Template talk:Di-missing article links

{{editprotected}} request

{{editprotected}} Adding link to a specific template to be used, like {{Non-free use rationale}}, would help editors resolve the issue quickly, instead of having to wade through WP:NFCC. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Is this okay? --- RockMFR 04:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not go the whole hog?  Done Happy‑melon 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Super, that makes it so easy, even a Wikipedian could fix things :) — MrDolomite • Talk 06:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

links are not required

{{editprotected}} This template should be changed. According to NFCC, links are not required, only specific article names are. Links are only recommended.--Rockfang (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot doesn't require the links, but providing them has certain advantanges: if the article is linked, the bot can deal with misspellings and alternative names, and can update links if the article is moved, merged, or turned into a disambiguation page. If the article is merely named, the name must be an exact match. --Carnildo (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point that links can be useful. The template should still be changed though.--Rockfang (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific about what you want changed. And, changes to templates like this is usually a recipe for drama. Perhaps cross-post to a fair use noticeboard or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This: The image needs '''a fair-use rationale that links to each and every article it is used for'''. should be changed to The image needs a '''fair-use rationale with article name for each and every article it is used for.'''. I doubt changing this one template will cause much drama. I'm requesting that it be brought inline with current consensus with WP:NFCC. Regardless, I have posted a link to this section here, and here. --Rockfang (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request declined — this is not a non-controversial change, please gather consensus first. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this isn't non-controversial. I'm requesting a template be updated to reflect current policy. But I will wait a few days. If noone responds within a few days, I'll reenable the {{editprotected}} template per WP:CONSENSUS.--Rockfang (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can come up with a wording that 1) encourages people to link to articles rather than simply name them, 2) does not encourage people to simply stick the name on the image description page, 3) is grammatically correct and reads well, and 4) is short enough that people might read it, then I'd be willing to make the change. --Carnildo (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: The image needs a separate fair-use rationale that links to (or names) each and every article it is used in. FYI, the way the template is worded now, it insinuates you can just have one rationale and list all articles in it. This also is incorrect. Item 10c on WP:NFCC states separate rationales are needed.--Rockfang (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Please add {{pp-template|small=yes}} to this template. That will show its protection status. Don't forget to put it inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, or use the ones available at the end of the template. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Could someone please add class="sysop-show" to the small tags surrounding the admin instructions at the bottom to hide that text for non-admins. Pppery 21:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)