Wikipedia:Requested templates/Existing/2006/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arabic to Roman Numerals 2 Locked pages 3 please provide template Template:Unclear writing 4 HTML Timeline Requested 5 {Redundant} Template 6 articles lacking notability 7 More Images

[edit] Arabic to Roman Numerals

I was looking for a template that converts Arabic numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...) to roman numerals. It'd be a great template for those who know nothing about Roman numerals, and it'd be great for what I'm trying to do now. Does anyone think they could do it in a relatively short period of time? → JARED ^(t)  14:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at {{roman}}. Here's an example

{{roman|2006}} → MMVI

I think that's what you want. Mike Dillon 15:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Don't mind me if I make edits to the template. Great job!!! → JARED ^(t)  15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, I've requested protection for this template. It is used in over 500 year articles and does not need frequent editing. Mike Dillon 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locked pages

There are a lot of pages which have been locked and have the template that tells you to go to the talk page to look up why. Honestly, I've barely ever been able to find out why exactly a page has been locked and would like to suggest some mention of a reason being either mentioned on the page itself or the talk page, preferably through use of a template. Like this:

/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|This page has been locked and the admin who did so states the following as a reason:|
|________INSERT REASON HERE__________________________________________________________| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohanTenge (talk • contribs).

This can be found in the protection log for the page. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html. Perhaps the {{Protected}} template and friends should link to the protection log, but this should probably be discussed at Template talk:Protected instead of here. Mike Dillon 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For fully protected pages, the first place to go might be the history of the page (edit summary), since the most recent revision will be to apply protection. John Broughton | Talk 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please provide template Template:Unclear writing

it should be like "cleanup" except refer to unclear writing. The template "cleanupconfusing" is good, but in the place I would like to add it there is nothing confusing about the prose. It's just a little unclear and needs cleanup. For now, I'm adding a simple cleanup tag, but "unclear writing" would be better. This is the section. It looks like it's been copyedited fairly well. It's not in need of "cleaning up", it's just simply an unclear approach. The template should prompt the author to try their hand again, hopefully attaining a clearer version. They shouldn't really clean up their version, they should really realize it will always be inherrently pretty unclear. Maybe a diagram or rearranging the sentences might help, that's up to the author. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.97.10.118 (talk • contribs).

This looks like exactly what {{confusing}} is for. We shouldn't have more templates for the same thing. PatrickFisher 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML Timeline Requested

Can Wikipedia create a template which automates making (and rearranging/organizing) HTML files into a historic time line which can be used by anyone for any time line in any historic period (from Ancient History to Modern).

These types of templates exist in cyberland for Word Documents and Excell files but not for HTML. What would be perfect would be a style sheet developed or other type of template into which a student of history could enter an event or person with the event or person's time span, source of information, photo(s), and write up (1 or more paragraphs)...with a seperate "click out" page for more "in depth" look at the event or person's life yet with one overall "page" that shows how things relate to one another. Vertical or horizontal doesn't matter (maybe both?) for the time line, just so that the summary on the time line is clickable to another web page that can give details.

Thanks :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.198.62.17 (talk • contribs).

Can you provide an example of a site that has what you're looking for? --Dgies 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you use <timeline>, as is shown in Welsh language? --Dgies 06:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {Redundant} Template

As I was browsing the German version of Wikipedia, a template that I came across and realized would be useful is the Redundant template.

{ {subst:Redundant|Article1|Article2|Article3(|other Articles)} }

{ This article overlaps thematically with ([Article1], [Article 2], etc). Help to distinguish or combine the articles. You can find a guide for doing so and a list of redundant articles under [Wikipedia:Redundant]. (Discuss)
[Date]}

In addition, there is a page explaining redundancy and how to use the tag (link). It also offers examples of how to discuss the subject, if you believe:
- There is no redundancy between the topics, and they do not need further work
- The topic choices are not redundant, but the difference in the articles is not obvious, and work needs to be done on the articles to make the differences more clear
- The articles should be merged
There is also a wiki category for open redundancy tags (sorted by month into subcategories) that are more than three months outstanding.

I could not find any tag under the merge/split/move section for articles that clearly have lots of overlap and need clarification, but probably not a merger. It addresses the problem more directly than a Cleanup or Merger tag.Thalassicus01 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fairly easy to make, though the maitenence tag bots would have to be updated to recognize it, but it assumes that articles which have some thematic overlap are redundant, which is not necessarily the case. Cleanup tags shouldn't imply something people will disagree with. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it more closely fits under the Split/Merge subcategory (where it is placed on the German page), as those tags spark more discussion. On the other hand, it's used when a merger is likely not needed, somewhat overlapping the categories. I also agree that overlapping topics are not necessarily redundant, one of the three suggestions on the explanation page (as translated above) is to discuss why the topics (even though they overlap thematically) might be sufficiently distinguished to not require further work. Another name for the template could be {Overlap} or a similar synonym, the German word used is Redundanz.Thalassicus01 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at {{merge-multiple}}. Mike Dillon 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] articles lacking notability

i've looked at a couple articles that don't have notability in them. i don't know if it exists, but if there is one, let me know. if not, here's what should be on the template. "this article lacks notability. if no one provides notability to this article, it could be deleted." something like that, maybe within a week. anyway, if this won't work, then let me know. i'm outta here. Jailbreaker22 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• {{notability}} -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• You're looking for {{prod}}. It suggests why an article should be deleted, and tags if for automatic deletion if nobody contests this within a week. If you tag an article with a prod, it is recommended you leave a {{prodwarning}} notice on the article creator's talk page. --Dgies 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod works too, if you want slightly more force. But keep in mind that a prod can be removed by anyone, for any reason whatsoever, while a cleanup template like {{notability}} requires a consensus that notability is indeed provided. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but the {{notability}} tag could just stay up there indefinitely. On the other hand, you can watchlist the prodded page and take it to WP:AFD if someone removes the prod without providing evidence of notability. --Dgies 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So it depends on whether you're closer to "Well, this is probably notable, but I'd like to see it in the article" or "I doubt this is notable, but it might be". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Images

I'd like a template requesting more images for the article it is posted on. --PostScript 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Image request templates These go on talk pages. Circeus 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much consensus that more image templates don't go on articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What they said. Also, a lot of those templates let you supply a parameter where you say what exactly you are requesting. --Dgies 15:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)