Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Why to convert to {{Infobox}} as a base

Question for everyone. I've gotten a couple of people asking me what the virtue of converting a template from a hardcoded HTML table to a {{Infobox}} base is. I know it is better, but I'm having a hard time putting it into words. Does anyone have any insight? Is there some page/policy that documents this? I want to be able to give a well reasoned explanation because right now I basically sound like "it's just better, trust me" which doesn't work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The most basic answer is reducing duplication of code and better maintenance. If every "infobox" calls Module:Infobox then any changes/updates to this module will cascade to all invoking templates. This usage also promotes a consistent appearance across en.wiki, which to some (including myself) is something with value of its own. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: thanks. To be clear, I 100% agree with you. I just want to better document it. Perhaps we can work on documenting a policy? Not sure what the best route for that would be. Do we need an RfC? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with that as generally the community resists attempts to mandate conformity. No RfC has yet mandated the presence of an infobox and mandating details such as how an infobox is implemented are unlikely to get much support. Wikipedia works best with slow progress that brings the community along, rather than dictated processes that force change. Prescription might generate a lovely set of rules but the encyclopedia needs happy volunteers and people don't like being pushed around. Slow down. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: not trying to push anyone around. I was just trying to find a well documented explanation. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Clearly my reply was about the idea of an RfC to "work on documenting a policy". As you would know, the word "policy" at Wikipedia refers to a prescriptive rule. There is no need to ping me as I am watching this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Full filmography in navbox

Further input requested at Template talk:Busby Berkeley#Full filmography. Thanks. --woodensuperman 09:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Map template help

Hi. I've been trying to get the Template:Canada image map to be more friendly on Provinces and territories of Canada like the Template:Italy Labelled Map is at Regions of Italy. It is able to float to the right at the top of the article without taking over the whole page. Would anyone know how to make it like that? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The templates are different. The Italy template has a parameter called "float" that allows it to be floated to the right. The Canada template does not, so I had to wrap it in a div tag to float it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Is there a way to make it appear a bit smaller? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. The size could be adjusted on the template. Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Glad you figured it out. Remember that changes to a template are reflected everywhere that the template is used. I adjusted the template's placement in the article called Canada to compensate for the new, smaller size. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Portals in navboxes

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Portals in navboxes --woodensuperman 15:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:IsLocal

I use this template at User:RonBot/NewImages to show new "free" uploads on a daily basis - it only show images that are local, and not ones moved to commons. I did not write it, it was done many years ago by Leyo, and was used for many years at User:Multichill/Free uploads to list new images until the that bot died in 2014 due to wiki changes. Is it possible to modify the template so that it will not show any image that is not in Category:All free media. They all are in the category when my bot writes the page, then I come along and tag some (quite a few usually) for "No permission" or similar, and the uploader responds by making it a non-free image, which technically should not be in a gallery any more (although it will disappear 24h later). Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The original aim of that template was to show the local images, but to hide that ones that have been moved to Commons. If such a use is no longer needed, it may be altered as requested. --Leyo 10:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Leyo: I still want the original use, but can it be modified so that it only shows images that...
A) Are Local
B) Are in Category:All free media
It's use it to inspect local uploads, therefore we do not want commons images, but when images get changed to non free (and leave Category:All free media), then we should not show them either. No one else is currently using the template. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Huge switch statements

I was looking through the TPERs and came across {{SFOS2Municipality}} and {{Swiss area data}}, both of which contain #switch statements in the order of about 2k branches. H:SWITCH says that we should try to limit this, but in comparing the data for Zell, Zürich and La Baroche (at the top and bottom of the "Swiss area" switch, respectively) I'm not seeing a huge difference in processing between them. Is this advice a little out-of-date? In other words, should we be trying to split such huge #switch statements up into smaller chunks, or just leave well enough alone? Primefac (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Would an array in a module help here? --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fix this template

Hi, Can anyone fix this template Template:World Heritage Sites in Sindh JogiAsad  Talk 16:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@JogiAsad:  Done. You were missing a ]. For future reference, my method of debugging is to cut/paste section by section, previewing along the way. When the bug stops, you know the last bit of code you removed is where the error is. That at least narrows down your search. :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much I appreciate your efforts, would act upon as directed. JogiAsad  Talk 18:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@JogiAsad: my pleasure! Happy to help. Yea that's just a helpful tip for future reference. Everyone has their own way to debug, that is just what I've found to be most useful on here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah! Indeed, thanks again. JogiAsad  Talk 18:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Film- and television-related infobox templates

Can someone take a look at this template and see if they can fix it? Something is broken with the sub-sections. The parenthesis never close make it confusing and hard to read. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Film- and television-related infobox templates}}

Zackmann It seems to be happening to all navboxes right now.★Trekker (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: All the parentheses are balanced: there is an equal number of left- and right-parenthesis, including some nested pairs, but they're all closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: it is fixed now. A few hours ago it was all kinds of wonky. Not sure what happened. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there something being done to navboxes right now?

They all look very odd right now.★Trekker (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? It's best if you include a WP:WPSHOT, so that we can see as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I think that phab:T213239 may be related. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Templates based on Wikidata external identifiers

Hi All, I was thinking that it would be great to have a template which collects only those external IDs about a person/topic which have additional, textual information, not only a list of things or data. So something similar to Template:Taxonbar but for example only containing biography sites for a person Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415), Dictionary of Canadian Biography ID (P2753), Austrian Biographical Encyclopedia ID (P6194) or encyclopedias for a topic Handbook of Texas ID (P6015), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ID (P3123). This would probably need properly tagging these sites on Wikidata. I think this would be an great use of Wikidata and also it is also an important aspect of Wikipedia to collect and point out to the readers these trustworthy sources. What do you think? --Adam Harangozó (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

the VPP archive has an RFC that might be of interest. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen such a template for biographical identifiers, but I'd have to have a dig around. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it is {{Authority control}} that I was thinking of, which is the subject of the RFC that Jonesey linked. Although I have to say that the RFC seems to have floundered after all the activity, since it doesn't seem to have been closed with any sort of consensuses over the questions. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that most people said no, and some said that it would rather need a separate template (which I agree with). What do you think could be done to move this forward? Unfortunately I can't code templates but I'd be happy to help/do whatever else.--Adam Harangozó (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Navbox categories

I posted this topic at WP:FILM (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Navbox_categories) and got no response. There is some debate (between me and *Treker) about the propriety of categories such as Category:Animated film navigational boxes and Category:Children's film navigational boxes for templates about stories from books that have numerous film adaptations: {{The Little Mermaid}} and {{Chicken Little}} are currently at issue regarding inclusion of such categories. As I understand the argument, I have been using categories to state that "This template includes these types of links" (Animated film, Children's film, etc.). *Treker believes categories should be used to describe the main subject of the template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add my piece here that I think The Little Mermaid template would be better off split into two also. One for the original book with it's major adaptions and another for the huge Disney franchise which now takes up more than half the original one. That way using categories become much simpler and clear.★Trekker (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
We have not been able to come to a consistent manner of handling the Disney franchise element of adaptations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman and Frietjes:, does either of you remember where I brought up this Disney issue in regards to about 10 templates likely including {{The Little Mermaid}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I am here. Not sure if I have anything to add.★Trekker (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
*Treker (talk · contribs), I was just alerting you to the fact that there was a whole RFC dedicated to Disney template formating. I wanted to call your attention to that (since you brought up the issue on one of them).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess the awnser is here now.★Trekker (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Template:Friendly search suggestions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings - Recently Epinoia posted a detail list of objections to {{Friendly search suggestions}} template here on my Talk page. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Wondering if discussion should be here instead.

Proposal

To decrease size of Friendly search suggestions on talk pages, add "Hide" option. Or something smaller like this:

Or even smaller, sidebar Example:

Advanced search for: 
"moon water"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Discussion should happen at Template talk:Friendly search suggestions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrapper Guidelines

Question for anyone interested... Is there or has there ever been a guideline for when Wrapper templates can/should be used? There has been an ongoing discussion at a number of TFDs related to deleting custom wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}. I was thinking it might be helpful to establish some guidelines. Anyone have any initial thoughts? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I too have noticed a large number of wrapper TFDs. There are certainly times when a wrapper can be very helpful, such as {{cita libro}} for ease of copying between wikis. Obviously wrappers are fine for template mergers (complex or otherwise). At this point in time I don't think we necessarily nead a guideline for them, but I definitely think creating a TFD list to add to Wikipedia:Common outcomes (for this and other things like "sports teams that didn't win" etc.) would be good. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC to add CSD:T4

I have opened a new RFC to discuss adding a new CSD criteria (T4) that would apply to old, unused templates. Any followers of this project, please add your thoughts to the discussion! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

calendar template

I notice the German WP has this template ({{JULGREGDATUM|11|9|1653|Link="true"}}, from here) that gives dates in both Julian and Gregorian style (viz. 1. Septemberjul./ 11. September 1653greg.). Do we have anything like that on the English WP (I haven't found one) If not, is it possible to have one made? As the difference in the dating affected British (and American) history from the 16th to the 18th century I'm sure it would come in handy from time to time. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

{{JULIANDAY}} and {{Date on weekday after Juliandate}} and {{JDtoGreg}} may be helpful (check their See Also sections for more). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{extract}} performs some simple operations available in Module:Age and it can be persuaded to convert a Julian date to Gregorian or reverse, in one line.
  • {{extract|juliandate|{{extract|julian|1653-9-1|show=juliandate}}}} → 11 September 1653
  • {{extract|julian|juliandate|{{extract|1653-9-11|show=juliandate}}}} → 1 September 1653
If wanting to implement something like the example in the OP, a less cumbersome template calling the modules could be created. See also {{OldStyleDate}}. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both (belatedly!): OldStyleDate looks to be the closest to what I had in mind, though if both dates have to be supplied it's probably just as easy to type it out in full, rather than use the template. I'm also thinking that the format most likely to be used would be 'os date [NS nsdate] year' rather than the other way round. Still, thanks anyway for taking the trouble to respond, it's been useful. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The template JDtoGreg has been deleted and OldStyleDate looks to be useless, producing poorly readable format. The German template looks far better and I will try to create a version of it in the English Wikipedia, although I have never edited templates before.Lkingscott (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Short template shortcuts

All interested are invited to give an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Short template shortcuts: are they pollution?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-anon

Per Template_talk:Welcome-anon#Add_parameter, could someone please add a parameter to the template to disable the "Thank you for your contributions" as is done with Template:welcome. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Done: {{subst:welcome-anon|nothanks=y}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:sandbox other tweak

I tweaked {{sandbox other}} in {{sandbox other/sandbox}} to have a similar, but not quite exactly the same behaviour as before.

  • {{sandbox other}} – Puts the categories on pages which aren't the sandbox
  • {{sandbox other/sandbox}} – Puts the categories on pages which aren't the sandbox, nor the documentation pages.

This prevents template categories, e.g. Category:Journals Cited by Wikipedia templates, from being populated twice, both by the templates and their associated documentation page. Any objection to deploying this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I object. The name of the template is "sandbox other" not "sandbox doc other"; you can't assume that the only use in existence of the template is for sticking categories on doc pages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pppery: Do you know of such uses, or is this a hypothetical concern? Because I don't know of any category for doc pages, save Category:Template documentation pages, added by {{Documentation}}. Genuine question here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: At the time I wrote it was hypothetical, however the fact that the template has >500 uses in mainspace demonstrates some template must be using it for a non-documentation purpose. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Those are all redirects, which leads me to believe there's an issue with a redirect template somewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that doesn't really matter here, since those are neither sandbox nor documentation pages, and would be unaffected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wp:DISCORD

Is there anyone else here who would be interested in a WP:DISCORD channel for this project? There is no obligation or requirements if you support this. I.E. supporting this doesn't mean you are now required to signup and be available 24/7 on the channel, I just thought it would be great to get a channel setup for communication and general chats. Obviously this doesn't replace any WP procedures. This would just be a way for us to chat in real time, reach out to each other for help, etc. If anyone is interested, drop a note below.

@Jonesey95, Headbomb, Moonraker12, Primefac, TonyTheTiger, Johnuniq, Redrose64, Woodensuperman, Galobtter, Hike395, Davey2010, Frietjes, Jc86035, Johnuniq, Pppery, SMcCandlish, Steel1943, Tom.Reding, and Tom (LT): you are all fairly active in this area, so pinging you to make sure you see this. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly for me. I find discord too invasive. I'd join an IRC channel though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Just one more thing for me to keep track of. I won't stand in the way of anyone else starting one, though. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Ditto. I know some people love Discord, but I don't have the human bandwidth for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Personally I don't use IRC simply because I can't use it and end up giving up before I've even began whereas discord is a thousand times easier to use!,
That being said I still probably wouldn't use it as I guess I prefer doing everything via this project anyway, It sounds a great idea but for me personally I probably wouldn't use it. –Davey2010Talk 19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has talk pages, like this one. That is how I think things should be done on wikis. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I find discord much more suitable for dealing with things that are changing quickly in real time, like team based games, or heavily nuanced, like some jobs. Most things I deal with on wp are relatively simple and don't require much more than a few sentences to understand/disambig/etc., or a link to a relevant guideline/article/source/etc., so I think the talk page model is ideal. I do like the occasional meetup, but in no sort of frequency that would warrant a discord.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Per above, talk pages are perfect for the type of communication required for consideration of technical issues at Wikipedia (and for article content). Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Am very enthusiastic about more discussions, but also prefer discussions remain here. I think that lets more editors keep track and participate, is more accessible, and is more in line with our principles of openness--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it could be helpful, particularly for templates/modules which would be larger undertakings, but I wouldn't really mind either way. Jc86035 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Discord would NOT be any sort of replacement for the required discussions that take place on here. It would just be for real time chatting. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I even ignore emails sent to me through the Special:EmailUser feature (which I only have enabled in case I forget my password - it has happened). I keep Wikipedia discussions on-wiki, this provides transparency, and avoids accusations of "talking behind my back". I allow just one class of exception: the face-to-face conversations that are an inevitable part of Wikipedia meetups. On that matter, there are forthcoming meetups in: Cambridge, 3 March; London, 10 March; Oxford, 17 March; and Manchester, 9 June. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: You do realize that resetting your password works even if "Allow emails from other users" is disabled in your preferences. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope. My WP is becoming a lower priority for me while I attempt to create an app. Look how long it took me to notice this conversation alert. I don't need WPers chatting me up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A date range template

Is there a data template that alows you to enter two dates and display them as a range similar to this? TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheBigJagielka: My searches only found {{daterange}}, {{daterangedash}} and {{date range}}. None of them have an example with dates in the same month. Testing shows none of them give a day range like "Oct 3 - 8, 2012" without repeating the month:
October 3, 2012 to October 8, 2012
October 3 – October 8, 2012
(2012-10-03) (2012-10-08)October 3–8, 2012
MOS:DATERANGE says to use unspaced en dash like 5–7 January 1979 or January 5–7, 1979. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox inclusion at Fermat's Last Theorem

An RfC has been opened for the inclusion of Template:Infobox mathematical statement at Fermat's Last Theorem

Comments are most welcome. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template merger discussion notice

There is a discussion about merging {{Yesno}}, {{If declined}}, and {{If affirmed}}. As this template group affects a very large number of pages, additional input is requested. Please join in the conversation at the TFD. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Help with Template:Syrian Civil War infobox

If some of the experts around here could take a look at Syrian Civil War with its associated Template:Syrian Civil War infobox.... There is a general agreement within the RfC I posted that the infobox should be reduced in size. Somehow. At one point I did reduce the length- which was subsequently reverted - but have no idea as to how to reduce the width. You can compare the present infobox to my adjusted version on the Template's testcases page. If some of the experts around here could take a crack in the infobox's sandbox and adjust the size in various ways, that would be incredibly helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 February 23#Out of control infobox I gave a simple way to make it more narrow: Remove all {{nowrap}}. It would of course make it even longer instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Common Outcomes

I created a new subpage for TfD "Common outcomes" but it's just a bare skeleton and could use fleshing-out. Full information and more discussion should be held at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#Common_outcomes. Primefac (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking to template space from navboxes

Further input requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Links to template space from navboxes (again). Thanks. --woodensuperman 10:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting a navbox into small groups

Anyone want to weigh in here to break the deadlock? Template talk:Netflix original continuation series#Groups. --woodensuperman 13:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Record labels and compilation albums in navboxes

Would anyone like to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Record labels and compilation albums in navboxes? --woodensuperman 13:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata external IDs in Wikipedia

Dear Project Members,

I proposed a new template which integrates Wikidata external IDs in Wikipedia to channel in reliable sources as further readings - please weigh in on the idea if you have the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)?fbclid=IwAR1jjICvpWSSSqYwzT9IsSjMJxfZ7-vLoGjE2U4BB_zPVTg8EJSQ0qylqHQ#A_new_use_for_Wikidata_external_IDs_in_Wikipedia_(template)

Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPT. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:NZHPT

Template:NZHPT is broken. When it is called as a reference, it causes a 400 error. See, for example, Stone Store. Not sure what's going on; need help. Schwede66 00:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Does it now work as expected for you? It seems that switching from http to https doesn't error anymore for me. —PaleoNeonate – 00:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: And I was sure that I had checked it uses https; that's the first thing that came to mind when I spotted this problem this morning. Something must have side-tracked me; thanks for fixing it. Works fine now. Schwede66 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Super, I'm glad I could help, —PaleoNeonate – 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ctime

Template:Ctime:06 was deleted by JJMC89 in March 2019 per an MfD. I think that is responsible for a bunch of errors ("Expression error: Unexpected < operator") seen at Template:Ctime/doc. I noticed the errors at Category:ParserFunction errors as it is now July and the switch at Template:Ctime:N is executing the |7=... path which calls the deleted template.

The underlying template is {{ctime}} which appears to only be used at Chinese calendar#See also, as well as in some unused templates such as {{Chinese Calendar}}. What should happen? Does anyone know if ctime was once used and that its logic is very useful? If so, perhaps the deleted template should be restored. If not, perhaps the large family of templates at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Ctime should be deleted? Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If it isn't unused it shouldn't have been deleted at all. It should be restored and if anyone think it should be deleted a new discussion in the correct venue with a correct rationale and with more than 0 comments. Regarding nominating the whole template family I feel like that would be a lot more appropriate if you think this template should go. -- Trialpears (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Aside from the errors on the doc page, do you see any errors on actual pages? Looking at {{Ctime:N}}, it is only transcluded by the other Ctime templates, and picking 3 at random - ({{Ctime:M}}, {{Ctime:b}} and {{Ctime:q}} - none of them are used. Seems the only issue here was that the others weren't deleted as well. No reason to restore. --Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Gonnym, Whether the others should be deleted as well is another discussion. I for one can very well see this template being used in the future and find nothing detrimental about keeping it unused thus not fulfilling any of the deletion reasons at WP:TFD. Since the individual template is essential for the main ctime template it should not be deleted without consensus for deleting the entire family or removing its usage in the main template. -- Trialpears (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You are allowed to hold that opinion, however, consensus was achieved at TfD and there is nothing that says that a complete set needs to be deleted at the same time. If the template isn't used, and it isn't, then I'll oppose restoring it. Please ping me if this goes further. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
One issue is that the deleted page only became used when the month changed to July. Template logic then used the deleted template to render the doc page, and that gave the errors. I would be unhappy for complex calendar logic to be deleted unnecessarily but it does appear that it is only a very unconventional "see also". Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Timecell is also showing the error for the same reason, and it also appears to be unused. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I've started work on actually connecting some of these templates to actual pages via Module:Calendar date/events (though tbh, this whole setup screams to be converted to Lua), which uses the {{Ctime:x}} template. Not sure if the 06 will still be used or not, but have no issue with restoring it for now. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've temporarily restored the template and will list it at WP:TFD/H. Please mark for deletion when and if the issues mentioned above are fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category articles containing non-English-language text

Could someone who can edit protected templates fix the examples in this template? The template name is spelled wrong in both of the usage examples. Thanks. DferDaisy (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

DferDaisy, could you please be more specific? Primefac (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
In the template documentation, underneath the sentence "None of the parameters are essential, but it would seem the language name is always going to be there", the category name in the following line is incorrect, see bold highlighting: Category articles containing non-English missing hyphen languages should be singular "language" not plural -text, and also in the second example, see bold highlighting: Category articles containing non-English-languages should be singular text. DferDaisy (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, right. For what it's worth, the /doc isn't protected, and you could have fixed it yourself. Thanks for letting us know though (I've taken care of it). Primefac (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. I saw the padlock at the top of the page and just assumed the whole page was locked. I'll know next time. DferDaisy (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem with a template

Is it just me, or the population isn't displayed in this page's template? I completed it in the correct way, so what is the problem?--Alienautic (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You used the wrong parameter name; {{Infobox Italian comune}} uses |population=, not |population_total=. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Confusion is understandable. There's a mistake in documentation. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The documentation says that it's what I posted. Where are you seeing it differently? Primefac (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have just fixed it. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool, didn't notice that. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
But it works correctly in all the other articles about Italian comunes, see here, or here, and the "Population as of" is still undisplayed.--Alienautic (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
For both of these, Wikidata entries contain population data. And {{Infobox Italian comune}} uses that data. See wikidata:Q188471#P1082 and wikidata:Q103209#P1082. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The parameter "population total" was correct as it's currently used in all the articles about Italian comunes. It doesn't work only in the specific case of Rio, Italy. Why? The parameter "population as of" also needs to be fixed.--Alienautic (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Template:Infobox Italian comune: 

| population_total        = {{#if: <!-- wikidata pop is set --> {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-01-01}} | {{wikidata|property|raw|P1082|P585=2018-01-01}} | <!-- no data from WD, use template paramenter --> {{{population|}}} }}

Parameter "population" is a parameter of Template:Infobox Italian comune. Template:Infobox Italian comune checks if Wikidata property is set. If it is not set, then parameter "population" is passed to Template:Infobox settlement as a value for its parameter "population_total". It might be that my edit request is not the best solution. Making the parameters consistently "population_total" might be a better solution. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've updated my edit request. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I added the Rio population to Wikimedia (P1082 and P585), but I don't know how to fix the "population as of" parameter which is still not displayed on page. Thank you for your patience!--Alienautic (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It's because some bright spark created the /doc to say |population_as_of= but it uses |populationof=. Don't know if that's a typo or not but I've added the former in as an alternate parameter. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: |populationof= replaced |population_as_of= in this edit, and it doesn't seem to be used (search query: hastemplate:"Infobox Italian comune" insource:"populationof"), so it should probably just be removed as an option. — Eru·tuon 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was wondering if that was a typo. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

Dear members of this wikiproject, sorry for distracting you from your useful tasks, but i was thinking that you could help me make this completely dysfunctional template i have just something created into a funny one to be used on my talk page (and everyone else's if they want). This is it: Template:Talk page welcome Attila Total War. I admit that i have no idea about coding. I await your help, Eni vak (speak) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Advertising colors

The templates at Template:Communist parties and Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar do not need to advertise the red coloring like some party banner. That is not supposed to be the intent of the banners or Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Otr500 Agree. We could adopt the design of Template:Social democracy sidebar (slightly red) or Template:Socialism sidebar (minimal red). --MarioGom (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a modified version of Template:Social democracy sidebar would work well. --Thespündragon 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The same would apply to {{Maoism sidebar}}. --MarioGom (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Done for {{Communism sidebar}}. --MarioGom (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done for {{Communist parties}}, {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}} and {{Maoism sidebar}}. --MarioGom (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Anome is doing the same for other templates. --MarioGom (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just had some pushback at Template:GPC. I'm currently asking the reverter to explain the reasons for their revert. As said above, party colour banners are distracting and, if taken to their logical conclusion, ultimately disruptive. -- The Anome (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now written some Python code to remove unwanted color styling from navboxes. It uses some heuristics to make its edits, so its output shouldn't be regarded as 100% robust, so its output will need to be previewed manually.

I've also got a PetScan search to find all possibly-relevant infoboxes here.

Note that not all of the templates found from the PetScsn search are necessarily wrong: some are colored in thematic ways with things like subtle grey background tints, not gratuitously decorative with large areas of bright colors or colored text. Sidebars are also probably a lower priority for fixing, compared to footer navboxes. I can run a scan to identify which boxes are most in need of fixing. -- The Anome (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: It looks like templates with modified colors are automatically tracked by Module:Navbox, putting templateds into tracking categories including Category:Potentially illegible navboxes.

And also, this PetScan search finds political party navboxes with nonstandard background colors. -- The Anome (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see the logic of a top line closely matching the political colour of the subject. But not a full template in that colour. The Banner talk 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, just a top line matching that color might be more acceptable. But it potentially opens the way to a slippery slope toward illegible multi-color banners, and I can't see an easy way to enforce it when people are styling these pages with inline styles. Perhaps tinting the top line might be made an option in the navbar template? If so, other things like changing the color of the text over that background color could be done automatically, without the need for the sort of convoluted markup used to make the garish banners that have been springing up recently. -- The Anome (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's the Python code for removing the color markup: User:The Anome/rmcolors.py -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines on advertising colors

I saw the discussion above on Advertising colors by following links from User:The Anome's talk page. Please could somebody explain how this relates to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? I have done a brief online search and not found anything conclusive. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

merged sections due to similar topic. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say the most relevant guideline would be WP:NOTBROCHURE. Decoration of navboxes in team/psrty/company/etc. colors seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose, and is distracting, and in some cases makes things more difficult for people with vision problems to read -- in some extreme cases, even difficult for people with normal vision. It seems to have been done on a copy-cat basis, with editors seeing the navboxes for other groups having their own color styling, and wanting their to look similar. (See, for example, this diff.)In addition, the markup used to do this is really ugly, and makes these navboxes difficult to maintain. For me, the sticking point was watching one editor try to make the red color on the {{Nazism}} navbox match the exact shade of the Nazi flag, something for which I cannot see even the remotest encyclopedic justification. And if we don't allow it there, I don't think we should allow it on any of the other similar navboxes.

So far, I've removed the color schemes from about 20 of these, with minimal pushback, so it looks like very few people seem to actually have noticed or care about keeping these colors. -- The Anome (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I think this is likely to be controversial once more people see what you are doing. You started in August and many people watchlist articles rather than templates. Are you planning to move on to projects beyond politics? I have read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color and it has a link to the essay Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. TSventon (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Team and college colored templates seem fine as long as they aren't totally distracting because of multi-colored clashing examples (you know them when you see them). So please stop changing colors simply because you don't like them. There is actually an essay somewhere about not arguing over color changes on templates. They aren't broke, they are often interesting variants, and there are no rules against them. I have hundreds of templates on my watch list but have yet to come across more than a literal handful which were badly colored. Are they encyclopedic? Sure, that can be argued easily for colleges or sports teams. I'd personally draw the line at overly colored corporate templates, and even there it should be so outrageous that there is no reason for such color. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles created in template namespace

See WT:AFC#Articles created in template namespace. — MusikAnimal talk 04:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Split v. Merge

I am calling people's attention to discussions are ongoing at Template_talk:Dracula#Split and recently opened at Template_talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Merge?.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Table cell templates

Hello, I tried to add your banner to Template talk:Table cell templates, but when I previewed it I got an error message, that your banner is only to be used on WP space, Help and Category space. This template is, for want of a better, a portal of templates, all of which are permanently protected from editing and talkpages redirecting to the "Table cell templates" parent. I noticed one of these templates could be improved from a minor edit, but replies are pretty slim on said template talkpage. This template is minor in content but core to table cells across much of the site, so I'm sure you consider it under your remit. Anyone fancy discussing and maybe performing a colour change to Template:Nom? ~ R.T.G 17:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to Template talk:Table cell templates because a) I meant to reply there and b) it will avoid decentralized discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Templates says For templates used in maintaining or documenting other templates, use:
{{WikiProject Templates|template_for_template_maintenance=y}}
PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done ~ R.T.G 21:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice: of ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_colour_of_nomination ~ R.T.G 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Added you to another category of protected templates, and...

Added this project to Template:Done/See also and Template:Check mark templates

I am not familiar with archiving discussions. Would anyone like to work out a scheme and maybe even demonstrate one or two so that I can finish the job (or you do it if you like) but to centralise discussion by redirecting the talk pages to the parent documentation? (example can be the above Table cell templates, for which all branched items redirect their talk pages for discussion) ~ R.T.G 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I get why the {{table cell templates}} are all redirected to the central talk page, because they're all table-based templates that wouldn't normally be used by themselves. However, I see little to no reason why {{done}} and {{high priority}} (or any of the random assortment of templates listed there) should necessarily have a centralized discussion location. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it was a vote for tradition without reason. No I know why, because what led me there was looking at a template for a green tick, and there's loads of those, and I wanted to ask a question which might relate to them all at the same time. ~ R.T.G 21:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to change the alt text on the green ticks to "green tick", and the red Xes to "red x". ~ R.T.G 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Template editor needed

As per Template_talk:WikiProject_Australia#Perth_assessment the WP Australia template needs what should be a fairly straightforward adjustment to fix the categorisation of Perth articles, they're bunging up Special:WantedCategories at the moment.TIA Le Deluge (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
– Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on shortening officeholder infoboxes by collapsing sections

The discussion maybe be found here as to whether we should modify the template to allow sections to be collapsed to reduce the length of some infoboxes. Ergo Sum 02:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Portuguese name

"Filho" at the end of a Portuguese name usually (but not always) just means "Junior". Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Portuguese name#Handle Filho suffix to discuss extending the Template to handle this case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing Template:intricate template to editnotice

You're invited to join a dicussion about possibly changing {{intricate template}} to an editnotice at Template talk:Intricate template#Change to editnotice?. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Swiss populations date clash with asof

Over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Switzerland#Template:Swiss_populations_date {{Swiss_populations_date}} is throwing up a clash with {{asof}} I can think of ways to kludge it, but I suspect it really wants a more sophisticated think about how the template extracts dates from Swiss population data. Le Deluge (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

{{as of}} is intended to track pages where outdated data would need manual updating. When the data is instead coming from a template, that seems unnecessary so I'd just leave out the {{as of}} (e.g. Special:Diff/926057693). Anomie⚔ 13:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course, although it's always possible that the template breaks at some point in the future. Anyway, it seems to be fixed - the asof thing is relatively trivial, but I thought it might be useful to raise in case other templates might get caught by the dmy order.Le Deluge (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Lua

Hello everyone. Would anyone be interested in starting a WikiProject Lua? If so, sign your username at User:E Super Maker/WikiProject Lua Consensus.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit needed for conditional category

Could someone take a look over at {{Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar cat}} (talk) which needs a conditional category to prevent hundreds of contraventions of WP:REDNOT. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Easy template split

Hi template boffins,

Is there an easy way to split a template? I want to (eventually) separate the shoulder from other parts of the arm in {{Joints of upper limbs}}, because I think that's how readers will approach it, but first step is working out if there's an easy way to do that. Any ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To remove the shoulder section from the existing template, just cut out everything from "group1 = Shoulder" down to and including the two curly braces above "group2 = Elbow". The navbox does not need to have a "group1".
To create a new template that is just the "shoulder" section, copy the existing template and then remove everything from "group2 = Elbow" down to and including the two braces below Ulnar canal. Reply here if that seems too scary, and I'll help. It would help if you had proposed names for one or more replacement templates.
Alternative: just let me grab this saw, and you bite down on this stick... – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; splitting navboxes like this one is super-simple. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
See {{Joints of upper limbs/sandbox}} for examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all - a related question is how to implement this change on the affected articles? Is there a batch way to do it? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
AWB would probably be the best way - go through the articles "joints" is transcluded on and replace it with the new "shoulder" template. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It's only 73 articles, so not that onerous to do ... manually (sorry). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Manually, semi-automated, it's all the same ;) Primefac (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating dates in templates

For instance here.[1] I find it particularly unfortunate when it's done with cite tags, eg a 2012 site tag is updated to this year. Are there any guidelines for this? Thanks. Oh, if someone could ping me when they reply it would help. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I see three types of date changes in that diff, none of which seem to be invalid date changes.
  1. The change to the date in {{use dmy dates}}/{{use mdy dates}} is valid, both because the article is being retagged with a different template and because both templates' documentation clearly specifies that the date is when the article was last checked for inconsistent date formats.
  2. The changes to accessdate in two citations are correct assuming that the editor actually did re-access the sources and verify they still support the relevant text, per the definition of that parameter in {{cite web}}'s documentation.
  3. The removal of archive-date in one citation goes along with the removal of the archive-url parameter.
I don't know of any guidelines related to this, but all follow the definitions of the parameters in the templates' documentation. Anomie⚔ 23:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Also see my "the updated date shows when the date formats in the article were checked" comment at MOS numbers which mentions another discussion at use dmy talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anomie and Johnuniq: thanks for the explanation. That all makes sense. But how about changes in citation needed dates? I as I said, I recently saw one updated from 2012 to this year. There's a big difference between unsourced text not cited for 8 years and not cited for a few weeks. I see that sort of change a couple of times a month at least. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I'd revert changes to the date in a {{citation needed}} or most other maintenance templates, with an appropriate edit summary. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anomie: thanks, that's what I needed to know, but the other information is very helpful also. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on a law enforcement-related infobox

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. (edit | history)
 – Archived by Lowercase sigmabot III

CfD nomination of Category:User-created templates

Category:User-created templates has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Template messages to be moved to Wikipedia:Template index. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Connecting Wikipedia articles to reliable sources through new template

Hi All,

Please have a look at my proposal and contribute with your opinions: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Connecting_Wikipedia_articles_to_reliable_sources_through_new_template

Thanks, Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 166 § Connecting Wikipedia articles to reliable sources through new template. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Detecting redirects

I want a template to throw an error message on a category if the category name doesn't match the main article name. However that means that I need to identify redirects - if I have Category:Foo and article Foo redirects to article Bar, then the template needs to warn the editor that the cat should be at Category:Bar. I could have sworn that there were some parser functions that would help with this kind of thing but I can't find them, all I've got at the moment is throwing an error if PAGESIZE <100. Any ideas? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: you're probably looking for Module:Redirect. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, that is indeed what I was thinking of, I always forget modules are a separate namespace when searching.Le Deluge (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia header templates has been nominated for merging

Category:Wikipedia header templates, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates/Archive_6"