Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page 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.
WikiProject Templates
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Templates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Closure script[edit]

Are there any scripts to semi-automate the closure process? Like User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js instead of User:Doug/closetfd.js (which only works when editing a single section?) The backlog's not too bad right now, but having such a tool would help czar 19:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Czar, in one word, no. The Earwig is working on one, but it's been stalled for a while, so Doug's script is about as good as it gets at the moment. I try not to bug 'em too much about it, but I know what you mean with potential backlogs (closed 30 identical TFDs the other day... not fun). Primefac (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've recently made a script to close FFD discussions, so I thought I'd take a look at making one for TFD. After reviewing the WP:TFDAI instructions, I think it will be possible to code the following options into a script:

Extended content
  • Single template discussions:
Use for: Keep, or other close that will result in the template being kept (e.g. Redirect, No Consensus)
Details: Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result & rationale (and {{NAC}} if non-admin); adds {{Old TfD}} to template talkpage; removes {{Template for discussion/dated}} or {{Tfm/dated}} from template
Use for: Keep, when no further rationale is required
Details: Same as [keep/other], but instead of prompting, just uses "Keep" as the result/rationale
Use for: Delete, or other close that will result in the template being deleted (e.g. Review, Convert, Substitute)
Details (admins): Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result & rationale; prompts for which holding cell section to use, or "delete now"; If a holding cell section is selected: adds {{tfdl}} to that holding cell section, and replaces {{Template for discussion/dated}} or {{Tfm/dated}} with {Being deleted} (<noinclude>'d); If "delete now" selected: performs delete action, using a link to the TFD discussion as the reason
Details (non-admins): Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result, rationale, and {{NAC}}; prompts for which holding cell section to use; adds {{tfdl}} to that holding cell section; replaces {{Template for discussion/dated}} or {{Tfm/dated}} with {{Being deleted}} (<noinclude>'d)
Use for: Delete, when no further rationale is required
Details: Same as [delete/other], but instead of prompting, just uses "Delete" as the result/rationale. Will still prompt for a holding cell section or (if admin) "delete now"
Details: Prompts for optional relist comment; relists discussion on current day's TFD subpage; closes original discussion as "Relist" and collapses that discussion; updates {{Template for discussion/dated}} or {{Tfm/dated}} on template
  • Multiple template discussions:
[keep/other], [quick-keep]
Same as for single template discussion, iterating through each template and template talkpage
[delete/other], [quick-delete]
Same as for single template discussion, iterating through each template (but only makes a single edit to the holding cell for all the templates)
[other close]
Use for: Closes which require different actions for one or more of the templates listed at the discussion (e.g. Merge, Delete some but keep others)
Details: Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result/rationale; opens each template so that further manual action can be undertaken.
Same as for single-template discussion, iterating through each template

How does that sound? (Pinging @Czar and Primefac: ) - Evad37 [talk] 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! The regulars will see your post and respond, but the better the tools → the more time spent on other jobs czar 06:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar and Primefac:, and other TFD closers: My new script is ready for testing! See documentation at User:Evad37/TFDcloser, and use User talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js to report any unexpected occurrences or provide other feedback. - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Crosspost of requested move[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Tfm about expading the name of that template. Pppery (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude>[edit]

In the listing instructions there's the following sentence on the use of <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags:

  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.

However, prior to a bold edit from 2011, which was explained on the talk page but which didn't receive any feedback, the relevant bit used to read:

  • If placed directly into the nominated template, consider using <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc.

I'm proposing to incorporate the two versions into:

  • Consider adding Add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if the template is designed to be substituted, or if the notice is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc.

This is intended to address concerns raised during discussions from April 2014, December 2014 and January 2015, as well as this recent TfD. Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I find no objections to this. Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the instructions does not mean that it hasn't been done dozens of times in recent history for inline templates being nominated. That seems to be a ridiculously huge argument about a trivial policy, and so it should be added (if only to stop the bickering). Primefac (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I also have no objections to such a proposal, but If this is accepted (which I now oppose), I think the proper procedure is |type=disabled, rather than <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Pppery (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Pppery, why would that be? The end result is the same, and <noinclude>...</noinclude> is widely-known (while "disabled" may not be). Genuinely curious, mind you. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: To me, <noinclude>...</noinclude> seems like a technical hack that is only necessary for substituted templates and it's use elsewhere makes the tfd/tfm templates not self-conatined. Pppery (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Support change. If common sense needs to be written down to avoid this in future, then I guess it needs to be written down. --Begoontalk 18:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Support per my comments on the TFD. If the template is a big freestanding template like a navbox the notification is fine, but if it is one designed to be placed in the body of text like {{Angle bracket}} it can quickly ruin articles. Pinguinn 🐧 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Placing <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the tfd notice is essential for a template which has the slightest chance of being substituted. Altering this to "Consider adding <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice" makes it seem optional. Encouraging the use of <noinclude>...</noinclude> around tfd notices on non-substituted templates goes against several previous discussions here and elsewhere; TfD has few enough participants as it is, hiding the notices will be counterproductive. We would be more likely to get complaints along the lines of "Hey! I often used that template - why was it deleted without telling us?" --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. I've now changed the wording above to reflect your concern about substitution. As for the proposal going against previous discussions, would you be able to provide links to some of them? On a side note, the proposed new wording makes it clear that the <noinclude> tags are to be employed only to prevent disruption on widely used templates, but I'm starting to wonder if TfD notices on any transcluded pages are reaching their intended audience. They're meant for editors who have previously used the template, right? But adding the notice isn't going to show up as an edit on any of the articles that the template is transcluded on, and it won't get to the watchlists of people who've edited these articles. Instead, it will reach the people who happen at the time to be reading the articles. What are the chances that this group would include the editor who placed the template there sometime in the past? Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    Mostly they were on TfD discussion pages, or on the talk pages for the templates that were at TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: I'm not sure I got what you said with that, would you be able to clarify? What does they refer to? Is that the notices? Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    "They" are the links requested in the sentence "As for the proposal going against previous discussions, would you be able to provide links to some of them?"; but of course you are aware of several others, having linked to them in your introductory comment, paragraph beginning "This is intended to address concerns". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't know what statement is the best, but please don't make the Tfm and similar templates visible in the articles where the nominated templates are included!!! Now, the Template:CatalogueofLife species has a Tfm template, and this is visible in every page where the template is used, like Ligdia adustata. Remember that Wikipedia is read by a lot of people that doesn't know anything about its mechanisms, and if Wikipedia is clear, easy to read and effective, they may love it and decide to contribute. The Tfm template visible is every article is a fist in an eye even for me, and I'm a quite experienced Wikipedia editor, I think for a simple reader it would be very unpleasant. Fornaeffe (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this discussion be a formal WP:RFC? Pppery (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    Only if we can't come to a reasonable decision in a reasonable amount of time. If everyone agrees, why start an RFC? Primefac (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Primefac: Well, someone disagrees. Pppery (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    Their concerns were valid, and I see that they've mostly been addressed. They haven't replied to the new wording so it might be acceptable to them. For the record, I agree that noinclude should be used only if it is disruptive, such as for {{braket}}. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    No, Primefac, only one of Redrose64's two concerns were addressed. Uanfala's changes to the wording did nothing to address his second concern - that very few people participate in TfDs and hiding the notice is thus counterproductive. By the way, could you please stop changing stars to colons when replying to me. Pppery (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    Few people participate in TFD even with huge notices plastered all over, so I don't think any change is going to affect that. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Redrose64's second argument. This proposed change is opening loopholes that allow the entire point of the {{tfm/dated}} (and {{Template for discussion/dated}}) templates to be circumvented. The fact that <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing is even in the instructions at all is a technical hack that is required for substed templates and should be dropped (see my counter-proposal below), not expanded to allow use in other cases. Pppery (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Your counter-proposal simplifies one aspect of current practice (which is great) but it doesn't at all address the main issue at hand, and that is preventing further pointless large-scale disruptions. As for my proposal allowing for the circumvention of the entire point of {{tfm/dated}}, could you explain how this is going to happen? The template notice will still be visible on the template page, as well as on the transcluded pages if it doesn't cause disruption. Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    That was intentional. I was not trying to address the main issue in that proposal. To respond to your arguments about large-scale disruption, The entire point of the tfm notice is to display on articles. <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing it makes it not display on articles. Therefore, <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing circumvents the entire point of the templates. Some people, such as Fornaeffe (as shown above), and Mykhal (as shown on my talk page) dislike the display of TfM notices on articles and could thus use this proposed wording as a loophole to allow them to be noincluded. Pppery (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. But the tfm notice appears both on the template and on the pages it's transcluded on. Besides, the proposal for noincluding is only for cases of likely disruption, and most TfDs won't be eligible. On a side note, I'm finding your reasoning a bit odd: should we really allow the encyclopedia to get trashed in the name of preserving one aspect of a single template's function. Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    So, Pppery, from this discussion:

    I see the {{tfm/dated}} template has been made smaller, but that doesn't significantly improve things. A sample disruption in a ref in List of Sweet Blue Flowers chapters: "[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See Tfm›]]⟨NOISE⟩青い花[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See Tfm›]]⟨メディア工房⟩" [[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See Tfm›]]⟨NOISE⟩ Sweet Blue Flowers [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See Tfm›]]⟨Media Studio⟩] (in Japanese). Fuji TV. Retrieved July 13, 2009.  URL–wikilink conflict (help)Eru·tuon 17:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

    Do you believe that disruption like that to articles is acceptable because of a back-room discussion about maybe merging a template? Disruption that is far more likely to affect ordinary readers than anyone likely to comment on the merger. Read the comments from Bishonen, Jonesey95, Mr. Granger, Erutuon and others in that discussion to understand the scale of disruption to reader facing content this caused. --Begoontalk 16:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    You have presented a very real issue, Begoon and Erutuon, which is that the tfm/tfd notice wikilinks don't work in external link titles. The proper way to fix that, however, is to add a CSS class to the output produced by {{tfm/dated}} and {{template for discussion/dated}} templates and then add a .whatever {display:none;} to MediaWiki:Common.css, rather than suppress the output of the entire TfD template just for the sake of one miniscule exception. Pppery (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    This technical hack looks like a good idea generally but that's a solution to the wrong problem. The real issue isn't that the tfm template breaks links, but that, if it's used on inline templates that are used many times in an article, it makes marmalade out of the text.
    Now, if we are so desperate to advertise tfd discussions on all transcluded pages, then the proper solution would be to have all such notices appear once in an article, probably as a single maintenance template notice at the top. Uanfala (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    And this is the place where we're just going to disagree. The tfm template was malfunctioning in the case of appearing in link titles, which lead to my proposed fix above. This "real issue" is not a bug. The tfm template is working as intended. It should be showing up on articles. It is. Pppery (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    To summarize my position here, noincluding should never be necessary or even allowed. Each issue that requires it should be fixed case-by-case, not with a blanket hiding of the notice. My counter-proposal below fixes one issue, and my previous comment above fixes another. These should be adopted, rather than all-out hiding the notice. Pppery (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    If the broken link is the only issue you see in that example then I despair. That's just one reference, from one article. The transclusion of the notice for {{Angle bracket}} mashed the text of many articles horribly, because it is used inline, for formatting. This is unacceptable for a maintenance notice. The encyclopedia is written for readers, and should never be broken like this to ineffectually "advertise" some technical back-room discussion. --Begoontalk 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal - make technical changes to the templates and drop the noincluding entirely[edit]

It is technically possible to implement the tfd/tfm template system so that they don't need to be noincluded when the template they are used on is substituted. I am making a counter-proposal to wrap the output of {{subst:tfm}} and {{subst:tfd}} in {{{{{|safesubst:}}}ifsubst||...}} and drop the clause about noincluding these templates entirely. Pppery (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that works, how does that address the issue raised in this section, which was avoiding disruption to articles by addition of notices to transcluded inline templates, as in the linked cases? It seems like a solution to a different problem, not an alternative. --Begoontalk 15:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Begoon, It was really more of a counter-proposal that an alternative. Pppery (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. In that case I think it would be a fine thing to do, if feasible - but separate to the discussion above about using <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags or possibly |type=disabled for potentially disruptive inline notice transclusions. Thanks for clarifying. --Begoontalk 15:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move crosspost[edit]

I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of deletion discussion templates. The discussion it at Template_talk:Cfd-notify#Requested move 21 August 2016 Pppery (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Increasing participation[edit]

One recurring theme throughout previous discussions is the problem of low participation at TfD. There are probably several underlying causes for this state of affairs so there isn't going to be a one-shot solution, but I think one indication that we could see is that the current system for notifying possible participants is probably not working completely as intended. Can we use the current thread to brainstorm ideas about possible ways of improvement? Please feel free to add subthreads of your own. Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Project tags on templates. I had a look yesterday at the TfDs from 16 and 18 August and there were 38 open ones. In 21 cases the template concerned (or at least one of the templates, if it was a multi-nomination), had a WikiProject tag on its talk page. The remaning 17 templates didn't have a project tag. Of the discussions for the tagged ones, 75% saw participation from editors other than the nominator. The corresponding percentage for untagged templates was almost half of that at 40%. That's a big difference. And although there are certainly other factors involved (for example, more widely used templates have higher chances of getting tagged and, independently of that, are also more likely to have more watchers and hence a larger pool of potential TfD participants.), I think we have a strong correlation. And given that a little over half of the templates I surveyed were tagged, there's something to be done on this front. Should we somehow incorporate tagging into the workflow? Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Notifying editors who use the template. That's probably far-fetched, but I'm wondering if there isn't a way of tracking down the editors who have used a given template, and then posting on the talk pages of a sample of them using some sort of RfC-style notification process. I imagine that tools like the article blamer could be harnessed to help with that, but I don't really know if ultimately this is going to be technically feasible. Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)