Template talk:Relist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.


Creepy! I wrote the exact same thing and put it in my own template, located here. That's scary! :( Mo0[talk] 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest using {{relist|~~~~}} or {{subst:relist|~~~~}}. r3m0t talk 22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


I am the obligatory guy who doesn't like the recent changes. Do we really need to lose the color emphasis? I don't see the problem with the coloring being there. --W.marsh 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind some colour but I too found the red a bit over-emphatic. - brenneman{L} 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new layout[edit]

I suggest this:

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

--Ezeu 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what else can I do but assume that "silence means consent". --Ezeu 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

#CC6600 and the line[edit]

I'm not too nuts about the color, #REDIRECT #CC6600, though. It looks kind of washed-out to me. A think a darker color, a dark red or blue or green or whatever. But anyway, can we not have a line above the text? It helps to separate the two sections of discussion, does it not? Herostratus 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Associate this template with a category?[edit]

Could this template, like stub templates, automatically list the AFD page in a category to be created, named Category:Relisted articles for deletion. The idea would be to focus attention on relisted AFDs as being more urgent than the other ones. Of course, there is no deadline, but it seems like a decent idea to this uninformed soul. YechielMan 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in that. No AFD is any more or less urgent than others. — CharlotteWebb 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just came here to ask about this. I would support adding a category. It would make it easier to find discussions that would most benefit from having another, neutral, voice. -- kenb215 talk 04:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I just reverted RHMED's change to a pinkish hue on the text. I'm not opposed to changing the color (I thought it was fine as it, but I'm not exactly in love with it), but I'm not sure about that particular choice. Can I suggest something more along the lines of Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. or Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.? I figure we should stay away from red and blue to avoid confusion--the pink color kind of makes it look like a clicked redlink. Incidentally, I sourced these colors from here. --jonny-mt 07:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The pinkish hue was Cerise, I think a change would be refreshing. The current chocolate colour is a bit dull and washed out looking. Have a look at the List of colors, there's got to be one better than the chocolate. RMHED (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the orange the best, but I don't like the pink. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Which shade of orange? I quite like the this one, it's called persimmon. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I could go with an orange shade; the persimmon is nice, but there's also international orange or pumpkin. --jonny-mt 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
International Orange would be very appropriate I think. RMHED (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
International orange it is! Unless, of course, anyone has any objections. --jonny-mt 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the new orange ^_^ Wizardman 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No! The bikeshed must be bright purple with yellow polka dots! —harej (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I have decided to add a category for this template. Here is why. My bot produces a list of relisted AfDs; however, since {{relist}} has to be substituted on each AfD, I cannot simply poll Special:Whatlinkshere for all the relisted AfDs. Instead, my bot has to load every single open AfD, and at any given time, several hundred of them are open. This category will allow the template to be substituted and it will put less of a strain on the servers. —harej (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

wish for header level[edit]

I think it would be nice if this template included a heading level so that further edits can be more easily added below the notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

17:27, 27 August 2009 MrKIA11 (talk | contribs) (685 bytes) (Undid revision 310338709 by SmokeyJoe (talk) - creates wierd blank headers on AfD page. reach consensus before changing template) (undo)
OK. It did look a bit weird, and I suppose you often do want to read others' comments while composing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Red text for "Relisted" link[edit]

I am not really content with this, largely because it looks like a red-link. I am assuming the intent is to make it stand out as a link, but isn't there a more visually appealing way of doing this? @harej 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


I came across {{Lorem Ipsum list}} embedded in the template. I was quite puzzled by it as it was numerous lines of latin that didn't seem to be serving any particular function. I did a little search on what exactly it was and it appears to be some sort of joke:

It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using 'Content here, content here', making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for 'lorem ipsum' will uncover many web sites still in their infancy. Various versions have evolved over the years, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose (injected humour and the like).

Anyway, I checked the talk page and not a note of it here, so I thought I'd ask. Mkdwtalk 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both occurrences were encased in <noinclude></noinclude> tags, so it didn't really need to get removed. I believe the only reason it was present at all was to show how the template would appear with text around it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. I've restored it. Mkdwtalk 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Lorum ipsumTheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


I have often seen inexperienced editors restate their !votes below the line. Can we add something along the lines of "Opinions above this notice should not be restated, they are part of the full discussion" to guide them? It costs us nothing to do this apart from a small discussion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Optional comments[edit]

I have added a field for optional comments on relists. I envision this as being used for cases where some explanation may be necessary about why the discussion is being relisted. I see this as being more useful in FFD and such rather than AFD, as I've had to procedurally relist things on FFD many times in the past because it was de-tagged on the description page and what have you.

The only thing that I couldn't figure out is how to make the signature appear in different places depending on whether or not the comment is being used. I would think it would be best to have the signature appear next to the comment if the comment is used, but if not, the comment should appear where it always has. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Accidental use in articles[edit]

Is it worth adding a check for mainspace with an error message "Did you mean to use {{Reflist}}?". I've just fixed three articles using {{Relist}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


@Technical 13, your edit removed the whitespace padding czar  00:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduced point size[edit]

I've thought about this for awhile, so I have boldly resized the point size for the first sentence in the template to 96%. This will serve to reduce the visual impact of the relist template's layout on AfD pages and log pages, so it's still easily noticed, but not overbearing on those pages. NorthAmerica1000 13:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Of note is that when a relister adds a comment, it still appears in standard point size despite the reduction of the first sentence sizing (example link). This is beneficial to ensure that said comments stand out in the discussion, formatted in the same point size as other commentary in discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)