Template talk:User groups
Add topicShould Autoconfirmed users be added to this list? Dbiel 07:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Reply
en:Wikipedia:User access levels mentions these user groups:
*2 User groups
- 2.1 Unregistered users
- 2.2 New users
- 2.3 Autoconfirmed users
- 2.4 Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards
- 2.4.1 Administrators
- 2.4.2 Bureaucrats
- 2.4.3 Stewards
- 2.5 Other flags giving access to specialized functions
- 2.5.1 Reviewer
- 2.5.2 Rollback
- 2.5.3 Autopatrolled
- 2.5.4 Confirmed users
- 2.5.5 File mover
- 2.5.6 Accountcreator
- 2.5.7 Ipblock-exempt
- 2.5.8 Edit Filter managers
- 2.5.9 Oversight
- 2.5.10 CheckUser
- 2.5.11 Importers and Transwiki
- 2.5.12 afttest and afttest-hide
- 2.6 Other flagged accounts
- 2.6.1 Bots
- 2.6.2 Founder
- 2.6.3 Researcher
- 2.6.4 Ombudsman
- 3 Indefinitely blocked users
The template {{user groups}} does not list them all. Besides all these, there is a special user group, not listed in these two: developers.
This should be corrected in the template. Kubura (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- I think you have reason. You can create a new template with all this user groups in a sandbox so we can see how to modify the original one. :-) Restu 20 12:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
It should be something like this:
| Local: | blocked user – unregistered user – new user - newly-registered user – registered user – autoconfirmed user (same as autopatrolled/cofirmed user???) – bot – flooder – reviewer – rollbacker – administrator – bureaucrat – file mover - accountcreator – IP block exempt – Importer – transwiki – edit filter manager - abuse filter manager - oversight – checkuser – afttest and afttest-hide |
|---|---|
| Global: | locked account – unified account – bot – rollbacker – abuse filter editor – interface editor – new wiki importers – sysop – researcher – developer –ombudsman – founder – staff – system administrator – steward |
"New" groups are in italics. I've consulted also User groups. See also User permissions API, Manual:User rights.
P.S. Restu20, "You have reason" has confused me for a second (it's OK, I understood, but it sounded somehow strange), but just for a second. And then I looked at your userpage. :) Non c'è problema. Ho capito tutto - hai ragione. :) Tanti auguri, Kubura (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
- Si fa prima a parlare in italiano. Comunque scrivo in inglese per farmi capire dagli altri. :-D
- Your proposal seems to be very good and I think we can add that user groups in the template. Thank you for this work. :-) Restu 20 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Reply
Another new one is template editor. I imagine it should be added here as well. ⇔ ChristTrekker 📫 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Reply
- That is an enwiki-only group (thankfully), so it doesn't need a global info page unless it's going to be more widely used IMO. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Reply
I have reviewed the Arabic version of the template and found that it is not the same in terms of layout and different items. I tried to see the page template and found that it is not marked for translation. Should it be marked for translation or edited and updated directly using the VisualEditor? --Haytham Abulela 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Reply
- @Haytham abulela: Done. Old translation will be imported. --Kaganer (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Reply
- @Kaganer: Template updated. Much appreciated. Haytham Abulela 03:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Reply
@Camouflaged Mirage and ~riley: I'd suggest reverting to this edit and re-edit anything from there. Minorax (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Minorax: Done. Do help me cross-check any omissions. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Minorax and Camouflaged Mirage: I wasn't aware of Camouflaged Mirage's changes at the time of reverting, sorry. I understand what Xiplus was trying to fix. In the future, Camo, changing IDs is a bad idea - we can discuss more on IRC if you want. Due to those changes, FuzzyBot has marked every translation after Abuse filter maintainer as out of date in each language. This creates extra work for translators. See the red in Template:User_groups/pt for reference.~riley (talk ) 08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @~riley: I'm re-updating the tags, can I have a temporary flood flag if policy allows? Minorax (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Admins can only give it to themselves, not others :( - thanks for your work on this, as always, Minorax. ~riley (talk ) 08:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- I understand my error now, and sorry for the wrong manual changing of the tags. Yes, I understand it's a bad idea now and will not do it in the future. @~riley:. Thanks for the work in updating the tags @Minorax:. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Admins can only give it to themselves, not others :( - thanks for your work on this, as always, Minorax. ~riley (talk ) 08:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @~riley: I'm re-updating the tags, can I have a temporary flood flag if policy allows? Minorax (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Minorax and Camouflaged Mirage: I wasn't aware of Camouflaged Mirage's changes at the time of reverting, sorry. I understand what Xiplus was trying to fix. In the future, Camo, changing IDs is a bad idea - we can discuss more on IRC if you want. Due to those changes, FuzzyBot has marked every translation after Abuse filter maintainer as out of date in each language. This creates extra work for translators. See the red in Template:User_groups/pt for reference.~riley (talk ) 08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Reply
This group is not only in enwiki, the jawiki, kowiki and more have this group. But the link is only linked to enwiki. Should this change to an other way to show this group?--LaMagiaaa (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Reply
- Normally they would have been linked to Wikidata items; however, since extended confirmed is a relatively trivial group, all pages about it are redirects, which are not notable enough to be included in Wikidata. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Reply
- NB: redirects also may be linked to the Wikidata items (if this is relevant). Kaganer (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Reply
- But they don’t make it notable. If all sitelinks would be redirects, that concept is not notable under criterion 1. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Reply
- NB: redirects also may be linked to the Wikidata items (if this is relevant). Kaganer (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Reply
@Pppery: I don't like how some terms are in plural and some in singular, and capitalization is inconsistent too. Any thoughts on that? Regards, Alalch E. (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Reply
- I don't think this really matters at all, but I've switched the entire rest of the template to use UI messages, which mostly standardized on capital/plural (I had previously forgotten that the i18n system is global so messages that aren't used on Meta can still be found there.) * Pppery * it has begun 03:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Reply
- Ah, very nice, thank you. Alalch E. (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Reply