Wikipedia talk:TWA/Invite

Protected edit request on 11 April 2014
HostBot isn't spamming this as far as might be useful. Can we have an option to have users apply this to talk pages beyond simply transcluding it? I'd like to see it included as an option in Twinkle, as I run into new editors that need to learn buttonology. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It can't be added to Twinkle from here - it needs to be added to the Twinkle JavaScript code, which is maintained on GitHub if I recall correctly. You'll need to ask at WT:TW or by using the feature request function on their GitHub page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2014
Please replace  with   because if this template is used by not-bot, then signature should not say "robot friend"... Also, I see no need for this to be fully protected,  would probably be fine.

— &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've reduced the page to template protection, so you should be able to edit it now. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Yes check.svg Done, as I wanted to add documentation as well. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 February 2016
I think it may be worth having a header included in this template - as it is often added via WP:TW to editor's talk pages, could we include a header such as Join the adventure! Learn to edit Wikipedia in under an hour? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions

-- samtar whisper 18:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One problem is that it could then result in double-headers from HostBot invites or people manually making their own header and then substituting the template. Doesn't Twinkle auto-add a header?  Would it be possible to have it 'know' whether a header already exists? Great suggestion, though.  Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not possible for a template to detect whether it is placed under a header or not. However, it is possible for scripts like Twinkle or HostBot to detect whether or not a template adds a header to the page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More discussion needed. Disabled request for now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
It's usual for substituted templates to do this, and after someone couldn't find it, I thought it might be useful to add a comment pointing back to the template.

Change this:

To this:

nyuszika7h (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Good idea --  samtar talk or stalk 14:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do comments subst directly, or is something else necessary for substitution of comments? --Izno (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah comments subst just fine :) -- samtar talk or stalk 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2016
Add a section header such as ==You're invited to The Wikipedia Adventure!== so it won't get stuck under an unrelated header such as, for example, a speedy deletion notice. This is also especially useful for Twinkle users who aren't given a chance to put a header in before Twinkle posts the template. This would also, I believe, help new editors to notice that they have a new message on their talk page.

 — Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the discussion above, in which there was concern (currently unresolved) about placing double headers. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2019
Please replace

This message was delivered

with either

This message was delivered

or

This message was delivered

This removes the current situation where 2 different  tags are nested, which runs afoul of Manual of Style/Accessibility. The first option removes the outer "small" tag, while the second option removes the inner "small" tag. I recommend the first option, since it also fixes an html syntax mistake - the current tags are misnested, opening as small-span-small and then closing as small-small-span. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)