Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Template editor user right/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Personal Abstention

As I've been named (and alluded to) a few time already, I consider it inappropriate for me to express an officially counted viewpoint. I do support the creation of this right, but I'm attempting to keep my hands out of the kitchen and the whole "Voting ourselves the power" perception. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I understand your position, and as you've noticed, I'm waiting to cast my "vote" on this as well... Although requirement number four excludes me from this right for another 20 days, I'm of the belief (whether accurate or not) that my vote would cause an off-topic comment or two. So, I'm just responding to discussion questions and trying to clarify confusions. I may not even "vote" myself (as consensus is not about voting, it really doesn't matter as long as I make my opinion clear). Anyways... Technical 13 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to advertise this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, as it seems relevant enough, being that it's a kind of unbundling. Does anyone think that would be inappropriate for some reason? equazcion (talk) 20:58, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, as does canvassing everyone who has !voted/commented at the current RfA. - Pointillist (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I concur with a short neutral posting (much like the notice at WP:CENT), and even suggest that a explicit thread at WP:AN be made giving notice of the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I posted one to AN already, also VPR and VPT. I'm considering ANI as well. I think I'm skittish about RFA and certainly about canvassing participants of Trappist's RFA because I don't want people to start opposing his candidacy on the grounds that they want to wait and see if this passes -- I actually saw one neutral on those grounds. equazcion (talk) 21:07, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to do the RFA talk one, but keep clear of anything specific to Trappist's RFA. Thanks for the input :) equazcion (talk) 21:15, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Trappist the monk's RFA now closed

Now that Trappist the monk's RfA has been closed, I think it would be helpful to invite all those who !voted at the RfA to comment at this RfC. Thoughts? - Pointillist (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We do have the watchlist notice now, which is scheduled to stay up for a couple more days. It would probably get us some more participation to canvass those talk pages, since that would produce notifications and emails to those people -- however I'd like to get some thoughts on whether it could potentially be viewed as a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'm not saying it would, but I want to be cautious here. equazcion (talk) 14:34, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be canvassing, because there's no guarantee which way any extra comments would go (after all, the supporters' point of view seems to have prevailed in the RfA). - Pointillist (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If it weren't for the watchlist notice, I would lean towards notification on the grounds that the benefit to the project would outweigh the cost of being accused of canvassing. But with the watchlist notice, it's either a tossup or it leans slightly to not notifying them. Just my 25 cents. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a really tough call. My paranoia tells me that since the RfA passed, you could say those who voted in it would predominately/foreseeably support this, even though the same thing could be said going in the other direction, as many opposers of unbundled rights wants single-purpose RfAs to pass. I don't think I'd be comfortable canvassing the RfA participants without a pre-consensus that it's not a violation. Maybe we should have an RFC about it =D But really maybe a small AN thread. I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble since we do have the watchlist notice (which will be up til 22 September), but if someone felt compelled to start a thread they could. equazcion (talk) 21:06, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I'd say at this point it would be best to just let the RFC coast. It has been well advertised, and received substantial participation. Better not to risk any potential canvasing at this point. Monty845 04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Cascading protected pages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T56081

FWIW if a hill of beans, I've made a request to offer a per namespace option to suppress cascading protection. You can read the request T56081 or track it to the right (if you have the gadget enabled in your preferences). Technical 13 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Privilege?

Why do we insist on referring to user rights as privileges? IMHO that's a sure fire way of giving the hat collectors the impression that Wikipedia is a meritocracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung: They are privileges, it is not your right to have the rights, it is your privilege. They can be taken away (just like your editing privilege). ~Charmlet -talk- 23:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, well I'm not going to get into a discussion on lexicography. My point was made for the benefit of those who fear a new hat for the hat collectors (who do, unfortunately, exist - as any experienced editor or admin who works at PERM will know). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Kudpung, in an attempt to foil the hat collectors and the idea that this could be a hat to be collected, the requirements to show proficiency have been set at a higher than "casual" level. The first draft had much lower requirements, and if you check the archive, I've pushed for higher requirements (so it would be much harder to "fake" proficiency just to get the right). I believe I even pushed myself out of qualifying for a little bit longer (about 23 more days to get past the six months since my block requirement). Technical 13 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As Charmlet alludes to, I used that term primarily because it denotes something that can be taken away. Although a little bit of the "writer" in me also felt compelled to use it simply because I wanted a synonym for "right" to switch to periodically for the sake of variety :) I think once one reads past the Privilege header and sees "The privilege", they can see this isn't about individuals being "privileged", but about "a privilege" that we would allow people on the stipulation that they abide by the terms laid out. equazcion (talk) 02:18, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a meritocracy, sort of. Socially, those who have demonstrated competence are generally looked upon as more credible than those who either have demonstrated incompetence or who are too new to have had a chance to demonstrate competence. Administratively, most "by request" user-rights are given only to editors in good standing whose edit history shows they are at least somewhat competent. For higher-level functionaries such as administrators, we even have !elections with !votes and at least during some periods of Wikipedia's history and even to some extent today, one's ability to pass RfA depended largely on both your technical and social skills - in other words, you were judged by your merits. While Wikipedia isn't a true meritocracy, it certainly has some aspects of one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I still contend that the access to the use of additional tools is based on a demonstrated needfor them, a demonstrated experience in the areas that they will be used, and a demonstration of maturity to use them; they are not - or not supposed to be - a reward for good content contributions and/or good work in meta areas. However, as I have mentioned before, any admin who has worked at WP:PERM (where roughly around 90% of applications are declined) will be well aware that the wording of many such request s comes across as a demand for the the tools based on the user's performance, or plain simple hat collecting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree on the reasons specific tools are assigned (need rather than reward). Anyway, I did end up changing the word "privilege" to "permission", since a couple more people came and expressed similar concerns. equazcion (talk) 10:45, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Time to SNOW-CLOSE as APPROVED?

Okay, maybe not, as there is something to be said for honoring the original deadline.

That said, the only possible benefits I can see for NOT closing this as "pass" now are

  1. People won't feel railroaded, and yes, this is important
  2. There are still new concerns being raised in the discussions and opposes. As long as these keep coming, that alone is reason to not close early.

In any case, those who will be implementing the necessary code changes should start drafting their code now, because this will almost certainly pass. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There's not really any coding to do, just some MediaWiki config additions. I'll let others address the issue of closing (both because I'm the original proposer and because I really have no idea how this should be handled). equazcion (talk) 22:35, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Your point 1 is most certainly a concern, and IMO that alone is enough for this to get the full 30 days. Just let it run; we've survived this long without it, a few more weeks won't make a difference, and the full 30 days will prevent opposers from coming back later to complain that it was somehow invalid because it was closed early. So I'd call for WP:BOBSLED rather than WP:SNOW. Anomie⚔ 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page templates

After reading through the Main page protected templates discussion, I'm still confused how this proposal will apply. Will users with this new class be allowed to edit things like Template:In the news? This impacts whether or not I would support the proposal or not. SpencerT♦C 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, they will not be able to edit Template:In the news. The new user group will not be able to edit templates that are full-protected as a result of cascade protection. The main page is cascade-protected, so all templates in use on the main page will be uneditable by the new user group, including Template:In the news. equazcion (talk) 17:10, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Listed at WP:AN/RFC

Since the question's been delisted, I've petitioned at the above noticeboard for closure. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on this new user right

Congrats on getting this new user right approved, this should help the project substantially. I am disappointed that this was only necessary because the community doesn't have enough faith and trust in their technical editors to allow them to have the admin tools. Its just another example of the us and them mentality between the admin corps and the rest of the community. It trully is a shame that it had to come to this. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Legoktm and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/West.andrew.g? And what percentage of users opposing at a given RFA are admins? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I was about to say something along those lines. Both opposition and support of techie editors becoming admins seems proportionally divided among admins and non-admins alike. I don't really see much of an us-vs.-them atmosphere between admins and editors these days, and haven't in a number of years (though I think it was there at one point). At this point we're all united against our common enemy: The Wikimedia Foundation =] only half-joking equazcion� 14:08, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Its easy to pick out a couple of exceptions. What about the rest of the editors who just got the template editor right that didn't pass, some multiple times. My point is that if the community had trust in its editors, then this right wouldn't even be necessary. But since the community doesn't trust one another they protect everything and then create a new right to be able to edit that protected content. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this got created because it will be a benefit to the project, but I still think that it should never have been needed. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay! I'm sorry I missed this RfC, but I'm glad we finally got this. While I share some sentiments with 138 (wishing it wouldn't have been needed in the first place) I do think it is needed, for good or for worse. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Move Wikipedia:Template editor‎s to singular form

I'd like to move the user right description page to its singular form (Wikipedia:Template editor‎) since that's more consistent with other such user right pages. There's a redirect in the way though. Could someone delete it (assuming you agree with the move)? equazcion� 17:38, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think that was sufficiently uncontroversial to do without discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks :) equazcion� 18:50, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Next steps

  1. File a bug requesting the new protection level and corresponding user group, referencing this discussion.
    Ha, T57432 already exists.
  2. Create the necessary messages: (you can see existing examples by replacing "templateeditor" with "sysop" in the page names below)
  3. Once it is active, give the right to a test account and protect a test page at the new level, and make sure it works right.

Anomie⚔ 00:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Other things to do:

- Evad37 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Couple of options: File:Padlock-hotpink.svg -- File:Padlock-pink.svg. equazcion� 03:13, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like there are a few other colors available. See some of the padlocks at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AH#New protection templates, take 2. Is gold or blue used for anything yet? PaleAqua (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
^Nice find :) equazcion� 03:25, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks equazcion� 03:31, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • Create the permission request page for WP:PERM and its tranclusion to the WP:PERM page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Permission request page is done. The main WP:PERM page is full-protected (no icon though), so I can't do the transclusion or add the permission description. equazcion� 03:47, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • Need to mention on WP:UAL. PaleAqua (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally like the idea of using  cyan  as it represents coding in the early 80's to me. Not particularly fond of " pink " for template/code.  Yellow  or  white  would probably also be alright. I would particularly like it if the 11:28, November 6, 2008 revision of File:Padlock-Random.svg was split out and saved to File:Padlock-red/yellow as I particularly like this version of the icon and would like to see it used as the icon for the new "Template protection". Technical 13 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of running afoul of WP:BIKESHED, I prefer , just because it's the most distinct from any we have now (imo). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:MINTLOCK isn't taken yet, and it is certainly distinct. That works for me. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The mint one kinda hurts my eyes. If we can't do light blue because of the occupied shortcut, my vote goes to pink. But I too won't make a stink either way. Even if it wound up being mint, I'd survive. equazcion� 13:05, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Another option is to usurp the WP:BLUELOCK shortcut - only 10 pages link to it - and create a new shortcut such as WP:CYANLOCK for create protection. - Evad37 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests

  • Question Right now, we'll probably be making use of {{edit protected}} and CAT:EP for template-protected pages. But before I update AnomieBOT, does anyone think we should make an "{{edit template-protected}}" tag and corresponding category? Anomie⚔ 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • We could just create the category, and have {{editprotected}} detect whether it's in Template talk: space and act accordingly? equazcion� 11:38, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
      • I would say just use {{edit protected}} and CAT:EP for now. I'm actually planning on writing a Lua module to supercede the edit protected templates anyway, so there's no point writing a new template only to have it be overwritten in the near future. (I have some initial code at Module:Edit request if anyone's interested.) Having said that, for the long-term there should definitely have a separate category for template-protected pages, so that template editors can monitor it without being distracted by things that they can't edit. I think the ideal solution would be to have just one template for all edit requests and have it detect the protection level automatically. But that isn't going to happen overnight, so we should only try and do that when the code is ready. (And while I'm thinking about it, is there any chance of a Lua library to access protection data?) :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That wouldn't work, because we can still have fully-protected templates. I don't recall offhand whether we can detect the protection level of some other page, but if so that could work. Anomie⚔ 13:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • It could be a viable interim option until the Lua version of the template becomes available with protection detection. Full protection of templates for reasons of controversy probably isn't very common, and editprotected requests on them are likely downright rare. Or else we could just create the separate template, as it wouldn't be a very huge deal. equazcion� 13:27, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, come to think of it, it isn't yet possible to detect the protection level of another page from wikicode. It is only possible to detect the protection level of the current page. To make the module work properly it would need changes to MediaWiki. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
          Actually, you can. Try {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|Main Page}} (and see T19970!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I never. :) I'll try and code that up when I have a bit of spare time, then. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 I got something up in {{User wikipedia/template editor}}. You can check my uploads for a few others I've tried. equazcion� 16:51, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Choose a padlock

Pink wins, though all performed admirably. equazcion → 01:55, 23 Oct 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Kind of a trivial matter, but in the interest of getting a decision made, feel free to make your preference known. Note that the second group are images that aren't actually taken currently, but their WP:SHORCUTS are already in use. I am not entirely familiar with how important, or not, those are. If a subsection doesn't exist below for your preference, create it. equazcion� 13:15, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

  • Available padlocks
  • Hot pink
    Hot pink
  • Pink
    Pink
  • Yellow
    Yellow
  • Yellow 2
    Yellow 2
  • Lightolive
    Lightolive
  • Mint
    Mint
  • Turquoise
    Turquoise
  • Violet
    Violet
  • Silver (medium)
    Silver (medium)
  • Red/Yellow
    Red/Yellow

Light blue

  1. My first choice. equazcion� 13:15, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    Also a good colour, my second choice. Per my comment in the section above, it should be easy to usurp WP:BLUELOCK - Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:BLUELOCK shows only 10 pages. - Evad37 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC). I prefer pink now, so striking !vote - Evad37 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. First choice. I agree with usurping WP:BLUELOCK. Everyone uses WP:SALT for creation protection, so there shouldn't be any need to find an alternative. (Although if people really wanted one, WP:SKYBLUELOCK would work.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Second—cyberpower Limited AccessTrick or Treat 17:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    Second choice PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. My first choice. —  dainomite   01:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. First, but isn't the existing blue lock actually much lighter blue than this "light blue" lock? SiBr4 ⚑ 11:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Pink

  1. Second choice, if light blue can't be used. equazcion� 13:15, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  2. Third choice. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. First choice. Semi protection is and full is so somethnig inbetween would be pink. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    Would this, , be a reasonable compromise? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. First choice, and not just for the obvious reason. WOSlinker makes a good point, plus I like the combination of softness and severity pink gives you... a way of saying "we're relaxing things a little bit, but this stuff's still important." — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. First.—cyberpower Limited AccessTrick or Treat 17:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Second. (My first would be a sky-blue, which isn't one of the choices here.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  7. First choice was Third choice PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) This seems good enough to me, might as well just go with it. PaleAqua (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  8. First choice per WOSlinker, nice in-between between full and semi. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  9. Strong support, as a milder WP:REDLOCK, which is used for MediaWiki software and formerly for FPP'ed high-use templates now covered by TempP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  10. This one for sure. User:WOSlinker wins 3 internets for coming up with the simplest, most straight forward rationale I've ever seen -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  11. Since mint clearly isn't happening, I back this one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  12. First choice. Redlock-lite, pink is light red. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  13. First choice, per WOS's and Pink&'s reasoning - Evad37 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  14. First choice, Template Protection is a more relaxed version of permanent protection use for templates (we still have a pink/red edit window for example). Makes sense (to me) that pink would be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Gold

  1. First Second choice, using shortcut WP:YELLOWLOCK - Evad37 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    Full is and gold is . I personally think there's enough of a difference, but so far other colours are more popular anyway. - Evad37 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Third.—cyberpower Limited AccessTrick or Treat 17:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    First choice PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Either this one or the yellow one would make my second choice (just because it feels like a yellow color is "missing" from the padlock color palette). SiBr4 ⚑ 11:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mint

  1. Second choice. I like the colour better than pink. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. My second choice. —  dainomite   01:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. My first choice (barely). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. First choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Red/Yellow

  • I personally like this Red/Yellow one as it kind of has a {{ }} shape to the colors, and WP:REDYELLOWLOCK is available. Technical 13 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    I think this would be a better candidate for pages that are only protected because they're used on a cascading-protected page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That's actually a nice idea. It would probably require bot placement and removal though, or a software change. equazcion → 09:54, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Red/Silver

  1. I prefer this to the pink option above. Third choice amongst all of them. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

None of the above

  • These padlocks impart nothing by their colour, and in some cases surely contravene our accessibility guidelines. I can't offer an alternative at this time, but surely we can come up with something better than a padlock. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not really clear on what you mean. It's traditional to have a padlock icon of a distinctive color for each protection level, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection. Are you saying this particular level should have an image of something other than a padlock? If so, why? equazcion� 19:15, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    • What about putting the {{ }} behind a padlock. That way it keeps the pattern, but would be visually distinct even with most types of colorblindness. ( The suggestion for behind is because this padlock icons are often very small and putting it on the base would be hard to discern. ) PaleAqua (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Back in December 2010/January 2011 there was a discussion about adding symbols to the padlocks for accessibility. But partially because the person who was pushing the idea and who made the padlock-with-symbol images refused to license them under a license that would allow for |link= to be used, the proposal died. I see that some few of these were recreated under a usable license at some time in 2012, but those don't seem to have had any further discussion or to have been rolled out anywhere besides {{EP}}. Anomie⚔ 20:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Instead of a locked padlock, which suggests that something cannot happen, perhaps we need a key, or a key in a padlock, or an open padlock. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Close?

Can close this straw poll at this point? Seems like pink is the defacto winner and it's not like it really matters which one color gets used. The accessibility question mentioned above, still exists but is a broader issue than just this type of protection. PaleAqua (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2013 (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.

userright topicon?

What shall be the topicon for this new userright? —  dainomite   21:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There already is one. ~HueSatLum 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well hot damn! That was fast. —  dainomite   21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like a good icon until you shrink it down to 20px which is topicon size, then it just looks like a globe with a little green speck and the single set of brackets and T are illegible. I'd prefer to go with the one the Equazcion has been working on with the double curly brackets. Technical 13 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but really I'm not sure if either of them are all that awesome :) I like mine better too, but it should really be a nice SVG for scaling, while mine's a PNG that doesn't stand up too well in that department -- and I think User:Imzadi1979 had a point when they made the replacement, that the wispy curly brackets in mine will appear washed out depending on a person's display. I'm not very good with SVG though. I'll let others decide which of the current options to use. Maybe someone will come along with one that's better than both though. equazcion� 22:09, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not all that experienced with .svg graphic creation either, but I'll take a poke at making something tonight. Technical 13 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) We can always tweak the display size of the smaller icon to make it bolder though... It's a starting point. I'm playing around with it for now, doubling the braces, but the trouble is that the brace character just doesn't have much weight to it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah that was my issue. The curls are generally too intricate as well and look messy scaled down. equazcion� 22:42, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
          • And there isn't a generic image that conveys "template"... plus the wikiglobe makes for a busy background. Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I think my large one looks pretty good here: Template:Template editor granted, I just can't seem to finagle a small version that looks as good. You can have a look at the current rights icons for how they deal with the globe background -- some use a bright color with drop shadow, the mop reduces the globe by roughly half. I attempted to mimic some of this but no real dice yet (ps. some of these actually don't look so great scaled down either): equazcion� 23:12, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • How bout this: With this for larger uses: equazcion → 00:40, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    • Still would like to see the brackets moved in on top of the globe, at least a little. I've been trying to make an .svg version for the last hour and it looks great in Inkscape, but turns to crap when I try to upload it. I'm waiting to here back from Brion about possibly using svg-edit instead of Inkscape, but am having difficulties in getting it to work in Firefox 24 atm... Technical 13 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm actually kinda liking the globe contained in the braces, as it's more representative of template logic. And it looks pretty good, to me anyway. equazcion → 01:03, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
      • I think I fixed yours: File:Wikipedia Template editor icon (1).svg. Wikipedia and/or our browsers don't seem to agree with Inkscape's layers, apparently. The design seems a bit on the extreme simple side though, just curlies typed on top of the globe. Outside thoughts welcome. equazcion → 01:35, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
        • Awesome. The reason I made it so stupid simple was so it would "fit in" with the topicon crowd... — Technical 13 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
        • AND FtR, I like yours better for the userbox/userright page. Technical 13 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
        • 👍 Like I think that looks awesome, and as Technical 13 shows, it's distinguishable at the topicon level. —  dainomite   01:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

For comparison (Technical 13's is second, mine is fifth): equazcion → 01:54, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I like Technical 13's for topicon and I agree with Technical 13 where I feel yours is better for the userbox / userright page. —  dainomite   01:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I implemented my large version on all the pertinent pages I could find for now, with no prejudice if something better comes along. I implemented the simple topicon, though I'm personally far from nuts over it. equazcion → 02:52, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded , which is a little bit more "adventurous", with blue brackets and a 3d effect, for you all to hate, love, ignore or play with. It's simple shapes, so changing colours should be easy if you want to, or I can. As I say - use if you like, ignore if you hate... Whatever you do with the brackets at that size it seems hard to make them stand out in front of the globe... equazcion's take of moving them outside the globe works well, visually and metaphorically - but then you have to have a "non-standard" wide icon, or shrink the globe. Whatever you decide on, maybe drop it at WP:GL/ILL to get more eyes on it... Begoon talk 03:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I also fixed it, and T13's original to same size and placing as File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg, eliminating the extraneous blank space, and using the embedded logo from that file, since it seems to be more faithful, and so that they line up correctly - you can see the result by looking at T13's Userpage. (that means it now looks too big in your example above... but it's not...) Begoon talk 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, there may be a way to make brackets in front of the globe more visible at 24px, but if there is, I can't find it. The tick etc with the drop shadows work because they are bright and simple, but curly brackets, and 4 of them..., just seem too subtle. I gave up on that for now. Begoon talk 12:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI I managed to re-create my large image in SVG, finally: File:Wikipedia Template editor.svg. I'll be going around replacing the PNGs now. equazcion → 14:24, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC)

(protected template)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T45462

There is no (protected template) or similar yet when viewing on list of transclusions as can be seen on File:No (protected template).png like what is there for (protected) and (semi-protected). Is this just a missing MediaWiki: file or does it require a ticket/WMF employee to fix in the configuration? Technical 13 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there's already a fix for this in gerrit. If it gets merged soon, it'll go live the 31st. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jack, I noticed that.  :) On a side note, I just came across User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod and am wondering if this new protection level might require Anomie to do an update. I love the concept of this script, although I find the current layout somewhat cluttered and difficult to read. If it is alright with you (I'm sure you don't mind, but am paying you the courtesy), I'd like to make my own version of your script with some layout options to make it a little more streamlined and easier to read. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • My script doesn't have anything to do with protection levels, the protection levels are output by MediaWiki. As for the layout, I like it, but if you want to fork your own version just maintain attribution. Anomie⚔ 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

pp-meta and pp-template

I have proposed changes for the {{pp-meta}} and {{pp-template}} templates, please discuss (especially the wording used) at Template talk:Pp-meta#Update_for_template-protection - Evad37 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Announcing edit requests for template-protected pages

You may be interested to know that we now have a new template, {{edit template-protected}}, for making edit requests to template-protected pages. These requests can be viewed at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and can be answered by any editor with the template editor user right. There is also an annotated list of edit requests automatically updated by AnomieBOT at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable. You can put this on your watchlist to see when new requests have been made. Editors with the template editor right are enthusiastically encouraged to help answer the requests. :) You can see guidelines for answering requests at Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Template_editor_user_right/Archive_2&oldid=1147977506"