Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 18

Process formalisation (RFC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the light of the above discussion, I'd like to propose a few RfC's for consideration, one for completeness of proposals, one for merges, and one for orphaning. Below is the first one of them

Completeness of merge discussions (1)

Should the following be added to the TfD policy?

To facilitate discussion and enacting an outcome, TfD merge discussions should have at least a rough outline how a merge should take place. The nomination should at least include which parameters would be mapped to the merge target(s), and for which parameters no suitable mapping has been found yet.

• Support, proposed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support if a wrapper would suffice as demonstration of parameter mapping. (If the template is already a wrapper, or one is in the sandbox, the nom can simply mention this. Mapping would only be needed for parameters the wrapper doesn't support or any additional changes proposed.) —PC-XT+ 23:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  A wrapper would be a very clear outline of a merge, easily satisfying my phrasing of "at least a rough outline" above. Feel free to hack at it if you think it could be clearer without adding too much clutter. If it already is a wrapper, would you still consider that a merge proposal? I would say that's a deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  I don't really think it needs changing. I mostly wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading it. A simple wrapper only requires subst-delete, but if it includes complex parserfunctions or awkward hacks to make it work, a rewrite or merge may be better. —PC-XT+ 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural: can someone add signings? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by adding signings, but feel free to make any procedural edit you think is useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holding cell base data

To facilitate the handling of the large list of items in the holding cell, I would like to propose a semi-automated process that checks the number of transclusions, and if something is a redirect and adds an element transclusions: n or transclusions: n - redirect to "pagename" if it is a redirect. Before I start coding and ask BAG if that's ok, I'd like to know if there are any objections or suggestions here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request immediate TfD closure

I would like to request the immediate closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division by an administrator active in TfD closings. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the similar past on WP:AN, the above, which non-neutrally attempts to lead the closing adnmin to a specific conslusion, is breach of WP:CANVASS. Further. TfD is not a vote. The closing admin should weigh the arguements, not count the commenters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, there is no breach of WP:CANVASS here. What is stated above is a factual recitation of the history of this process in which you (1) have nominated the template for deletion on November 29, (2) renominated it for merge on December 8, (3) took it to DRV on January 8 to re-open a messy non-administrative close, and (4) the merge nomination was re-listed on January 22. As I stated above, the present merge TfD nomination has now been open for a total of 32 days (25 + 7), and has attracted 21 participants. As for your false allegations of "canvassing," those have been refuted in the TfD itself, but I do note for the record your active lobbying campaign to get previous discussion participants to change their !votes (see here). Perhaps not exactly "canvassing," but it would seem you have little lobbying campaign of your own underway, eh? BTW, if you're going to make false accusations of canvassing, I suggest you take them to WP:ANI, rather than [WP:TfD talk]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The above reply to Andy Mabbett was cut and pasted from my response on WP:AN, where Andy continues his campaign.

Andy, administrators are well aware that XfDs are not a vote, and most of regular XfD closers do not require your counsel in that regard. What we see here is a TfD nominator consumed with "winning" instead of having a good-faith discussion, and that is unfortunate for all concerned. Pointing out that the TfD has been open in one form or another for 30+ days with 20+ participants indicates that it is ripe for closing by an administrator. Perhaps this and similarly exaggerated claims of wrongdoing by good-faith editors who oppose your TfD proposals should be added as links to this Arbcom discussion, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Updating nomination statements?

Need some advice please - is it OK to update the own nomination statement, if it was confusing or misleading? (or does it break a bot in the background?) See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_5#Windows-related_article_content_moved_to_template - what I meant to request was to move back the content to article namespace before deleting those templates, but that probably didn't come across as intended. Or is the statement clear enough? GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as you leave the templates alone, you can edit your proposal more or less according to talk page guidelines. On Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Template:USA-MA, I even changed from a deletion proposal to a merge proposal before anyone commented. It is good to mark the change, using <s>...</s> or <del>...</del><ins>...</ins> and sign or add ~~~~~ to stamp when the changes were made. —PC-XT+ 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have sent a clarification message to one of the commenting editors and will leave the initial nomination statement alone for now, unless a change becomes absolutely necessary. But it's good to know, that it's possible in general. GermanJoe (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Templates and Categories

There is a problem and I'm not sure there is an easy solution but I thought I'd ask editors skilled in templates to wade in to the waters and see what you think. I work a lot with categories and one thing that happens frequently is that a user adds an article or Wikipedia template to their sandbox or a user page. Many templates automatically assign categories to the page on which they are used so if you go to a category page, you'll find not only relevant categories and articles but also user pages listed. When I've tried to remove the categories from the user page, I often find that they are the result of the user using a template and the only way to remove the categories is to delete the template from their page. I'm reluctant to do this unless the account has been inactive for a long time because these templates are frequently ones involved with Wikipedia policies and formats. Any suggestions? Are their any guiding principles about including categories on templates? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Depending on the template, I may remove it, or link it with {{tl}}, or even hide it with html comments and a note that it was adding article categories. A few templates have a switch that turns off categories. Sometimes, the template can be replaced with a better one that doesn't need to add categories. With simple templates, it may even work to substitute and remove the category from the resulting code. Other times, I don't know what to do, and leave it for someone else to clean up. :S —PC-XT+ 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC) 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Templates can also be improved to not categorize user pages, or to only categorize articles. —PC-XT+ 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to make the addition of a category, by a template, dependent on the namespace in which the instance is being used. See Help:Category#Categories and templates for guidance, or let me know if there is a particular example causing problems, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Category suppression. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox medical condition/ Infobox disease

I merged {{Infobox medical condition}} into {{Infobox disease}}, both listed in the holding cell, in accordance with the TfD outcome, but was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: The only article still using the redirected name is pregnancy, which wouldn't be considered a disease. According to Template talk:Infobox medical condition, the problem was that the parameters merged should apparently not be in either infobox. The matter looks resolved? —PC-XT+ 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The matter is not resolved. As noted above, my edit, merging parameters from {{Infobox medical condition}} into {{Infobox disease}}, per the TfD outcome, was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I missed this discussion, because I skipped the month in the diff of the last edit, and thought this occured days ago, when it's actually been a month. I expect the pages using that template were all converted over during that time. People are typically supposed to notify the closing admin or bring the close up for review, such as on the grounds that the project wasn't notified. This seems to now be part of a larger discussion about the nature of the infobox contents. —PC-XT+ 14:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)So I see a couple of options. If Doc James is unhappy with the TfD close, he could take it to DRV (which is the formally correct route), or we could see if a quick new consensus can be found (which is the quick and dirty route) by discussing dropping the parameters entirely (not here, but on the templates talk). The former has the advantage of being more thorough and following our process, with more opportunity for the wider community to provide input, the latter has the advantage of more agility (possibly, depending on how much of a discussion we'd get on our hands) and less red tape. I propose starting out with the latter, with the option to move to the former if things don't work out in a few days for whatever reason. James, since you're the one objecting to enacting the original close, would you mind getting the ball rolling and opening some discussion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about converting {{Infobox disease}} into an {{Authority control}}-derivative on the talk page of the former. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oi, what a mess. The original TfD seems to have been almost entirely overtaken by current events, and I'm starting to think DRV is the only option. Maybe I'll do so myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Using #section-h to transclude pending discussions at TfD index

I've made a request to Anomie to list open discussions only underneath 'Old discussions' instead of all for the day, which should be a pretty uncontroversial change. Alakzi (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to work off the backlog

Given that we have a huge backlog (150 templates, reaching as far as back as 2012) and desperately need people to close, it would be good if we had instructions for people who want to help out. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions says "list the template under the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell", but that only defers the solution; we need good information on how to actually work off the backlog. In particular, I'd like to see instructions on:

1. How to subst + delete efficiently. It's easy to subst a few links, but when we have templates that have been transcluded 350 times (according to Jarry1250's tool) or even in 85,000 articles (according to Number 57 at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_19#Template:Infobox_university_chancellor), it takes days to do it manually. Even with WP:AWB it would take hours. How do people do this? Do they use a bot?
2. How to merge. Of course, there is no cookbook recipe for that, but there must be a lot of experience that others could learn from. Merging is, at least for me, much harder than writing something new. My hunch is that others feel the same, since the majority of our backlog is waiting to be merged, while new templates are created every minute.

I became aware of this backlog thanks to User:Steel1943's post at WP:ANRFC , and since they also is the only one who posted any closing action there, I wanted to ask them for advice, but they is unfortunately on sick leave. — Sebastian 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Proposal to move module and MediaWiki discussion here

WP:VPR#Templates is a subsection of WP:VPR#Splitting up the MfD in which it is proposed to move the venue for discussion of modules and MediaWiki pages to TfD. We have discussed similar things, such as Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 15#LUA modules. I expect comments at VPR would be welcome. —PC-XT+ 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion template in nonincludes causing a display error in the template up for deletion

Weirdly, the tfd template in {{tiny ping}} is causing all indentation to be lost. That is, posts where it is used, that are prefixed with a colon, do not indent. Since the tfd template is in noincludes, I would have thought it would have no affect whatever on the template's output but that's not the case. Any idea why that would be happening? --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Place the code on the same line as the <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Alakzi (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Martijn Hoekstra took care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully this will all be fixed in twinkle soon(tm)(r). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Holding cell backlog

There's a long list of templates that are now ready for deletion at the holding cell. Also, User:GiantSnowman inexplicably reopened this one, so it'll have to be closed before deletion; I've already orphaned all five templates. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC. GiantSnowman 17:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't "inexplicably reopened" - this is the edit, and the summary says "you cannot NAC if the outcome is 'delete'" which is certainly explicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've had BADNAC shoved in my face plenty enough times; and I've demonstrated how it's inapplicable plenty enough times. If you'd like to thoughtfully discuss this close, your input is welcome on my talk page. Copied from there:

WP:BADNAC is a reading of WP:XFD, which advises against it. WP:XFD was written with articles in mind, where a delete outcome means the article's gotta be instantly deleted. A non-admin closing an AfD as delete is impractical; AfD is not equipped for it. The TfD that I closed required the orphaning of the templates to be deleted. If Martijn had closed the discussion—as he likely would've, if I hadn't—he would not have deleted the templates. As far as I know, he does not use AWB; it'd have been extremely tedious work to manually remove all transclusions. Indeed, what he would've done, is to list the templates under 'To orphan' in WP:TFD/HC. Then, I'd have carried out the orphaning, and marked them for deletion, after which time, any admin could've deleted them. My having closed this discussion has only had a positive impact on the project.

Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I usually tag such templates for speedy deletion, with a link to the TfD section in the rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs

A question has been raised in a pending TfD merge discussion regarding the use of the Twinkle auto-editor for formatting TfD discussions. I am curious how many other regular TfD participants use Twinkle to nominate templates for discussion, and would like to hear feedback from other regular TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, and try to correct for its problems as I am aware of them. Sometimes I forget one of them, and others correct me:

1. It has no option to add |type=sidebar, which is often called by its alias |type=infobox, (or |type=tiny. I think |type=inline is supported.)
2. It adds extra whitespace to the transclusions, which can be serious enough to break transclusions of previously working templates. Delete !votes have been based on such breakage, without knowing it was caused by Twinkle. (Sometimes manual tagging has the same problem, but not consistently, as with Twinkle.)
3. It does not notify the creators of both templates in a merge discussion.
4. It does not notify WikiProjects, though I'm not sure that is its responsibility. (It would be convenient, though.)
5. Also adding one I forgot, brought up below, protected edit requests or notification that a protected template wasn't tagged. —PC-XT+ 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We could evaluate the usage by counting the Twinkle edits listed in log page histories and comparing with the total number of discussions started... PC-XT (talk) 10:02, February 18, 2015 Signature added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I fixed the typo where it said |sidebar= instead of |type=sidebar. Sorry about that. I also added type=tiny, and note about type=inline. —PC-XT+ 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response, PC. I don't use Twinkle and was unaware of this issue until recently. Is there some way to track TfD nominators who are using Twinkle (and other auto-editors)? In order to ensure proper notice of TfD/TfMs is being provided to template creators, it would seem that we have some work to do. I would also propose that we revise the TfD and TfM instructions to clarify this -- some editors apparently dispute whether it is required to notify the creators of both templates in a proposed TfD merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry I messed up the formatting, above. Manual nominations can also have problems, but Twinkle's problems are more consistent. Notifying editors seems to be a bit of a gray area for even manual nominations. Twinkle, and most other tools, usually identify themselves in the edit summary when adding a nomination to the log, but that can be turned off. (You can check a user's twinkleoptions.js to see if that is the case, but they still may not necessarily use it for nominations. I don't always use Twinkle, myself.) The log page's history is the best way to check that I know, as Twinkle gives a fairly consistent edit summary, even if its identification is changed: "Adding Template:Example. " followed by the identification. I don't know as much about other tools used in nominations, but they generally identify themselves. —PC-XT+ 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For example, today's log so far has a manual entry that was fixed by a bot, and two Twinkle nominations. Maybe a bot could check the nominations for some of these Twinkle corrections and flag them if not fix them? Manual nominations could be checked, as well. —PC-XT+ 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pardon my ignorance, PC-XT, but what distinguishes a Twinkle-performed TfD nomination from one performed manually? I see no obvious difference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• It says "TW" in the edit summary. Alakzi (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, now that I know what I'm looking for, I see it. Thanks, Alakzi. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Right, that's the identification. It can be changed to say "using Twinkle" or something else, usually to be clearer, but is TW by default. —PC-XT+ 13:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, then yes, I do assert there's no requirement because the instructions are defective. I've stated numerous times that there ought to be a specific instruction to notify the creator of the other template. You now also know that Twinkle follows the defective instructions (which were written for the case of deletion and insufficiently modified for merging) and fails to notify the second creator. I am in full agreement with the value of notifying both template creators in these cases, but you seem more concerned with using your own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems. We need to ask for an update to Twinkle's behaviour so that it notifies the second creator when used to nominate for a merger.

In the meantime I've made an edit to the instructions that I think makes them say what we all want them to. Please feel free to improve on that if you can. I've also added a note warning Twinkle users that it doesn't notify the second creator in a merger nomination. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rexx, for making the clarifying change to the TfD/TfM instructions; it certainly leaves little room for doubt. If someone reverts your change, or modifies it to obscure the intended meaning, I will finish the RfC that I was already preparing to implement a similar TfD/TfM requirement. As for your other assertion, I'm really not "more concerned with using [my] own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems," which is why I brought the issue to this, the appropriate guideline talk page for discussion. I urge you to (1) assume good faith per WP:AGF, and (2) dial down your rhetoric, which on this and several other occasions has come dangerously close to engaging in personal attacks per WP:NPA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I don't need any lectures from you about attacking other editors as you need to get the plank out of your eye before commenting on the motes in others'. Your protestations simply don't match your actions. Fix that first. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Rexx, I really don't need to get the biblical log/plank/board out of my eye, as demonstrated by my engaging in appropriate talk page discussion here of an ongoing problem. We both know what your comments to me are about: your frustration with the various issues I have previously raised about the conduct of another editor whom you feel compelled to defend. If you want to defend that editor, I suggest you do so in the appropriate forum, and spend less time accusing me of imagined wrongs everywhere else. There have been recurring problems regarding TfD/TfM notices; I raised the issue here. There were no attacks in this thread, other than your comments immediately above, and frankly, that schtick is starting to get a little old. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't talk bollocks, Dirtlawyer. You might think your passive-aggressive behaviour behaviour is clever - "some editors apparently dispute whether it is required to notify the creators of both templates in a proposed TfD merge" - but I've been around the block enough times to recognise your kind. We both know damn well there's nothing apparent about my telling you that the problem lay in the instructions and Twinkle, not Andy, so there's no point in trying to be cute about it. You've spent far more time engaged in attacking Andy than in supplying the missing notification or clarifying the instructions - both of which I have done. You give the impression of preferring a lack of notification and unclear instructions, just to use as a stick to beat other editors with. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Rexx, and please don't talk "bollocks" to me. If you want to interrupt an otherwise productive thread where issues are being resolved, then keep doing what you're doing. If you want to attack me, and keep accusing me of imagined slights, please feel free to move your "bollocks" to my talk page so we don't have to disturb other discussion participants. As for Andy, he's been aware of the Twinkle problem for some time; if you doubt me, then ask him -- and then review the links I provided to you previously where he deleted my request to notify template creators and told me to do it myself. As for your accusation that I prefer "a lack of notification and unclear instructions," you clearly misunderstand and misconstrue the obvious reasons why I started this thread. But if you want to keep attacking me, feel free to take it to ANI -- and remember to ask for their reaction to your comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point if you were actually doing anything to resolve issues, rather than snarking at the folks like me who are fixing them. Care to explain why you went to Andy's page to demand he notify Dudemanfellabra, rather than simply notifying him yourself, if you were not more interested in the confrontation than in collaboration? I ended up making that notification, while you seized what you though was a procedural irregularity to try to wiki-lawyer a close to the TfD. That was after promising and failing to supply a list of "other similar templates", which now starts to look like an excuse to delay the TfD even further. Your words ring too hollow when set against your actions for me to offer you any assumption of good faith. If you can't stomach being told the truth about yourself, you can always get a second opinion at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, if you're going to respond, please do it on Rexx's talk page. Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I will respond elsewhere, Alakzi. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I intend to fix points 1 to 3 in Twinkle, and submit a pull request, but my energy and free time to do coding for MediaWiki projects is limited, as are my knowledge of the coding conventions and code base of the tool. If there are more issues with twinkle for TfD, I'd love to hear them before I get working on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Martijn. This has been a recurring issue, and it needs to be remedied, both in terms of the TfD/TfM instructions, and any auto-editor that perpetuates the notice problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re. the first point: the parameter is actually called 'type' and it takes one of the following display options: sidebar; inline; tiny. A dropdown would do nicely. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

An additional point I'd like to check, does Twinkle make an editprotected request on the talk page for protected pages. I don't think so, but I think (and would like feedback on if) it should. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Valid values for |type= are template, tiny, inline, sidebar, disabled (plus box and infobox which are aliases for sidebar). In the case of sidebar (and its two aliases), you can also specify a |width= parameter to suit very wide or very narrow boxes, the default width being 27em. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. template is the default, I presume? Alakzi (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, normally the TFM message looks different in template namespace (such as the template itself, the doc page, sandbox and testcases) compared to how it looks on other pages (articles, help pages, talk pages etc.). Setting |type=template forces the message seen outside template space to be the same as the one seen on the template itself. The default behaviour, which is with |type= omitted or left blank, is different again. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. Would we want to support all of the values in Twinkle? Alakzi (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably only tiny, inline, sidebar and blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The nicest behaviour to me seems to be a dropdown with the values "full width", selected by default, and giving the default behaviour, "sidebar", selected by default if the template name contains the text "sidebar" or "infobox", and the other two three never selected by default. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Archive number

This page says that Error: Invalid page name(s) but looking at the code, I don't understand how to correct this problem. Can an editor more familiar with templates and transclusions look this over? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This template will only work on "Archive X" pages; its function is to return X. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Side effects of WP:INFOCOL

Yes, I understand there has been a concentrated effort in the past couple of years to merge similar infoboxes, per the WP:INFOCOL essay that Andy first started. I'm a little concerned that it has the unintended side effect of creating numerous infoboxes that are very long and must be template protected. For example, {{Infobox building}} is now template protected and now exceeds to data100. I'm not sure having 100 parameters was the intention when MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox was edited to read: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". And I do not think that is in the spirit of what MOS:INFOBOX#General design considerations says about, "Creating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended". I'm sure there are numerous articles with Infobox building that have that type of scenario where most of those 100 parameters are irrelevant.

And then if, per WP:INFOCOL, it supposedly "makes life easier for editors", it surely does not for those editors who do not have the template editor permission, and thus can no longer easily directly edit those infobox templates that they first started and then was subsequently merged. I don't think that possibility was ever considered on the original RFC. Infobox template are different than, say citation templates, because they are specialized depending on the group of articles they are being used on. So in the case of {{Infobox building}}, we have a wide range of parameters from topics ranging from hotels to shopping centres. And thus, fall under multiple Wikiprojects who may not have a template editor as one of their members. And thus they must wait until they get approval from a template editor. Really, it only benefits the small group of template editors for maintaining and reducing the workload of the technical aspects of template code.

Furthermore, I know a case where I myself was reverted for adding a parameter on a particular template, and the resulting discussion on that template's talk page per WP:BRD ended with no consensus, but a few months later this same parameter was added as a result of a merge (I do not think the editor who originally reverted me has ever noticed this) -- thus, in effect, the consensus on one template superseded the opposite (non)consensus of the other template. And, as I mentioned, because of merges, infoboxes would fall under multiple WikiProjects, which increases the likelihood of a similar situation I just described, where the consensus of one WikiProject gets overruled solely because the result of a merge. In essence, this has created a loophole. My occasional, and sometime rejected, proposals to add "publictransit" parameters to various infoboxes could eventually get achieved by me not lifting a finger and instead patiently waiting for other people to do various merges. And likewise, an editor could use the same loophole to add a parameter I recently objected to. And with them being all template protected, in most cases "being bold" in trying to remove these parameters is off the table.

Look, I know Andy and others here have good intentions on consolidated infoboxes, as Andy had first stated when he began WP:INFOCOL. I'm not sure if the benefits (listed on WP:INFOCOL) outweigh all the costs (the possibility of having a bunch of template-protected infoboxes, with publictransit and over 100 other parameters). Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A question for the TfD regulars: attribution of template contents?

A couple of weeks ago Dirtlawyer1 asked a few admins to consider closing some TfDs, which I didn't get around to till today. I closed all of one, then got distracted, and then realized I was unclear on something that the closing instructions didn't really directly address.

At AfD, a merge outcome results in keeping the page history of the original article for attribution purposes. At TfD, an outcome that retains the content of the template (converting to a list or category, or substing it) without keeping the template itself could result in losing the contribution history. Is it usual practice that neither the contents of the template (for conversions) nor the design (for substing) are creative elements requiring attribution? Even if the template is kept around after being substed in an article or converted to a list, is there an attribution problem with the history residing outside of articlespace? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I don't think the issue has been discussed before. Though I can't imagine anybody would be able to claim copyright on the contents of a list (though that mind depend on its complexity), they might be able to claim a right on its structure (see sui generis database right). Anyway, what I've seen Plastikspork do in such cases is to either (a) histmerge or (b) move the template to mainspace (without leaving a redirect) and subsequently redirect it to the article its contents had been dumped. This is probably done on a just-in-case basis, rather than out of clear conviction that attribution must be retained. Alakzi (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I figured it was unlikely to really matter, but it's not so easy to search the archives for an example.

I picked off a few of the obvious, already all-but-unused delete cases earlier, but haven't had time to look at some of these long discussions... Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - don't forget to delete redirects. :-) Alakzi (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thank you for doing this. We are still trying to recruit more admins for TfD closes. If you could close one or two TfDs per day that would be an enormous help. If we could get a pool of another three or four admins to help, all pulling about that same one-or-two-closes workload, there would be very little TfD backlog. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks Alakzi - the AfD script deletes the redirects for you.

Have you guys tried posting a gripe on AN to attract more attention to the problem? There's a lot of threads about excess admin backlogs at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NACs

Come to think of it, is there really any reason non-admins can't close some of these obvious delete cases and move them to a separate queue? Seems silly to break the transclusion limits just for want of a delete button. Unlike AfDs, a delete close here isn't necessarily immediately actionable, so the argument about NACs not closing with actions they can't implement isn't so relevant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi has closed a few and taken some schiesse for it, including from at least one administrator. Personally, I have no problem with NAC for clear-cut non-controversial closes, but if it's less than unanimous and the template creator or adamant user objects to a deletion outcome, you can be sure there will be drama if not a DRV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever closed one as delete, actually. I was - indeed - reverted by an admin; he cited WP:BADNAC but did not elaborate any further. At the time, I argued that my closure could've only had a positive impact:

a) The outcome of the discussion was uncontroversially delete.

b) The orphaning of a template is a prerequisite for its deletion.

c) The template in question was transcluded in a large number of pages. The only admin who'd ever close TfDs at the time was Martijn Hoekstra; Martin is not an AWB operator, and he would - therefore - not have been able to carry out its orphaning. After closing the discussion, he'd have listed the template in WP:TFD/HC#To orphan. Later, I'd have done the deed, and I'd have nominated the template for speedy deletion.

d) Instead, If I'd been allowed to close the discussion, I would've done so with the intention to immediately orphan the template. In essence, we'd have skipped a step or two. With Martijn gone, permitting trusted non-admins to close TfDs whose outcome is delete is more important now than it was then. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hrmph. Did someone mark WP:NOTBURO historical while I wasn't looking?

A thought: instead of speedy-tagging the orphaned template, leave it in the holding cell. Then the deletion is at least in principle performed by an admin who can see the context and could reverse the decision if somehow necessary, instead of someone who's just killing time whacking speedies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, that is what I did. Alakzi (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's dumb. Obvious WP:IAR case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, guys (and girl), rather than just bitching about it, why don't you start a TfD/NAC RfC here on this talk page, state your logic for TfD NACs, the circumstances under which they should be permitted, and then let's invite some of our friends to participate. If there's a consensus for more TfD NACs, then you've got official sanction. Any time an infrequent TfD participant complains about a TfD NAC, then you can simply link to the RfC outcome. Think globally, act locally, and learn to play the game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you and Opa think that's best, then sure. Alakzi (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you want to sit in the backlog at WP:ANRFC instead? ;) I wrote a draft RfC below. Feel free to edit, or start over entirely. RfCs give me a headache. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

moved the comment below from discussion section for clarity Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: It's short, sweet, and to the point. Get Alakzi's comments, and let's go live. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me; you've captured all of my points above. Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi and Dirtlawyer1: I noticed that Plastikspork has been quickly working through the backlog; do you guys still want to post this now? I have to run but in the absence of objections I'll do so when I get home later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Though (and because) I'm immensely thankful to PS, I think that it's unreasonable to rely on them to such a great extent. Alakzi (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: There is a G7 speedy delete on June 3 -- git it! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw, but it's still used on about 50 pages. Alakzi (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a close substitute that makes a redundant? With the creator's permission to delete, I think you've got effective latitude to substitute. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is; I've just not got around to replacing them all yet. :-) Alakzi (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)