Template talk:High traffic

RFC question: Should this template be modified so it can be used for pages other than article and article-talk pages that are linked to from high-traffic web sites? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox so if this template is used on talk pages of non-articles, it categorizes the page into Category:Non-article pages linked from high traffic sites.

I did this after placing the template onto Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/News and notes.

Any objections to copying the sandbox into the main template, creating the new category as a parent category of Category: Articles linked from high traffic sites, and updating the /doc page so the template itself becomes a member of the new category? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds good to me. I don't see any specific reason why we shouldn't modify the template to do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Do we even need an RfC for this? The idea seems fine to me, and I don't see why it would be controversial. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Why is there a boldface C added at the end of the sandbox version's message? It seems that from the sandbox diff, the proposal is only about adding new categorization, as the template can already be used for pages other than article and article-talk pages that are linked to from high-traffic web sites. The only proposed change seems to be adding new categorization for non-article pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The documentation for this template says, "date is the date on which you added this template to the talk page, e.g. date=12 February 2015." However, when you insert the template, the date you enter is used to populate the "when the mention happened' section, e.g. On {{{date}}}, Template:High traffic was linked from a high-traffic website.

So it seems to me that if on January 1 a high-traffic website mentions a page, and on January 2 I insert this template, I should put "January 1" as the date, not "January 2". So... should we change the documentation? Note that "date" = "date mention ocurred" and not "date you entered the template"?

(I'm aware that this makes this template behave differently from most of the others, where the "date" tag is used to track when the template was added--but it looks like we're stuck with that.) Narsil (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not hearing any replies, I'm going to go ahead and do this. Narsil (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the revision of 19:45, 27 September 2008, Ms2ger revised this template introducing 2 <p> tags with missing end tags. @Primefac, CFCF, Dsimic, Kephir, RHaworth, WBJB003, Train2104, Christian75, Tothwolf, Ohconfucius, JPG-GR, Launchballer, Robofish, RockMFR, Davidwr, It Is Me Here, Happy-melon, David Levy, and Ksiom: will someone who knows what they are doing please provide the missing end tags? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Launchballer 21:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)