[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Template talk:Editnotice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nyttend (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 28 June 2016 (→‎Auto-tag G8: Great). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why is this standard?

It's very annoying to me to show up at a talk page and see a redlink in the corner pushing the bar down. I'd love to know why this was made standard on talk pages. It's a useful template but forcing it up there is not going to make anyone's experience better. ResMar 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ResMar. You have come to almost the right place. The red "Page notice" link you see on user talk pages is added by the editnotice system, not by this template. So I have copied your message to Wikipedia talk:Editnotice#Why is this standard? and responded there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ID

If |id= is not specified, then the editnotice fails validation because it creates a blank id. This needs to be made optional. I have to run away for a bit, but will look at it if no one else gets to it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is actually in {{fmbox}}, so I have proposed a fix there. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expiry date

I suspect that most edit notices eventually become unneeded or out of date. I'm wondering whether adding an expiry parameter might be a good idea, so that the notice won't appear after a certain date. Even if the exact expiry date is not known, making it last for a year might be better than making it last forever. The expiry date could always be extended if the notice is still needed. I'm concerned that we may have a lot of irrelevant edit notices out there, which will take a lot of time sorting through some day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Amalthea 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is some warning such as a notice on the article talk page and/or creator talk before expiration and a method to renew the editnotice. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An automatic reminder on the editnotice itself could certainly be arranged. I'm not sure any further warning system could be achieved without a bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some proposed code is on Template:Editnotice/sandbox. I've been using Template:Editnotices/Page/1982 Lebanon War and 1982 Lebanon War to test it. Any checks or comments would be appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this code. Please let me know of any problems. I will update the documentation shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice at WP:Help desk is not displaying properly - the text beginining "This page is only for questions..." is formatted wrongly. I'm pretty sure it was OK yesterday, so is this a side-effect of the edit to {{Editnotice}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, a extra space was causing this I believe. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've restored the code and removed the space, looks good now. Cheers, Amalthea 11:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight bug: when editing an editnotice the /notice of Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices is also displayed. I'll have to improve the check to ensure that it's only displayed on the page of the actual editnotice (not any editnotice). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be remedied, by not actually using Template:Editnotice on Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices. 117Avenue (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the editnotice to disappear after the expiry date? If so, you'll need to update it with my edit to the sandbox, which closes the #ifexpr. Also, shouldn't it go into a category where admins are alerted, and either delete it or change the expiry? 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing categorization via parser function doesn't work, I'm afraid, you always need a (null) edit or purge for that. Amalthea 09:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the purpose of it expiring if there is no way of seeing the ones that have? Pages are automatically purged every week. 117Avenue (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current code is correct actually. It should always display on the template itself, but not on the article when it has expired, obviously. And in fact the >1 is not required if you are only using ifexpr to compare between zero and non-zero - try it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it is comparing it with 0, then the first 1/0 should be swapped, because currently, even if its expired (0) it is still 1 for being on Template:Editnotices. 117Avenue (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is the intended behaviour. I wanted it to appear on the editnotice template page even when expired. But it won't appear on the article as an editnotice when it has expired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So when it is displaying while editing an article, its FULLROOTPAGENAME isn't Template:Editnotices? This is still new to me, since I am new to making edits in the Template:Editnotices space. A disclaimer will need to be added to the documentation, instructing not to use expiry when using it in a different space, as it will cause the box to disappear. 117Avenue (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, PAGENAME returns the name of the current page, so on an article this will be the name of the article. The meaning of your last sentence is lost on me though. I suggest you try it and either convince yourself that it is working properly or else give an example of where it is not working. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this template is used on a different space, with an expiry, it will disappear. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's not supposed to produce any output if it has expired! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, the documentation still needs to be updated to include information on the expiry parameter. -- Ϫ 09:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I haven't forgotten ;) Will do shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a tweak to Template:Active editnotice is in order. Can someone double-check this for me? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be negative, and for not bringing this up earlier (I was only aware of the new feature now), but this is really, really annoying - especially because those who are explicitly declaring that an editnotice will apply indefinitely (by means of expiry=indefinite) are still faced with an ugly "This template is set to never expire. Please insert an expiry date" messagebox. AGK [•] 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important that the expiry date is displayed somewhere on the editnotice template, otherwise it would cause more confusion ("why isn't the template displaying?"). I suppose the information about setting the parameter could be left out, when the parameter has been set. Feel free to make the change to Template:Editnotice/notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 January 2012

Update the page with the code on Template:Editnotice/sandbox. This will allow users to change the size of the picture with retaining the original size for other users.

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 15:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and added |imagerightsize= too in case someone wants the two images to be different sizes for some reason. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the right side image box could have 2 images side by side (if you don't have much text in the box, there's a lot of whitespace left), I'm not quite sure how to get it to work a bit out of touch with wikicode I actually tried subst'ing it and making my own version but because there's so many ifs and stuff subst'ing it just breaks it horribly:

User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/editnotice

Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be added to {{fmbox}} which is quite widely used, that would in my opinion be too much feature creep. If it's only needed for your editnotice I think it can be handled there by passing the desired structure directly. I've made changes to your editnotice that I believe do what you asked for.
Amalthea 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice Showing Twice

Hi. Does anyone know if this is a bug with Editnotice, or is it just me? Whenever I go to edit a page with an Editnotice on it, the message displays twice. I've noticed this on protected pages, deleted pages, and user talk pages... Here is a screenshot of the problem:


—JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 04:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually an edit notice.
FWIW, I know there used to be a problem with wikEd that used to display some notices twice, do you happen to have that enabled? Does it also happen if you log out?
Amalthea 08:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this also happens with editnotices...any notfication that appears before the edit box, it would seem. And yes, I have Twinkle enabled. Do you know if there's a fix for this? I guess it's not a big deal, but it's a little annoying. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle won't do that, I think wikEd did. If it still does you'll have to ask at WT:wikEd, I don't know the first thing about it. Amalthea 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, wikEd...okay, thanks for your help. Much appreciated. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting date

Hi, Just wanted to check if there is any interest of having a starting date just as we have a parameter for expiry date. I realize it might not be used that often but sometimes (if there are consensus) there could be use for a starting date. For example there was a consensus a week ahead of 2014 FIFA World Cup to have an editnotice (for editors not to live update) and with a start date the editnotice could start being shown when the tournament starts and not immediatelly. I dont know how hard it would be to implement it, but I thought I would see if there are any interest in such parameter. QED237 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No interest for this? Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

Could someone undo the last two edits. They completely broke my editnotice. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is broken about it? It is appearing when I go to edit your page. — xaosflux Talk 12:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the editnotice templates shouldn't be that big. (BTW I'm speaking about the editnotice for my user talk page.) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no |imagesize= parameter, thus images will show at original size. Use standard image syntax. --  Gadget850 talk 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the typos, sorry about that. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It now works as it should. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no |imagesize= documented. --  Gadget850 talk 17:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started to add it, but when I tested it on the British-flag example, I couldn't get it to work. Have I missed something, Frietjes? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, the imagesize parameter will only work if you specify the image using just the image name (and not the full image syntax used in the example). Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Frietjes, it's been added to the /doc. – Paine  22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect category

Category:Expired editnotice is currently full of edit notices that have no expiry time set. The problem is that {{#time:U|{{{expiry}}}}} does not return an error when "expiry" is blank; instead it returns the current timestamp. I believe I've fixed this in Template:Editnotice/sandbox but would like a second opinion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a slightly simpler version on the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your code looks good. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New parameter

I'd like to add a new parameter to this template (perhaps |category=) to specify a category used to check usage of the edit notice. For example Category:Pages with editnotice Romeo notice tracks usage of {{Romeo notice}}. Currently this is hard-coded in each template, but I think it could be simpler for this meta template to handle it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background colour

I'm working on a warning editbox for an inactive project's talkpage and want the warning pink background to run under the text AND the image. Setting textstyle = #fdd will do it for the text, but not for the image. I've succeeded by substing then replacing the type in the call to fmbox from "editnotice" to "warning". (Example) Could a parameter be added to expose the type of the call to fmbox with a default of "editnotice" and an option of "warning"? Bazj (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is {{fmbox |type = editnotice, where editnotice sets a transparent background per {{fmbox}}. Looks like the {{fmbox}} editors presumed that editnotices would never have a backgrount but the {{editnotice}} editors added support for background.
We could change |type=editnotice to |type={{{type|editnotice}}}. Then setting |type=warning would set the warning triangle and the pink background.
Discussion? --  Gadget850 talk 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The version I currently have in the sandbox uses :
|{{fmbox
  |type      = {{#ifeq: {{{warning_notice|}}} | warning | warning | editnotice }}
to protect against any other (invalid) values for the fmbox's type. Bazj (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you are setting textstyle = #fdd - this shouldn't do anything at all, since the |textstyle= parameter is intended for a CSS declaration-list - a semicolon-separated list of valid CSS declarations (with optional whitespace between tokens), and #fdd is not a CSS declaration. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have copied & pasted what I meant to say... | textstyle = background-color: #fdd; Bazj (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parameter renamed type as suggested. Also included fmbox's "system" type in the same way as "warning". Test cases updated & checked.

{{edit template-protected}} Please copy sandbox to live. Bazj (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do this, I favour Gadget850's simplistic approach. But better still, why not just use {{fmbox}} instead? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the wordier approach to prevent invalid types being passed to fmbox. The reason for doing it here is that I intend using it in a shedload of editnotices and it seemed more logical to fix up the editnotice template rather than use fmbox. Having found the peculiarity that a colour could be placed under the text but NOT under the image it seemed the responsible thing to try and fix it. (Edit request on hold pending your reply) Bazj (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy sandbox to live. Bazj (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Hex color codes should be 6 digits, not 3. Also, I don't see the consensus here. I see "let's do this", "no, let's do it like this instead", "yeah, I like that idea better", "no, I'm doing this way instead"... That does not a consensus make. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazj: The proposed change won't work as intended, since {{#ifeq}} only takes four parameters; any additional parameters are ignored. This means the fallback type is "system" rather than "editnotice". You may want to use {{#switch}} instead.
@Technical 13: "Hex color codes should be 6 digits, not 3." – Who says that? Also, neither the sandbox nor the live template currently contains any color codes.
SiBr4 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13, I'm aware discussion makes consensus. Unfortunately experience in this thread shows that discussion only starts once I ask for the edit to be executed. Other efforts to get the discussion to progress have failed.
Your summary of the discussion so far rather mis-represents it. I see a series of comments to which I've replied and then met with silence.
  • Gadget850 suggested a pithier parameter name, which I implemented in the sandbox. G850 also suggested some syntax, I already had similar in the sandbox and explained that my version would prevent invalid values being passed through to fmbox. No further comment received on the issue.
  • Redrose64 raised a point about my initial problem, I corrected myself. No further comment received on the issue.
No comment for 6 days - so I raise edit request.
  • MSGJ suggested using fmbox instead. I explained my reasoning. Despite prompting, no further comment received on the issue.
No comment for 3 days - so I raise edit request.
T13, what else would you have me do to establish consensus? I'm happy to wait for the matter to be discussed further, so long as there is some discussion. I'm also aware I still owe you some comments promised at WT:WPT#Participants List regarding your non-consensual edit.
SiBr4 thanks for pointing out the deficiencies in ifeq. Will fix. Bazj (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bazj (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SiBr4 As was pointed out by Redrose64 in this comment three-digit hex codes like #F00 for red are a different matter, since they are not recognised by earlier versions of IE.
  • "No further comment" is not the same as "commented as resolved". Have you tried going to the talk page of those editors who raised concerns and asking them if their concern was resolved or addressed? I don't see a consensus to make an edit here. Even your own summary (which differs only slightly from mine and doesn't offer yourself the same amount of WP:AGF that mine did), shows there is no consensus and goes a step further to say that your reply to MSGJ is simply WP:IDHT. Anyways, I won't make this edit for you at this time, but feel free to ask the user's whom objected (two of them are administrators) and are as versed or more so in templates and code as/than I am and would be happy to make a change for you once everything is resolved. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • background-color:#FDD - I'd like to be able to point you to the location from which I lifted the colour code so that you could fix them. However none of the 6 templates which use that code rings a bell. Widening the search to templates, articles,and user pages throws up 15 matches, none of which is familiar to me, not even User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-codeAnchors.js.
  • I take your point that my suggestion and the pings to elicit further comment have done nothing but stir up apathy. The sandbox has been restored to a copy of live and the testcases relevant only to this change removed. Bazj (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I didn't have time to respond to your earlier comment. I think the underlying request is uncontroversial; it's just the way you were proposing it that seemed to reach disagreement. I've passed the type parameter to fmbox now. If that's all that's required, I think we can mark this as resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've refreshed the sandbox again but left the testcases since the changes weren't relevant to the live version. Bazj (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to sync Template:Editnotice/notice/sandbox to live?

@MSGJ: The issue is that the expiry notice for an editnotice as {{Editnotices/Namespace/Module}} is incorrectly pointing to the mainspace page Module rather than a link to, say, the Module namespace. Currently, at {{Editnotice/notice/sandbox}}, I put in special cases for editnotices with a prefix "Template:Editnotices/Group" and "Template:Editnotices/Namespace". (I don't know if there are other special cases.) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. I don't have time to check your code right now, but will try and find time later today — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident to sync what I have, but I can wait. I did some preliminary testing by switching the prefix and seeing its output, and it looks okay to me. The thing that's left to resolve is whether there are other special cases. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. There are no special cases that I'm aware of. (I must say I can't stand all the <!-- --> stuff you've added to the code. But this is just my personal preference.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the code a bit. I don't think your code would work for subpages (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy/preload). Please check my revised code. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Further tweaks. If we don't have a default case, no need to print "(for )". I'm planning on syncing in about 12 hours. Thanks for the review! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Live. I left the prefix to check the full 2 base levels to avoid a weird case like "User:Example/Namespace/Module" or something. Thanks for looking this over — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good on pages like Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and Template:Editnotices/Namespace/TimedText — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-tag G8

@MSGJ, Redrose64, Callanecc, Nyttend, and Amalthea: who were involved at some point in editing the page in question

I have a suggested change for {{Editnotice/notice}} in its sandbox. (Special:Diff/726208381/727286188) What it does: for page and protection editnotices, if the target page does not exist AND is not specially create-protected in any way, we automatically tag it with WP:G8 for deletion. I've tested this in preview mode on Template:Editnotices/Page/Add article (protected) and Template:Editnotices/Page/Addd articlee (and the {{db-g8}} box pops up). It depends on the fact that {{editnotice}} is used in the first place, but should help. Do you think this is a good idea? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand parser functions one bit (except for stuff like {{{1}}} being used for fillable parameters), so I can't comment on whether your proposal should be implemented. However, I think the idea itself is great: why shouldn't these pages be auto-tagged, if it's possible? Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was thinking about this a bit more. The only slight problem might be that the G8s cannot be declined, unless the target page is re-created. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Assuming that the template does as designed] Why would this be a problem? I can't understand why you'd want to decline it, unless (1) the page shouldn't have been deleted, in which case undeletion or recreation is correct, or (2) the editnotice somehow needs to be moved to a new title. Do we ever intentionally have editnotices for nonexistent pages, e.g. "Template:Editnotice/Willy on wheels" existing with a message of "Don't create this page. We mean it!" I can't see why we'd do that, since there's no real point to saying "Don't create this title", unless the page has been recreated so many times that we should protect it. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salt detection prevents db-g8 from showing up at Template:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here, for example. And actually, the "decline" problem is not too bad (sometimes I have lapses). The 4 ways to decline: 1. recreate the target; 2. blank the notice; 3. use an fmbox instead; 4. salt the target. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement here; I can't imagine why we'd need an editnotice for an unsalted target, and the protection log excerpt at top will serve the purpose of an editnotice for a salted one. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborated on rationale. (effective diff) I plan to act on this in a few days unless I hear otherwise. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "how to decline this tag" bit, you offer "Blank this notice page itself" as an option. Is there a way to force it to produce a link to the editnotice page itself? If I were unfamiliar with editnotices, I wouldn't have a clue how to do this. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The db-g8 nom is not by default visible on the target page above the edit box. On the editnotice itself, a link wouldn't really be necessary anyway. The link becomes bolded instead, and, override with red text, so there is no link. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But how am I supposed to blank the editnotice if I'm not familiar with how it works? Maybe we're talking past each other (I don't understand why we can't have a link), but it would help to have the Jerusalem editnotice display a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Jerusalem&action=edit (it would work; it wouldn't be bolded) if Jerusalem is a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Ahh, misunderstood. Applied your suggestion. I'm unaware if it's possible to replace an existing page's contents in the edit box with something else. preload and preloadparams work only for nonexistent pages. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great; thanks! I figured I was misunderstanding a bunch of stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Editnotice&oldid=727428128"