This presently redirects to {{R with old history}}, but that is not the intended use.
We have a number of redirect tagging templates but none for articles that were turned into redirects. This template would enable editors to tell, without looking at the page history, if a redirect earlier used to be an article, as well enable us to have a category of such pages. Pages like Sydney Ann Hay can be tagged with this template. This is somewhat going to be the opposite of {{R with possibilities}}.
A different name for the template needs to be suggested, because this is used as a redirect.SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Update: I just had a look and discovered that {{R with history}} had just 4 transclusions. I've replaced or removed all of them as appropriate. So, there is no need for a different name for this template. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I think that that is what {{R with old history}} is for. It says "from a historic version of Wikipedia", which as I see it includes former articles which became redirects. However, if I'm wrong and a new template needs to be created for this, I suggest {{R with attribution}}. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be universally the case, e.g. J. C. Penney (disambiguation) (done manually, possibly wrong). The category also includes redirects from old subpages. It might be helpful if {{R from subpage}} produced a more specific description, and "Redirects with old history" might not be the best name for this category. Ivanvector (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly stated in the template documentation that it is to be used only for a redirect from a title that is no longer used and is considered a historical part of Wikipedia. The use of the tag in the example you stated is wrong and I've removed it. On the other hand, I agree that Category:Redirects with old history is improperly named and suggest that you take it to CFD. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. Looking at the category "R with old history" points to, it is far too complicated. This is a simple title for a simple purpose. It's worth keeping track of articles that have been merged as a category because (a) often they are good candidates to unmerge (with some work) and (b) they have their own special issues like the "copied" template that people can look into if they care. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't {{R from merge}} work in most cases? I realize some editors have a peculiarly deficient comprehension of what the word "merge" means, but this template is intended to show there is an edit history under the redirect. older ≠ wiser20:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What specific misuse of the word "merge" have you observed? Does it concern the template{{R from merge}} or something else? (I am neutral as to the ideas presented here, as I haven't thought too much yet.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing specific about the template, more that I've seen edit summaries saying "Merging to X" when there was no merging of content at all, simply turning the article into a redirect. older ≠ wiser23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: - R from merge does look like a good template, but it hasn't been used that often, and because it is more specialized you couldn't necessarily program a bot to tag every such redirect. (After all, some redirects might be from articles that weren't genuinely merged but just scrapped) So a more general template would be useful; the R from merge could create a subcategory of that. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where {{R from merge}} is used {{R with history}} isn't needed. As others said, make it so, it's a good idea. It would be cool if a bot could detect "relevant history" by number of edits or peek size, but I fear that's not really possible. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Sometimes when a "merge" occurs, there is no unique content that is worthwhile to merge into the target (everything is stated already, or it's better at the target, as examples) but in those cases we still need to maintain the history of the former article for attribution. For example, Warfare was "merged" to War but no content was actually moved into the much better target article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And Warfare doesn't carry the R from merge tag, nor it should. It was redirected to another article; we cannot technically call it a "merger". Can we? SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not tagged because I did the merge and I didn't think to tag it. There was a discussion where it was agreed that the topics should be merged, but then there was no content worth merging, so the merge consisted of just redirecting. That's still a WP:MERGE, in the sense that I think of merges. Ivanvector (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I see now that that's now how WP:MERGE reads; it's not a merge if no content is re-used, but I think that's a silly technicality. I still think we could use the {{R from merge}} tag on Warfare because that's essentially what happened, and the categorization should be the same. Ivanvector (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If no content is re-used, there is no point in calling it a merge. The policy documentation is just fine. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Take the case of Bobby Fischer (biography). This redirect was deleted by an admin who felt that this was a silly redirect. He was, of course, unaware that it contained 671 revisions! It was only about three years later that the damage was undid by Graham87. This template would help prevent such incidents. I agree that it shouldn't be used in cases of mergers, where {{R from merge}} is more specific. SD0001 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Brief background summary: Template:Incoherent was created in 2006 to flag incomprehensible text in an article. Another template was created in 2008 to banner and auto-categorize articles with no unifying theme, under the unfortunate name Template:Incoherent-topic. In 2011, possibly due to the poorly chosen name, these two were merged into Template:Incoherent. The result is a single template, misnamed, with self-contradictory banner and usage notes which, in a perhaps well-intentioned desire to do double-duty, now solves neither problem. It is now ineffective, and generates confusion. In addition, it's not clear to me whether it really categorizes the page the way the documentation claims it does, as I see no Ambox |cat= param, but I'm no template expert. A sandbox test did not show any page categorization, so I suspect it doesn't do it.
I'm uncertain whether this should be considered "creation" of a new template, or an "unmerge request", if such a thing even exists. If both templates and Doc pages were restored to their state just before the merge. , I could probably handle it from there, if that would lighten your load any.
Would be good to have a template that displays the live YouTube channel subscriber count of a given channel. An example template is the Rotten Tomatoes score template, which gives the current Rotten tomatoes score for any given film. The way I thought the template could be done is like this:
{{YouTube subscriber count|Parameter 1|Paramter 2}}
Parameter 1: Channel ID
Parameter 2: What kind of information is displayed.
For Parameter 2 examples could include:
Full subscriber count (e.g. 35,212,334)
Subscribers rounded down to millions (e.g. 35 million)
Crawl date (e.g. May 2015)
Subscriber count in a sentence (e.g. The YouTube channel PewPiePie has 35 million subsribers as of May 2015.)
I think these parameters are necessary to build sentences including names, prepositions etc.. for example in the article for Kassem G the intro says: "As of May 2014 Gharaibeh has more than 2.6 million YouTube subscribers, [...], KassemGtwo maintains more than a half million subscribers."
With the help of the templates this could look something like this:
"As of {{YouTube subscriber count|KassemG|crawl_date}} Gharaibeh has more than {{YouTube subscriber count|KassemG|subscribers_in_millions}} YouTube subscribers, KassemGtwo maintains moren than {{YouTube subscriber count|KassemGtwo|full_subsriber_count}} subscribers."
A bot (for example for the Rotten tomatoes template it's Theo's Little Bot (Task 22)) could then update the subsriber count maybe once or twice a month, or more often if needed.
I'm happy about any answers, I'd do it myself, but I have absolutely no idea how.
Requesting Assistance Building a template related to Requested Moves
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Increasing_participation_in_RM_discussions concerning notification of Wikiprojects when Requested Moves are initiated. The proposed language in the guideline would require a simple template for requesters to place on appropriate project talk page(s). I proposed a template something like:
{{subst:RM initiated|article name|new name|discussion link}}. The template when placed on the project talk page would render something like this: A requested move discussion has been initiated for article to change the title to new name. Members of this WikiProject are invited to participate. Discussion Link.
Would appreciate any help in getting this into a prototype template before going forward with the guideline changes. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like it if you could create some templates that are like the Hunger Games templates but refer to anything that has to do with the Divergent trilogy. Like all of the faction names, the faction leaders, and the book titles.
Template problems: an editor's troubles with magic words
I had noticed that there is what appears to be "conditional table" coding in Template:Table of states in the German Empire which was stated by original creator 52 Pickup, who has been inactive since October 2008, to "try to make this table usable for listing states of the North German Confederation without making a new table" by making some rows disappear and the information in some rows to change slightly. This edit was first made on 2 May 2007. I have attempted to make the coding work so that it can be placed on this page under the listed section, replacing the long text list already there. However, I am unsure what I am meant to be doing and was hoping for some assistance in getting the "magic word coding" to work so that the edited template can be used in the section that I want. Thanks.
Thank you so much! But which part of WP:TG are you referring to as the part that I can see relating to this is: "Templates that misrepresent policy or substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion", I interpret this being if I were to create a second template, it could potentially be deleted as it possesses near-identical information to the original. The magic word coding was included to remove/change a few rows of information as it was easier than creating another table that is nearly identical. I think that it's easier to keep it as-is. Thanks again. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-inline "No Romanization" template
Please, could somebody create a template that would inform both the readers and editors that the whole text requires multiple instances of romanization/transliteration of non-Latin-script text? I'm aware of the [romanization needed] template, but it's only inline. Because quite a lot of articles are virtually fraught with non-romanized portions of text, it would be easier to put just a single template to the beginnig of the article. Many thanks in advance! Pet'usek[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]14:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Request citation template for product/advertisement sheet
I would like to create a new citation template for citing product sheets / advertisement sheets from companies; predominantly for industry specific companies which release documents which provide information about the specific products and industries they are involved with. For example: This product sheet from a company in the papermaking industry. It is not a journal, or a report (both of which are existing citation templates. Numerous other examples can be found via a quick search. I think there should be a separate template for these type of product sheets. The template should be very similar to the journal or report citation templates but should include parameters for Company, manufacturer (in case they are not the same), product1-9, industry1-9. I was thinking about taking a stab at creating it myself but was not confident that I knew how to do so correctly and didn't want to screw up. If someone would like to help me create the template, I'd enjoy having the opportunity to create it myself but with the guidance of someone with more knowledge. Thanks.
I have published my attempt at creating a template to my sandbox if you would like to review. I haven't written the documentation yet, but if you select the edit option you will see the template code. Please ping me when replying to the thread so I will see your message. David Condrey logtalk 05:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Conditional logic required in Template:Year in Burma
Thanks, Alkazi! That's a big step forward. Can we also make it work for periods that straddle the change? Compare 1988 and 1989: close to a name change, the template now either links to past decades, or to future decades. I realise that fixing this may require changes to Template:Year in region and be a lot more complicated. – FayenaticLondon21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Ah, I see you have implemented it using ifexist: tests. In the case of Burma/Myanmar there is a consensus that it is desirable to keep the category redirects (Burma to Myanmar from 1990 and vice versa before), so the switch will not take effect. Thanks anyway; I hope the work comes in handy for other places, where redirects are not used. – FayenaticLondon09:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am requesting assistance from a more tech savvy editor (my tech level tops out with the electric typewriter) who can help create a general information tag to be applied to articles that have been nominated to be linked in the ITN section of the front page. A recurring problem is that very often when ITN worthy events occur the article that we want to link is not up the standards required to be linked on the main page. It is my hope that the proposed tag would alert editors who have the page on their watchlist that it has been nominated and perhaps inspire an effort to improve the article so it can be linked at ITN. I have some boiler plate text that can be used, but when it comes to code... sigh.
This article has been nominated to be linked at In The News. However it may not currently meet standards for linkage on the Front Page. Interested editors are encouraged join the discussion of the nomination and to help improve the article. Common problems include the presence of maintenance tags and inadequate referencing. This template may be removed once consensus has been reached concerning the nomination or seven days have passed since it was placed here."
This template is for pages that a less commonly used meaning of a word. For example, a pumpkin patch is a place where people can buy pumpkins based off the weight, not a chain store based off Auckland, New Zealand
Summary: Please create template {{link archive}} to provide easier, permalink access to sections on fast-moving pages which are frequently archived, thereby exposing inlinks to linkrot as soon as the section is archived. This leaves users with a dead link to a Project or Talk page, and searching for a section buried in some old archive.
Format
A typical invocation might look like this:
{{link archive |page=User talk:Jimbo Wales |section=Wikimedia project index pages |anchor=WM proj Indexes |next=196}}
Function
The template example above would at first render as:
WM proj Indexes(ar 196) with the link target of 'User talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikimedia_project_index_pages'
and later (after archival) would render as:
WM proj Indexes with a link target of 'User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 196#Wikimedia_project_index_pages'
Description
This template is aimed at solving the problem of links to fast-moving, Talk and Project pages that have many archives, so that any links to the home page quickly go stale and red, when the discussion they link to gets archived. This leaves the user with no clue which archive page the actual item is in. It's especially problematic in older links to pages that have hundreds of archives.
The way it would work, is that entering this template would put up a working, blue link to a live (not yet archived) Talk or Project page section, with a red, superscript(ar nnn) link to the next projected archive number. This number is entered by the user in the |next= param, and shows up as red at first because the page hasn't been archived yet so the linked archive page doesn't exist. but it's the one the user predicts, i.e., most probably one greater than the highest archive number in use currently. Once the next archive is created, the main link would simply render as a "normal" blue link (assuming the guess was right) with the parenthetical part no longer needed. (The one-up numbering scheme isn't fool-proof, I know, but would work well enough most of the time to make it a useful template.)
As such, this would work conversely to {{Interlanguage link}}, which does things the other way round: it creates a main page red link, and a blue superscript link to a foreign WP article, where the red link goes blue and the superscript link is red and disappears once the English article is created. Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Parameters |section= and |anchor= would both be optional. |page= should be required. |Next= should be required, unless there's some built-in that can extract the highest currently existing archive number for the page give at |page=, and add one to it. Finally, positional parameters should be allowed, probably in the order shown. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I kinda got lost trying to request changes to a template. I posted about it on the template's talk page but I'm sure no one will ever notice it there. I figure it's best if I link to it here. Thanks and sorry for being a helpless idiot.
Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Tendentious editor template
I am requesting a Template:Tendentious-editor for use in articles where one editor is a having problem with another editor and decides to take his vengeance out on the article instead of working it out on the talk page. This would be for usage inside of Template:Multiple issues, when the editor has refused to participate, (or refuses to use more useful section or inline templates) AND refuses to allow his vague header templates to be taken down.
While this verbiage may be a little forceful, here is how I'd like it to read:
This article is under attack by a tendentious editor that prefers to degrade articles with template-spam rather than participate with interested editors on the talk page. Please evaluate the following:
Grievance template number 1
Grievance template number 2
Grievance template number 3
Grievance template number 4
Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes has all kinds of templates, warning the reader about disputes against the writer, but there is not a single template that warns the reader about disputes and squabbles between editors. Can we just inform the reader when there is a totalitarian editor involved? Thanks -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk13:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of "attacking" a page and calling their actions "spamming" is not constructive. I doubt it has the desired effect of encouraging participation. People have different ideas of what kinds of edits are constructive and what are not, but accusations are never helpful. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Edit warring. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop Thanks for your input -- spam may be a strong word, but I use it to support my point that an unlimited number of header banners can be placed without the requirement of even one inline or section banner. Only one banner that I know of, requires opening a talk page dialog.
In my experience, these are not editors who are interested in participation, they are interested in punishing editors(through borderline WP:HOUNDING), that they have had a conflict with. They usually they come from an RfC or AfD they are losing, or one that has dared been contested, sometimes a social or religious topic offends their POV.
Edit warring is completely unproductive, and the person who's writing is under attack obviously loses the three-revert rule. Generally, these editors are WP:DEADHORSE, have lost objectivity, and will likely violate the three-revert rule in support of their ideology. Because they are already running on emotion and have taken their administrative squabble to article space, they would now also be subject to violating the three revert rule with such a template created.
It would be nice to have just one template that informs the casual reader that these banners come from one contentious editor/one side of an ideology, and are not the opinion of the foundation nor community consensus. The verbiage of some existing banners appears to the casual-reader to be absolute -- I.e., "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." and "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." (Emphasis mine) There is nothing in these two examples that indicate to the casual reader that this is the opinion of a single editor, who is a non-responsive aggressor in an edit war. Sure, I could return the favor on their articles, and become (subjectively) disruptive tit-for-tat, but a banner that indicates there is an internal ideological problem would be much more productive and would tend to help identify the warring party. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your position, 009o9. The way I see it is that the article space is not for resolving arguments, the talk page is. While in part this is exactly the problem you are trying to tackle ("Only one banner that I know of, requires opening a talk page dialog"), your solution contributes the problem by introducing the argument into article space. This is probably why templates like Template:Controversial are placed in article talk to begin with.
It goes without saying that maintenance banners placed on top of the article are "not the opinion of the foundation nor community consensus" - they are placed there to indicate that community consensus is being sought, and the best place for this is article talk. Causal readers should be alerted to issues about the article, but issues about specific editors are not issues about the article. If some editor behaves badly, there are already established procedures for that (WP:BRT, page protection, and even blocks if rules like 3R are violated). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Finnusertop While responding to you, I realized that Template:Multiple issues is collapsible and expanded by default. Wouldn't the message be just as effective with it default collapsed so that our community discussion notifications do not cover the first 25% of the screen? Do we presume that the casual reader is too daft to press the [Show] link if they want to know what is being contested? Countering the position that the banners are not about the editors, the templates COI, Advert, Peacock and Overly detailed are specific to the originating/interested editor. However, simply collapsing Multiple issues as the default would eloquently address the issue, and funnel the contention back onto the talk page where it belongs. Thoughts? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done The template is now live at {{R with history}}. Changes to the template, template documentation and category page are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
