User talk:Salix alba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Convention: I will generally reply to questions here. If you want a reply on your talk page please specify.

Please comment at this RfC[edit]

RfC on the 'Veganism' article

Please comment on Talk:Placebo[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Placebo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


There are several ways this could have been handled. One was to convert it into a wrapper template (which I did) so that its functionality would still be available for those who're used to using it (with the possibility of it being added to the group of templates that get automatically substed by bots: this would have neatly achieved the stated rationale of the TfD discussion: keeping this off the face of articles so that there are overall fewer hatnote template to reckon with). A second option would be to "deprecate it", so that upon use it would come up with an error message telling editors to use another template instead. A third option is deletion: the one initially performed; that was annoying for those attempting to use the template, but after clicking through to the deletion log and then the TfD discussion, they would eventually find out what other template they need to do. The fourth, and worst, option is redirecting to the other template: the two are used differently, so any editor attempting to transclude {{distinguish2}} will not see any red flags unless they pay close attention to the result, and then, once they've noticed the mangled output, will have no easy way form the target template's documentation to figure out what the bloody hell went wrong.

And also, adding template-editor protection to an dysfunctional template redirect with zero transclusions looks like really odd thing to do. – Uanfala (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well @Primefac: deleted the template after removing references, the resolution there matches the one for Template:Redirect3 and Template:About2 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 18. The nom was explicit about deleting once uses had been migrated. Its also mention in the discussion that the purpose is to simplify the interface, so there are fewer templates around to work with. This implies quite strongly that the delete was the option to take. It looks like the rest of the editor community was happy with this apart from you, as there have been no other transclusions.
I take your point that redirecting is not ideal so its now got the {{Deprecated template}}.
The protection is according to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions which says the
If any page becomes a redirect, ensure page protection for the redirect matches that of the template which the page now redirects to, and that page protection for the target template is appropriate for the number of transclusions which may have increased after the merger. --Salix alba (talk): 04:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That's not a redirect anymore, so technically there's no need for its protection to match that of the former target, is there? – Uanfala (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, Primefac appears to have missed this discussions and to have instead opted for taking the matter into his own hands and deleting the template straight away – which is the second worst option of the ones I've listed. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I tend to check my pings after I've checked/cleared out my watchlist backlog. You shouldn't just be recreating templates that were deleted because you disagree with the rationale, and putting a {{deprecated template}} tag on a page that already was deprecated (and deleted) is improper as well. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
I don't disagree with the rationale, I'm happy with the outcome of the discussion, which was "merge". I simply don't know how the template eventually got deleted: deletion is one of several alternatives after a merge and as explained above, one of the least optimal in this case. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we are done here. If you want to challenge Primefac's interpretation of the TFD then take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. I'd advise against that action as its getting close to WP:POINT.--Salix alba (talk): 13:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Extinction events.png[edit]

You uploaded or restored , File:Extinction events.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)