# Wikipedia talk:Template editor

Active discussions

## Thoughts on changing TPEGRANT #1

WP:TPEGRANT point #1 currently states The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year. In the last few months (both here and at other PERM/perm-like locations) I've seen editors that registered in the early 2010s but only started editing in 2018 or 2019. My question is - are we more concerned with someone's sign-up date or their "active-editing" period? This is mostly just to see what folks think, but if I were to make a "proposal" it would be to change "be a registered Wikipedia user" to "have been editing Wikipedia". Primefac (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, do you happen to know if there are already other places which use some kind of "active-editing" period policy or guideline? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not know of any others, but I think a perm that has the potential to bork thousands of articles should be a little more tightly regulated; it matters naught if you registered in 2006 if you haven't even hit 100 edits before 2019. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I would go for the counter-argument in your example. An editor who hadn't even hit 100 edits before 2019 must have made the remaining 900 edits of the 1000 edit requirement within the last 12 months and is likely a pass on the assessment (both existing and proposed).
The proposed wording is probably more in keeping with what most admins would wish for in a candidate, even if they were exercising their discretion liberally. BU Rob13 didn't have a year under his belt before getting TE, and he didn't turn out bad. Cabayi (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the key point is within the last 12 months, which essentially makes them a "new user". I know for every example I'd come up with there would be a perfectly valid counter-example; just figured I'd see what others thought about it. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the admin discretion allowed in granting (and nobody's going to complain about being granted the right), your proposed wording is a better fit for the rationale in declining an applicant. I'd support the change. Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Meh. I think all those hard lines should be dropped. I got my TPE after MSGJ was like "you want?". "Makes/requests edits to templates, has CLUE, reasonably trustworthy otherwise" is probably what the criteria should be. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, as we've seen countless times, the first 4 are just "gateway" prohibitions to keep the utterly clueless from being granted the perm. It's hard to make objective "has a clue" criteria, which is why the last two are both the most unhelpful yet the most important (though in reality the last line says essentially "the reviewing admin can do whatever the heck they want" and that hits all of your criteria). Primefac (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

### Subpages

On a somewhat-related note, is there a reason our guidelines are a subpage? We don't have that for any of the other sections, and I can't think of a reason why it would need to be sequestered (especially since the main page is only semi-protected and the subtemplate has no protection). Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, per edit summary for subpage's creation by MusikAnimal: refactoring so we can transclude this in multiple pages. It is transcluded on three pages in total. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Derp. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, when WP:PERM was overhauled I took the liberty of making some things DRY. Another example is Wikipedia:Rollback/Mainspace count. This is important documentation so I didn't want us to have to track down everywhere it is repeated whenever we want to make changes. 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Makes total sense, just managed to miss seeing the (transclusion) on "what links here". Primefac (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

## Proposed clarification - not all edits are "both a normal edit and a privileged action"

I propose this change, additions shown in bold (note: italics are original):

Remember that template-editorship, just like adminship, can never be allowed to become some sort of privileged position within debates among editors. Being a template editor puts you in a complicated position, because any edit you make that requires this privilege is at once both a normal edit and a privileged action.

Any objections? If there are no objections within a few days, I will add it. If I forget, any other editor is welcome to do so. If there are objections, then there should be discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a good clarification. The "some sort of" bit is overly wordy and informal. I would rewrite it as "Remember that template editors, just like administrators, do not have a privileged position within debates among editors." – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I like both changes. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

## Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Please make the sentence where someone is removed for blatant vandalism add “not limited to template vandalism” like for page mover it says “not limited to page move vandalism” so it says “If the editor preformed any blatant vandalism(not limited to template vandalism). Thank you much! 104.246.113.199 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how you want it to look after the change. The current text pretty much says what you want it to say already, just in different words:
If you use this right for anything even vaguely resembling vandalism ....
The same goes for vandalism that doesn't involve this right. This is, fundamentally, an administrator-level right ....
Please clarify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: I couldn’t edit in a while but basically, it is not clear enough. I just wanted it to be clearer. Happy thanksgiving. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
So, how do you want it to read? Please reply with something like "change [old text] to [new text] in section [section name]." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: change if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism to if the editor preformed any blatant vandalism, not limited to just template vandalism, like with WP: PAGEMOVER. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I still think the existing text sends the same message (or possibly a stronger one, as Primefac pointed out below at 21:42) in fewer words. Besides, template editor has tougher requirements to obtain than page mover, so I would expect anyone who is given that user-right won't have any problem understanding the text as it is currently written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Meh, blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism. By not qualifying, it's actually including all vandalism. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

## Opinions on changing the image

Hello, I was wondering what is the opinion of changing the current template editor image, to make it more recognisable & adding a bit more color than just the brackets. I made a quick example at File:TemplateEditor.svg & it is shown on the right next to the current image. Thanks, Terasail[✉] 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know we had an image, so I guess I don't really have an opinion. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Terasail: Thank you for your efforts. I think it is important to show the double-curly-brackets, not just { }. But I do like having some pink, it matches the template-protected padlock. It may be too tight a fit, but if you can incorporate something to indicate modules, Lua, or Scribunto, that would be nice too. If not, what you have - but with {{ and }} instead of { and } - is good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Update: Change ${\displaystyle \wedge }$  to {{ and }}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Yeah, with the double brackets, the image becomes unreadable at smaller sizes and so I decided here to use just single brackets. In a similar way to the template class icon, File:Symbol template class.svg. Although this was just a proposal image and I was more just interested if a change was an option. Terasail[✉] 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree about the double brackets. Maybe red text {{T}} directly on the puzzle globe, without the colored circle background, and possibly with the portion of the logo behind it blurred-out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I've tried adding blur using SVG masks, but the SVG renderer used by MediaWiki doesn't support it. Compare png render vs raw SVG. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95's idea
Here's the same idea, but in plain PNG. Project file for GIMP is also uploaded: File:Wikipedia template editor logo with blur.xcf, if someone wants to make corrections. The proportions of text and positioning are obviously bad, but I'm not a keen designer. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I like the Jonesey95's idea. Is there a way to make the part around the pink slightly brighter to improve contrast? The top of the left { runs into the grey and it's a bit awkward-looking. Maybe just moving the {'s down and to the left a few pixels will have the same effect - not having pink and dark grey touching except where they touch one of the letters. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comparing with other logos might help:

For most, the additional graphical element is in the bottom right, takes up 50-70% width-wise. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, other template editor logos from Commons: just for the sake of comparison:
I plan to work on File:Wikipedia template editor logo with blur.png during this weekend. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the logos above, I am drawn to the one with the green T at the lower right. If it were a different color (close to red?) and with two braces, I think it would work pretty well. The solid font with a light black outline helps it stand out from the logo. I don't know why the T is tilted; it does not have to be. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I like the green T, and I like it tilted. Don't really know why. I also like the blue double brackets. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Second is my first preference but it's not very square so perhaps not practical. After that, probably the tilted green one, but we may also want to try some ideas that don't involve {{ }}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)