Wikipedia talk:Template index/Maintenance

move to wikitravel

It would be useful if there were a 'Move to Wikitravel' template (e.g. Hidden London). However, I'm not sure how to set one up. Andrewferrier 18:26, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

See Template:Move to Wikitravel. Spencer195–spencer 195 19:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia sister project, and as such, shouldn't be treated like Template:Move to Wiktionary. Our editors have no special relationship with that other site. We have no instructions for just how to move that information, especially because Wikitravel uses a completely different license. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

blanked nonrecreatable page template?

What is the template for a page that's intentionally left blank and protected to deal with vandalism in the form of recreations? It should be listed here. CryptoDerk 01:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Major reorganization of Template messages table

I've done a major reorganization of the entries in the article-related template messages table. This makes the redundancies between this list and Issues & Disputes and Cleanup more obvious. Please see my remarks on Wikipedia talk:Template messages and comment there if you wish. - dcljr 16:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate wording

The Attention tag says "Please improve it in any way you see fit." Of course we don't want that at all! We want someone to improve it in accordance with our policies of NPOV etc.. Can someone fix it, please? --Zero 01:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the template at Template:Attention. I personally think it is fine the way it is. Articles so tagged need a lot of help in general. Template_talk:Attention has discussion about the template's wording. -- Reinyday, 16 August 2005

New template

I suggest a new template for articles that have outdated information or that need to be updated to current events, etc.. Is there already a template for this? Yodakii 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! That template exists. It is {{Update}} and currently looks like this:

This article or section is out of date, and is requested to be updated.

-- Reinyday, 18:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We need a template for Articles that are featured articles, due to recent concerns of lack of stability. (Note: No lack of stability, only the appearance of such.) The Terri Schiavo article was worked on by many editors, myself included, and our work is the subject of occasional vandalism (sometimes we accuse one another of such), and this new template would stop that. I don't know if I need permission to create a template, but the only way to ask permission is to show it to you, so, I am concomitantly making it and posting it on the front page. If it is "premature," it can be hidden in "hidden comments," but I can't tell you as well as I can show you. See e.g., the front page for the needed new template -another new template, as hinted (but not actually asked, I admit) by the original beginner of this thread. Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are those who might say that this lack of stability would mean the article should not be a Featured Article, but this is false logic:

EMPERICAL FACT: Wikis are, by the nature of the cat, unstable.
PAST CONVENTION: We have a protect for images, so we -to be fair -need one for articles.
GUT FEELING: If no template for articles, as I suggest, then none for images -but we know that's wrong, so I must be right.

--GordonWattsDotCom 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Template?

(I'm pretty sure this doesn't exist but if it does let me know)

I propose a template for going in articles (not discussion pages) to draw attention to when a major change has been proposed. Here's an example of why I think it's needed (it's why I thought of it)

I just left a note on the List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 talk page, proposing to completely change the format. But although many people who would agree with/be interested in/be capable doing it, it is possible only half or less (I don't know, but I know they wouldn't all) would look at it. A template to place on the main page of the article would draw attention to it, therefore help a more fair decision to be reached, as anyone who visits the article would be informed of it, so it's their choice whether or not to see what it is.

Anyone else agree? (or does it already exist?) - RedHotHeat 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably request it here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates Mattyatty 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does copyvio template go?

Where does the copyvio template go? The other templates on this page say where the template should be inserted. Because of the "Talk" link, I assumed copyvio went on the talk page, not the topic page. Which is it? -- Mikeblas 07:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on the articel page, in place of all the violatory text. 68.39.174.238 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

There doesn't seem to be a template to suggest a non-controversial page move. I'd normally be bold and go right ahead, but sometimes it might be appropriate to tag a la {{merge}}. Is there such a template? If not, do we think there should be? --kingboyk 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same templates in Maintenance and Cleanup

Some templates are in both Template messages/Maintenance and Template messages/Cleanup. I don't see any reasons for this; I already removed some from this page. 'Merging and splitting' and 'Copyright violations' are still in both.Vints 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main article template

I know there's a template that goes on a Talk page whose article is somewhere else is summarized using the {{main|main_article}} template. It says something like "this article is summarized on another page; remember to keep those pages with this one." Anyone know where I can find it? --Ephilei 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation banner - less prominent version?

Could we have a template version of the Copyright violation banner that is less prominent, for cases where a reporter is truly unsure if copyright has bee violated and he doesn't want to add such a bold gigantic statement?

I'm in this situation right now because Simultaneous brightness contrast looks a lot like [1], but I would like to attract experts on the subject. I like the article and I don't want to basically "kill" it with a huge warning label, just based on my opinion, without any expert advice. A small "possible copyright violation" banner that also adds the article to the relevant category would be perfect for this task.

So - could we have an alternative smaller version of the template for those cases? Peter S. 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edit history, I don't think there's any doubt that article is copyvio. -- Mikeblas 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

make it easier to add a 'birth reason' in the template box?

When protecting articles, particularly those protected for forms of vandalism/edit wars (e.g. what caused the confrontation). Now I believe that in some cases this can be very valuable information...e.g. if it happens in an article about a scientific theory/concept that involves a broad range of other, un- or less disputed topics.

Is there a way to make it easier for editors to explain the template's addition within it, i.e. just under the 'you can help by...'? Having to go to the talk page can be very difficult (e.g. dialup connections), time consuming, or even just not 'interesting' enough, despite potentially good information.For instance, a generic factual accuracy tag could make a book look quite bad despite the fact that only one issue may have arisen.

I'm new to this, so please let me know if I(and I probably will) have overlooked something.

--Duagloth 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subpages

These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#subpages for main discussion -Eep² 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection temeplates

It is currently impossible to add more than one small protection template to a page (Those little padlocks in the top-right hand corner), could this be changed, who should I take this up with? Samuel 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Copylink}} template needed?

I often run across articles which link to external sources containing apparent copyvio text. Just a few examples from the Cuba article are:

Considering WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, I think a template similar to {{Copypaste}} for tagging these instances is needed. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me. If nobody objects and nobody beats me to it, I'll probably create a {{Copylink}} template similar to {{Copypaste}}. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of {{Copylink}}, I created an inline template which can be placed on a link-by-link basis: {{Copyvio link}}. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio template here needs updating

The version of the copyvio template here needs to be updated. The template itself has changed substantially since it was substituted here. I've never worked much with templates so I'd rather avoid trying to do it myself and making a mess. Thanks! User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 01:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Thank you. -- œ ^™ 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Expand language#Article page or talk page

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Expand language#Article page or talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this template defaces wikipedia articles

Template_talk:Third-party#this_template_defaces_wikipedia_articles - move to bottom - my "vote", for the record.)
Template_talk:Unreferenced#this_template_defaces_wikipedia_articles -move to bottom - my "vote", for the record.)
Template_talk:Orphan#this_template_defaces_wikipedia_articles - move to bottom - my "vote", for the record.)

as per links above: I can see the need for the template, sometimes. But it's inclusion in most cases is not subject to any consensus, and makes wikipedia look plain ugly. Can we at least move it to the bottom of the page for the humans to review first before it is moved to the top?

(Also for the record: I have been previously tagged "Troll?" by PK T(alk)

Leng T'che (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errata: I was pointed at MOS:LEAD, but to be honest I am note totally sure if raising this issue here is WP:CAN, so apologies in advance if I have erred. Maybe the rules for canvassing only apply to certain topics/contributors? Leng T'che (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion has been made before, usually as a sub-suggestion in threads revolving around Wikipedia:PEREN#Move maintenance tags to talk pages, but the response is always divided. I would suggest (with bias) that the majority favors the status quo. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to the In use template

Your attention is called to the discussion about the In use template at Template_talk:In_use#Making_this_template_more_noticeable. 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Needs English sources

While commencing the translation of Thoracic endometriosis from Spanish, which was posted here with a good number of sources in Spanish, I came up with the idea of create a new maintenance template, {{Needs English sources}}. So I created it, and set up some documentation for it, but came to realize that it requires infrastructure, such as in the creation and maintenance of article categories, that I, acting alone, am not equipped to provide. Is anyone interested in assisting with this? Largoplazo (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated regarding proposed citation-related maintained template

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Citation_cleanup#New_maintenance_template_idea:_Source_title_missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing references and notes?

Do we have a template to indicate this problem? Exists in Hubert_Gough, for example. (Notes need to be split up from references). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if an editor notices this and considers it an issue, they can fix it themselves? It's not like "globalize", "missing information" etc where an editor might notice an issue but lack the expertise to fix it. Furius (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]