Template Editor

(add request • view requests)

See Wikipedia:Template editor for granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, however administrators may use their discretion in determining which editors meet the general standard. Consider posting {{subst:template editor granted}} to the user talk page of approved users.

User:Ktr101

• Ktr101 (t · th · c ^{(template space · edit requests)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · templates created · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've worked on many templates over the years (probably hundreds), and I have been working with some editors on the military installation infobox within the last year or so in order to fix it up, and we could easily merge some of the smaller templates together right now, as some of this is ready to go, and I would like to be able to do each edit on this and other templates without having to ping an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{nd}}. Dude, just file an RFA already.

no? Not feeling masochistic today? Fine,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd do that, but bugging the admins for page deletions is still more fun than deleting them yourself! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Beeblebrox: I think this might have been too hasty. I can only find sandbox work by Ktr101 on one template (Template:Infobox military installation/sandbox), and his request at {{WikiProject Catholicism}} back in June isn't filling me with confidence that Ktr101 knows the normal process for submitting edit requests. Would you be willing to rethink this decision? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandbox work: {{Canon Law/sandbox}}, {{Infobox military installation/sandbox}}, {{WikiProject Catholicism/sandbox}} -- I also don't see fulfilled edit requests. I see an average of 100 edits to template talk a year and almost 500 template edits in the last year. I'm sure Kevin is a very capable template editor and despite the lack of sandbox work and edit requests, may very well fall under "administrator discretion". I'm kind of neutral and can see the case made by both sides. Sits back now and watches Technical 13 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those other two sandboxes; not sure why I missed those. (Is there a gadget that can find sandbox edits by a user, by the way?) That is a little better, but I'm still concerned about the lack of edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I go to Special:Contributions for the user, filter by template namespsace (and module separately since there is no way to select multiple yet), set the limit to 999, and then use my ctrl+f feature of firefox to look for "/sandbox". Not the simplest method, but it works. I suppose I could make a gadget that would search the user's contributions for Template: / Module: pages with suffix of "/sandbox" and talk spaces with an edit summary including "edit request" (and the other similar default summaries) and return a page of results. I'll add that to my long todo list and leave a note when it is done (unless someone beats me to it, hint hint). Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I am going to go ahead and call "admin discretion" on this one even of he doesn't 100% tick all the right boxes. Kevin is clearly active in this arena and has not abused the various other user rights he has gotten over the years. I know this is a user right with a potential for extreme damage if misused, but I trust that Kevin will use it carefully. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• His RFA failed over paraphrasing concerns, which has little to do with template editing. Thus, I personally see no issues with granting him the right, either. --Rschen7754 04:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:CRRaysHead90

• CRRaysHead90 (t · th · c ^{(template space · edit requests)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · templates created · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've seen so many of the Baseball WikiProject's templates protected, it's hard to help maintain and improve our templates. I'm requesting this to cut down on the amount of times I need to bug the admins. I reviewed the guidelines and feel I meet all but #5, though I have worked on templates in my personal sandbox. And since these are just guidelines, I was hoping for WP:AGF. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CRRaysHead90: could you provide us with any links to protected edit requests that you've made? This would be useful to show that you pass the granting guideline #6. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one in particular that I know of off the top of my head, though I know there's more, is the protected edit request to Template:Infobox MLB player. I gained a consensus for a change to the template. So I filed for it, as seen here, and it was later determined through more discussion to undo the change. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found another at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 23#February 2013 edit request. Looking at that discussion, and at the discussion that lead to your proposed edit at {{infobox MLB player}} being reverted, I would say that both times you were asking edits to be implemented before there was a proper consensus to do so. Sometimes for minor things it is ok to make edit requests without first waiting for discussion, but I don't think you have managed to make this distinction in the two edit requests linked to above. Because of this, I'm closing this as  Not done. However, I would be willing to reconsider after you have made a few more edit requests that demonstrate an understanding of when it is necessary to seek consensus, and of when a suitable consensus has been found. If you make a good edit request that is clearly explained, properly tested and backed up by consensus, it is actually hardly any bother at all for admins patrolling CAT:EP to enact it, so don't be afraid to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you make a good edit request that is clearly explained, properly tested and backed up by consensus, it is also actually hardly any bother at all for the existing TEs patrolling CAT:ETP to enact it, so don't be afraid to ask. Technical 13 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]