Wikipedia talk:Template editor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criteria for revocation - Reversing ones own actions

It is widely considered acceptable for an administrator to reverse their own actions if they feel they were in error. I propose the following addition to "Criteria for revocation":

• Administrators are responsible for their actions, as such if they feel granting this right was in error they may reverse their own decision.

I feel this is descriptive of our existing practices and not proscriptive, I feel the page should reflect this as the criteria can be viewed by some as an exhaustive list of the only reasons that are acceptable. I am of course happy to have the specific wording adjusted by someone more talented at language than myself. Criticisms and suggestions are of course welcome. Chillum 20:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we would want to add something about how reversing your own action does not impeded another administrator from choosing to extend the right themselves? Chillum 20:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there should also be some sort of time restriction – this probably shouldn't be a valid reason several months or years after the right was granted. - Evad37 [talk] 01:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do all the template editors hang out?

There's a template ({{Infobox sports competition event}}) that, through a country parameter, is causing a link to the Georgia disambiguation page (see 2015 World Judo Championships – Men's +100 kg). I've looked through the template (and subtemplates) and can't seem to figure out how to get the link to go through Georgia (country). Is there a better place to ask how to fix this than here (if so, I'll ask there)? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 11:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The infobox internally uses the Olympic Games flag template {{flagIOC2}}, which returns a flag icon with link to "... at the ... Olympics". The "(country)" disambiguator is not necessary for these suffixed links, though if the |games= parameter is empty, the result is a link to the country article, which is a dab page for Georgia. In the sandbox I made a change to use {{flagcountry}} instead if the |games= parameter isn't set.

Since this project page concerns the template editor user right, it is the wrong page for questions like this. The concerned template's talk page is the most logical place to ask; if you anticipate a lack of response there, a centralized page you could post at regarding template problems would be WP:VPT. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I'll ask at WP:VPT, as the links to the Georgia disambiguation page still exist. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The code does work (see a comparison). I've changed it in the sandbox only, so the live template still needs to be changed. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't checked the history to see that the live template wasn't edited yet. Thanks! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Template editor and cascade protection

Copied from here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection: Please revert the "protection downgrade" from permanent protection to template protection. This page is cascade-protected; a cascade-protected page with template protection creates a misleading "edit" option on the page when no one (except admins) can actually edit it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: Can you explain why this template requires "full protection," when "template protection" -- edits limited to administrators and template editors -- has obviously been adequate protection since 2013? I believe situations such as this widely used template are exactly why template protection exists. Qualified template editors may still make revisions, and editors may make edit requests on the template talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I recommend you reread my original statement, specifically the part pertaining to cascading-protection. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Template editors cannot edit a cascade-protected page, even if the page has template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I now understand your request: you want to remove the cascade protection, leaving only template protection, correct? BTW, weirdly, I edited your request for Template:Birth date and age, not this one, but my edit posted here. I have encountered this problem from time to time in the past, when the displayed "edit" button for one section opens an edit dialog window for a different section on the same page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Actually, the exact opposite. I'm requesting that "full protection" be "technically" put back on the template since having a "template protection/cascading-protection" combination causes a glitch with Wikipedia's interface, giving template editors a "edit" option on the page when they actually cannot edit the page. I have no opinion on wherever or not the cascading protection should be removed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I think this is unnecessary. What if the templates are removed from the list of cascading protected items? Then we'll get another RFPP to downgrade to template protection. We're not changing anything by fully protecting it. A misleading edit button is trivial. NeilN, any thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

When I saw the mass nominations I stopped and asked Fuhghettaboutit what they intended. [1] Waiting for an answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @NeilN: I noticed that common denominator too. I hope we get a response on this since I'm having trouble understanding this myself. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @MusikAnimal: I have to respectfully disagree with this for a couple of reasons. For one, this method, and this point, seems a lot more effective than requesting an interface update, given my experiences with that (cannot find a diff for the life of me right now though.) And two, if cascading protection is also meant to move protect a page, that is bypassed when a page has template protection/cascading-protection; I have the template editor right, and for some odd and probably unintentional reason, I don't have the ability to edit these pages, but I can move them. If cascade-protection is supposed to do what it is intended to do, placing template protection on it as well causes several software hiccups. Either we fix the problem (the interface) or we put a bandage over it until the problem is fixed (fixing the protection settings issue, though it's more like weakly stitching the wound per the "page move" issue I states above). Not doing anything, such as declining these requests, is like saying we refuse to do anything to fix a problem. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more of a flaw (or a bug) in the MediaWiki software (feel free to file a phab report). There must be tons of other templates under cascading protection that still have edit buttons. Should we protect all of those too? What if cascading protection is removed, say when the templates are no longer on the main page. Now the high-risk is gone so I have to unprotect all those templates. I'd rather the reason for protection live on the parent template or page, where the cascading protection was actually applied. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/cx2) When the template editor right was first established, I started changing a bunch of templates from full protection to allow template editors and admins to edit but received pushback here. I'm not sure, but it seems we may have never have had the discussion about lowering the protection level of many templates to allow the template editor right to function. Anyway, I was unaware these templates were using the old cascading protection method. Certainly it does not make sense to have a template say it can be edited when it can't. But the question seems to have become which direction to go: remove them from cascading protection so their current protection level actual matches, or restore full-protection so they aren't falsely advertising the ability to edit by template editors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no strong feelings, just wanted to share my 2c. My main point is there must be a lot of templates that falsely advertise that they can be edited. It's not just these that have cascading protection. And from a programming perspective, which I know doesn't really apply, I like to think of the single cascading protection on the parent page as the "refactoring" point, whereby the protection functionality exists and can be managed in one place. To be fair, a lot of these templates are probably also used in the MediaWiki namespace and should be fully protected anyway, but for those that are not, protecting them individually doesn't make much sense to me. You still can edit it, who cares if there's an edit button? If you went to make an edit but can't, make an edit request and we'll do it for you — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment unrelated to the discussion above (sort of): I've tried a few times to reorganize this section so that the discussion about these templates, as well as the other templates related to this discussion, are "pulled away" from the other unrelated requests so that other admins can answer unrelated requests without having to scroll through this, but I've now received 4 edit conflicts, so I have to give up. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Yes let's do this. I will try too — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Alright! Done, minus the requests to lower protection. Does Twinkle not let you mass-request protection and format it like this? Or is that yet another thing I have put on the to-dos? =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  @MusikAnimal: Twinkle does not. In fact, I don't think it is capable of mass-nominating any group of pages since it performs the functions only on the page that is being viewed (and the respective noticeboards/user talk pages as a result). That, and it's a bit helpful to use when editing with the desktop version of Wikipedia on a mobile device. (I was "cherry-picking" through Category:Wikipedia fully-protected templates from the top alphabetically to see which ones needed protection fixes of sorts.) :) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be the right forum for discussion of the meta issue, so unless others chime toward a consensus in that we should be removing them from cascading, and since it was an undiscussed change at the time done, in a few hours I'll change them all back to full protection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: No opposition here. Just don't forget about Twinkle's batch protection feature! (Use it on this page and select the appropriate page). Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal, Fuhghettaboutit, and NeilN: Either way, before this entry is archived, is there any agreement that we may need to move this discussion elsewhere to determine a complete resolution to this ... Especially considering that this list is just "(symbols)-C" on the list? Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, hmm, I suppose If there were to be discussion it would be at Wikipedia talk:Template editor (maybe advertising at the pump), but it seems to me this discussion is just a prompt for a different discussion (if at all). Who cares about these few templates. The issue is whether there should be some mass lowering of protection to allow the template editor right to be more functional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Agreed. If anything, this list is proof that change needs to happen on the template editor front. Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, move the discussion. Basically, I'm in favor of anything that make editors' lives easier but doesn't give admins RSI protecting/unprotecting :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping @Steel1943, Fuhghettaboutit, and MusikAnimal: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating page to incorporate material from excellent talk discussion?

Hi, I'd like to mention this long discussion among very established template/module contributors (you guys) from 2013 that I found today. Personally, this was some of the best reading I had on a WP talk page in a long time. Some of the material there delves into some back-end concerns without getting technical, and is worthy to publish on this main page itself in my opinion. There's discussion for the reason for protection (vandalism / transclusion / risk / trust / competence concerns), mention of MediaWiki's job queue, and notes about the implications of changes made to templates with high transclusions. I think it's quite good reading for any new or potential template editor.

FYI, from that discussion, what I got out of it was a potential revision of granting criteria #5 and #6 to:

• Demonstrate proficiency among HTML, CSS, wikitext, template syntax, PHP, parser functions, and Lua.
• Demonstrate usage of sandbox testing.
• Among edits, does not make fussy minor edits to unprotected templates that have high transclusion (a lack of understanding why is not a minus, but meeting this is a plus, as it potentially demonstrates some understanding or logical reasoning about some of the backend processes)

Anyway, if I have the time, I might volunteer to incorporate some of the discussion into the main page. Let me know if anyone else had other thoughts. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A clarification, I wouldn't change text in the granting criteria in the slightest (without further discussion). — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new subsubsection at Wikipedia:Template editor#Other considerations on good faith. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction between WP:TPE and WP:EDN

• Original wording: [2]
• My inaccurate change: [3]
• Johnuniq's change (they seem dissatisfied with it — "aiming for more precision in lead, but wording is a bit klunky"): [4]

Premise

WP:TPE reads:

It also allows those editors to edit edit notices, all of which are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.

My understanding of this is as follows:

1. Template editors can edit all edit notices.
2. All edit notices are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights.

The first sentence there is not relevant to my comment. The second sentence I parse as meaning:

1. No edit notices are editable by any user who is not either 1) a template editor or 2) an administrator.

That I then understand to mean:

1. All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators.

Premise

WP:EDN reads:

All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages, but editnotices for other namespaces can be created and edited only by administrators and template editors.

My interpretation of this is:

1. All users can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk space.
2. Only administrators and template editors can change other edit notices.

I conclude from the first point:

1. Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk namespace.

Which leads me to consider that:

1. Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change some edit notices.

I then would restate that as:

1. Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors.

Conclusion

Given the two resulting statements:

1. All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators.
2. Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors.

I would conclude that those two sentences of WP:TPE (first point) and WP:EDN (second point) contain a logical contradiction.

Could folks weigh in on how you think this should read? Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The WP:TPE text is mostly correct, it just needs to note the exception that users can edit notices for their own user/talk pages – perhaps a footnote or parenthetical comment could be added, and the words "all of" removed. - Evad37 [talk] 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: The recent edits have restored the suggestion that TE editors can edit editnotices only for non-userspace pages. My wording (which I agree was not ideal) was trying to avoid that inaccuracy. I suspect that a simple generic statement with a footnote would be best, as mentioned by Evad37. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for the ping. I personally respectfully disagree, because the statement says that editnotices for non-userspace pages are now "allowed". I don't think it suggests that TEs can't edit userspace editnotices, and nowhere is the word only present. Please feel free to revert my wording though. update: I added the suggested footnote... does sound like a good clarification. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 03:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A small follow-up (a bit on the side): Note the possibility of this and this with a non-admin non-TE account. It might make sense to impose restrictions on "/Editnotice" (and "/Emailnotice"?) subpages, similar to how we're doing it with user css and js pages, but I suppose that's a discussion for WP:VPT. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As editnotics are mostly custom templates, I'd be more comfortable with TE and Admin edit and move only. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: It sounds like you found a bug. Please consider reporting it. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified WP:VPT for now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata RFC

The page mentions:

Per RFC consensus, it's best to seek consensus before adding Wikidata functionality to a template or module. Wikidata is still relatively new, so this may change once it has been more integrated. For instance, it's easy to imagine that within a year or so it would be wholly non-controversial to add a fallback Wikidata option in case a certain parameter isn't specified... But more complex stuff will probably remain worth discussing.

The Wikidata Phase 2 RFC was 3 years ago; perhaps it's time to remove this now, given the consensus (which was a result of the newness) is clearly somewhat redundant. — OwenBlacker (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at this RFC from May/June this year. Use of Wikidata is still contentious, to say the least, and it is still probably best to discuss and get consensus in most cases. - Evad37 [talk] 23:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the application of this policy/guideline at ANI.

Hello all. There is a discussion relevant to this policy/guideline at |ANI.Hobit (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Gif Userboxes

Are users able to construct Userboxes on their own? And how userboxes with gif affects other users?

Ras Benjih/^RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ras Benjih:This talk page is about template editor. If you want to talk about Gif Userboxes,please start a disscusion at Village pump.TEntEn4279 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Padlock

I have proposed using a red padlock rather than a pink padlock for template protection. If you have a comment, please visit Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for template protection. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly defining the conduct reponsibilities

Hey, guys. After participating in an ANI case, it occurred to me that the rights and responsibilities of Template Editors in the event of a dispute is not clearly and properly voiced here. Admins Floquenbeam, GoldenRing, Dennis Brown seem to expect a level of accountability on par with that of two admins in dispute. Of course, the level of accountability expected of two admin is described in Wikipedia:Administrators:

Administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

[~snip~]

When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.

This is clearly what Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown had expected of Template Editors. When I explicitly asked this, Dennis Brown replied: That's a valid comparison. With higher privilege bits comes the higher expectations of conduct and accountability. Floquenbeam said it in his own words: Just be patient, spend the extra 5 minutes discussing, and resolve it like peers, instead of opponents.

This is not what this policy says at this time, and this not what one of the disputing Template Editors had done. The policy currently forbids wheel warring, so one of Template Editors thought that he can revert his colleague and hold his own favorite revision hostage until his demands are met; and if his colleague dared reinstating the change without the ransom, the colleague can be reported to ANI and his TE right removed. (I must say, in all probabilities, this Template Editor did this all in good faith, thinking he is doing the right thing and that his demands were probably in the interest of improving Wikipedia. The problem is, that's what everyone in dispute thinks.)

So, I propose the following addition to this policy:

Dispute with a fellow Template Editor

A Template Editor should not revert the edit of his peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the Template Editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting Template Editor to demonstrate his revert is not out of sheer reflex. When a Template Editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another Template Editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.

Alright. I think that's it. Suggestions and out of the box insight are welcome. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• If a TE reverts another TE, he needs to calmly explain why without being asked. This is kind of a smaller version of WP:ADMINACCT, where an admin is expected to explain without prodding after they revert the admin action of another, on whatever page is appropriate instead of waiting to be asked. To a degree, this is expected of rollbacker, etc. but TE is a much higher privilege, so irrespective of what policy says, I think the community expects the higher accountability when that advanced bit is used. An explanation in an edit summary is insufficient most of the time, unless it was a technical error or similar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I avoided commenting at the current fuss because I thought people had missed the point and I did not want to waste time. However, this proposal needs comment. What is missed is that boldly editing an article and backing that with a mini edit war is common and often effective, but should never be done with a template or module. An editor who makes a bold change to an established template or module should expect to be reverted if another good-faith editor with experience in the area thinks there is a problem. A fast revert is often best because MediaWiki updates pages that depend on a template/module lazily—updates are done from a low-priority queue. If a second editor waits for a discussion before reverting, all the updates might have been done before the revert occurs. That means any problem that was introduced will appear in affected pages, and there will be another possibly long delay before corrections occur after the bad edit is reverted. In the current fuss, the bold editor was completely out of line to force their preferred edit without consensus. The only change to WP:TPE needed would be to explain that point. I wrote every line in the enormous Module:Convert but would never dream of making a bold edit affecting what it does without prior explanation and discussion with at least silent acceptance. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: So, basically, you are saying it is preferred to revert a bad edit with all due haste before its impact reaches to the fullest extent. But why would you assume a Template Editor would do such an edit in the first place? Template Editors are vetted and hand-picked from among people who know what they are doing. Instead of assuming "I must stop this before it is fully deployed", it is better to give consideration to the angle that your hand-picked peer (I noticed you are a Template Editor) knows what he is doing and you'd better ask him. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing he meant if a TE makes a mistake that breaks things, then reverting instantly is the best way to deal with it. Combined with my comment that they should instantly go to that talk page and calmly explain it. This is really no different than what admin do. Since a broken template can affect so many pages, there are sometimes very good reasons to revert first and ask questions later. If the change is just a matter of preference and there is any chance that others would disagree, then yes, talk first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Dennis Brown: If that's what he is saying, good. Desperate times requires desperate measures. One of the Wikipedia founding pillars is that if a law is not good enough, break it. Yes, surely revert blatant damages. (But do communicate!) But my proposal says, if it is an edit that alleges to implement existing consensus and you don't like it, then talk before reverting. That's what admins do too. Indeed, if that's what he is saying, then all three of us are in fact in an agreement. —FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is what I took from it. At this time, I don't have an opinion as to what the exact wording should be, btw, and I'm just sharing my observation of what I believe the community thinks, in way of accountability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if the addition is a good move or not; I'll think it over. But I want to be clear that my own input into that incident was based very much in the policy as it stands; wheel warring is wheel warring, including when it's the TE bit being used. And I'm not sure that talk of "hostage" and "ransom" is all that helpful here; as others have said, disputes involving advanced rights are expected to be resolved collaboratively and collegially and the community generally has very little patience with those who attempt to resolve them adversarially. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: Your final sentence sums my view perfectly. I already said in ANI that wrong does not justify wrong. (i.e. if one TE did an irresponsible revert, the other is not justified in wheel-warring.) And please notice, that I am the most underprivileged person in this discussion, so I do feel the full impact what you privilege-holders do and can do nothing about it. All I am saying is: We expect responsibility from every privilege-holder. The TE privilege is given to speed up committing changes, not to slow it down. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Some provision should be made for those instances when a revert is necessary and quickly. Heaven knows I've made lots of mistakes as a TE, and some of them have been "lulus". A more expert TE reverts me, explains why, I learn and we move on. However, I've never actually been in conflict over an edit with a TE of similar experience to mine. And I've never been taken to ANI, although I probably came close a time or two. Since template edits can reach far and wide, it's imperative that TEs work together and not in conflict that might result in an admin-like WW. Such an inclusion as the above probably couldn't hurt.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the proposal is pointless and comes from a misunderstanding of what TE involves. A template editor should not do any edits to a protected template without careful thought and a prior brief discussion if the change might be controversial, such as changing behavior. Further, templates are protected because they are widely used, and any non-trivial edit should be tested in the sandbox version of the template first. If the history of a protected template shows that one person made several successive edits within a few hours, that person is using TE inappropriately. The history of a protected template may show that editor X changed something and editor Y reverted, followed by X making the same change without discussion. In that scenario, X needs to explain why they should keep the TE right regardless of how wonderful their change was—edit warring on a protected template is just not on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I completely and fully agree with every sentence Johnuniq said except the first; and to be honest, I am not sure whether that sentence is referring to me or Paine Ellsworth. But yes. Template editors must contemplate, then act (whether it is an act of editing or an act of reverting). Sometimes, they even discuss the change first and all they get is a consent to proceed but because the burden is fully on them, they make mistakes. Sandbox is supposed to stop that. But all this prevents technical mistakes, not fundamental ones. Another template editor might come around and say the original question that lead to change was wrong in the first place and therefore, all the discussion and testing were in vain. (I vaguely remember a similar case regarding {{Section link}} and {{Format link}}.) In my opinion: Edit carefully, revert carefully, don't counter the reversion without a collaboration. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with both of you. Yes, templates are different than most fully-protected edits that admins make due to their scope of influence. All the more reason to include this wording for new TEs to digest and follow, just as it was important to include the similar wording in Wikipedia:Administrators.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution venue for template editing

An editor who has the template editor permission and an editor who does not have this permission are having a dispute about a template. Can someone please look into this to provide advice or tell me the best venue to ask for additional input? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Help new inline tagging template

I am asking this here for want of knowing a better place.

I came across a need for an inline tag to flag text requiring attribution where none of the tags I could find addressed what I was wanting - having made what I thought was an exhaustive search. See also Inline cleanup templates. My intended use is as a copy editor, to tag text requiring the attention of a content editor in a collaborative review process.

I have started creating such a template (User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6) and its documentation (User:Cinderella157/sandbox 5). The new template {{Template:Attribute}} is based on {{Template:Clarify}} in respect to its functionality and parameters.

I have now found that Template:Attribution needed does exist. It is similar in intent but it lacks the functionality that is associated with {{Template:Clarify}}. There is good guidance for usage at Template:Attribution needed but my documentation is based on examples and how these might be resolved. It would also indicate its relation to other tags - when use of this tag is preferred and when it is not. My documentation also addresses the enhanced functionality and parameters that arises from basing the template on {{Template:Clarify}}. This part of the documentation is essentially the same as at {{Template:Clarify}}.

While my drafts are still incomplete, I can see value in merging my drafts with the existing template and documentation. The template would have enhanced functionality and the documentation would benefit from the addition of example based guidance for applying and resolving the tag.

My questions are:

• Is my proposal going to fly or is it going to meet with significant opposition and I am wasting my time?

• I don't think I want to be a "template editor" as such. When it is ready, how do I get it implemented?

• Why did I have so much trouble finding Template:Attribution needed?

• I have one set of examples that are: good, grey and bad. I have intended to use amber (orange) instead of grey but it was not sufficiently readable. Is there a better alternative?

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

A proposed template revision is available at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6 and User:Cinderella157/sandbox 6/doc. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done thankyou. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Help request

Would a kind template editor please come to help us out over at Template talk:Taxonbar#‎LepIndex link? Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Making the policy gender-neutral

Just wanted to note that I am WP:BOLDly modifying "A template editor should not revert the edit of his peer ..." to read "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer ...", pursuant to MOS:GNL. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Looking_for_consensus

Hi all, this is a notice that I have started a discussion about adding an addition rule to the guidelines for granting for Page Mover and Template Editor user rights. Please feel free to comment. Alex Shih (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Requests

Template editors: there is a small backlog at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. Please could you give them some attention? Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Global templates list

People who watch this page might be able to contribute to the list at m:Which templates should be global? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo in a template that has been protected

Can someone please look at this? Template_talk:Infobox_language/genetic#? Isingness (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC on formalization of temporary user right language in "Guidelines for granting" section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus here is to keep the status quo and not explicitly mention granting this right on a temporary basis. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Should it be formalized for this template editor procedural policy page that administrators, at their discretion, may assign the template editor user right on a temporary or trial basis (presumably within the existing "Guidelines for granting" section)? This is already a common practice for TE that may as well be included in the policy page. It is currently formalized in WP:Event coordinator. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked about this on IRC so thought that I should should note that this RFC is the successor of the (now deleted) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary user rights language formalization. I deleted it immediately after posting it (before any comments or it was given an rfcid) as I was concerned that its scope was far too broad. I then re-assessed and turned it into this RFC. I picked TE as, in my experience, it is the most common one for a trial/temporary basis (outside of EVC). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support trial but not temporary, with explicit guidelines. An editor might be given a trial basis to demonstrate that they have achieved competence and good judgement in editing templates, with a formal review required in X months or after Y template edits. As for temporary rights, I would think that coding in the template sandbox and submitting edit requests should be good enough for any one-time template editing that an editor needs. The only temporary TE rights granting situation I can imagine is where a non-TE editor is willing to make a minor but necessary edit to a big pile of templates, i.e. to fix the same syntax error in a set of one hundred userboxes or language templates, or something similar. In that situation, I would rather see a regular TE recruited to do that work, and I know that there are many of us who don't mind making easy but repetitive edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any serious negatives to trial or temporary grants of the permission, but I'm also not sure that we gain much from adding this to the policy. In the spirit of IAR, I think admins should be allowed to grant permissions temporarily if they think it is in the best interest of the project whether or not it's codified in a guideline. I'm hesitant to support only because I can't think of any routine situation where temporary grants would be useful. In addition, because of the potential damage this permission can cause, if there's reservations about whether an editor is competent enough to hold the flag indefinitely, we should consider whether it's wise to give it temporarily. Sometimes it will be, but I think we should be more wary with TPE than we are with EVC. Damage from misuse of EVC is easier to clean up than damage from TPE. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see a point to this RfC. Administrators already have the discretion to do so. We are not a bureaucracy, and rule creep is a bad thing. Oppose formal criteria and retain status quo of allowing this without a policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sure include it in the policy as an acknowledgement it might happen. But beyond that I'm of a mind with tony and would oppose formal policy and otherwise support the status quo - it's just that we can acknowledge that status quo for people not in the know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Status quo Works fine, if it didn't we could discuss this again. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Wugapodes and Tony B. The accepted temporary-grant case, for certain sorts of event coordination, is already codified in the materials pertaining to event administration. At most, just a cross-reference to that is needed.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 22:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In the absence of any concrete proposals for criteria, or evidence of a problem, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Rationale for temporary grant

TheSandDoctor, Wikipedia:Event coordinator defines some criteria for choosing a temporary or permanent grant of the permission:

• Any administrator may permanently grant the user right on request to any editor with an established record of editing on the English Wikipedia who is engaged in outreach events.
• Any administrator may at their discretion temporarily grant the right to a user with minimal experience on the English Wikipedia who is hosting or staffing an outreach event.

What guidance do you propose for differentiating on granting TE? Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Cabayi: I will have to think on this, but Primefac has done this previously. In a case he did, it appears to be when there are non-"deal breaking" reservations to allow the user to prove the reservations unnecessary. I like this approach and agree with it, but will try and formulate moreso. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I do too. Far better to see a deserving editor get a temporary grant and have it made permanent than an out-of-process grant that leaves the recipient embarrassed to talk about it. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to respond to the ping - the guidelines are just that, guidelines, and in my opinion #5 and #6 hold more weight than the other four criteria; those four are simply bean counters. TPE is (in my opinion) the most powerful permission, since it has the ability to bork thousands (if not millions) of pages with one bad edit. So yes, I am sometimes cautious when assigning and only do it temporarily.

That being said, there is currently nothing in the guidelines that says it is automatically a permanent assignment, so I don't see why we need to specifically spell that out. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said above, I'm generally opposed to spelling out criteria for temporary grants. User rights are already highly discretionary in granting, and the even less big deal of temporary grants should be even more so. IMO, when time limited granting of user rights was rolled out, the practice that developed around it was non-controversial and we haven't in two years developed any policy around it except for EVC. The EVC criteria was meant to spell out for admins who shouldn't be given permanent not who should be given temporary, and I included it in those guidelines when drafting the proposal for that permission because of the unique nature of it (i.e. most people who get it are going to be people with not much experience on Wikipedia.) Those considerations aren't present for template editor, or really any other permission. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 15 September 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.

DNZB

Could a kind editor please amend Template:DNZB so that it can accommodate more than author? Schwede66 19:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. It takes |authors= which makes me think that was the intended behaviour. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks heaps. Schwede66 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Authors is soft-deprecated and should generally be avoided. Consider adding author_n as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to make this request on the template talk page? just saying. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Update to WP:Template editor and WP:Template limits

See Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Update to WP:Template editor and WP:Template limits (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition here. This page should speak more-or-less strictly to the permission, not on how to design or code a template. In review after the revert, I did see that other parts of this page probably go too far into non-permission interests as well, so perhaps that is what inspired the change. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Thank you for the review.

Perhaps this page should be split into parts or even seperate pages:

• Items that only apply to people who can edit template-protected pages - the bulk of 1.1, 2.1, and 3 through the 6.
• Items which are relevant to people without this user-right. The bulk of 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, and 2.3 go here. I'm including "Editing disputes" because many templates are semi-protected. The content I added would go here.

The other option is to have a document like the present one. If that's the way to go, the edit you reverted should be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

2.2 and 2.3 are relevant to this page because they are (more-minor) invocations of the WP:WHEELWAR and protection policy on content disputes principles. Semi-protection protects edits except from a million editors, give or take (~100k active editors); template-protection protects edits except from ~1300 people. Several orders of magnitude difference there! (And commentary on template edit wheel warring is obviously relevant.)

(Regarding the two sections, I believe I've commented somewhere that there is some duplication with the later sections that we might reasonably clean up also.)

I agree about 1.2 and 1.3 being offtopic and better placed elsewhere.

Please don't provide arbitrary "my edit must be retored"isms, not least because your edit does not have consensus. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wise template editing sentence interpretation

I'm struggling to parse the sentence The deprecation of other templates used within a given template, provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus. in section Changes that can almost always be made unilaterally. At the moment I interpret it as Replacement of deprecated templates used within a given template (using suitable replacement), provided said deprecation is based on a prior consensus. I.e. this item is about code cleanup in template X, which uses template Y after that template Y was deprecated by consensus. But I'm non even 60% sure it is a correct interpretation. Could someone clarify this please? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a rather odd way of wording it, but to put it simply yes, your interpretation is correct. If {{X}} uses {{Y}} somewhere in it, and {{Y}} is deprecated/no longer being used/replaced, then there is no issue replacing {{Y}} with the appropriate/better code. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on changing TPEGRANT #1

WP:TPEGRANT point #1 currently states The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year. In the last few months (both here and at other PERM/perm-like locations) I've seen editors that registered in the early 2010s but only started editing in 2018 or 2019. My question is - are we more concerned with someone's sign-up date or their "active-editing" period? This is mostly just to see what folks think, but if I were to make a "proposal" it would be to change "be a registered Wikipedia user" to "have been editing Wikipedia". Primefac (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, do you happen to know if there are already other places which use some kind of "active-editing" period policy or guideline? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know of any others, but I think a perm that has the potential to bork thousands of articles should be a little more tightly regulated; it matters naught if you registered in 2006 if you haven't even hit 100 edits before 2019. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I would go for the counter-argument in your example. An editor who hadn't even hit 100 edits before 2019 must have made the remaining 900 edits of the 1000 edit requirement within the last 12 months and is likely a pass on the assessment (both existing and proposed).

The proposed wording is probably more in keeping with what most admins would wish for in a candidate, even if they were exercising their discretion liberally. BU Rob13 didn't have a year under his belt before getting TE, and he didn't turn out bad. Cabayi (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the key point is within the last 12 months, which essentially makes them a "new user". I know for every example I'd come up with there would be a perfectly valid counter-example; just figured I'd see what others thought about it. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the admin discretion allowed in granting (and nobody's going to complain about being granted the right), your proposed wording is a better fit for the rationale in declining an applicant. I'd support the change. Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh. I think all those hard lines should be dropped. I got my TPE after MSGJ was like "you want?". "Makes/requests edits to templates, has CLUE, reasonably trustworthy otherwise" is probably what the criteria should be. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, as we've seen countless times, the first 4 are just "gateway" prohibitions to keep the utterly clueless from being granted the perm. It's hard to make objective "has a clue" criteria, which is why the last two are both the most unhelpful yet the most important (though in reality the last line says essentially "the reviewing admin can do whatever the heck they want" and that hits all of your criteria). Primefac (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Subpages

On a somewhat-related note, is there a reason our guidelines are a subpage? We don't have that for any of the other sections, and I can't think of a reason why it would need to be sequestered (especially since the main page is only semi-protected and the subtemplate has no protection). Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, per edit summary for subpage's creation by MusikAnimal: refactoring so we can transclude this in multiple pages. It is transcluded on three pages in total. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Derp. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, when WP:PERM was overhauled I took the liberty of making some things DRY. Another example is Wikipedia:Rollback/Mainspace count. This is important documentation so I didn't want us to have to track down everywhere it is repeated whenever we want to make changes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes total sense, just managed to miss seeing the (transclusion) on "what links here". Primefac (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed clarification - not all edits are "both a normal edit and a privileged action"

I propose this change, additions shown in bold (note: italics are original):

Remember that template-editorship, just like adminship, can never be allowed to become some sort of privileged position within debates among editors. Being a template editor puts you in a complicated position, because any edit you make that requires this privilege is at once both a normal edit and a privileged action.

Any objections? If there are no objections within a few days, I will add it. If I forget, any other editor is welcome to do so. If there are objections, then there should be discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a good clarification. The "some sort of" bit is overly wordy and informal. I would rewrite it as "Remember that template editors, just like administrators, do not have a privileged position within debates among editors." – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I like both changes. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions on changing the image

Hello, I was wondering what is the opinion of changing the current template editor image, to make it more recognisable & adding a bit more color than just the brackets. I made a quick example at File:TemplateEditor.svg & it is shown on the right next to the current image. Thanks, Terasail^[✉] 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know we had an image, so I guess I don't really have an opinion. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Terasail: Thank you for your efforts. I think it is important to show the double-curly-brackets, not just { }. But I do like having some pink, it matches the template-protected padlock. It may be too tight a fit, but if you can incorporate something to indicate modules, Lua, or Scribunto, that would be nice too. If not, what you have - but with {{ and }} instead of { and } - is good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Update: Change $\wedge$ to {{ and }}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Yeah, with the double brackets, the image becomes unreadable at smaller sizes and so I decided here to use just single brackets. In a similar way to the template class icon, File:Symbol template class.svg. Although this was just a proposal image and I was more just interested if a change was an option. Terasail^[✉] 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the double brackets. Maybe red text {{T}} directly on the puzzle globe, without the colored circle background, and possibly with the portion of the logo behind it blurred-out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've tried adding blur using SVG masks, but the SVG renderer used by MediaWiki doesn't support it. Compare png render vs raw SVG. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95's idea

Here's the same idea, but in plain PNG. Project file for GIMP is also uploaded: File:Wikipedia template editor logo with blur.xcf, if someone wants to make corrections. The proportions of text and positioning are obviously bad, but I'm not a keen designer. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the Jonesey95's idea. Is there a way to make the part around the pink slightly brighter to improve contrast? The top of the left { runs into the grey and it's a bit awkward-looking. Maybe just moving the {'s down and to the left a few pixels will have the same effect - not having pink and dark grey touching except where they touch one of the letters. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparing with other logos might help:

• English Wikipedia user roles' logos
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Jonesey95's idea (draft)

For most, the additional graphical element is in the bottom right, takes up 50-70% width-wise. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, other template editor logos from Commons: just for the sake of comparison:

• Template editor logos
• 
  Currently used on English Wikipedia
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Jonesey95's idea (draft)

I plan to work on File:Wikipedia template editor logo with blur.png during this weekend. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the logos above, I am drawn to the one with the green T at the lower right. If it were a different color (close to red?) and with two braces, I think it would work pretty well. The solid font with a light black outline helps it stand out from the logo. I don't know why the T is tilted; it does not have to be. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the green T, and I like it tilted. Don't really know why. I also like the blue double brackets. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Second is my first preference but it's not very square so perhaps not practical. After that, probably the tilted green one, but we may also want to try some ideas that don't involve {{ }}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Please make the sentence where someone is removed for blatant vandalism add “not limited to template vandalism” like for page mover it says “not limited to page move vandalism” so it says “If the editor preformed any blatant vandalism(not limited to template vandalism). Thank you much! 104.246.113.199 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how you want it to look after the change. The current text pretty much says what you want it to say already, just in different words:

If you use this right for anything even vaguely resembling vandalism ....

The same goes for vandalism that doesn't involve this right. This is, fundamentally, an administrator-level right ....

Please clarify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I couldn’t edit in a while but basically, it is not clear enough. I just wanted it to be clearer. Happy thanksgiving. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So, how do you want it to read? Please reply with something like "change [old text] to [new text] in section [section name]." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: change if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism to if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism, not limited to just template vandalism, like with WP: PAGEMOVER. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I still think the existing text sends the same message (or possibly a stronger one, as Primefac pointed out below at 21:42) in fewer words. Besides, template editor has tougher requirements to obtain than page mover, so I would expect anyone who is given that user-right won't have any problem understanding the text as it is currently written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Meh, blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism. By not qualifying, it's actually including all vandalism. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

How to request a new template?

This article describes how to become a template editor but has nothing to say on how the 'ordinary Joe' can request a template to be written. For example, I would like to turn my ugly hatnote :

For the notation ⟨ ⟩, / / and [ ] used in this article, see grapheme, phoneme and International Phonetic Alphabet respectively.

into a template in the style of {{Contains special characters}}. How would I go about requesting that? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking more for Help:A quick guide to templates than this page. That being said, it kind of depends on what you want to do. If you want it to be a hatnote-style message, then I would suggest creating your own template at something like Template:notation hatnote, and then create it just like you would an article (input your text, likely {{hatnote|...}} or somesuch). If you want it to have it show up like the box in {{contains special characters}}, then I would suggest starting there - see if the text can be added into the existing structure (go to the template talk and post there). Hope this helps somewhat, feel free to clarify if I've missed the mark on anything. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Thanks. An ordinary {{hatnote}} doesn't work because I don't want the delimiters in italic and besides it is intrusive in the article. (I am here because it was reverted at Long s and I will struggle to defend it.) It is more the 'look and feel' of {{contains}} that I am after, just adding as another case wouldn't work as this is not an unusual character-set question. My first thought was to copy that template source and hack it but it is way too advanced for a beginner. Can anyone suggest a very simple align-right box template that I could start from? Even infoboxes seem complex.

Anyway, let's not get waylaid by the specifics of my example: are you saying that the situation for templates is the same as for articles – if you want anything done around here, you have to do it yourself? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To quickly answer your last question, yes, sometimes that's true. However, we have WT:WPT (Template WikiProject) which might be able to give some assistance if you get stuck on creating a template. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is also WP:Requested templates where you can request templates be created? Terasail^[✉] 19:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So there is... I hate to admit it but I never knew that existed. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that info, just what I had hoped to find. One to add to a 'See also', perhaps? I've made some progress since I wrote last so I won't take any more of your time. Thanks again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template editor#Wise template editing and WP:Template editor#Criteria for revocation

Coming here from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS.

Wikipedia:Template editor#Wise template editing mentions "If the failure is particularly egregious, any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense.".

I added the same statement to WP:Template editor#Criteria for revocation to ensure clarity.

ProcrastinatingReader, you have reverted this change. My edit ensures that the statements in the guidelines are properly stated. Please advise what is the issue? Would you prefer that the true and full guideline remains inconsistent in two different sections? Thanks, Lourdes 01:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The guideline is not inconsistent. The above sections talk about guidelines for template editors. The WP:TPEREVOKE section, which was approved in WP:TPERFC, lays out the criteria upon which any admin may unilaterally revoke the permissions. Of course, consensus can also revoke permissions for any other reason by discussion (likely at AN). In complex cases or ones outside the given criteria discussions should be had with the community. In my opinion, your addition is vague and doesn't really add anything except open the door to more wikilawyering. The current criteria is very specific, which is why it's easy to compare to a case and determine if removal was warranted. Any actual "egregious failure" is already covered under the existing criteria.

As a general note, your edit seems to be aimed to support your analysis in an active ArbCom case which imo comes across as a bit WP:POINTY, even if that wasn't the intention. There's no practical issue with WP:TPEREVOKE, but if you really think there's an error there imo it'd be better to wait until the case is closed as simple good practice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I have previously noted that several sections on this page have some duplication. I can't see that I've said that in the local archives but I recall making some other points on the matter too. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is partially that most of the text seems to stem from WP:TPERFC, and most of that is untouched from the original, but new text has been "boldly" added in over the years, so some sentences are near-duplicated etc. The particular paragraphs Lourdes refers to are one such example. Perhaps it needs some discussion and further cleanup, but I doubt that the shadow of an ArbCom case inspires productive policy editing.

On the note of your wheel comments at that link, although unrelated to this particular matter, out of interest do you think that applies solely to TPEs or also to admins editing template protected templates (eg admin adds, TPE reverts, admin reverts: is this 'wheel warring' just as: TPE #1 adds, TPE #2 reverts, TPE #1 reverts?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It requires elevated privilege, so of course. --Izno (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)