Template talk:Twitter/Archive 1

Archive 1

verified account

shouldn't this parameter added and bot checked? --213.168.121.113 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why does this template exist? Which articles is it aimed at? I just wouldn't call someone's Twitter account at all encyclopaedic. Suppose you've been investigating the subject, you expect to follow links in "External links" to tell you more information on the subject, not display their random and unrelated musings. Sorry, but I just don't get this template =/ Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the template in similar fashion to that used on {{myspace}}. I wouldn't say it was completely not useful whatsoever, considering a number of articles have Twitter pages linked in the external links section (Which i am sure you have seen). Also, I have seen in the past that a number of pieces of useful information have been posted first on Twitter pages (see here, here). --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst that's true, you've got to be pretty lucky to find anything remotely useful or interesting on Twitter. I can see the point about MySpace, because it's a static page which the user can use to describe themselves and write meaningful or interesting information. Twitter isn't like that. It's like a less reliable form of a blog, and I swear that promoting someone's Twitter page at the end of an article only serves to advertise it, not to help readers. Myeh. I'm not totally against it, I was just interested in your rationale. Cheers for replying! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article guidelines do warn against using Twitter or Myspace as a source but they can offer a lot of information similar to a celebrities personal web site. Unless this page is shut down and marked as deprecated I think it is fair enough to use this template and add Twitter details to biographies where is available. -- Horkana (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't use it as a source, as the content keeps changing. For example, one day it may "prove" that Stephen Fry fell over on some ice. But twenty tweets later and the source is already outdated. It could potentially feature in EL - if the subject is particularly known for using Twitter - but I would never advise using it as a source or on the profile of someone who just "has it". Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise what I said before wasn't entirely clear. I would never use Twitter as a source but I would add it to a biography as an external link just as I would add an IMDB profile or other such link. -- Horkana (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

←The template was never created to be used as a source, really. I guess you could use a single status as a source but it wouldn't be particularly useful or reliable. It was more meant to be used in the same way you would {{myspace}}, in external links as said. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 05:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Except we don't link to Twitter in external links, so this template serves no purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of this template is now being debated at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Twitter --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

Can this be implemented into a userbox? I'd love to create it, if I may implement the code somehow. mheart (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the Twitter userbox has already been created. Yay! mheart (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't even know this existed, adding it right away! --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Add handling of no parameter?

Could we add handling of no parameter? For example {{twitter}} on Google's page would link to twitter.com/[article title]. See Template:CrunchBase for a working version of this.

This code will work:

[http://twitter.com/{{urlencode:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}] on [[Twitter]]<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Good plan actually, feel free to be bold and go for it, you deserve all the credit! --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 03:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that it's locked so only administrators can edit it! Otherwise I would have done it myself! :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This template leads to spam links

I started a discussion at WT:External links#Spam links becoming standard practice that talks about spam links, including this template. — Timneu22 · talk 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Update the link

Please update the link format to http://twitter.com/#!/{{{1|{{{id}}}}}}. This is the new JavaScript location for sites on Twitter. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Coded on sandbox and testing on Template:Twitter/testcases. Can you clarify why your proposed form is preferable, as both seem to work just fine. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The form is the new link format of Twitter. While the old one probably still works for some time, this might change. Also, I think we should make users clear exactly where they're linked to, because Twitter doesn't work without JavaScript. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it is possible to browse Twitter without JavaScript, but if JS is enabled, users will be automatically redirected to the new theme so there is no need to force the new theme which is broken for users without JS. And no, I don't think Twitter will disable the static theme anytime soon because e.g. search engines are unable to index JavaScript-dependent sites. Thereof, I suggest restoring the last change.--OsamaK (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

   Reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

HTTPS

Since I'm unaware of any guidelines restricting links to HTTPS sites, I suggest linking to the HTTPS version of Twitter which has the exact same contents but with the advantage of a secure connection. This is especially useful for users in countries where governments censor and restrict certain profiles and for users of secure.wikimedia.org who (for the sake of their privacy) should ideally be linked to a secure version of external websites. Twitter HTTPS support is reliable and recommended by the website itself.--OsamaK (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way for this is to use protocol relative URLs. This ensures that people from a HTTPS connection will stay on HTTPS. Please update the wikitext to [//twitter.com/{{{1|{{{id}}}}}} {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}] on [[Twitter]]. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not link to the https version always? Anomie⚔ 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd be doable, of course, even though I'm wondering if there are people on http://en.wikipedia.org who want to go to https://twitter.com. I'd assume those people using Twitter on HTTPS also use Wikipedia on HTTPS. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Certainly seems possible to me. I'd be in the opposite situation: I care nothing for Twitter and don't care if it's http or https (since I don't even have an account there), but I use https for Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URL

Now we have protocol-relative URLs available on Wikipedia, I suggest linking [//twitter.com/{{{1|{{{id}}}}}} {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}] --Txuspe (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Note this was discussed two sectionsSection moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) above. Is there any particular reason to link to the non-SSL version? Anomie⚔ 04:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Now we have HTTP and HTTPS Wikipedia available and users can choose whether browsing secure version or not, why should we force them going HTTPS? I think we should let users on standard version of Wikipedia going standard version of Twitter, and same with secure, as it's their decision using HTTPS or not. --Txuspe (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Users should have choice" is not a strong argument. "Why we should force them going HTTPS" is because it's a trivial way of enhancing users' personal security when visiting external sites through our links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This template needs to go

There is no justifiable basis for this template to exist on WP, as the very spirit of it doesn't pass WP:ELNO, nevermind the application of it. I have seen it used more and more to improperly link and ref to twitterings that do not meet WP:RS or otherwise have nothing to do with what they are supposedly ref'ing. Srobak (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ELNO starts out by saying "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, ...". As Twitter verifies that the feed belongs to the notable individual in question, that makes it an official page in my book. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

People are linking to a whole lot more than the occasional "verified/official" stream. As mentioned earlier in this talk page and the affiliated AFD link - the content is too dynamic to be used as a ref for encyclopedic purposes. Srobak (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If people are linking toiapprapaote streams; remove the links, Deletion is not clean-up. And where is this template being used as a reference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's time to consider a bot to do the cleanup. None of the social networking templates should be on pages that also use the {{official website}} template, according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Yworo (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As I write this there are 4,044 instances of the use of this template (and there are countless more twitter.com URLs—that will no doubt eventually be converted to this template). Almost all of the uses of this template are in "External links" sections, and most of those sections also have "Official website" information. The simple inescapable point is that no matter how much some people around here want to tell us about the "rules", it is clear that the mood and actual editing at WP is very far away from those "rules". We are here to offer a service to our readers, and it's quite clear that the providing of social networking links is part of what the community is keen to see promoted (at least in "External links" sections). Please don't progress to some sort of mass-extermination campaign without first holding a RFC in front of a much wider audience. GFHandel ♬  07:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This "mood" that you speak of (which is ram-rodding changes in spite of policies and guidelines) is a practice carried out by the few to try and force consensus by the many. Sorry - but purposefully conducting edits outside of the policies and guidelines in effort to make the shift commonplace is akin to the logic of speeding 10 over simply because everyone else is doing it - and just does not hold water. While I agree with you an RFC needs to be had - it needed to be done before the rampant templating - not after. (80 instances in a day? WP:POINT). If one cannot edit within the policies and guidelines before RFCing for the implementation of a change of this type and magnitude - then they don't need to be editing. This is the exact type of practice that needs to stop. Yooperkawi (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I struck the above based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak. GFHandel ♬  09:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that allows you to strike the comments of other users, even if they have been shown to be sockpuppets, unless they have been banned. Being indef blocked is not necessarily a ban, check List of banned users before removing or striking another editors comments. Banned user's edits may be reverted, but if other editors have replied to those comments, it is generally better to leave them alone. Yworo (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example of exactly why we need to enforce the higher consensus expressed by the existing policies and guidelines. Check this dude's recent edit history... Appears that he personally added about 4044 instances of his new {{Google+}} template today. Yworo (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"he personally added about 4044 instances of his new {{Google+}} template today"? Try about 80 instances. It really would be better if you took the time to understand what was going on before you start removing other people's work (without discussion). GFHandel ♬  09:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Spam ≠ work, except for others who have to clean it up. I tried to discuss, pointing you to the relevant guidelines, but you merely showed contempt for both the letter and spirit of those guidelines, and for me as well. No better way to get my back up. Where did you discuss creation of the template and adding it to articles before you did so? Did you check at the external links noticeboard? Discuss whether it was in line with policy anywhere? No, doesn't look like it. Yworo (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Template can only be used as a vehicle for easy addition of inappropriate external links per wp:ELNO #10. See also Template Google+ - DVdm (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We probably need to reopen this at WP:TFD. Yworo (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For those interested in such matters (e.g. the deletion of social-networking templates at WP), please see a similar discussion here. GFHandel ♬  10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2012

@CherieJohnson75

76.91.105.100 (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Display the @

If we make this template display the "@" symbol ("@pigsonthewing" instead of just "pigsonthewing"), it will have two benefits:

• The Twitter link will be more readily identified by people scanning the page
• It will disambiguate different links using the same name by using unique link text,as required by WCAG web accessibility guidelines.

To illustrate the latter, consider:

• Foobar (official website)
• Foobar on Twitter

would change to:

• Foobar (official website)
• @Foobar on Twitter

Can someone do this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Making one link stand out from other links is not desirable. Adding symbols or logos is not compatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we make "one link stand out from other links" I'm suggesting we make it easier to distinguish between them. This isn't about "symbnols or logos". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This change should be made for the sake of accessibility and ease of use. Twitter handles are displayed on Twitter with the @ symbol. It is an easy change to implement and it would comply with the manual of style. It will also help users differentiate between the link to the subject's Twitter and Wikipedia's article for Twitter. We probably get quite a few visits to the Twitter article from people hoping to see some tweets. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweet post on Twitter

It would be nice if we can make this template able to link directly to a concrete post on Twitter. --Aleksd (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC) PS Ok, I found it template:twitter status

Twitter trends

I made a template for twitter trends - Template:Twitter trend, I think it is important for any ongoing and current events that are often hashtagged. I would like to have your support for the template was nominated for deletion by user Banner, who also deletes per daily basis my writing in political topics and I believe his nomination is related to his political activities here. However trends template can be used on many topics, like football championships, concerts, etc. so I think it will b nice if we could keep it. --Aleksd (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell the people about your politically motivated POV-pushing and your desperate use of twitter and YouTube as sources due to lack of reliable sources conform WP:RS... The Banner talk 17:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Title without disambig

Change {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} to {{{2|{{{name|{{Title without disambig|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}} like in {{Facebook}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaelcelta (talk • contribs)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Porting to Lua (flexibility)

Hi there, I have been doing some test with Lua, and coincidentally have been working in the Twitter template. You may see it here Module:Sandbox/Ineditable/Twitter and a Test page in User:Ineditable/sandbox. I agree with Template_talk:Twitter#Display_the_.40 about adding the @ to Twitter usernames as I believe is appropriated for the case. This Lua porting can make sure the @ is always present. If there are interest, I can tweak the Lua port to behave exactly as this template (as this was originally developed for another language). Do you think is a good idea? I can help with that ~ KR --Ineditable (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

The "Twitter" part of this template doesn't seem to be appearing on pages on which this template is used (in other words, it reads "[PAGENAME] on" instead of "[PAGENAME] on Twitter"). Is there any way to address this issue and hopefully fix it? (Also, it seems to be that the link to Twitter isn't displaying on this post, which might be a clue.) Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You did not include a specific edit that needs to be made. Also, this does appear to be working, e.g.:

• Twitter/Archive 1 on X

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata property P2002 has just been created, to store subjects' Twitter IDs. This template should be adapted to call data from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @T.seppelt: and @Dirtlawyer1: as two editors who I know are interested in Wikidata. Feel free to invite others. GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great news. Yes, data should be retrieved from Wikidata. Local data should be migrated as it happens with {{Authority control}}. I can help with this. I have usable scripts for this process. --T.seppelt (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. For data transfer - you can always use harvesttemplates :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am harvesting some data using my bot at the moment. What I was referring to is that it's exactly the same problem as with Authority control. Checking the values from Wikipedia with those from Wikidata and removing them from Wikidata if they are the same. I'd only have to reconfigure this script. -- T.seppelt (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I put a message on User_talk:JJMC89's talk page and on Andy's page as well.

Was there a public discussion about this change that your bot is making to English Wikipedia pages? I am also seeing Infobox proposals to move to Wikidata. I am very concerned about the lack of transparency and notification about these items. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:JJMC89#Twitter --> Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 on T.seppelt and on the removal of all such local data as soon as possible. Nemo 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to be nasty here, Andy. I was not sure how to ask the question -- and if it would be answered as this was such an old thread. This change and the other changes you are implemented are going to have a huge impact on English Wikipedia and I am concerned that not everyone will feel comfortable editing Wikidata. I didn't see a notice go out to any public channels, like the main Wikipedia mailing list or any Facebook groups I know of. So this was a huge surprise. I am actually not super against it, but am mostly concerned about how the decision was made, how much consensus was gotten, and also where the documentation to explain to Wikipedia editors is and how it helps people add or update this data once it is moved to Wikidata. I think these are reasonable questions. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Nasty"? Where? your questions are indeed reasonable You've now started this conversation in at least four venues, on and off-wiki, making false accusations of "lack of transparency and notification". That is not reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Optional suspended and archived parameters?

Is there any chance about getting parameters to specify that Twitter account in question is suspended/deleted/whatever and to provide a link to an archived page? -Einstein95 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)