Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 6



Template:Number-one singles in India

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per G8. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Number-one singles in India

All articles listed in this navbox have been deleted. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Edit template-protected

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit template-protected
 * Edit protected

Propose merging Template:Edit template-protected with Template:Edit protected.

Both templates behave exactly the same when applied to a template talk namespace: Identical infoboxes, parameters, categories etc. —capmo (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: the templates are essentially already merged, as their behaviour is all governed by Module:Protected edit request. They do, however, function slightly differently if they are pointed at a page that isn't protected - edit protected will say it's a protected edit request, but edit template-protected will say it's a template-protected edit request. So we can't actually redirect the templates to each other without changing this functionality. Also, you need to include edit semi-protected, which also works the same way and uses the same module. Also pinging Jackmcbarn, who has done a lot of work on the module. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I first noticed this template yesterday, when editing Template talk:R from file metadata link. On that page it is used alongside with edit protected, and from the tests I made there with both I couldn't see the differences that you cite. They display the same messages and even categorize the page under the same category (Wikipedia template-protected edit requests). Regards, —capmo (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now I get it: the slight difference that you cite only appears when they are used on a page that isn't protected. (But in that case, they wouldn't be necessary anyway.) —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also a 'data-origlevel' HTML attribute that would be affected by the merge, and a "force" parameter that overrides the automatic detection that would no longer function. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Ping in to, whose very useful bot maintained table User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable could be impacted. — xaosflux  Talk 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. Based on the current output of the templates, AnomieBOT would not be affected with regard to normal correctly-placed templates, but would be affected by the lack of the differences noted above. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Parenthetically, WP:EPH has stopped working with Edit template-protected since it's been tagged with Tfm. Much sad. Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too. Anyone know a fix? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had originally inserted the tag to the template/doc subpage, but it was moved to the template page. Maybe moving it back to /doc may fix this. —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment since template-editor and administrator are separate editor categories, the categories implemented should be different, and template-editors should have their own notice list. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They do, and I don't think that is gonna change, 65. Alakzi (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We do, and that list is populated by the appropriate Edit template-protected template. Merging the template in will break that.  When Jackmcbarn created the module, I was one of the ones that supported that in hopes of being able to merge them into one template. In order for that to be done, the module would be required to ALWAYS place the template in the correct category and show the correct version of the template on the talk page no matter what template was used.  Apparently, this can not be done because I am always finding pages in the wrong category (heck, I even find unprotected stuff listed in the categories for full and semi protected requests, and that should NEVER be. —   09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there is a way for this template be set up to verify what type of protection is on its corresponding non-talk page. But, then again, what if this template is placed on the talk page of a redirect in a different namespace? The fact that the message in the template displays the proper type of protection level (in practice) is helpful, especially if it is an edit request for a permanently, non-cascade protected page in the "Template:" namespace that a non-admin or admin notices needs its protection level lowered to template protection. Steel1943  (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I'm looking at this, the only alternative proposal I could see working is if Edit semi-protected is added to the nomination, then have all of their respective image, text, and category triggers set up by a parameter. So, for example, the current contents of Edit template-protected would show up if the parameter was set to "template-protected", or the current contents of Edit semi-protected would show up if the parameter was set to "semi-protected", etc. Steel1943  (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. No need for more than one such template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the subtle differences in these wrapper templates make them distinguished enough from each other and the fact that merging would break that functionality. —  23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific about the subtle differences you cite? As a user, all I can say is that if the shorter form edit protected works for templates, I won't bother typing the longer form. (i.e., they are already merged in their functionality, nothing is "broken" as far as I know.) —capmo (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The differences aren't visual to end users, the difference is how the template works behind the scenes to put things in the correct category. I'm constantly finding things on USER:AnomieBOT/PERTable that are semi or template protected because people use the wrong template. When I respond to the requests, 's Edit Protected Helper script updates them to use the appropriate version of the template based on the actual protection level of the page. —   09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange... when applied to Template talk:R from file metadata link, edit protected added it correctly to Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, but on Template talk:Js it acts differently. Is there a reason for such discrepancy? —capmo (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem lies in the module: edit template-protected is not categorizing Template talk:Js properly, either. —capmo (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks to be working to me - both edit protected and  edit template-protected add Template talk:Js to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. That's because it detects the protection level of Template:Js and sets the category accordingly. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if I got it right, it depends on the protection level effectively applied to the page (global, or namespace-specific protection), and not on the namespace the page belongs to. This approach doesn't make much sense to me; I'd expect a protected template to be listed in Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests when one of the {edit protected} templates is used.
 * Then, we have the following situation: both edit protected and edit template-protected add some templates to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests; both also add other templates to Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. If they always behave the same, one of them is probably redundant. —capmo (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Template-protected" refers to template protection, editable by template editors, not to templates that are fully-protected. As described above, the various edit-protected templates to act differently when applied to a non-protected page. Anomie⚔ 19:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose for now, seems like there are still issues that prevent one from being redirected to the other. probably better to discuss this on the template talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment The arguments given up till now against the merger have not been able to convince me that two templates (or three, if we include "semi-protected") are necessary, instead of only one. The examples given show that the templates considered for merger act the same in different situations, the only exception being when they are applied to a non-protected page; but why would someone ever consider using one of these templates on an unprotected page, if they can go and edit it directly? —capmo (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because sometimes people don't really understand what they're doing, see all the people who put requests for edits to articles on pages like Template talk:Citation needed or random policy pages' talk pages. It also happens sometimes when a page is protected but the protection expires before the request is answered. Anomie⚔ 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the examples, I had forgotten that page protection can be temporary. That makes more sense now. —capmo (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.