Template talk:WikiProject Rivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Rivers (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Inline image size[edit]


Please could the direct link in this template to [[:Image:River_gambia_Niokolokoba_National_Park.gif]] be removed. The image is the full-size version and is 215 kB in size! This is wholly inappropriate for a mere Talk page template (with 70px icon) and causes excessive cost to people using mobile data services.—Sladen (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Switched the image. It's now 2KB. That seems reasonable. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1.0 assessment classes[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hello, would someone be able to add the full assessment classes that aren't in use yet for this project, like Template and the Project classes? It would help a lot in the sorting process. Thanks in advance. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Added editprotected rqst, would someone change this to WPBannerMeta, with full quality scale? Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done for now: Hi, could you put together your idea of what the new template should look like in a sandbox (say, Template:River/Sandbox), and then re-post the editprotected request? That way the responding admin can just copy it straight over. The general practice for editprotected requests is to make it as easy for the responding admin as possible. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Have put together the WPBannerMeta at Template:River/sandbox. Could someone update the current banner? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done Ruslik (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I added to the top of this template:

<noinclude>[[Template:River]] redirects here. This template is for talk pages. For the top of an article use {{tlx|Infobox river}}</noinclude>

The addition was reverted by user:Redrose64 with the comment "rv x3: this is the sort of thing that belongs in the template's documentation" (diff).


  1. why do you think it belongs in the documentation?
  2. if it does why did you not add it?

-- PBS (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It belongs in the documentation because it is not part of the template's working, it is information about the template. There are plenty of precedents for putting a hatnote in the doc of a template - see for example: {{abbr}}; {{as of}}; {{category link}}; {{citation}}; {{clarify}}; {{dated}}; {{infobox country}}; {{infobox journal}}; {{infobox person}}; and others - I know of none where the hatnote is outside the documentation. You could have added it to the doc yourself, if you feel that pointing out a redirect is important. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is better at the head of the template where it is clear to see and not buried further down in the text. You are the one who states "rv x3: this is the sort of thing that belongs in the template's documentation". I will gladly restore it to the top or change the redirect to point to {{Infobox river}}. If you think it is better in the documentation then address the issue rather than revering my edit. -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that it should be buried. It's not difficult to put it in the doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Content model edit request[edit]

Change content model to JSON, as discussed at the TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: um I don't like this --- why is this JSON using a javascript page name? — xaosflux Talk 18:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I don't know; that's how Kephir coded the gadget that uses it. In any case, the content is clearly JSON, and both me and Izno said the content model should be changed at the TfD. I don't actually like the naming of this page either, but I don't feel like messing with unmaintained code. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: looks like you have a link in to this, are you using it? I'd rather move this to a .json page, change the content model, and also update User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js at the same time. — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There are about 100 rater-data.js subpages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Um so you want this change on 100+ pages, and it isn't actually necessary for the current usage? — xaosflux Talk 19:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There are gonna be tons of these. The json content model was only added to mw1.24 in 2014, so before then pages used the .js extension to have safe/secure js/json-like pages (pretty sure if Twinkle were made now, our twinkleoptions page would be json not js). Unless there's a good reason to rename these, I'd think it best to change it to json and leave it at the current name. ~ Amory (utc) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer the page name to be changed to make it obvious what the user is looking at, where we bump into pages needing an update. It also enables non-administrator editors to edit the page, or should in the future, whereas I am pretty sure .js extensions will not, if even those pages will be functional in non MediaWiki/User namespaces. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Izno and Amorymeltzer: Automatic protection of JS and JSON pages only works in userspace. This page, in template namespace, is editable by anyone, regardless of what content model it uses, regardless of whether it is called "/rater-data.js" or "/rater-data.json" (unless the page is manually protected by an admin). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Most of the "links" are likely because of the above editrequest template on various (admin) dashboards. ~ Amory (utc) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not done as Pppery points out this is a standard format for this tool on over 100 pages, so changing this one is not really going to be useful. A larger discussion (perhaps at VPT) should be held if bulk updates of these are going to be warranted - which should address multiple concerns above: using the right name (e.g. *.json), fixing the actual content model, and fixing the source of these creations. — xaosflux Talk 04:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)