Template:LFP is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
We can run a bot and make a tracking category for templates still having the |id=. I can make the bot run as soon as WOSlinker prepares the rest. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
18:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I've updated it to work with both old & new formats, so all that would be needed is a tracking category to keep a record of those that need updating. --
WOSlinker (
talk)
18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Code
Output
{{lfpfr|Patrice|Evra}}
Evra – French league stats at
LFP – also available
in French (archived)
{{lfpfr|first=Patrice|last=Evra}}
{{
LFP}} template missing ID and not present in Wikidata.
I have updated the
sandbox, but the examples I have tried keep coming back "Non défini". Can you give some examples that work? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
20:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree that this needs to be fixed as noted here and in the previous talk page section; however, not convinced that this is the correct link format. For one thing, when I tried to find "Ibrahim Cisse" (from the above section), the format
https://www.ligue1.com/player?id=cisse-ibrahim doesn't work. It does work if the given name and surname are reversed, as in https://www.ligue1.com/player?id=ibrahim-cisse, so it looks like the ligue1 website has completely altered their id format. If we can fix this, then we should, because a lot of reader links have broken. Then the Wikidata crew can catch up later. I just wish I knew how to fix it properly! Will keep looking into it. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If it was just a case of changing XXXXX-YYYYY into YYYYY-XXXXX then it would be very easy. But I'm sure it's not as simple as that! — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
15:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply