This template is unfriendly and the stuff in it about "IT staff" is pretentious. I made an attempt to tone it down but Netsnipe reverted [1]. I'd like to undo the reversion. Just because (per Netsnipe's edit summary) it's not a welcome template doesn't mean it should be written in a way that makes users feel unwelcome. Discussion is solicited. 75.62.6.237 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard since not many people would be reading this talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. 75.62.6.237 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What situations is this template intended to address?

The current wording is:

This IP address, (IP address or hostname appears here), is registered to {{{1}}}, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

"via proxy" implies an IP address that belongs to a HTTP proxy server, corporate firewall, or some other machine that may be used by many users at once. However, "reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects" suggests behavior that's more typical of dial-up modems or (less frequently) DSL or cable modem users. An IP address belonging to a firewall or proxy server may represent several users simultaneously; a dialup modem address may represent different users over the course of hours or days; a DSL or cable address is more likely to change over a period of months.

If this template isn't intended to distinguish between these different kinds of "shared access" then we should make the wording less specific.

Reason at hand that I'm asking is that this template has been applied to User talk:168.103.242.198 and I'm trying to figure out whether it makes sense for that IP. Tim Pierce 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have looked more closely at {{ISP}} and {{SharedIP}} I am even more confused why there are two templates at all. {{SharedIP}} is more clearly written and seems to be more general than {{ISP}}. If no one can clearly explain the difference between them I will suggest retiring this template in favor of {{SharedIP}}. Tim Pierce 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that this template describes an ISP specifically, while SharedIP describes an IP that is shared for whatever reason. This template is more specific. For example, if the IP 74.36.156.2 belongs to AOL, and they gave AOL users temporary access to the internet from this IP, they would use this template. If however, that IP belonged to the company XYZ enterprises, they would use the SharedIP template. The difference depends often on physical location, and on who is paying for the internet service, a group or an individual. ----Shishire Maiga 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused on when to use this template as well. If an IP has been blocked multiple times, is it simply a matter of doing a WHOIS and then plopping this template on the IP talkpage? Or should some other check be done first? --Elonka 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an IP has multiple warnings already, I generally do a whois on it and then add one of the three common IP talk page header templates: {{ISP}}, {{sharedIPedu}}, and {{sharedIP}}. Likewise if AIV is slow, I will also do a whois lookup and add the corresponding template before blocking. The presence of these three templates also prompts the AIV helper bots to add the appropriate notation to the AIV report. This particular template is nice because then I know to give an {{anonblock}} since most ISP IP addresses are highly dynamic. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to get advice from someone who has experience with the templates. I understand when to use {{sharedIPedu}} (usually), but am still confused about how to decide between using {{ISP}} and {{sharedIP}}. Also, are there ever any situations when none of those three templates are appropriate? I mean, when I see an IP, and it's traced to some customer name, I can't think of any easy way to tell if it's a "shared" IP, or just a single very determined vandal. How do you make the determination? --Elonka 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I do a whois search on an IP, I then do a Wikipedia search on the name of whatever organization comes up in the whois result. If the wiki search turns up an ISP (or if the organization's name looks sufficiently ISPy), then I use this template. If the whois result shows a business name, government name (province, city, or shire of wherever), or pretty much anything not school or ISP sounding, then I use something like {{sharedIP|Local council of Downpatrick|host=foo.ip.host.uk}}. Hope that helps! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any examples when you'd use neither an ISP nor sharedIP (nor edu) template? Or do those three pretty much cover all possibilities? --Elonka 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some circumstances where {{whois}} is the best or only option - I notice that I mostly use it for corporate spammers, eg, {{whois|some advertising agency}}. The IP may not necessarily be shared, but it's useful to know who it's registered to. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One of the reason I'm asking so many questions, is because I'd like to see about adding more documentation (perhaps at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses?) about which tags to use. Here's what I'm thinking of, based on your excellent advice so far:

===ISP tags===

Once an IP has been blocked a few times, it is usually a good idea to add a header to the IP's talkpage, which identifies the WHOIS information which can be gathered by clicking on the "whois" link in the SharedIP footer on the page. Use one of the following templates, as appropriate:

{{SharedIPEDU|<name>}}

For when the WHOIS information traces to an obvious educational institution

{{ISP|<name>}}

For when the WHOIS information traces to a name that plausibly looks like an Internet Service Provider

{{whois|<name>}}

For when the WHOIS information traces to something obviously promotional in nature, implying corporate spam or an advertising agency

{{SharedIP|<name>}}

For when the WHOIS information traces to something like a business name, governmental source, or something that doesn't fit one of the other above categories

How's that sound? Think it covers the main bases? --Elonka 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- The ISP tag is a tricky one, since most IPs are registered to ISPs it is frequently added inappropriately. I would suggest this tag is limited to ISP proxies (see confusion comments above, and {{SingNet}} for a specific example). The whois tag is useful for just about any situation where the other tags aren't appropriate, it gets used on a variety of IPs. There is also {{dynamicIP}}, btw. It's probably a good idea to provide a quick guide to which tag to use, it can always be wikified later. Perhaps the WP:IP page isn't the best place, as it's mainly a reference for the blocking policy, instead of the general vandalism procedures which tagging is part of. But then I'm not sure if WP:UTM or WP:VAND are any better. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I suggested WP:IP was simply because I was looking around for docs, and there was a link at Template talk:SharedIP which pointed there for documentation. But the page didn't answer my questions, which is why I'm looking to expand it. But the information doesn't have to be there. It might make more sense to put it on the talkpage of one of the templates, such as here, or Template talk:Whois, and then we can point all the other templates to there for docs. Another option is to write something up for Wikipedia:New admin school. Then again, these templates will be used by vandal patrollers who may or may not be admins. I personally have no strong preference where we put the documentation, so will bow to the decisions of those who work with this stuff more frequently than I do. As it is, even with your patient tutelage above, I'm still extremely confused as to which template to use.  :/ What I'd really like is some sort of quick-reference guide, which will allow me to do a fast check of a troublesome IP, tag them and move on, without having to spend a lot of time on it. Or maybe we'd like to make a generic template like, "IP talkpage that needs tagging", and then have those piped into a category where someone with more skill at telling a proxy from a library terminal, can review the IP and add a more specific tag? --Elonka 00:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, even most admins can't tell a dynamic IP from a gateway proxy from an open proxy. The question is, why do they want to tag it if they don't know what it is? :) ... Anyway, I am coming around to the view that this could belong at WP:IP, and that the page could do with a rewrite anyway, and extended to a wider audience than admins. Some explanation of what is a dynamic IP, shared IP, etc would probably have to be involved, because if you know that much then it's usually pretty obvious which tag to use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I rather like the documentation Elonka suggested above. While I almost never use {{whois}}, the suggestion of putting it on the talk pages of obvious marketing/spam companies sounds very useful. Also, a final addition to the list: {{sharedIPPublic}} for public internet terminals at libraries, cafés, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, since we're here, why don't we start by expanding the documentation section at the top of this talkpage, and include information about the other templates as well? We can all tweak, and then when we're happy with it, we can see about linking to it from other locations, or moving it into WP:IP? --Elonka 02:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Now that I think of it, I believe there used to be a bot that would go around and tag the talk pages of IPs with the appropriate template and whois info. Wonder whatever happened to it ... --Kralizec! (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created a table in the #Documentation section above, summarized what you guys have said so far, and added a couple other templates I found (such as {{MobileIP}}). Take a look, and tweak as you fit?  :) --Elonka 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you have tagged 67.118.62.6 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))? On the WHOIS, the OrgName was AT&T Internet Services, though Sam Spade points out that it links to mail.coralacademy.org. The ip2location.com site says that the domain is pacbell.net, and the ISP is AT&T Internet Services. I opted to use {{SharedIPEDU | [[Coral Academy of Science]] | host=coralacademy.org}}. Would you have done the same? --Elonka 07:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The most important thing, in terms of vandalism and blocking, is that it's a school's shared IP. It doesn't really matter whether the organisation is gathered from the registration info or the DNS. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you think of a few other IP test cases that were "tricky", so we can offer them as examples? You mentioned that {{ISP}} was frequently used incorrectly, so it might be good to choose a few of those and list "wrong tag / right tag" examples. --Elonka 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag should be used for this one? 194.50.118.230 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) --Elonka 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest SharedIP|Emap for that one. I would also use SharedIP on User talk:130.76.32.144. I would use the ISP tag on User talk:66.82.9.58, User talk:195.92.67.74, User talk:82.148.97.69, and User talk:64.136.26.227, but would use whois on User talk:217.34.43.195 and User talk:209.173.24.179, and DynamicIP on User talk:71.233.247.207, User talk:172.192.9.232, and User talk:81.145.241.194. YMMV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A {{whois}} on 172.192.9.232 217.34.43.195 would be a good fit as this IP appears to be a static address assigned to a specific BT Group customer. However for 209.173.24.179, I would personally mark it with {{ISP}} since that IP resolves to PenTeleData, a regional ISP in Pennsylvania. Likewise I never use {{DynamicIP}} as it is, in my view at least, a less end-user friendly version of {{ISP}}. However as zzuuzz indicated, YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to both of you for the patient tutelage.  :) Kralizec, can you explain more about how you are connecting BT Group to 172.192.9.232 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))? I'm not seeing it yet. --Elonka 05:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, my bad. Make that 217.34.43.195 (talk · contribs) for the BT Group. Sorry! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC) To answer your actual question, I did a lookup of 217.34.43.195 via zoneedit.com which indicated the IP in question is registered via RIPE NCC. Looking up the same IP via RIPE shows it is a "Single Static IP Addresses" assigned to "BT OPENWORLD." Finally when I did a wiki search for BT Openworld, it redirected to BT Group, the largest telecomm in the UK. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you tag this one? 93.96.243.200 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) --Elonka 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it up via zoneedit shows [2] the IP belongs to RIPE. Doing a RIPE query shows [3] that the 93.96.240.0 - 93.96.247.255 range serves as "Additional Blocks for O2 London Chiswick Residential Dynamic" with 93.96.0.0/16 being a "block for BeUnlimited." Searching Wikipedia for "BeUnlimited" gives Be Unlimited and "London Chiswick" gives Chiswick. So ... with all of this information, I would tag it like:

{{ISP|[[Be Unlimited]] of Chiswick, London|host=93-96-243-200.zone4.bethere.co.uk}}

which results in this. Hope that helps! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one I wasn't sure how to tag... 81.6.196.178 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Any suggestions? --Elonka 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the address up via zoneedit.com shows that the IP's hostname is scree.dmz0-obn0.echoraith.co.uk and it belongs to RIPE. A lookup via the RIPE whois shows that 81.6.196.176 - 81.6.196.191 has a netname of "NILDRAM-DSL-STATIC-CUST29-07RH" with a role of "Tiscali UK." Since a wiki search for "Tiscali UK" redirects to Tiscali, an ISP in the UK, and as the "DSL-STATIC-CUST29-07RH" probably refers to a digital subscriber line customer, I would tag it:

{{ISP|[[Tiscali]]|host=scree.dmz0-obn0.echoraith.co.uk}}

Hope that helps! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much, thanks! I'm still fuzzy on when to use "{{whois}}" and when to use "{{isp}}" though. Any guidance there? --Elonka 21:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am looking for a generic header template, I almost never it. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} {{ISP}} has been nominated at TfD, so a notice needs to be inserted. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} TfD has been closed as keep. Can the notice please be removed? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}ISPs are in the industry of IT, and not every IT person working for an ISP would be able to do anything about abuse. Since this template is for ISP shared proxies, may I recommend we change it to "abuse staff?" PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine the way it is since it says "your Internet service provider or IT department". Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think "abuse staff" sounds right though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse staff is also very "tech industry". I know a few people who have totally different ideas if I ask them what an "abuse staff" is :D I don't think it really matters much what we have there. There are much more important things. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it seems fine as it is. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a new variable be added, pointing to which RIR was used to find the information? Like a new |arin or |ripe or |afrinc? Could be usefull for international talk pages...  A p3rson ‽ 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Replace Information icon.svg with the new File:Shared IP.svg PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} Please replace with code at Template:ISP/sandbox, in continuation of implementing design improvements for all shared IP templates. See Template talk:Shared IP for details. --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When are you going to write the meta-template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect after the future of SharedIPCORP is determined, a WP:UTM subpage for these is built, and a naming convention is determined. It's on the to-do list, but since it only affects the back end, for me it's not as urgent. The UW templates need meta templates too, and that's a higher priority right now. I agree it might be desirable, but there's a lot to do. --Bsherr (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the code in {{ISP}} with the code from {{ISP/sandbox}}, as it removes an extraneous space from after the IP address in the template.

Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Due to this update[4], documentation for this template is not displayed at all. Could you please add "{{documentation}}" instad of "{{template sandbox notice}}"? Thanks in advance. --Penn Station (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to discover that this template isn't included in Category:Shared IP header templates. I'm adding the category now ... but if there's a reason for it not being included in that category, feel free to revert the addition and just comment here with why it shouldn't be in that cat so that it's documented for future reference.

I have updated the code to use the sandbox version per this discussion. Please feel free to revert this if there is a problem, or if this is controversial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the following:

In response to vandalism from this IP address, [[Wikipedia:Abuse response|abuse reports]] may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

The Abuse Response project has been marked as historical. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be left, but just unlinked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was moved from the redirect's talk page. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify any possible confusion, Template:Isp is the page that the below edit request applies to, and Template talk:Isp is the page where I originally placed the request. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove {{R from other capitalisation}} (remove template in the wrong namespace). Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why you think that template should be removed. I don't see anywhere that the template is in the wrong namespace. I see that the template is only allowed to categorize mainspace pages, but the template code should be handling that. This is indeed a redirect from another capitalisation and should have the text that this template offers visible. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the {{R from other capitalisation}} tag from this page to remove it from Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. This should be non-controversial maintenance. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. If {{R from other capitalisation}} is placing non-articles in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace then it needs to be fixed, not remove the template from all non-articles that are Redirects from other capitalizations. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Template:R from other capitalisation documentation, it says

Use this Rcat template on mainspace redirects only.

Template:Isp is not a mainspace redirect—it redirects to Template:ISP which is in template space. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: - any comments on the consensus and reason for this? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read more carefully, it says:

• This Rcat populates the Redirects from other capitalisations category, which must be populated by main article redirects only. At some point in the future, Jimmy Wales wants to make a printed version of the full Wikipedia encyclopedia, and most other capitalizations are not suitable for a printed version, so this Rcat also automatically populates Category:Unprintworthy redirects. See below for what to do for the few such redirects that are printworthy.

This extra verbiage limits the restriction of the hatnote. So, I maintain that the template should be updated to be usable for any redirect from other capitalizations, and only categorize those that are mainspace. So, I'm deactivating this request until an RfC has been conducted on such a change to the template (which I will start tomorrow if need be, just about to catch a bus tonight). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does

have to do with a printed version of Wikipedia (which would deforest the Amazon jungle)? Sorry, I did not understand your last comment. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I'm afraid I don't understand your comment here. This isn't about {{ISP}}, it's about {{R from other capitalisation}}. Either way... I've started the RfC as promised, and maybe that will help you see what I'm saying. RfC: should the templates in Category:Redirect templates be modified now that the text is rendered on redirect pages. If {{R from other capitalisation}} was modified to only show the text on non-article pages, and not do any categorization or any other thing of the sort, would it not be beneficial to have on all pages that are redirects for this reason? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Technical 13: The {{R from other capitalisation}} rcat has only been used in mainspace for a very long time, longer than I've been editing Wikipedia. I've always used {{R from modification}} on redirects in other namespaces for capitalizations and plurals. As you know, rcats are used just to sort redirects into maintenance categories, and the category for R from other categorisation would be filled with non-mainspace pages that might make it much harder to "maintain". That is why this should probably have been a non-controversial edit request. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paine Ellsworth: had it not been for the change in core that now makes content rendered on redirect pages, it would have been non-controversial. However, as of about a month ago, redirect pages respond differently, and Category:Redirect templates like the one requested to be removed from this page should be adapted to accommodate this core change. I had also thought that these templates only categorized pages that were in the main namespace, but according to Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, which I wasn't aware of until Wbm1058 just pointed out in the RfC, this isn't always the case. I would like to be able to go through all of the templates and modify them so that they can be used on any page displaying a message to the viewer of why the page is a redirect and make sure that the categorization and links to categories are only applied if the redirect is in mainspace. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If I understand you correctly, your beef isn't so much with the specialty categorizations as it is with ensuring that the text on redirects is appropriate and readable? That actually sounds great to me, but sorting all-namespace redirects (instead of just specified namespaces) to all "appropriate" maintenance categories, as you seem to advocate at the RFD, may not be the best way to accomplish that. Two things to remember are that only a very few readers ever even see redirects (and now their text), and that rcats like R from other capitalisation sort only into "maintenance" categories, which have been set up as they are for certain reasons. I went into it a little more at the RFD, and perhaps we should continue discussion there to center the talk? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That would seem appropriate to continue discussion on the RfC. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the RFC has been archived, so perhaps we may continue? I should like to modify this request just a little. Please alter with rcats (redirect category templates) as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:ISP]]

{{R from other capitalisation}}

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:ISP]]

{{Redr|from modification|from template shortcut|protected}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. {{R from modification}} is used instead of {{R from capitalisation}} to sort "other capitalisations", "plurals", etc., that are not in mainspace. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does Template:Isp still have sysop-level protection, when it just redirects to a template that was lowered to template-editor protection in November 2013. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Sharedipedu – same question. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently overlooked, as may be several redirects to the same template or other page when protection is altered, e.g., {{Schoolip}}. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've also reduced the protection to template protection on all three redirects mentioned above. Let me know if you spot any more - it's easy to miss redirects when downgrading protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankyou for that. FYI, here is the link to the archived RfC. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus building on that RfC is that {{R from capitalisation}} (and others) should be allowed to be used in any namespace and only the "text" portion of it will be transcluded outside of mainspace. So, I'm not sure where you are going with this... *sigh* — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "building consensus"? You got zero support from any one else in that discussion that went stale, and me and Paine were both opposed. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that, Mr. Stradivarius, and I just came across this redirect that could be template protected, as well. When you modify the protection level, I'll go ahead and add the rcats, which in this case should be:

{{Redr|move|mod|tsh|tp}}

{{U|Technical 13}}, forgive me but I thought we left it at that RFC that you would sandbox {{R caps}} to figure out a way to do what you want to do, and I also mentioned that, up to now, {{R mod}} (R from modification) has been used to tag redirects in other namespaces that were case-modified, plural-modified, and so on. I have a difficult time trying to understand why you feel that {{R caps}} should be used in any namespace when {{R mod}}, which can be used in any namespace, has already been doing what you want {{R caps}} to do. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• *sigh* @Wbm1058:, I'm saying that redirect category templates should designed to both categorize on article pages and to be read by those who come to the page... — Technical 13 (t • e • c) 10:36 pm, 21 February 2014 (UTC) was met with the response of That sounds good to me. Why not just sandbox it at {{R from other capitalisation/sandbox}} to see if it works the expected way? There aren't that many rcats that would need it. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:55 pm, 21 February 2014(UTC) which seems like the building of a consensus to allow redirect category templates to be used on all namespaces... Yes, I'll admit, I had some things come up in real life (week before last was midterm exam week and last week I enrolled in a class 5 weeks late and was playing catchup), so it's taken a while to start sandboxing. However... {{Main other/sandbox}} → Template:Main other/testcases is the start of that (I'm depressed by the level of nested calls through multiple levels of templates to do such a simple thing as check which namespace you are in...). However, now I feel like the CONSENSUS building process is a waste of time and people are just going to do what they want anyways. Meh... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel too dismayed, Tech 13. I just read some of your user page and found that we're both in a similar "boat" healthwise. The usefulness of the nesting is to be able to standardize the rcats and still be able to make some rcats do things a little differently than others. I wasn't the one who started all that; I am just one of several who have worked to make the various nested templates work better and better with each other. I just hope you can come to see how much easier it is to use two different rcats to do the job – {{R caps}} to tag and cat mainspace redirects, and {{R mod}} to tag all other redirects that are case-modified. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it end? We have two templates for alternate spellings, two for alternate case, two for punctuation, two for.... This seems counter productive to editors who work in both areas, articles and "other" to have to remember 80 different template names for 40 purposes. Next, people will want to say that that there needs to be a different conversion template for every unit to every other unit and we can't just use {{Convert}} anymore. This especially becomes the case when the only difference is one categorizes the pages into a specific category and the other does not. It's not that big of a deal to have one template do the job of both and only categorize in specific cases. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just editing in support of the current consensus. If you can successfully change the consensus, I will stop making these edits and edit requests.
  • I agree with you that the naming of these templates is out of hand. Template:R from other capitalisation has 67 aliases, and in using AutoWikiBrowser to clean up Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace I found that redirects are not always "cheap". I could not follow the redirects with AWB because those were what I wanted to edit, so each one of them had to be separately specified! I would support any initiative to reduce the number of redirects to redirect templates. I'd especially want to discourage templating these redirects to redirect templates with more RCAT templates. We have better things to spend out time on.
  • I appreciate the frustration of being in the minority on an issue. I find myself in that same boat elsewhere on Wikipedia. Very few editors get their way on every issue.
  • At least one of us is in good health! But I'm going to spend some time outside this afternoon to help preserve my sanity ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I do see your point. Frankly, I think I'm blinded by the fact that, up to now (well, January), rcats have had only one purpose: to categorize redirects. Since the bugs were fixed, we find that rcats now have two purposes: to categorize redirects and to place their texts on redirects to be informative to those who may land on a redirect page. When contributors began this quest to categorize redirects, the rcat texts were unimportant except at RfD, when the redirects were disabled and text would then appear. Now that text is allowed on redirects, it is going to take some time to figure out the best ways for this to be implemented. I've come across one or two discussions in which some editors seem to feel that some redirects need associated documentation pages (like templates) to explain the need or reason for the redirects' existence. Others feel this is unnecessary since the text provided by rcats will perform that function. I don't know what is the best way to go, but I guess we have to ask ourselves such things as why some rcats, like {{R caps}}, only cat the mainspace redirects and not other namespaces. If the reason lies in the fact that only mainspace redirects are important enough to track and maintain, then I see no reason why those rcats must also be able to add their "text-only" to redirects in other namespaces. That can be handled in other ways perhaps similar to the way it has been handled up to now – by the use of different though similar "all-category" rcats. I don't know where it ends, Tech 13, but I do know that it can only improve over time. Since the main purpose of rcats is still the catting of redirects, then I think the answer you search for might be in the use of /documentation for other namespaces. These are "rcats", not "rtexts". The text is there simply to accompany an rcat and to explain why any given redirect is categorized in that manner. Rcats are probably best left to continue to perform the main function for which they were designed – to categorize redirects. Other ways should be found if all that is needed is explanatory text. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the IP lookup URL from Toolserver to one used by other templates such as https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/127.0.0.1/lookup (sans loopback). -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please swap these misnested tags (see Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting):

<div class="sysop-show"><span style="font-size: 85%; line-height: 120%">

to...

<span style="font-size: 85%; line-height: 120%"><div class="sysop-show">

Thanks. Nihlus 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOIS links for the template errors out and the sole maintainer is sporadically active. Could someone switch the URL to https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=(insert IP here). See this diff to help explain what I mean. Kb03 (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @Kb03: (see also note at Template talk:Mobile IP - sandbox this first, then go ahead and reactivate the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace '''[[Special:Userlogin|Create an account!]]''' with '''[[Special:CreateAccount|Create an account!]]''', so that "Create an account" links to the page to create an account.

Please also change [[Special:Userlogin|registering an account]]! to [[Special:CreateAccount|registering an account]]! for the same reason (registering an account is the same as creating one).

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cabayi (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the dead toolserver whois to wmflabs in the sandbox here and validated here. Please replace the template with the one in that sandbox permalink. Thank you! — The King of Mars ^«talk» 03:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JJMC89! :) — The King of Mars ^«talk» 04:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]