Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Header edit

I'd like to make this change to the header https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FHeader&type=revision&diff=879780194&oldid=864322953 , but I find my edit getting reverted repeatedly by User:Hhkohh who seems unwilling to engage in discussion over this seemingly non controversial change, but insists on bringing it here. So I'm bringing it here. I'm proposing to make this change. Does anyone have a problem with this change? Maybe we can make a something like a page that could be edited collaboratively, so we can find consensus on the wording. I propose to call this a "wiki", which is the hawaiian word for quick, because we can quickly edit it and publish changes. 217.100.152.226 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry! See [1] Hhkohh (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussing with you here for some reason works far better than on your talk page. Glad we got that done. 217.100.152.226 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Unused RfC

Adding a new CSD criterion for unused templates has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Should_a_4th_CSD_for_unused_templates_be_added?. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

50 template limit

I have a couple forthcoming cleanup TfDs for disused s-line templates where the total number of templates to be deleted will exceed 50, which I understand is the upper limit on {{tfd2}}. What's the best way to handle this situation? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Nothing stops you from expanding {{tfd2}} to support more templates; it's fairly easy to do now that I deduplicated the code. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just post a list. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RS and verification for templates mimicking categories

The Template:Doomsday produces a big label Global catastrophic risk. I recently delved into relevant big picture sources at that article and it seems there are different definitions what that means. To some, sea level rise would be on the list, but to others, SLR is less than trivial, as it would only effect tens of living millions and according to these thinkers that is nothing compared to terminating the potential future of untold numbers of unborn generations of millions. And so we have these different meanings of what that label means. In my opinion the article by that tile is in poor shape. For reasons I'll keep to myself I chose to withdraw. Anyway, today i noticed this template. After screaming the scary sounding label, linked to the low quality article, we list a number of things and the naked listing under this label rather looks like a declaration, in Wikivoice, that each of these is indeed a "global catastrophic risk" (whatever that means). There are no RSs, its just a list in the template.

Is that OK in templates? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions

We have four issues (at least) that are combining in a negatively synergistic way:

1. There's a WP:PROCESSFORK of sorts between coding (and discussing) templates versus doing so with modules, despite the latter being an adjunct to the former.
2. Few editors care to participate and watchlist in either namespace, but it's probably at least an order magnitude lower for Module namespace.
3. The editors involved in implementing and maintaining modules are a much smaller and more self-selecting group. While this is necessary when it comes to directly changing the code, it's an unproductive narrowing when it comes to decision-making and consensus formation.
4. Templates are being converted into Lua without good reason, making them further developable by a far smaller number of editors; such conversions need broader discussion on a case-by-case basis.

Overall, getting stuff done in Template and Module namespaces is taking longer and longer, with more inconsistent results. Particular individuals deeply involved in modules have much more personal control over Module space than Template space, and our "geeks" in general have more control over both namespaces compared to main or project space (which leads to problems even with the best of intentions). In the "Extended discussion" section below I've outlined some examples (and I do so as someone with the TemplateEditor permission bit; this is not a sour-grapes "class struggle" between user levels).

A possible solution: The status quo seems likely to continue (or worsen) if an explicit change isn't made. WP:Templates for discussion (TfD) should serve as more of a "clearinghouse" of template and module changes (like how WP:RM works for proposed moves), not just as an XfD process; this will draw additional editorial attention to template and module matters. It should be as simple as having a {{subst:tfd-thread}} template and bot that adds RM-style pointers to the TfD log, directing people to Template_talk and Module_talk discussions, in addition to the existing "settle it here at TfD" deletion and merger entries. I think this would both even out the discrepancies between Template and Module namespaces in "getting the work done", and also give the WP community much more say into how its templating system operates. It's also consistent with TfD's rename several years ago to "Templates for discussion" not "deletion". It would be a new norm that any potentially controversial template/module change proposals should be listed in this manner, the way potentially controversial moves are listed at RM. (As with manual moves and WP:RM/TR, trivial fixes need not be so listed – if you need to fix an obvious typo in a template, just do it; this is not a bureaucracy.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. I might be relatively new here, and I might be showing my youth and inexperience. However, this is news to me that we have a module namespace. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MattLongCT: Yes, we have two different namespaces (and associated talk spaces) for dealing with templates, and this leads to some problems this proposal would help address.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I see... ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Uh? I can't figure out what exactly is being asked, what 'RM-like' means, or what supposed problem this is even supposed to addressed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Headbomb: The proposal seems pretty clear to me. Look at WP:RM and what it does: it lists ongoing move-related discussions which are at various talk pages. Look at WP:TFD and note that it does nothing like this, but only hosts deletion/merged discussions in TfD itself. It can also provide listings of ongoing template and module-related discussions, through the same method as RM (apply a template to the top of the discussion, and a bot will list it; we also have bots that do this with RfCs, listing them in topical pages according to which {{RfC}} parameters are used).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Simplify this please, as technical jargon will probably not be known to the majority of Wikipedians. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

While I've been thinking about this for a few year, this was more immediately spurred by a comment at a particular module fix-it request:On a more general note, the fact that this request took three months to get executed is exactly why I think there is far too much use of lua and go around TfDing modules. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree in general. There have been other cases where it's taken much, much longer, including when only Template-namespace, not Module-namespace, code was involved. Ex.: Despite it being stark raving obvious, it took over two years and a pointless RfC to get Template:YesNo fixed to support values of on and off. This did not happen because there was any legit reason to stall or oppose. Rather, some TemplateEditors are excessively wary about blame (declining even simple requests if they don't see a prior discussion about it), and some editors who fancy themselves TemplateEditor candidates have no idea what they're talking about, and will make bogus (like, utterly disproven) claims about server/parser efficiency (adding a single pair of #switch cases has no measurable impact on performance, and we have templates, like for railway lines, album/singles chart stats, and post-nominal letters, with hundreds of #switch options, sometimes in nested levels of templating).

Rarely, it's actually been easier to add options to a module than a template, including in this very case, at Module:Yesno. However this can (and in that case did) easily result in an undesirable WP:TEMPLATEFORK, with the module version supporting options (e.g. T and F) not supported in the old-school template edition, for no actual reason other than probably another round of WP:DRAMA at the template talk page with the tiny handful of people trying to over-control it. This is also an example of the unhelpful forking of template and module editors (and non-code-editing concerned parties) into WP:FACTION nonsense across namespace lines (not out of any kind of ill will, but just as a consequence of isolation from broader community input).

Usually, it's the other way around, due to the larger and broader participation in Template_talk than in Module_talk. Ex.: Implementing consistent hatnote-style italicized cross-reference templates that work inline instead of being indented and on their own line has been simple, as templates. Getting this implemented in Module-space has been like pulling teeth from a smilodon because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT antics by some self-appointed gatekeepers; it took an actual code fork to do it, despite the modules being identical except for one or two lines.

We had a similar "gatekeepers" problem for several years in which two or three individuals had near-total control over MediaWiki namespace (where the CSS and JavaScript live), defying changes they didn't personally agree with – even when consensus was against them and when what they wanted produced WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems, WP:MOS rendering style conflicts, etc. Yet they remained convinced they were doing The Right Thing, mostly based on their subjective sense of what other websites have in their own house style, or (much worse) based on nothing but what WHATWG has browsers do by default (browsers made by members of that small consortium, anyway). One of them ended up just quitting the project after being overruled a few times, and this mostly brought the WP:CONLEVEL / WP:OWN / WP:VESTED] problem to an end at those pages (though the ability to just go change them willy-nilly has of course been locked down tighter with the InterfaceAdmin bit). But it should never have happened in the first place, and it's incrementally happening again in Module space. This will not do.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of an executive summary? Did you mention WT:Lua? It's likely that a request for technical assistance at WT:Lua (say to fix Module:Zh) would get a reasonably fast response. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be about multiple things. The extended discussion portion appears to be about how long it takes to get simple things done, but the first example did not appear to use an edit request template, and the second example used such a template, had an objection, and the objection was not responded to. In both cases, the onus is on the person who wants the change to draw attention to the change and to show consensus for the change.

As for some TemplateEditors are excessively wary about blame, I am absolutely one of those template editors who is wary of changes, and I do not consider wariness excessive in cases where I have never seen the template before, let alone seen it used, and where there are zero or limited testcases to illustrate the suggested change. Templates are often used in many pages, and changes can have unexpected effects. When an edit request appears on a template that I have never visited, and I see no discussion about the change other than the request, I am unlikely to make the change unless I trust the requester's reputation or the change is transparently harmless; as the editor making the change, I am responsible for the edit and its effects. Again, the onus is on the requester to do a bit of work beforehand. As someone who frequently responds to edit requests, I have found that it is the rare request that has been sandboxed and tested, let alone discussed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Given your comment above, as well as the high(er) number of watchers on this page, can someone please take a look at Template talk:Single-purpose account#Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019 - both sandboxed and tested --DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jonesey95, I understand the concern over blame, as looking at code that you aren't familiar with or a template that you don't know what it does, it is something hard to understand the overall impact of a change. If we look at the 2 current examples of template edit requests, one is following the guidelines on how to ask for one, while the other just mentions the issue, leaving the research work to whoever responds to the request. I also think that the resistance in creating a consistent coding style makes changing (and reading) other editors code even harder. --Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Gonnym: As a TE myself, I would suggest that the appropriate response when you are uncertain is to leave the edit request unanswered, so that someone more familiar with the template/module in question can address it later, rather than marking it answered but declined out of simply uncertainty/unawareness. There's a major meaningful difference between "I don't know" and "I'm certain this requires closer examination by the community". (This is a variant of the WP:IDONTKNOWIT principle.) Another solution, of course, is to actually find out – see how the template is used, how much it is used, what it is doing step-by-step in the code, what its talk page may say about why it is written the way it is, etc., etc. There's not really a rationale for "I don't know and refuse to bother to find out."  :-) I regularly resolve template editing requests by taking the time. Probably the majority of them have been at templates I wasn't intimately familiar with when I arrived at them. It's work, but it's one of the reasons this is an advanced user-right. Being a page-mover, file-mover, edit-filter-manager, or admin also generally entails judgement and direct experience, which are arrived at by effort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So, you proposing to get rid of any centralized hub where templates can be deleted or discussed? And admins will need to jump from one talk page to another one to find the specific discussion instead of just looking at a single page? What will happen with the holding cell? What will happen with archives as with this change there will be no way to just look at one page and read all discussion that happened on a particular date? Ruslik_Zero 08:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ruslik0 I'm not sure who this is in response to. The proposal here says the exact opposite of "get rid of any centralized hub where templates can be deleted or discussed"; rather, it's an aim to make TfD do this more broadly, as a centralized hub to at least find template/module discussions that are not only about deletions and mergers; TfD's more traditional functions would be completely unaffected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about a similar (if not the same problem) in that, because template editors are generally conservative (being one of them) because our templates and modules are usually highly-used, and the standard edit page requires an edit request, which requires a consensus, we do need some better way to generate input (not per se consensus). This is not a problem isolated to templates and modules however. All pages behind a protection have this issue as well. I regularly reject some proposed changes in the semi-protection queue as being inappropriate because they don't have consensus for change. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Izno Right. And the gist of this proposal is that we actually have a centralized protection/unprotection queue. This proposal is to have TfD serve, in part, a similar purpose for templates/modules changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

I think I'd have to see what this looks like. Are you thinking a section on each day's TFD page which is "Discussions started February 28" and then a bulleted list? I think that would be interesting/valuable, though it almost duplicates the template-protected edit table that AnomieBot does, it would allow for the kind of discussion I'm thinking. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there is far too much use of lua and [so I] go around TfDing modules. -- 3xpery - how obnoxious. It's a crusade and not good behavior for anything on Wikipedia. It's funny, on the one hand they say only a small number of people use Lua. But in reality more and more people are using Lua, and more Modules are being created all the time. To which they respond, there are too many Lua modules. It's crazy! -- GreenC 14:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GreenC as modules and templates that I write are a frequent target of Pppery's clean-up campaigns, I sympathise. However, for creation of articles, we have firmly established criteria of notability as the threshold required, but when it comes to templates and modules, there is virtually no bar on creation, and little consensus on standards or criteria for deletion or merging. I am sometimes guilty of thinking "I'll just knock up a solution to this in a module (or template)" with scant regard for what might already be available, thus increasing the proliferation of modules and templates. It's a truism that having built a better mouse-trap, nobody will be beating a path to your door if they don't know the mouse-trap exists.

I'd like to see solutions to the problems caused by the lack of policies on creating, naming, organising, merging and deleting modules and templates; and to the problem of organising and advertising what's currently available in the area. That will need a lot more discussion. --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GreenC, see also [[User:|Pppery]]'s own comments below. I think you're misreading and assuming the worst without evidence. Pppery isn't anti-Lua, but just shares a concern about unnecessary complication with insufficient discussion. Note that Pppery even defends the Lua-ization of Module:Yesno, one of my examples (though I wasn't actually criticizing that particular conversion, but rather the later forking of functionality between versions due to lack of cohesive discussion, the kind of thing this proposal would help resolve).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I actually do consider myself anti-Lua, but don't hold the extremist view that all Lua modules are bad. My position is that Lua modules should only exist if there is some specific reason that the code in question needs to be in Lua rather than Wikitext, and furthermore Lua modules should be generalized rather than focused on one specific case. Many Lua modules in existence fail these standards, and I then TfD them. But this is veering a bit off-topic from the proposal. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem of how few module coders there are is largely a problem about documentation and helping newcomers to code. The solution is to encourage new editors in the module namespace. It would not surprise me that some of those simple modules are made from users that are new to the module namespace. Very few users can just jump to the level of writing a complex module. Look at phabricator. There is a reason why bugs are marked as easy and suggested to new developers.

Many modules are used on multiple pages or are complex. Updating those is going to cause either many updates in the job queue or take a bit longer per page to update. Changing that practise is not going to happen, but I would welcome any well thought attempt to improve ways to generate input.--Snaevar (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snaevar: I don't agree that encouraging more editors in Module space is "the" solution. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not learn new general-purpose programming languages. While no one's going to be harmed by learning Lua, of course, it's not the point and doing so should not be an effective barrier to entry, or a discouragement, to helping determine consensus on what our templates are doing and why, from an editorial standpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Module:Yesno isn't an undesirable template fork, see Template talk:Yesno#Switch to lua. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, it supports "T" and "F" because CRwikiCA edit-requested that they be added in 2015 but never made a request to add them to the template. As to the general merit of the proposal, it seems like a reasonable idea (but may exasperate the template limit issues). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Stradivarius, the editor who declined the Template:Yesno request based on performance, isn't a editor[] who fanc[ies] [himself] a TemplateEditor candidate[], but rather an admin. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery:, I didn't suggest that all Lua conversions are undesirable (though someone above thinks you think they are!). Plenty of them are vast improvements, but as a general matter they need broader discussion than they've been getting. If we had a more efficient and inclusive process, then adding a feature to a module and its corresponding non-Lua template variants would be much more likely to be consistent, without depending on any single editor to "auto-know" that the variants exist; more brains in situ would likely ferret out other places to implement conforming changes. We also have a conflict involving WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:PROCESS: A consensus discussion is what it is; it's helpful process to centralize certain kinds of them to some extent (to get more eyeballs on them), but it's not helpful to treat a discussion as meaningless because a specific template wasn't used, or because a specific individual dropped out of the discussion. An idea should proceed or be rejected on its own merits, and this happens best when more editors are involved, which is what this proposal is about.

Side matters: The problem of people making bogus efficiency arguments is a general one; the fact that in one case someone who should know better did it doesn't affect the overall issue, and he was not the only one to raise the idea in discussions relating to YesNo. (Nor does being an admin confer technical knowledge automatically.) Let's not get hung up on nit-picks; this proposal is about an overall site-wide issue, not three particular cases.

PS: I'm not sure what "may exasperate the template limit issues" refers to in the context of the proposal as a whole; maybe that's actually about YesNo details?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion is currently very close to ending up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, and I've had to resort to several hacky fixes to keep it out of that category (see #Page Size Exceeded below). Adding even more content to it would make it harder to deal with that issue. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. I'll go over that other thread and catch up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. This is it right here: "Do we really need to be transcluding ALL tfds onto one page?" Obviously, the answer is "no" (WP:AFD and WP:CFD don't, and instead provide a by-day index; WP:MFD and WP:RFD do as TfD does, but they are comparatively quite short). I also have to observe that one proposed solution, "What about just a link to the currently open discussions?", is remarkably in line with my own proposal. TfD should be a way to get to discussions, like RM is, not a monolithic pile of entire discussions. It could also be by-day as AfD and CfD are; they're not mutually exclusive. RM includes the opening statements of each RM listing, since it's templated that way, and this is an idea worth considering for TfD, both as to what I'm proposing and perhaps as to its current "in house" deletion/merger discussions; or go ahead and display all the !voting for the within-TfD merge/delete threads, but not for those being, per this proposal, cross-referenced from other talk pages in Template_talk or Module_talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that there needs to be more of a connection between templates and modules in terms of discussions, deletions, etc., so to that extent I support the proposal.

It does concern me though that there's an "anti-Lua" flavour to some of the comments above. As one who works with both the template language and Lua, I am very aware that for complex problems, Lua is vastly easier to write and to maintain. Yes, you need to learn Lua, but it's much easier to read and write than the template language whenever the problem requires complex control statements. If you look back at the history of templates, they started off as a way of using "boilerplate text" and later developed into a poor quality programming language. Ingenious editors (Smith609 is a great example with the automated taxobox system) managed to use templates to do things they were never designed to do. But they always did them badly.

So we should be clear about the value of each approach. The template language is valuable for straightforward uses, such as those which avoid repeating text, with limited control logic involved. Use Lua for cases where complex if/then logic or repetition is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Page Size Exceeded

So we need to discuss the size of this page. Currently the page is landing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Pppery is doing a valiant effort trying to cut down the page size so that things will transclude properly, but in my opinion their solution (which they have self-described as a hack) is creating other problems. For example, edits like this. While yes that does cut down the size of the page, there is a reason that {{tfdl}} is used for template links on a TFD page. I think we need to look at other solutions. Do we really need to be transcluding ALL tfds onto one page? What about just a link to the currently open discussions? It should be noted that part of the reason this is coming up is that there is a group of us who are working to eliminate unused templates, so we are nominating a LOT of templates for discussion. In the coming weeks I predict a dramatic increase in the number of templates being discussed so I think we need to figure out a good long term solution. @Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: I'm sure you will all want to chime in here. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this specific iteration of the problem will likely go away when all the discussions on the same days as the very highly-attended infobox merge discussions near the bottom of the backlog are finally closed, but you are right about the general idea. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: gotcha. Well let me know. I appreciate you attempts to fix the issue. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: I'm going to have to strongly recommend you stop the hack you're doing as I just realized that it breaks XFDcloser from working correctly. When there are bulk nominations, that is particularly important. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

... just revert my edit when you try to close the nomination. The template limit issue is more pressing that what will happen days in the future. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, I endorse Pppery edits in log pages. But I think when TfD is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, we can use {{tl}} template in a mass templates nomination. When a closer is closing TfD, they should use {{tfd links}} temporarily. After closing, use {{tl}}. Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: that creataes a whole extra level of complexity for those of us closing these nominations. Now we have to go in and edit each nomination just to be able to close it? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: in essence what you are doing is saying that in order to facilitate the use of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion to view EVERY open nomination, you are going to restrict the ability of editors to use the TFDL links on every other nomination. If the pages are so big that they won't transclude, then go view the pages themselves. Don't restrict the content so that the entire page can be transcluded. Either way, I would ask that you please follow WP:BRD and now discuss this before making any additional changes that remove {{tfdl}} from pages. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, because this issue has been appeared last year, see last year this date page history. Oh, I forgot it! If log page is no longer transcluded in TfD (all nominations in this log page has been closed). Back to TfD links template Hhkohh (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, Also, there is a rare TfD case. See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Mass Fb team templates Hhkohh (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of this page and why it appears to transclude every TFD discussion. Would it be possible to "noinclude" sections with closed discussions on this page? That might help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, good idea! But no need to perform further action for now because TfD page is not in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded for now Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We had this problem over at WP:PR (see my documentation page). The solutions are (1) close more threads or (2) transclude less either via not including full text, or including full text partially with a size limit as we do over there. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed thi problem on many pages over the years. In this case the issue seems to be overly officious attempts to "clean-up" the template name-space. If you need the name of an existing unused template, then you have a case to delete it. And for some of the old redirects like {{Physics}} there may be a case for preemptively clearing the way. But a lot of the stuff people are trying to delete lives at names that are unlikely to be wanted. It would be more useful put the effort into categorizing these templates in case they are useful in the future, rather than into analysis of whether they are useful now (which I venture to suggest, many !voters don't actually do). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC).

One thought, @Evad37: could you possibly update XFDcloser so that it does not include |module=}} in every nomination? Obviously if the module link is needed it can be included, but removing it when not used would be great. Only saves 10 characters, but those will add up! See this diff for example... Many thanks in advance. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not an XFDCloser thing, that's a Template:Tfd2 thing (I wrote the code), and no that can't be easily done without re-duplicating all the code in the current implementation of Template:For loop. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, can we modify {{tfd top}} template? Like {{rfd top}} template, after closing the discussion, we only see a result summary instead of the whole discussion in WP:TfD Hhkohh (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That could in theory be done, but wouldn't resolve much of the problem, since open TfDs contribute more than closed TfDs. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it will resolve more. Try it! Although opening ones are more than closed ones. But why WP:RfD works well? Hhkohh (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, can you update the TfD top code? Thanks. BTW, now February 21 is excluded now Hhkohh (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think consensus is necessary for that change, and if it is done, the better solution would be to get AnomieBOT to #section-h the open discussions in the "Old discussions" section. Furthermore, I don't like the way RfD does it, because it is a hack that relies on Template:Rfd top producing unclosed wikimarkup. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, we also should modify {{tfd bottom}} as well to avoid unclosed wiki markup. Oh, WP:TFD/All is down now Hhkohh (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason is today TfD log is over 100+ nominations Hhkohh (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have borrowed format from CfD. Hope works well Hhkohh (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, I LOVE the current format of just linking to the last 7 days. A+++++ --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the problem is resolved now. What I would have suggested is <noinclude>-ing {{tfd links}}, and putting plain links in <includeonly> tags – or if there are a whole bunch in one nomiation, noinclude-ing all the tfd links except the top few, and putting something like "and 16 more, see [link to logpage discussion]" in the includeonly. - Evad37 [talk] 00:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's rather clever. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37 and Pppery:, good idea but if the mass TfD goes closed, we should back to previous version. Hhkohh (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

... although I personally think that when Zackmann08 finishes his unused-template-cleanup campaaign and the number of open nominations goes down, we should revert to the original method, except for the obvious change of not showing closed discussions that were opened on the same day as open ones. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ha Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: "Ha" how? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: I concur. Once the number of TFDs per day returns to a normal number, we should definitely revisit this. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• And now the elephant in the room. If there are so many TfD nominations that the main page can't load them all, then possibly, maybe, I guess, it might be the case that there are, well, too many TfD nominations. We do need volunteers to look at and comment on nominated templates. Or has the recent surge of nominations of unused templates been matched by an equal increase in the availability of editors willing to participate?. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it has become far too bureaucratic to nominate unused and hence unnecessary templates for deletion. If admins were willing to act rather than wait for discussion that either doesn't happen or takes a long while, the problem would diminish. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the "elephant in the room" comment is a bit out of place. From one side there was an objection of allowing unused templates to be speedy deleted, and now from the other that either don't nominate unused at all or just nominate less. Can't have it both ways and this is just the compromise we all have to make I guess. --Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

with so many open discussions, it's hard to get useful feedback, and we have situations like this one where the only additional comment is "keep", but the discussion closes as "delete". in the past, these would have been relisted. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Frietjes, in fairness that should have been relisted. Not really sure why the closer made that decision. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I think I need to agree with Primefac here. I'm happy to give my rationale if people are really interested, but at the end of the day I think I got a little overzealous here. Need to step back and be a bit more cautious with closing of TFDs, particularly because I am NOT an admin. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary level 3 headings

I don't wish to rock the stylistic boat but would there be support (or at best lack of objection) to me inserting some level three headings in the pages with more than 50 entries? It's very hard to scroll through the wikitext and risky to respond to all entries at once in case there's an edit conflict. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2 section 2

This would be an example of a heading I insert. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): 100% support! be WP:BOLD and do it. Definitely include a comment explaining what the heck it is for tho. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)