about this a bit more. The only slight problem might be that the G8s cannot be declined, unless the target page is re-created. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Elaborated on rationale. (effective diff) I plan to act on this in a few days unless I hear otherwise. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- In the "how to decline this tag" bit, you offer "Blank this notice page itself" as an option. Is there a way to force it to produce a link to the editnotice page itself? If I were unfamiliar with editnotices, I wouldn't have a clue how to do this. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- The db-g8 nom is not by default visible on the target page above the edit box. On the editnotice itself, a link wouldn't really be necessary anyway. The link becomes bolded instead, and, override with red text, so there is no link. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- But how am I supposed to blank the editnotice if I'm not familiar with how it works? Maybe we're talking past each other (I don't understand why we can't have a link), but it would help to have the Jerusalem editnotice display a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Jerusalem&action=edit (it would work; it wouldn't be bolded) if Jerusalem is a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Ahh, misunderstood. Applied your suggestion. I'm unaware if it's possible to replace an existing page's contents in the edit box with something else. preload and preloadparams work only for nonexistent pages. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great; thanks! I figured I was misunderstanding a bunch of stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I just discovered 2 pages with potential issues (so far). Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Filipino architects and Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Canadian architects appear to be created in advance, expecting a page at the location, due to the existence of a bunch of other "List of * architects". I can see reason to keep them, but it's weak reasoning. What I could do is make a special case for "List of"-prefixed pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great; thanks! I figured I was misunderstanding a bunch of stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Ahh, misunderstood. Applied your suggestion. I'm unaware if it's possible to replace an existing page's contents in the edit box with something else. preload and preloadparams work only for nonexistent pages. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- But how am I supposed to blank the editnotice if I'm not familiar with how it works? Maybe we're talking past each other (I don't understand why we can't have a link), but it would help to have the Jerusalem editnotice display a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Jerusalem&action=edit (it would work; it wouldn't be bolded) if Jerusalem is a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- The db-g8 nom is not by default visible on the target page above the edit box. On the editnotice itself, a link wouldn't really be necessary anyway. The link becomes bolded instead, and, override with red text, so there is no link. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1
@Nyttend: So the only remaining issue after a scrub through the pseudospace is potentially Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved/sandbox, whose target, "Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved/sandbox" doesn't exist. The title does makes sense though in the scheme of templates. I'm now thinking that a tracking category for editnotices with (unsalted) redlink targets is more appropriate, which I plan to write in a day or two. (A few dozen other issues were CSD resolved, and 3-4 other issues are at MfD, surely to be deleted.) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- As the sandbox of an active page, I think this one's useful; it's not a random page that merely hasn't been created yet. I've tagged that one as {{G8-exempt}} (weird, it's really hard not to type "G8-exempty"), but if course if you don't think it useful, I won't object if you un-tag it. Please don't seek to have it deleted until the MFD closes; I don't want someone to object that we started G8-deleting these things without waiting for the MFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I updated the notice subpage to populate the new tracking category Category:Editnotices with unsalted non-existent targets instead of tagging G8, given that there are circumstances where target pages are redlinked and unsalted, like the sandbox example above. Any entries that show up there could then be double-checked for meeting G8. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
==
Start-of-line wiki markup ignored at start of text arg
If you call {{Editnotice}}
with:
{{Editnotice|text= # Point 1 # Point 2 # Point 3 }}
it renders:
# Point 1
|
It ignores the first '#'
, even though it starts the line. The issue only occurs when the start of the |text=
value is one of the characters that are special at the start of a line in WML, including '*'
and ' '
(space).
A workaround is to put something else in front of it, even if it is invisible, like:
{{Editnotice|text=<nowiki /> # Point 1 # Point 2 # Point 3 }}
which renders (correctly):
|
Another workaround is to specify a |header=
parm.
Should this be documented or fixed? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: I see a similar issue is documented at Template:Quote/doc § Technical issues with block templates. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding category parameter
I see MSGJ asked about this many years ago; it's come up again here. Could we find a way to implement this? There's certainly demand for it — I see Wugapodes tried to implement it at Template:COVID19 GS editnotice (or was that just copied from the Iran notice?), but it looks like that implementation isn't working properly. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The code for getting from the editnotice page to the article itself is
{{#titleparts: {{FULLPAGENAME}} |0|3}}
, but I'm not sure how to categorize another page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)- I added code in the sandbox to add
|category=
and|sortkey=
. — Wug·a·po·des 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)- @Wugapodes: It looks like that code categorizes the editnotice template page, rather than rather than the article page the editnotice is for. Is that an issue? - {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that was the intended behavior. I don't think we can categorize articles from the editnotice page. — Wug·a·po·des 02:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- A page can categorise itself, or a page that it is transcluded to, or both. Since an editnotice is not transcluded to its associated article, it follows that it cannot categorise that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, in that case we're good to implement. Thanks for the coding, Wugapodes! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- A page can categorise itself, or a page that it is transcluded to, or both. Since an editnotice is not transcluded to its associated article, it follows that it cannot categorise that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that was the intended behavior. I don't think we can categorize articles from the editnotice page. — Wug·a·po·des 02:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: It looks like that code categorizes the editnotice template page, rather than rather than the article page the editnotice is for. Is that an issue? - {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I added code in the sandbox to add
Protected edit request on 25 June 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement this change from the sandbox per the discussion above. This adds a parameter allowing an editnotice to add pages to a category. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Um, what's the point of this? Why not include the category separate from the transclusion of {{editnotice}}? * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pppery, the request that led to this discussion was here. The functionality is a fair bit less useful when it can't go on the page itself, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: So... why would we implement functionality in the template that doesn't support any obvious use case not already solved by other mechanisms? Izno (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Expiry parameter
I just tweaked the documentation. My change is based on the existence of this: {{Editnotice/notice}}
CapnZapp (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Icon link
In 99% of cases, the image used with an editnotice is just an icon, not anything someone would want to find out more about, so I think we should have |link=
included blank by default to make it so that clicking on it won't bring you to the Commons file for the icon. This is similar to what we do for many other banners. Any objections? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Which ones, specifically? If the image is licensed, for example, CC BY or CC BY-SA, there must be a link to its file description page in order to satisfy the attribution clause of the license. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, that could be a wrinkle. In nearly all cases, though, it's something like File:Ambox important.svg or File:Information icon4.svg, which are fully public domain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it's truly a public domain image, then you may set
|link=
blank for that specific image. But we cannot assume that all images used in editnotices are PD, therefore, we must not make a blank|link=
be the default. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)- Well, if certain file names are common (and they're PD), we can code that logic into the template to automatically do so for those. And I'm guessing using Lua it may be possible to do an automatic check for if it'd PD in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's probably more effort than it's worth, but if you wanna go for it, feel free. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if certain file names are common (and they're PD), we can code that logic into the template to automatically do so for those. And I'm guessing using Lua it may be possible to do an automatic check for if it'd PD in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it's truly a public domain image, then you may set
- Hmm, that could be a wrinkle. In nearly all cases, though, it's something like File:Ambox important.svg or File:Information icon4.svg, which are fully public domain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Indexing?
I've noticed editnotices showing up on Google before. This isn't desirable, since they're a back-end part of Wikipedia, not something that needs to face the world. Should we add {{NOINDEX}} to this template, or do something else to make sure they don't get indexed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I'd like to propose this, but I don't know where exactly the noindex tag should go. Anyone have thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you want to use a template instead of
__NOINDEX__
? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- Redrose64, I don't; it was just easier to type, and works the same. I'm more wondering where it should go so that it works for all editnotices but doesn't have any collateral (e.g. if an editnotice is just referenced in a project gallery of templates). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you want to use a template instead of
Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2021
This edit request to Template:Editnotice/notice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy Template:Editnotice/notice/sandbox to Template:Editnotice/notice. This adds a link to the subpages of the target of a group editnotice, so people can quickly see all of the pages affected by such an editnotice. Thanks. Danski454 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Using plainlinks by default
This template calls {{fmbox}}, which calls Module:Message box' default behavior, which wraps all output in the class plainlinks
. I'm not sure that this is desirable behavior. For templates like {{Pronoun editnotice}} which support arbitrary external links, there's no reason to suppress the default MW behavior of flagging external links. For instance, someone looking at Template:Editnotices/Page/Elliot Page would expect that "source" is going to be a local link (or, if they notice the slight difference in color, a link to an affiliated site), when in fact it's to theguardian.com.
I see two ways we could handle this:
- Add a
|plainlinks={{{plainlinks|yes}}}
to {{fmbox}} and then add a|plainlinks=no
to this template's call of {{fmbox}} - Add a
|plainlinks={{{plainlinks|yes}}}
to {{fmbox}}, add a|plainlinks={{{plainlinks|yes}}}
to this template's call of {{fmbox}}, and then let transcluding templates disable that behavior case-by-case if they want.
I favor #1. I don't think we should be suppressing the internal links icon as default behavior. If people creating editnotices have a good reason to do so, they can suppress it explicitly with <span class="plainlinks">...</span>
. Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: I agree. I came here to make an edit request for this. Do you want to go ahead with the edit? SilverLocust 🃏 💬 23:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, 2 years is probably long enough for someone to object. Long enough, in fact, that I've become an admin since I wrote this and won't even need to FPER it. Yeah, I'll get to this tonight or tomorrow. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done (using option 1 from above). This can be overridden either inline or by giving the whole editnotice
|class=plainlinks
. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done (using option 1 from above). This can be overridden either inline or by giving the whole editnotice
- Seems reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, 2 years is probably long enough for someone to object. Long enough, in fact, that I've become an admin since I wrote this and won't even need to FPER it. Yeah, I'll get to this tonight or tomorrow. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Image linking and alt text parameters
The template does not currently appear to support these. Could they be coded? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
== Disable display
==
Namespace key off topic
I don't see how any parameter of {{Editnotice}} uses the IDs in Template:Editnotice/doc § Namespace key. The only things worth keeping are the two {{efn}}s, which need copyediting per WP:PROSELINE. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I (same person) did the copyediting myself, absent others explaining the relevance. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)