Template talk:Curlie

Redirect
I thought this was a little easer to use than Template:ODP.

Streamlined version
I've switched this back to the cleaner version for several reasons. First, the use of italics and the preposition "on" are both nonstandard. See Template messages/Links for other examples. Italics are generally reserved for names of books, films, etc., and the uses of this template are much broader. It also removes the Google Directory links, mainly because it's a duplication that will most likely serve to confuse readers, but also because it's only one of many commercial uses of the data, and because it's often months out of date. - EurekaLott 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD

 * By which I mean that this template has been proposed for deletion. Since it's heavily in use, it's probably better to have the notice here. The debate is leaning strongly towards 'keep'. ( Radiant ) 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * TfD closed as keep. I have removed the notice. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

suggest URL
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADmoz&diff=84034954&oldid=83847357

Now "suggest" page is up, please, add the link back.

With respect, nejron 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So that is the purpose of that part of the code. ;)) Activated on Croatian wiki (even though it is of little use). --Ivan Bajlo 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally put that in there, but I'm uncertain as to whether it would be a good idea. The template is protected so an Admin would have to do it in any case. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please get rid of the Suggest a site link to the dmoz template; it doesn't belong on Wiki and isn't appropriate. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sandy. The suggest site link does not improve the quality of the wikipedia article in any way - in fact it degrades the quality by increasing the clutter. I can see why one would want to help other community projects, but this is not what wikipedia is for. Could this link please be removed. Conrad.Irwin 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I originally put that in the template not to help ODP but to make it easier for people who would otherwise list their link in the Wikipedia article to find a spot where it would be more appropriate. But, as I said above, I have misgivings about it and I agree that it should be removed. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reduced "(suggest site)" to (+). Would that be more helpful in streamlining it or does the ambiguity of the + sign defeat the purpose of the submission URL in the template to begin with? By the way, I've dropped the template's protection down to semi now. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the (+), because although I see the reasoning behind it, it is now not immediately clear what it is for. I have left the link in a comment so people who dont know how dmoz works can add it back if that is the reached consensus. Conrad.Irwin 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One parameter
I sugges use the If parser so the user could only utilize one parameter (i.e. WiFi for the Path To Category and the Category Name, instead of repeat the same parameter twice). --HybridBoy 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this would be as useful as the current feature of using the article name as the second option, should the second option be blank. Conrad.Irwin 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Volume
This is used in about 2000 mainspace articles.--SallyForth123 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Slash
The instructions say to include the terminal slash on the DMOZ directory path, but currently this breaks the external link. --Una Smith (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken Links?
I tried using this template for Buddhist art and Fingerboarding and it brought back broken links. Not sure what I am doing wrong. --Legionarius (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (actual link)

The template works for me. Try using. That should generate 

''However, I had to edit the template to get rid of the Russian that followed your link. That was added by a robot recently and seems to have garbled the template...'' --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks! (or Spazeeba!)--Legionarius (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating this template
I've been reviewing the template and its history, and I'd like to offer a few suggestions.

First, the order of the parameter listings is odd. The first entry should specify what type of link we're creating (eg - category view, user profile, or search results), the second should specify the path or link at dmoz, and the third the text to display on links in the Wikipedia article. Since the latter is optional, it could be disregarded if need be. Currently, the template examines the third parameter to determine what function to perform, so the template expects three parameters irrespective of use, implying the need to specify a parameter that should be optional.

Better yet, we should use named parameters to do away with any possible confusion and make the template (reasonably) future-proof.

My last suggestion is to incorporate a search results link. I did this in June, but my edit was reverted without explanation.

If these changes are made, a bot may have to update all links to this template. Thoughts? Mind matrix  21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I love your suggestion to add a search capability to this template. However, there is apparently some sentiment against dmoz search templates as is revealed in WT:EL. It has actually been proposed there that dmoz2 should be deleted. I have given an argument and example there of when it can be better for WP to use dmoz search than dmoz category. Qazin (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To develop a consensus on the question of the dmoz search capability in this template, what do you think about nominating dmoz2 for deletion? If there is a consensus to keep dmoz2, then it seems unlikely anyone can object to merging dmoz2 into dmoz. If it fails, then at least the issue will be resolved. Qazin (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have proposed a need for clarification of WP:ELNO item 9 regarding search results linking at WT:EL. Qazin (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz2
Template:Dmoz2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NOTE: This notice is NOT for this template, but is provided here because of its similarity to this template and potentially common interest with this template's editors and users. Qazin (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Trailing slash
This template has a bug. If it is used with a url that provides a trailing slash (lke this: ), the link fails (at least in Firefox). If it is used with a url that does NOT provide a trailing slash (like this: ), the link works. However, if the same url that is the result (like this: Feed Readers) is accessed, Dmoz itself appends the trailing slash. In other words, both urls with and without a trailing slash work fine directly on Dmoz, but this template adds a second trailing slash in some cases, and that fails.

For whatever reason, I can not edit this template to remove the unneeded trailing slash, but someone should. EAE (Holla!) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it would be best to make the template remove a trailing slash from the original, and always add a new one. Creating links that result in a redirect is not goos style. I have no odea how it works, but the german template does indeed work. So if a specialist is coming around, feel free to fix it :-) --Windharp (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whichever is easiest. It does need to be fixed one way or the other though.  If you can edit this template, it's probably best to fix it with a hack (although removing an unnecessary slash is hardly a hack) for now and wait until someone who knows how the german template works comes along and fixes it properly. EAE (Holla!) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how #rel2abs (used in the German template) can do that. Any comments from parser function experts? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone have some extreme test data: I think that changing the phrase:
 * to
 * should rationalize the final "/" the same way the German template does, but I'm not sure why it works or if it would break something else. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * should rationalize the final "/" the same way the German template does, but I'm not sure why it works or if it would break something else. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * should rationalize the final "/" the same way the German template does, but I'm not sure why it works or if it would break something else. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

embedded [ and ]
Doesn't work for category names which include an embedded [], such as US Representatives. Flatterworld (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think having square brackets in a dmoz category name is best practise, and additionally to maybe fixing the template, I'd like to check if the category shouldn't be renamed. I was not able to spot an example, though. DMOZ Search for representatives did not yield any results with a square bracket, can you provide an example? -- Windharp (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall brackets being allowed in DMOZ category names. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at Flatterworld's edit history and I think this is what he or she meant: . However, there was an extra d following the percent-5d in the link they removed with this edit, so I guess what I'm saying is, brackets are allowed, and they work, so everyone is wrong :) EAE (Holla!) 06:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the problem, then. Perhaps an escape template could be constructed so that  would translate to Regional/North_America/United_States/Idaho/Government/US_House_of_Representatives/Walt_Minnick_%5bD-1%5d.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EAE apparently doesn't understand the difference between a bracket and its code. I just tried to fix the redirected link at Rahm Emanuel and see no one has yet fixed the template to allow for actual brackets, which means cut-and-paste still doesn't work. I replaced the brackets with the %5b and %5d coding for now, but it's not at all user-friendly. Perhaps it would be better to just delete all such Dmoz links if no one's interested in fixing the problem. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit
Please help Dmoz/ODP hasn't had profiles for years. I would like to request that someone remove this functionality from the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DMOZ/ODP has always had profiles, only the links changed some time ago with the new DMOZ 2.0 software. In the interest of established users of this template I think this should be reverted and the link adjusted. New links are in the form http://www.dmoz.org/public/profile?editor=windharp (Notifying MSGJ) -- Windharp (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, with apologies if I'm considered "involved". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, request marked as resolved. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert last edit (edit request)
Please, revert [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADmoz&diff=603557429&oldid=603339707 last edit]. I think a lot of people do not know what DMOZ is - at least I did not knew. It hasnt been discussed and non-trivial edits should not be made to fully protected templates (template editor protected)... Christian75 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Have you asked why this was done; have you asked them to self-revert? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can ask here ... Christian75 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per DMOZ/Open Directory Project. The former name is more popular and has been around longer, so if anything, you're more likely to recognize it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2014
Please remove Yahoo Directory from See Also as it's now closed.

71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The documentation is transcluded from Template:Dmoz/doc, which is not protected. You can do this yourself. SiBr4 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I'm actually working on firing up AWB to nuke all appearances of Yahoo directory. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving to Wikidata
I believe some bot should collect the links made with this template and reassign them to dmoz-IDs of article-objects on Wikidata. --eugrus (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Status
Since DMOZ was just announced publicly as shutting down on 2017-03-14, I will comment out this template but retain it for when a suitable mirror/fork comes back online. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiding is ok. I don't think any aspiring successor should be blindly adopted though: in several areas the Dmoz pages had badly declined in usefulness and linking them was mostly a way to support a friend project with complementary aims (which however stopped being such a long, long time ago). Nemo 08:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The best option would be to remove the DMOZ template from every page it's transcluded on using a bot, create an edit filter to stop people from adding new instances of it to pages, and then delete dmoz when the bot's job is done. The proposal on Meta to create a MediaWiki-based WMF-hosted web directory sadly seems to be going nowhere. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the community continues elsewhere, then there's no reason to delete/blacklist it--the links will be just as valuable as they are now. There have been several wiki-proposed solutions and one is live now but has no activity, so I agree that it is not a viable option for replacing this within the next week but there is already a static version of the site available. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is "link to the Wayback Machine"? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with the wayback machine. Better than having to deal with the mountains of spam ELs collect. DMOZ at least had the ability to do some quality control. WP is to open to be able to effectively deal with ELs. The mirror is working well. I see no reason to remove the template by bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way the community is trying to get DMOZ up and running again. They have archives of their material. We should look at supporting them in this effort :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

edit template-protected The category pages under the dmoztools.net domain appear to support HTTPS (for example, see the category page for Abraham Lincoln.) Using HTTPS URLs for DMOZ category links should provide increased privacy and security for users. In the template code, please change  to   instead. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good request. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.dmozlive.com/?language=English&dquery=ben+sasse finds :
 * http://www.dmozlive.com/Top/Regional/North_America/United_States/Nebraska/Government/Federal/US_Senate/Ben_Sasse_[R] a success.
 * however,, which points to :
 * https://dmoztools.net/Regional/North_America/United_States/Nebraska/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/US_Senate/Ben_Sasse a fail.
 * https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297862/dmozlivecom-preserves-a-piece-of-aol-dmoz-history.html
 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dmoz-internet-directory-re-launches-at-dmozlivecom-after-unexpected-shuttering-by-host-aol-300428754.html
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dmoztools.net
 * http://www.topalexa.com/siteinfo/dmoztools.net
 * https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.dmoz.org/
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dmozlive.com
 * http://www.topalexa.com/siteinfo/dmozlive.com
 * http://curlie.org/top/index.html
 * http://www.topalexa.com/siteinfo/curlie.org
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/curlie.org
 * ?: working example of Excite for Web Servers! from Ref
 * http://www.spectacle.org/excite-bin/AT-newsletterssearch.cgi?doc={searchTerms}
 * http://www.spectacle.org/excite-bin/AT-newsletterssearch.cgi?search={searchTerms}
 * Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I help? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * is dmozlive.com better than dmoztools.net ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I know the DMOZ folks are working to get the site up again under independent management. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like it may be. For what it's worth, I was hoping that the community would have made a genuine successor by now but it hasn't happened. If others think dmozlive is the way to go, then I'm in favor based on pure functionality. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up that the directory's technical editor team are actively working on it's successor: Curlie - but we are all volunteers and have to fit the directory time into real-life constraints. Despite having made considerable progress, we still don't have a launch date set yet... We'll likely make the announcement through our public forum. Elper (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC) (dmoz admin)
 * Thanks User:Elper. Are you wishing support from the Wikimedia Movement? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2017
Please add, and then change the link parameter to Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_14, per a nomination by. P p p er y 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remove the newline after the tfd tag. P p p er y 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Curlie
Curlie.org is now live, and is maintained by the same community (at least, those who have remained). Suggestions are not (yet) open, and editor communication, and probably editor profiles, are not (yet) operational. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as rationale makes sense and there are no objections. (closed by page mover) Brad  v  01:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dmoz → Template:Curlie – Curlie.org is, in fact, the successor to DMOZ with access to non-public information from DMOZ and the same editor community. The template has been repurposed to point to curlie. The only objections I can see are (1) there is no reliable proof that curlie.org is the actual successor to DMOZ, and (2) Curlie.org may be a better location than Curlie. The latter is the primary reason I didn't do the move, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to confirm the above... I can't find a better source for the moment than the RZ forum landing page (also community run), but Curlie.org is the successor to Dmoz.org and is directly operated by the volunteer editing community rather than by a business entity. This forum is brought to you by the volunteer editors of the Curlie Directory (formerly known as the Open Directory Project, ODP and DMOZ)...  Elper (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2017
Change https://curlie.org to http://dmoztools.net due to frequent "504 Gateway Time-out" errors at curlie.org Ernobe (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 20:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. DMOZTOOLS is a static mirror, whereas Curlie is the actual successor to DMOZ. I'm not saying that we shouldn't change the link, but the two are not equivalent so this isn't enough of a non-controversial change to make without gaining consensus first. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

Lack of information on consensus building policy
At the "view source" page it says that discussing a proposed edit with others is one of the things one can do, but does not mention that it is a necessary first step according to Wikipedia policy. It then says,


 * If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An administrator or template editor may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed.

Since the issue was not being discussed, and it was a suggestion for a simple change, I clicked on the "edit request" button. I think that more information about the Wikipedia consensus building policies should be added to that page.Ernobe (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 20:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase "simple change" should probably be replaced with "non-controvertial change". Changes made unilaterally to protected templates are usually things like correcting obvious markup errors, adding or removing hidden comments, copy-edits, changing tracking categories, etc. Redirecting a template to a different website, while simple to implement, is more of a drastic change that at least would require no objections after a few days of a discussion being open. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

Broken link generated when viewing template page
If I open Template:Curlie to inspect what this template does, the very first word on the page is a link titled "Curlie at Curlie (based on DMOZ)" and leading to https://curlie.org/Curlie, which is a broken link. Someone with the appropriate privileges, please change the code so that the template page renders in a better way, such as by specifying a sample argument enclosed in noincludes. --Blahma (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 19:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Should now point to Curlie main page. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2019
Please remove the wikilink to Curlie. As a result of Articles for deletion/Curlie, that page is now a redirect, and it should not be linked from this template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template., The outcome of the AFD you point to was to create a redirect. It was not to create a redirect and prohibit its use. For the 7000+ uses of the template do you think it's reasonable to provide an external link   but not provide any information on what Curlie is? The external target is at curlie.org, and the description of Curlie is at DMOZ. Using the redirect is the sensible thing to do. Cabayi (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The result of that AfD was explicitly redirect to DMOZ. Surely that means that the redirect is fine in this template and just about anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with it, WP:RFD is that way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with the outcome of the AfD discussion, I just don't think the discussion took into account the external link template. There is no law that says just because a redirect exits, it must be linked to. And there is almost no discussion of Curlie in the DMOZ article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinking to a non-existent article
I don't think templates should have a Wikilink when there is no article on Wikipedia. Currently Curlie is a redirect to DMOZ, and only mentioned briefly there. What do the other users of this template think? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Time to finally delete?
Is it time to finally delete this template? The links that I've followed from articles that still have this template all seem to lead to unmaintained and embarrassingly out-of-date lists of links that aren't very helpful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been over a month with no responses at all so I am going to nominate this template for discussion as the website to which it links appears to be largely outdated and unmaintained. It was a useful resource in the past but it appears that its time has long since passed. ElKevbo (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For the record: Record of the discussion: Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 6. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)