Template talk:Rfc

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rfc template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 365 days

On 13 February 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved to Template:RfC. The result of the discussion was to be moved to Template:Request for comment.

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please adopt the sandbox version which makes this change adding a wikilink to the closing instructions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could a shortcut parameter be please added for use for large site-wide RfCs that have a dedicated shortcut? I have provided the necessary code in the sandbox. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you have indeed sandboxed your proposal, you have not demonstrated it at the testcases page. However, it's a fair suggestion on the face of it, but

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Sorry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking without my admin hat) I see two problems with this. First, the shortcut anchor will exist only for as long as the RfC remains open; when the {{rfc}} tag is removed the anchor will vanish as well. We have a number of closed RfCs which have shortcuts that are effectively permanent (see for example WP:ENDPORTALS, WP:MOSNUM/RFC, WP:UP/RFC2016) and these use a normal shortcut box without problem. Second, Legobot (talk · contribs) (which maintains the lists of open RfCs) is known to choke if it encounters parameters in the {{rfc}} tag that it is not expecting, so please ensure that Legoktm (talk · contribs) is willing to amend the bot before implementing any additional parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose's first point seems to be a major pitfall of this proposal. Shortcuts are probably better done separately using the shortcut template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: to be moved to Template:Request for comment. To be moved once necessary code change is done. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfc → Template:RfC – According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this is the correct capitalization. A redirect should be left, and the old title can be used as usual by bots, scripts, humans, etc. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. Wikipedia:Requests for comment also uses 'RfC'. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Correct capitalisation, a bit like AfD vs Afd. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative move to {{Wikipedia request for comment}}, and use the 3LAs as shortcuts instead; it will give the template a proper name -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work, unless you can persuade Legoktm (talk · contribs) to amend Legobot. This is because Legobot searches for two opening braces directly followed by the three letters "rfc", case-insensitive. Anything else, and the RfC will simplay be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it should support {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}} then? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}}, title is repetitive and over-descriptive. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Pull requests welcome. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what would you say about my suggestion of {{Wikipedia request for comment}} ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion and really don't care. Legoktm (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: move to Template:Request for comment. Template:Afd was moved to Template:Article for deletion in 2010, and Template:Requested move appears to have always existed under this title. In either case, the templates' name typically are (and should be) the same as actual process name, with obvious shortcuts like Afd, Rm, Rfc, etc. existing for ease. In fact, I believe that we should also consider titling most of these processes such that the same title is used for the connected Wikipedia/Help/Template/Category namespaces. Again, obvious and appropriate shortcuts and redirects will continue to exist. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: I refer you to my post of 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I mean, he did invite pull requests right? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you write the appropriate change to the bot's code and test it satisfactorily, Legoktm will incorporate it. Otherwise, it's no-go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with no preference regarding Template:Request for comment. Sure. I can tweak the code and open a PR if consensus is determined that this is the preference. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support full name "Request for comment", consistent with how Template:Article for deletion and Template:Requested move are titled. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support First choice: Template:Request for comment if coding can be updated, second choice as proposed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer
Since this request hasn't been closed yet, I wish to ask the closer that if they close this discussion as consensus to move. They please don't move this right away but wait until the bot's code is changed accordingly. Those two actions will probably need to be coordinated for a flawless transition. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}\|_contribs) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please sync with Template:rfc/sandbox per MOS:BLANKALT. I also removed redundant code preventing Template:Rfc itself from being categorized because the code in question is already in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags. Thanks! House Blaster^talk 22:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done SWinxy (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated icons in sandbox

I updated the sandbox to use the OOUI/Codex icons, as well as tweaked the wording. If this looks good then maybe I will open an edit request to get the icons changed. Awesome Aasim 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]