Template talk:Curlie

message: I've switched this back to the cleaner version for several reasons. First, the use of italics and the preposition "on" are both nonstandard. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Links#External links for other examples. Italics are generally reserved for names of books, films, etc., and the uses of this template are much broader. It also removes the Google Directory links, mainly because it's a duplication that will most likely serve to confuse readers, but also because it's only one of many commercial uses of the data, and because it's often months out of date. - EurekaLott 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Streamlined version

message: *By which I mean that this template has been proposed for deletion. Since it's heavily in use, it's probably better to have the notice here. The debate is leaning strongly towards 'keep'. (Radiant) 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TfD closed as keep. I have removed the notice. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADmoz&diff=84034954&oldid=83847357
Now "suggest" page is up, please, add the link back.
With respect, nejron 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that is the purpose of that part of the code. ;)) Activated on Croatian wiki (even though it is of little use). --Ivan Bajlo 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally put that in there, but I'm uncertain as to whether it would be a good idea. The template is protected so an Admin would have to do it in any case. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sandy. The suggest site link does not improve the quality of the wikipedia article in any way - in fact it degrades the quality by increasing the clutter. I can see why one would want to help other community projects, but this is not what wikipedia is for. Could this link please be removed. Conrad.Irwin 11:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I originally put that in the template not to help ODP but to make it easier for people who would otherwise list their link in the Wikipedia article to find a spot where it would be more appropriate. But, as I said above, I have misgivings about it and I agree that it should be removed. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced "(suggest site)" to (+). Would that be more helpful in streamlining it or does the ambiguity of the + sign defeat the purpose of the submission URL in the template to begin with? By the way, I've dropped the template's protection down to semi now. --   Netsnipe  ►  15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the (+), because although I see the reasoning behind it, it is now not immediately clear what it is for. I have left the link in a comment so people who dont know how dmoz works can add it back if that is the reached consensus. Conrad.Irwin 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest URL 

message: I sugges use the If parser so the user could only utilize one parameter (i.e. WiFi for the Path To Category and the Category Name, instead of repeat the same parameter twice). --HybridBoy 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this would be as useful as the current feature of using the article name as the second option, should the second option be blank. Conrad.Irwin 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One parameter 

message: This is used in about 2000 mainspace articles.--SallyForth123 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume 

message: The instructions say to include the terminal slash on the DMOZ directory path, but currently this breaks the external link. --Una Smith (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slash

message: I tried using this template for Buddhist art and Fingerboarding and it brought back broken links.
* (actual link)
Not sure what I am doing wrong.
--Legionarius (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links? 

message: I've been reviewing the template and its history, and I'd like to offer a few suggestions.
First, the order of the parameter listings is odd. The first entry should specify what type of link we're creating (eg - category view, user profile, or search results), the second should specify the path or link at dmoz, and the third the text to display on links in the Wikipedia article. Since the latter is optional, it could be disregarded if need be. Currently, the template examines the third parameter to determine what function to perform, so the template expects three parameters irrespective of use, implying the need to specify a parameter that should be optional.
Better yet, we should use named parameters to do away with any possible confusion and make the template (reasonably) future-proof.
My last suggestion is to incorporate a search results link. I did this in June, but my edit was reverted without explanation.
If these changes are made, a bot may have to update all links to this template. Thoughts? Mindmatrix 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love your suggestion to add a search capability to this template. However, there is apparently some sentiment against dmoz search templates as is revealed in WT:EL#DMOZ_Template.28s.29. It has actually been proposed there that dmoz2 should be deleted. I have given an argument and example there of when it can be better for WP to use dmoz search than dmoz category. Qazin (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: To develop a consensus on the question of the dmoz search capability in this template, what do you think about nominating dmoz2 for deletion? If there is a consensus to keep dmoz2, then it seems unlikely anyone can object to merging dmoz2 into dmoz. If it fails, then at least the issue will be resolved. Qazin (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have proposed a need for clarification of WP:ELNO item 9 regarding search results linking at WT:EL#Links_to_search_results. Qazin (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating this template

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
NOTE: This notice is NOT for this template, but is provided here because of its similarity to this template and potentially common interest with this template's editors and users.
Qazin (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Dmoz2}}]] 

message: Doesn't work for category names which include an embedded [], such as US Representatives. Flatterworld (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think having square brackets in a dmoz category name is best practise, and additionally to maybe fixing the template, I'd like to check if the category shouldn't be renamed. I was not able to spot an example, though. DMOZ Search for representatives did not yield any results with a square bracket, can you provide an example? -- Windharp (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall brackets being allowed in DMOZ category names.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I looked at Flatterworld's edit history and I think this is what he or she meant: .  However, there was an extra d following the percent-5d in the link they removed with this edit, so I guess what I'm saying is, brackets are allowed, and they work, so everyone is wrong :) EAE (Holla!) 06:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem, then.  Perhaps an escape template could be constructed so that  would translate to .  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: EAE apparently doesn't understand the difference between a bracket and its code. I just tried to fix the redirected link at Rahm Emanuel and see no one has yet fixed the template to allow for actual brackets, which means cut-and-paste still doesn't work. I replaced the brackets with the %5b and %5d coding for now, but it's not at all user-friendly. Perhaps it would be better to just delete all such Dmoz links if no one's interested in fixing the problem. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  embedded [ and ] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Please help Dmoz/ODP hasn't had profiles for years. I would like to request that someone remove this functionality from the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  DMOZ/ODP has always had profiles, only the links changed some time ago with the new DMOZ 2.0 software. In the interest of established users of this template I think this should be reverted and the link adjusted. New links are in the form http://www.dmoz.org/public/profile?editor=windharp (Notifying MSGJ) -- Windharp (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed, with apologies if I'm considered "involved".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, request marked as resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: Please, revert last edit. I think a lot of people do not know what DMOZ is - at least I did not knew. It hasnt been discussed and non-trivial edits should not be made to fully protected templates (template editor protected)... Christian75 (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Have you asked  why this was done; have you asked them to self-revert? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can ask  here ... Christian75 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per DMOZ/Open Directory Project. The former name is more popular and has been around longer, so if anything, you're more likely to recognize it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert last edit (edit request) 

message: Please remove Yahoo Directory from See Also as it's now closed.
71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation is transcluded from Template:Dmoz/doc, which is not protected. You can do this yourself. SiBr4 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Done I'm actually working on firing up AWB to nuke all appearances of . —  (e • t • c) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2014 

message: I believe some bot should collect the links made with this template and reassign them to dmoz-IDs of article-objects on Wikidata. --eugrus (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to Wikidata 

message: Please add , and then change the  parameter to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_14, per a nomination by . Pppery 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please remove the newline after the tfd tag. Pppery 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2017 

message: Curlie.org is now live, and is maintained by the same community  (at least, those who have remained).  Suggestions are not (yet) open, and editor communication, and probably editor profiles, are not (yet) operational.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curlie 

message: Change https://curlie.org to http://dmoztools.net
due to frequent "504 Gateway Time-out" errors at curlie.org Ernobe (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. DMOZTOOLS is a static mirror, whereas Curlie is the actual successor to DMOZ. I'm not saying that we shouldn't change the link, but the two are not equivalent so this isn't enough of a non-controversial change to make without gaining consensus first. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2017 

message: At the "view source" page it says that discussing a proposed edit with others is one of the things one can do, but does not mention that it is a necessary first step according to Wikipedia policy.  It then says,
:If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An administrator or template editor may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed. 
Since the issue was not being discussed, and it was a suggestion for a simple change, I clicked on the "edit request" button.  I think that more information about the Wikipedia consensus building policies should be added to that page.Ernobe (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "simple change" should probably be replaced with "non-controvertial change". Changes made unilaterally to protected templates are usually things like correcting obvious markup errors, adding or removing hidden comments, copy-edits, changing tracking categories, etc. Redirecting a template to a different website, while simple to implement, is more of a drastic change that at least would require no objections after a few days of a discussion being open. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of information on consensus building policy 

message: If I open Template:Curlie to inspect what this template does, the very first word on the page is a link titled "Curlie at Curlie (based on DMOZ)" and leading to https://curlie.org/Curlie, which is a broken link. Someone with the appropriate privileges, please change the code so that the template page renders in a better way, such as by specifying a sample argument enclosed in noincludes. --Blahma (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Should now point to Curlie main page. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 19:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link generated when viewing template page 

message: Please remove the wikilink to Curlie.  As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curlie, that page is now a redirect, and it should not be linked from this template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. , The outcome of the AFD you point to was to create a redirect. It was not to create a redirect and prohibit its use. For the 7000+ uses of the template do you think it's reasonable to provide an external link XXX at Curlie but not provide any information on what Curlie is? The external target is at curlie.org, and the description of Curlie is at DMOZ. Using the redirect is the sensible thing to do. Cabayi (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

text: *I agree 100% with the outcome of the AfD discussion, I just don't think the discussion took into account the external link template.  There is no law that says just because a redirect exits, it must be linked to. And there is almost no discussion of Curlie in the DMOZ article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2019 

message: I don't think templates should have a Wikilink when there is no article on Wikipedia.  Currently Curlie is a redirect to DMOZ, and only mentioned briefly there.  What do the other users of this template think? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking to a non-existent article 

message: Is it time to finally delete this template?  The links that I've followed from articles that still have this template all seem to lead to unmaintained and embarrassingly out-of-date lists of links that aren't very helpful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over a month with no responses at all so I am going to nominate this template for discussion as the website to which it links appears to be largely outdated and unmaintained.  It was a useful resource in the past but it appears that its time has long since passed. ElKevbo (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record: Record of the discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Template:Curlie. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to finally delete?