Template talk:Wikipedia mirror

I'd rather there be a Complicance section instead of Violations. That would allow people to document both successes and failures more naturally. I'd also prefer Actions, rather than status, as compliance overlaps with status. What do you think? Superm401 | Talk 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- WB 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rating
I'm adding a "rating" section which should have only "High", "Medium", or "Low". The compliance parameter will remain the same but the text will change to details. Tell me if you have a problem with this. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Thinking about this, if we had a separate pages for each of these mosltly non-compliant sites, we could categorize them easily. Just a thought. -- WB 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but is it worth the extra instruction creep? As is there are dozens of entries that don't even use the Wikipedia mirror format. Superm401 - Talk 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More pages = more work. I think current format is fine. We just have to convert a bunch. -- WB 08:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

nowiki
I'm apparently not the only person that has screwed up filling out the template - can't nowiki's just be added to the template? &brvbar; Reisio 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that any addition of &lt;nowiki&gt; causes the display of the parameter code itself ( or ) instead of what the user enters for those parameters. There may be a way around, but it requires more template zen than I have.  Be assured; I've tried (just now and a while back) and I have forgotten to close the nowiki when adding several new sites. Superm401 - Talk 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget nowiki
Now that Wikipedia has adopted nofollow in links, links to these sites shouldn't benefit them in search engines. Can we stop hiding the links with nowiki? Superm401 - Talk 07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stop doing this, and remove any recommendations to I see. Superm401 - Talk 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)