Jump to content

Template talk:Request for permission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Rfplinks)

Format

[edit]

Why is it that when the using the Template:rfr, like {{subst:rfr|Artichoker|test}} ~~~~, it displays nicely:

User:Artichoker

[edit]
test Artichoker[talk] 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But when using this template, like {{subst:rfp|Artichoker|test}} ~~~~, the signature is uglyly displaced:

User:Artichoker

[edit]
test
Artichoker[talk] 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the problem is? Artichoker[talk] 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I figured out what it was. It had something to do with the placement of the <noinclude> tags. I fixed it. J.delanoygabsadds 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's it?

[edit]

I noted that if the reason parameter contains many characters, there appears a long text in Latin instead of the application. What does it mean and what's the point in it?--Microcell (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I added the Identify link when the requirement for ACC was changed to identified users only, this link seems to be useless in hind sight. So at WP:PERM/C a Google search link for the requesting username seems more productive. If a discussion is needed for this change then please revert my edit and we can talk. My reason for the Google search link is this, many new accounts have seemingly Upol usernames, so it seems to be a "no-brainer" to have a Google search for the username available.
Mlpearc (powwow) 05:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces in name

[edit]

In Template:rfplinks, the link to xtools does not work if a user has spaces in their name. It replaces the spaces with a “+” while it should replace the spaces with “%20”. I am not sure how to fix this. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unnecessary indentation?

[edit]

Can we remove the indentation which seems unnecessary, or change the second indent to use a bullet point per MOS:INDENTMIX? (If IndentBot gets approved, the mixed indentation triggers it.) Winston (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and removed the indentation. Winston (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is a point entitled "non-automated edits", but it links to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/autoedits/en.wikipedia.org/Example. There is a link (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/nonautoedits-contributions/en.wikipedia.org) that I would think this would be linking to instead. Am I misunderstanding something, or should this be changed? Thanks, ― Levi_OPTalk 18:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option might be to rename it to "automated edits", as folks may be interested in seeing the autoedits page. Neutral myself, we should await the opinion of some WP:PERM admins. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think you want to edit Template:Rfplinks, which if you do so carefully should be OK. — xaosflux Talk 18:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Oh, you're right. I think I might have accidentally gotten here by clicking on the link to this template that's on Rfplinks documentation. Should this discussion be moved? ― Levi_OPTalk 19:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levi OP: no, I'm saying you've posted around, noone is objecting, WP:BOLD time! (I'm sure someone will track you down if you break something). — xaosflux Talk 19:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Usually I would, but a template that is used on multiple pages every with links that people might use regularly, I don't want to just change. If someone who uses the link regularly noticed that it just started going somewhere else, they'd be confused and it could cause more confusion than is worth. I'm looking for input from the people who accept the requests to see whether they actually use the link in question, and what should be changed about it. ― Levi_OPTalk 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have added two links for Template editor requests (see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor). You can see what they look like in the history of that page. To review a Template editor permission request, it is helpful to review the editor's contributions in the Template and Template talk spaces. Two links to the requesting editor's contributions in those spaces now appear in this template, only on the above-listed page (at least, that was my intent).

I also tweaked the dots to make them more standardized. The superscripted dots were rendering larger than the main dots, at least in my browser. Pinging Primefac, who is the most frequent recent processor of these Template editor permission requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute legend; first thing I noticed when I started looking at the most recent request. Primefac (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For new page reviewer, could we add links to the user's:

The last three are more relevant for reapplications after a trial, so if it's getting too much we could drop them. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by someone at some point. I see the links in the template. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Request_for_permission&oldid=1224102350"