Wikipedia:Requested templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:REQT)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RT" redirects here. You may be looking for Redirect templates or Requests for translation.
For users unable to create new pages (new users, or anonymous users), who wish to code a template themselves, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation

Add new requests for a new template or updates to existing templates to the bottom of this page. Please be clear about what the template is used for, roughly what it should look like, and which articles it should link to, if any.

For requests regarding stub templates, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

A general description and guideline for userboxes can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes. A detailed instruction to use the userbox template can be found at Template:Userbox. For requests regarding userboxes, go to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas.

Requesting 2 templates[edit]

Requesting 2 templates, specifically (Template:Ministry of Transportation and Template:Ministry of Energy) to be created using the same group name and parameter as the existed template Template:National meteorological organisations using these 2 articles: Ministry of Transportation and Category:Energy ministries respectively.

  • Who is this? In case I need more info—leave a message on my talk

JacobiJonesJr 10 September 2014

Incumbent templates for other ex officio posts[edit]

Why not create incumbent templates like {{Incumbent pope}} for other offices (political, religious etc..,) too? That would be really helpful in updating articles if the office is an ex officio one of presidents, governors etc., One thing to keep in mind is such Incumbent templates, if created should render image names too, so that they too can be passed as parameters to other infoboxes. We can also group together political posts into a single template.

Example: {{incumbent french government|president|image=false}} should output [[François Hollande]]

Can I do it boldy? Can we have a parent category for such templates too?

Jayarathina (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what we should be using Wikidata for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, Is it actually possible now? I thought that was in the to-do list of Wikidata Project. But even if it is not possible now, wouldn't it be easy to create templates now and update the template with Wikidata when available? --Jayarathina (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for a World Population template[edit]

The world's population is used in several locations on Wikipedia and is constantly changing. Having a template will allow updates to be made without editing all of the corresponding options. The template should output a numerical value or a text equivalent. I.e. 7 billion or seven billion. Some optional features it would be nice to have:

  • text=yes → set to no will output a number rather than a word
  • sigfig=1 → using a higher number will give more precision
  • asof=now → inserting a year will give the world population for that year, within a limited range.

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note there is a {{Data world}} template, which is similar but not the same. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be a good idea if such a template also inserted the source of the data, since there may be varying estimates. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

{{R with history}}[edit]

This presently redirects to {{R with old history}}, but that is not the intended use.

We have a number of redirect tagging templates but none for articles that were turned into redirects. This template would enable editors to tell, without looking at the page history, if a redirect earlier used to be an article, as well enable us to have a category of such pages. Pages like Sydney Ann Hay can be tagged with this template. This is somewhat going to be the opposite of {{R with possibilities}}.

A different name for the template needs to be suggested, because this is used as a redirect. SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: I just had a look and discovered that {{R with history}} had just 4 transclusions. I've replaced or removed all of them as appropriate. So, there is no need for a different name for this template. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • That doesn't seem to be universally the case, e.g. J. C. Penney (disambiguation) (done manually, possibly wrong). The category also includes redirects from old subpages. It might be helpful if {{R from subpage}} produced a more specific description, and "Redirects with old history" might not be the best name for this category. Ivanvector (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is clearly stated in the template documentation that it is to be used only for a redirect from a title that is no longer used and is considered a historical part of Wikipedia. The use of the tag in the example you stated is wrong and I've removed it. On the other hand, I agree that Category:Redirects with old history is improperly named and suggest that you take it to CFD. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Looking at the category "R with old history" points to, it is far too complicated. This is a simple title for a simple purpose. It's worth keeping track of articles that have been merged as a category because (a) often they are good candidates to unmerge (with some work) and (b) they have their own special issues like the "copied" template that people can look into if they care. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't {{R from merge}} work in most cases? I realize some editors have a peculiarly deficient comprehension of what the word "merge" means, but this template is intended to show there is an edit history under the redirect. olderwiser 20:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What specific misuse of the word "merge" have you observed? Does it concern the template {{R from merge}} or something else? (I am neutral as to the ideas presented here, as I haven't thought too much yet.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Nothing specific about the template, more that I've seen edit summaries saying "Merging to X" when there was no merging of content at all, simply turning the article into a redirect. olderwiser 23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: - R from merge does look like a good template, but it hasn't been used that often, and because it is more specialized you couldn't necessarily program a bot to tag every such redirect. (After all, some redirects might be from articles that weren't genuinely merged but just scrapped) So a more general template would be useful; the R from merge could create a subcategory of that. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Where {{R from merge}} is used {{R with history}} isn't needed. As others said, make it so, it's a good idea. It would be cool if a bot could detect "relevant history" by number of edits or peek size, but I fear that's not really possible. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Take the cases of Sydney Ann Hay, Paul Hawley and Dustin Hawthorne. These articles were redirected to another article without any merger being performed. So, we can't possibly categorize these as R from merge. SD0001 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Sometimes when a "merge" occurs, there is no unique content that is worthwhile to merge into the target (everything is stated already, or it's better at the target, as examples) but in those cases we still need to maintain the history of the former article for attribution. For example, Warfare was "merged" to War but no content was actually moved into the much better target article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And Warfare doesn't carry the R from merge tag, nor it should. It was redirected to another article; we cannot technically call it a "merger". Can we? SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not tagged because I did the merge and I didn't think to tag it. There was a discussion where it was agreed that the topics should be merged, but then there was no content worth merging, so the merge consisted of just redirecting. That's still a WP:MERGE, in the sense that I think of merges. Ivanvector (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I see now that that's now how WP:MERGE reads; it's not a merge if no content is re-used, but I think that's a silly technicality. I still think we could use the {{R from merge}} tag on Warfare because that's essentially what happened, and the categorization should be the same. Ivanvector (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If no content is re-used, there is no point in calling it a merge. The policy documentation is just fine. SD0001 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Take the case of Bobby Fischer (biography). This redirect was deleted by an admin who felt that this was a silly redirect. He was, of course, unaware that it contained 671 revisions! It was only about three years later that the damage was undid by Graham87. This template would help prevent such incidents. I agree that it shouldn't be used in cases of mergers, where {{R from merge}} is more specific. SD0001 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. Graham87 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done The template is now live at {{R with history}}. Changes to the template, template documentation and category page are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

List of music and organization navboxes (31 March 2015)[edit]

This is a list of navboxes that may be able to be created for the organizations and musicians shown.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please create Template:No unifying theme (or unmerge Template:Incoherent-topic)[edit]

Please create Template:No unifying theme or if you prefer, unmerge Template:Incoherent-topic and move it to that name. It should put up a banner similar to the banner currently produced by Template:Incoherent and should auto-categorize the page it appears on into Category:Wikipedia articles without coherent topic. Meanwhile, the current Template:Incoherent should be returned to its state before the two were merged.

Brief background summary: Template:Incoherent was created in 2006 to flag incomprehensible text in an article. Another template was created in 2008 to banner and auto-categorize articles with no unifying theme, under the unfortunate name Template:Incoherent-topic. In 2011, possibly due to the poorly chosen name, these two were merged into Template:Incoherent. The result is a single template, misnamed, with self-contradictory banner and usage notes which, in a perhaps well-intentioned desire to do double-duty, now solves neither problem. It is now ineffective, and generates confusion. In addition, it's not clear to me whether it really categorizes the page the way the documentation claims it does, as I see no Ambox |cat= param, but I'm no template expert. A sandbox test did not show any page categorization, so I suspect it doesn't do it.

A longer discussion can be found at Template talk:Incoherent.

I'm uncertain whether this should be considered "creation" of a new template, or an "unmerge request", if such a thing even exists. If both templates and Doc pages were restored to their state just before the merge. , I could probably handle it from there, if that would lighten your load any.

Please advise on best way to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)