|
|
Wikipedia:Requested templates
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 stub templates, request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.
For userboxes, try using {{Userbox}} first. 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.
 Resolved.I'm trying to get a caption to show up at Wilbur Smith, but the template doesn't seem to be working even though the code appears to be correct. Or is it a fault on my part? Richard001 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "caption" parameter was in there twice; I deleted the second (blank) one, and it seems to working now. --Brian Olsen (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Moving images to Commons - a talk page template
To go with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, how about a talk page template. Something like this:
Some or all images in this article are candidates to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons.
Appropriately licensed media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects and browsers in general if placed on Commons. Any logged in user may move the image(s) - see Moving images to the Commons (CommonsHelper) for more information. If appropriate, a new category/gallery could be created as well. Please do not remove this template until all the images have been moved to the Commons.
What do we think?
Richard001 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- well, if you have an article 'X' with multiple images that are not part of the Commons, it would seem more reasonable to place individual tags on each image pages, rather than place a collective tag on the article 'X' page. less confusion that way about which images should get moved. I'm not certain that a new template would add anything useful here. can you point to the page where you think it would be useful? --Ludwigs2 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- It would be useful on any of the many pages where there are a lot of images that should be at Commons that aren't. It both saves placing it on each individual image, and makes it more visible (that they should be moved is not otherwise clear without viewing the image pages themselves, which people often don't). Richard001 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- My biggest concern would be that the tag wouldn't likely be seen by the sort of people who knew how to fix the issue. At least by tagging the individual images, they can be categorized and thereby found, but I wholeheartedly disagree with tagging an article with such a template. You could have a featured article with such images and tagging one of those would not be advisable. I suppose the question is "How do you see such a tag working?" I personally don't see it as a good idea. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Anybody with an account can fix the issue, though being familiar with Commons and the CommonsHelper would help. Talk pages could also be categorized and thereby found, though I think they are a lot more likely to be noticed on a talk page than at some obscure category. Tagging a featured article would be great; the real question is why it was allowed to become featured in the first place with such a glaring issue. But, if people don't like the idea, I guess I can get by. Richard001 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- An example: Omana Regional Park. Richard001 (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please modify this so that if only the first parameter is given that the produced text gives the singular "category" rather than the plural "categories". Thanks. --T-rex 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- ✓ Done plus, I tweaked the torturous grammar a bit... --Ludwigs2 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks --T-rex 02:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Making a new redirect in the SVG template family
(Reposted from WP:VPR#f5ffff a new redirect in the SVG template family)
Having recently looked over Template:ShouldBeSVG/doc again, I suddenly realised that I have been flagging up images incorrectly in some cases. Namely, I have been using the code {{SVG|icon}} in a lot of cases when flagging images on http://en.wikipedia.org and http://commons.wikimedia.org. The correct category, it has transpired, is not icon but symbol. Further investigation has revealed that a fairly large number of images have been flagged up both at Wikipedia and over at the Commons, and so there now lie the two automatically created pages Category:Icon images that should be in SVG format and commons:Category:Icon images that should use vector graphics, the images in which will most probably go entirely unnoticed as those categories do not appear on Category:Images that should be in SVG format and commons:Category:Images that should use vector graphics. Thus, in order to correct my mistakes and stop such mistakes from being a problem in future, could {{SVG|icon}} be made to automatically redirect to {{SVG|symbol}} and the images flagged with {{SVG|icon}} placed either on Category:Symbol images that should be in SVG format or on commons:Category:Symbol images that should use vector graphics, just as {{ConverttoSVG}} itself redirects to {{ShouldBeSVG}}? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- ok, I rewrote the wikipedia template to fix the problem. I'll get to the commons template tomorrow. I'll also probably add an 'undeclared' page that will collect any arbitrary categories that people use in the future. --Ludwigs2 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Excellent, thanks ever so much! It Is Me Here (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to draw your attention to my proposal for a new usercheck template over at WP:VPR. If anyone could improve my template and / or add to it, then that would be very much appreciated. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Resolved.
