Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

RE: Andre de Toth[edit]

André de TothAndre de Toth (not by me), so how to change name of eponymous template?? {{André de Toth}} for consistency's sake (see discussion here). Thanks, Quis separabit? 23:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Roman Spinner. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thanks but shouldn't template ({{André de Toth}}) match page name? Yours, Quis separabit? 02:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC), {{André de Toth}} is a redirect to {{Andre DeToth}}, in exactly the same way that André de Toth is a redirect to Andre DeToth. I'm not sure what else you're wanting. Primefac (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: OK, got it. Sorry, my bad. Thanks. Quis separabit? 02:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Old TfD waiting to be closed[edit]

Hi there. Not sure if it's entirely appropriate to post this kind of comment here, but would someone with the ability to close down a TfD be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_8#Excess_Gospel_of_John.E2.80.93related_templates? There's a pretty clear consensus (IMHO) and non-closure is holding up improvements to an article. Thanks either way. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan, please be patient. There are a lot of old TFDs waiting to be closed, and (I'm guessing) since it's summer time we're a little short on TFD staff. It will be looked at in due time.
As a slightly OTHERSTUFF point, having a two-week old TFD is relatively minor, compared to the months-old discussions we had a while ago... Primefac (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
On the bright side, it appears we recently doubled our TfD staff with the return of another editor who closed TfDs in the past and has returned to doing so every once in a while. On the not-so-bright side, that was doubling from one to two. We're always short-staffed. In any event, I'll take a look. ~ Rob13Talk 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Do you mind if I delete User:Jujutsuan/Content of John COPY? There are attribution issues with such a copy-paste move. I can userfy the template if the consensus is to delete it (which I'm still assessing). ~ Rob13Talk 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Thanks, Rob. I hope I didn't come across as too impatient. Sure, please delete and userfy (the right way). (Is "userfication" something a non-admin can do properly on their own?) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Userfication is something anyone can do so long as they're autoconfirmed, but you really shouldn't do it outside of a XfD outcome. It's more-or-less equivalent to deleting something from one of the "outward-facing" namespaces, which should have consensus. I wound up not userfying this due to attribution requirements; see my close for an explanation of how the template should be handled given the requirements for attribution. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I've made a preliminary merge of the template's content into the Gospel of John article, and redirected the template to the page with a {{r with history}} tag. If you see any issues with the way I did this, please let me know. Thanks again. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)

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)