Template talk:Admin

Usage

• Links to the user page, user talk page, and contributions, block, protect, delete and move logs of an editor. Thus

{{admin|Example}}

produces

Example (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• To reduce the text space used by this template, you can also use Template:Admin-abbr which produces the same links but abbreviates the words.

{{admin-abbr|Jimbo Wales|Jimbo_Wales}}

produces

Jimbo_Wales (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)

Comments as of 2006

After Mistress Selina Kyle moved what was previously on here to "Template:User admin2" [1], she put content here that resembles what is currently on Template:Admin2. I prefer we only have one template and merge one to the other. The question is: should the format be the one here currently on Template:Admin or the one on Admin2? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't really appropriate for {{admin}} to be merely a userbox template, to fit in with the other similar templates like {{user}}, {{vandal}} etc - For now I've redirected since this one, I think, is better as it shows both the "normal user" info and the admin detail: If anyone has any probs tho feel free to discuss or whatever

I have merged the histories of the templates together and replaced all "Template:Admin2" links with "Template:Admin" as appropriate. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:25, Jan. 8, 2006

I didn't know at the time there was another similar template, but this one is better I think. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pipe vs. bullet

I just thought the bullet looked better. The pipe looks out of place to me. But, it's not a big enough deal, I just figured I'd leave a note in case it comes up again later. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Edit warring in itself is bad, more so in a widely used template, due to undue database churning. Please discuss proposed changes (and the merits thereof) on this talk page, rather than in your edit summaries. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:52, Jan. 8, 2006

MSK is trolling by trying to add a block log link to the admin template. Trolling, I say. -- Netoholic @ 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest, troll-face (you insult me, I'll insult you): It doesn't deserve to be censored out.

And aren't you banned from editing templates anyway, as per your RfA for constantly harassing people in the namespace and generally being disruptive? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned from editing templates... --Khoikhoi 08:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Think before you act

Hey guys, I just found my user page had been broken in two places by people faffing around with templates. It's not a big deal, but in one case many pages were broken. Before you make a significant change, please understand how many pages use a template, and what your change is going to do to them. Regards, Rich Farmbrough. 13:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not working for me

See Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Why are the external links not working? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tabu. You may have figured this out by now, but if not, the reason is that when internal link templates are used for items with more than a single word, an underscore must always be used in place of the spaces between words. For example, {{admin|Ta bu shi da yu}} produces Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA); correctly using underscores, however, works the requisite magic: Ta_bu_shi_da_yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If you want the first link (to your userpage) to appear without the underscores, you can use {{admin|Ta bu shi da yu|Ta_bu_shi_da_yu}}, which gives Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) —Encephalon 07:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This bug has been fixed. The second parameter is no longer necessary, or even accepted at all. — May. 26, '06 [10:27] <freak|talk>

Please unprotect this template for a while

Just want to improve formatting --Col. Hauler 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBDunkerson 23:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what you had in mind. I've made some changes to the template. If we're done here, please consider reprotecting, as this is still a high-risk template. — May. 26, '06 [09:34] <freak|talk>

Sorry, I unprotected because I thought the protection was due to edit warring (by parties who are now banned from editing templates or Wikipedia in general). There are actually only about two hundred pages which use it, but I suppose that anything having to do with 'admins' might theoretically be a more tempting target for vandals. --CBDunkerson 10:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought it might not need full protection, but I'll semi-protect it for now. Col. Hauler should still be able to edit it, if he had some other changes in mind. — May. 26, '06 [10:26] <freak|talk>

add this

add mk:Шаблон:админ Guitardemon666

This template breaks WP:LA

When a lot of extra text and bells and whistles are added to this template, WP:LA experiences an error: "# Error, oversize inclusion". See this Village pump section for more details. Again today, I restored the template to a more minimalist version. Long term solution ideas are requested. Ideas? NoSeptember 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Add "rights" link

Since admin actions, as well as crat actions, now come up on the user rights log (because of WP:RFR), I reckon this template should now have a "rights" link, like on the {{bureaucrat}} template. Any thoughts? - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! SQL^{Query me!} 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a mock-up at User:SQL/Admin SQL^{Query me!} 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one's said anything in a couple weeks, so, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. SQL^{Query me!} 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Add "email" link

I don't think the template is (yet) overlong. How about adding a link to email the user, to emphasize multiple paths for contacting admins? --causa sui (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Change External Links to Internal Links

I think the external links need to be changed into internal links, which can be done by replacing everything with:

[[User:{{{1|Example}}}|{{{2|{{{1|''Example''}}}}}}]] {{toolbar|separator=dot
|[[User talk:{{{1|Example}}}|talk]] 
|[[Special:Contributions/{{{1|Example}}}|contribs]] 
|[[Special:Log/block/{{{1|Example}}}|blocks]]
|[[Special:Log/protect/{{{1|Example}}}|protections]]
|[[Special:Log/delete/{{{1|Example}}}|deletions]]
|[[Special:Log/move/{{{1|Example}}}|moves]]
|[[Special:Log/rights/{{{1|Example}}}|rights]]
}}<!-- {{admin}} --><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thanks! -- Jab7842 (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea the code is simpler, but I suggest that we make these changes over at Template:User-multi so that they benefit all these user templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gives expansion depth is exceeded error

and turns up in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

{{sysop}}

Please talk a look at the above template and merge it to this one as I cannot do this. It's helpful to link a sysop's RFA so the reader can verify the legitimacy of the use of this template. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that although done in different ways to produce substantially the same result - compare these:

• Redrose64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Redrose64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

there is indeed a significant difference in that {{sysop}} includes a link to the relevant WP:RFA nom page. Before adding that to {{admin}}, we would need to add that capability to {{user-multi}}, as it appears to be absent. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That template is also sysop-protected, I leave it up to you to decide. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message at Template talk:User-multi#New subtemplate: RFA. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Done. I've added an RfA link to this template using [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME]], and performed the merge. This doesn't preclude using a more elegant solution at a later date as per the discussion Redrose linked to. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

add "count" link?

This template is used heavily at Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians. The template there for regular accounts has a "count" link which would be a nice addition to this template. —rybec 18:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Template Editor protected edit request (minor wording change)

Hello there, I was wondering if it would be possible to change the last line ("Demo user is User:Example") to something like "User used for demonstration purposes in this documentation is User:Example" or "Demo user used is User:Example"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The documentation is from Template:User-multi/template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, should I move this request there JJMC89? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. It looks like that specific part is from Template:Userspace linking templates, which you should be able to edit yourself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, did it over there JJMC89. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

I was looking at a use of this template at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024 and when I clicked on "Rights" for an administrator, I was shown the rights/permissions that this admin gave TO other editors. I think this link should actually point to the admin's own history of when rights/permissions were granted to THEM, not to when they gave rights to other editors. What do you think about this change? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)