Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Oldest holding cell inmate

The oldest entry in the holding cell is:

Which was closed almost two and half years ago. Surely we can put this to bed, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring, Andy. The merge effort is being coached by Frietjes, who has built a cooperative relationship with WP:NFL and WP:CFB. She has already made preliminary modifications of the coach infobox to facilitate the merge, but there will likely be significant changes to the template based on the input of WP:NFL members before the merge is completed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
THank you. Please provide a link(s) to the relavant discussion(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see Frietjes' talk page; there is also a preliminary discussion of required changes among WP:NFL members in my user sandbox space. If you would like to participate in a discussion about which current parameters should be removed or restricted in order to reduce the often ridiculously long sues of this infobox, please feel free to do so. If you want to understand the evolving thinking of long-time sports editors regarding player infoboxes, there are also a series of related and enlightening discussions on the talk page of WP:NBA.
As one other editor succinctly stated the fundamental issue: "WP:IBX encourages keeping infobxes as small as possible. 'When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.' Too often fields are added in an infobox to compensate for laziness in finding the proper location in prose."
IMHO, those are words of wisdom to live by, and rooted in the text of the infobox guidelines. If you internalize that, you will understand why I believe that the amalgamation/consolidation of related but distinctly different templates, with an ever wider variety of optional parameters, is often a bad idea. Sometimes amalgamation/consolidation via TfM makes perfect sense; sometimes it contributes to cruft and unnecessarily long infoboxes contrary to IBX's fundamental design principles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But not all parameters of these consolidated infoboxes are meant to be used in any one article. There often are separate examples and code samples for each of the infobox's uses in the documentation, as with {{Infobox officeholder}}. Alakzi (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Alakzi, I'm aware of that; the problem is that a simple consolidation and the simple versions of the so-called "wrappers" do not prevent the importation of inappropriate parameters into the wrong use. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple, designing for actual users, and giving them the right menu from which to choose. For every simple "wrapper" with which I have ever worked, I have witnessed newbies, IPs or OCD users attempt to import parameters from the master template which were never intended for the particular use. I think the quoted part of the WP:IBX guideline above contemplates this. We have created versions of various infoboxes that include 40+ individual datapoints in actual use and sometimes run 18+ screen inches. Not only is it horrible layout and design from a graphics perspective, it's also directly contrary to one of the fundamental infobox design principles of the guideline as written. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Please provide links to those discussions, as I requested a month ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted that, after almost two months, no links have been provdied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to move forward on this, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we gong to resolve this, before its third anniversary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Merge of Infobox NFL coach. Alakzi (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: (Belated response) Thanks, I saw it. It makes no difference. What next?
The single stumbling block appears to be the formatting of the career sections. The coach infobox uses numbered parameters, split between teams and years, while the player infobox uses lists. Alakzi (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Can't that be fixed in the player template, as done elsewhere, then the two be merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: It can, if people could decide which format they'd prefer to use. Alakzi (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, because the NFL player template is designed to use plainlist coding for the team histories, which as you know is simpler and more flexible than having two defined/numbered fields for every coaching job (one for team and a second for tenure). We're not interested in a new layout/design. Let's work with the preferred layout and design that's in place on over 14,000 existing uses for players, coaches and administrators. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So then, I assume we can do away with the coach format. Alakzi (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly right: the existing double-field entry for the coaches was never going to survive the merge. This was one of the problems I pointed out three years ago. None of the "merge" advocates had a quick solution to fact that you couldn't (or shouldn't) simply cut and paste the two different formats -- defined fields for the coach template, and plainlist for players -- into a single template. Doing it correctly either required a semi-sophisticated script / bot action, or a lot of manual editing. I did a few dozen of them manually at the time -- 15 to 30 minutes each. In any event, we should not impose a new data entry format on 14,000+ existing uses in order to facilitate a "merge" (really a replacement) of the 300-odd coach infoboxes. That would be exactly backwards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a wrapper in the sandbox dating from February, which converts the career parameters to lists. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
A large number of parameters appear to be missing from the player infobox. Could you please review the code in the sandbox? Alakzi (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Frietjes did say she was working on it, and then we were . . . uh, distracted by other issues. Ideally, the coach wrapper should not use all of the available optional player parameters, but would emphasize those parameters that are coach-specific. Otherwise, you wind up with one of these ridiculously long infoboxes that runs 18 to 24 vertical inches and duplciates every conceivable datapoint from the text. I'll see what she did. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal follow-up

Following the close of the above RfC, is there still interest in working out a trial implementation of the alternative proposal above? That would constitute

  1. Allowing non-admins to close TfDs that would currently result in an uncontroversial "delete" outcome as "orphan".
  2. Allowing the orphaning of the template to proceed without admin action.
  3. Working out a mechanism for the orphaned template to be tagged and deleted via CSD.

In this thread that Alakzi started on my talk page, I suggested setting up a sort of "log mode" procedure in which the orphaned templates are listed in a new section of the holding cell by date of orphaning and deleted by admins after four days without objections. If this is effective at reducing the backlog (or moves the backlog to the holding cell), and doesn't generate a lot of disputed closes, this observation can be used as evidence in support of a proposed CSD T4 to apply to templates orphaned for four days [following a TfD with an "orphan" outcome].

I mentioned in the talk page thread a few issues with how to make use of the four-day delay period, which IMO is the sticky part of this proposed workflow. (I think it is unnecessary, which may be why I have trouble seeing how to organize it.) My concerns are:

  1. The process for objecting to an "orphan" close and successfully forestalling deletion while the objection is being handled is currently undefined.
  2. It's unclear whether an admin should use the same procedure - closing TfDs as "orphan" and allowing a four-day delay, rather than the current "delete". On the one hand, this is slower. On the other hand, consistency among closes is desirable.

The oldest extant TfDs right now are from July 4, so there's about a month of backlog. Running a trial for a month then seems like a reasonable idea, if there is interest in doing so.

To gauge interest in pursuing this further or not, and get comments on managing the delay period, pinging proposer Monty845; alternative proposal commenters Jc86035, Alakzi, Dirtlawyer1, Nabla, Tavix, Bilorv, Ivanvector, Kephir; admins currently active in TfD closings Northamerica1000, The Earwig, and Plastikspork if interested; others who have commented on this RexxS, Pigsonthewing. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we just close TfDs as and when we deem it sensible to do so. No admin bit is required to do so, and - on reflection - the above RfC should never have been started. We should just be bold. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Some cursory thoughts: I think admins should be able to delete immediately because (a) passing an RfA shows people have trusted them with the delete button and (b) the fact that it's faster and more convenient outweighs any negative effects from less consistency. As for the delay period, I don't really think it's necessary – I also supported the original proposal – but getting rid of it would seem to go against the consensus expressed in the RfC. "Objecting" during the delay period could be as simple as just removing the [CSD/whatever] template (similar to how PRODs work), followed by the outlining of the reasons for objection on the template's talk page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole situation frustrates me. I don't understand how this proposal is any better than the original (which I support, for the record). That one works on existing infrastructure already in place in the holding cell: NAC on the main TFD, move to holding cell, admin deletes when done. It's straightforward, and honestly I wouldn't object if non-admins acted that way currently. This proposal requires an entirely new CSD and extra admin review with a four-day wait time, with a possibility for objection. Why? People already had time to object during the TFD, and WP:DRV exists for a reason. While I might support a CSD T4 to be used outside of TFD (and I'm not sure about that; it needs further discussion anyway), that's not what this is proposal is about. Instead, it shifts the admin burden from watching TFDs to responding to CSDs that will require (arguably, more) review. I wish we could get more admins watching this process who could close discussions with clear delete consensus that require significant post-closure cleanup (which is really what this is all about), but if we consider that impossible, and this is the only process formulation that people will support, I guess I can go along with it. — Earwig talk 08:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There are LOTS of stuff to get done on TfD's holding cell, There are templates pending deletion / merging for years (!) there. What is the point in closing obvious discussions, which given they are obvious will get closed quickly anyway by some passing by admin (maybe one like me, that takes a look there only a couple times a month); while there is work needing dedicated attention waiting or a long time? - Nabla (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The point is that one does not preclude the other. HTH. Alakzi (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Your assertion "given they are obvious will get closed quickly anyway by some passing by admin" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No it is not. I do it, so I know. Note that by "quickly" I mean that the closure does not take much time to assess (i.e. the ones at discussion here). Yes, sometimes they are some days late, but I fail to understand what is the hurry. And there is a relatively simple way to be able to get deletions done, become an admin (I understand that RfA may be stressfull, and is possibly too demanding, but if one can not cope with a few questions, are they ready to be responsible for closing discussions?) - Nabla (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not too surprising that the template someone wanted to delete last week is more salient than the one they wanted to merge six weeks ago. Right now it's not 'some days' late; it's weeks.
          The idea that there are experienced editors who are not yet 'ready' to close unanimous discussions seems, well, implausible. If there's a problem (a backlog) and a solution (willing non-admin closers), then it's rather pointless to reject the solution because other unsolved problems (like the holding cell backlog, or the fact that RfA is a dumpster fire) still exist. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • In that case, your argument was irrelevant. The amount of time a closure takes is not the issue. The recent and current backlog, and thus the inordinate amount of time it takes for a closure to happen, after a discussion has ended, is. As for RfA, these days, being a mere "few questions", you're kidding, right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
        • No I am not kidding, yes there may be quite more than a few questions, it is not one of the places I visit often, almost not at all, really. But if RfA is broken - and I believe in you and many others, plus the litlle I see, that it is - than RfA needs fixing, the solution can not be getting quasi-admins while circumventing RfA. - Nabla (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
          • As has been explained repeatedly, even Opabinia's chat would've been able to assess uncontroversial delete TfDs. I've closed many keep and no consensus TfDs, many of which controversial, and nobody's batted an eye; but, oh no, God forbid we close obvious deletes, or we're being power-hungry quasi-admin underworldlings, because reasons. Alakzi (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I have not accused you of anything, so please do not put words in my mouth (or fingers :-). Who is "we", that want to close TfD's? If you mean everyone then I do not think it is a good idea, a free-for-all wiki will likely become a mess in no time. If it is you, and a few more, and if you have been closing several TfD without complaints, I insist, why not try a RfA? Is it that much harder than trying to change a long standing not very likely to be changed policy? Really. I usually do not look at RfAs, but if you go for it I'll take a look at yours. - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
              • I was exaggerating for comedic effect; and to make a point. No, not everyone will be closing TfDs; there's a natural barrier to entry - though assessing the consensus is straightforward, the closing instructions are esoteric and the procedure can be quite complex. (Actually, before I started closing TfDs in January, I believe non-admin closures were very infrequent here.) I'd never be elected an admin for a number of reasons, none of which infringe on my ability to close TfDs. Non-admin delete closures have now become the norm at TfD, a precedent has been established, and the policy has in effect been reformed. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten TFD - Template:Endoscopy

Would some kind administrator mind closing the discussion (or relisting if appropriate) the TFD for Template:Endoscopy, listed on August 8th?

Link is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_8#Template:Endoscopy

Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap

{{recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Style of "relisted" banner

I find the top & bottom borders of "relisted" notices intrusive, and have modelled an alternative here (compare the following section, which is also relisted. What do folk think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: non-admin closure of own nomination

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against closing a TFD by an involved editor, except in rare situations. The majority discussion centred around WP:NACD either mentioning it or following its logic. WP:NACD does lay out the exclusion to this and there is strong support for allowing WP:SNOW closures as well though not quite to the point of consensus. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I seek clarification on the earlier RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. Is a TfD nominator now allowed to close as "delete" a discussion that they initiated? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This refers to today's discussions at WP:AN, where the is still an open section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This has got absolutely nothing to do with the earlier RfC. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a general question. I am not referring to any previous discussions other than the RfC which I linked directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are. I'm not sure why you'd deny it; it's not an unreasonable thing to do, even if the timing is suboptimal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I acted here on the suggestion of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who wrote "it might be better to decouple individual editors from the underlying issue. Address the issue of whether this should be done going forward". Hence, no back-links. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And it still makes sense to me. If a discussion at AN gets sidetracked by personalities, then a new discussion at a more neutral page that doesn't focus on personalities makes sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It would appear that others refuse to allow that shift in focus :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And I have answered. Whether a non-admin nominator should be permitted to close their nominations as delete was not discussed at the RfC. Alakzi (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not support this. I think it is important to have an unrelated editor review the discussion before work begins on closing it, especially as many TfDs receive few comments. — Earwig talk 20:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In order to inform the discussion, please can you point to a TfD that has been closed, contrary to consensus in the TfD, in this manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question right—I can't provide an example of this, as to the best of my knowledge no or very few TfDs have been closed as delete by their own nominator yet. With that said, Special:Permalink/671179885#Template:1954 railway accidents is an example where a self-close as delete would have been arguably justified, and yet the end result was to keep after the uninvolved admin reviewing the discussion decided another course of action was better. Let me rephrase my original point more clearly. Many TfDs result in a soft-deletion-like outcome where only the nominator or one other editor participates in the discussion. In these cases, I believe it is important for an uninvolved editor (i.e., the closing administrator) to review the situation to see if that is the best outcome before the nominator begins orphaning/substituting the template and carrying out other post-closure work. I mean this as a form of sanity check. In cases where there is more substantial discussion and clear consensus, I don't see as much harm in a self-closure. But even then, how often would this be necessary or helpful? — Earwig talk 21:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you mean a supervote. No evidence of any actual problem existing, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we don't start a thread on Jimbo's talk page too, then we can complete the set..... Anyway, to give you an analogy, I don't believe it's against policy for me to wander up to an unsourced article about some random pet cat created 3 minutes ago and delete it per WP:CSD#A7 without waiting for a tag; however you run the risk of somebody (legitimately) crying "abusive admin!" if you get it wrong. So my vote is, yes if it's blatantly WP:SNOW obvious and the template's very existence is causing extreme angst and vexation to the point of a nervous breakdown ... otherwise it's always best to get another opinion on stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • In my view, the only times it is acceptable for anyone to close their own nomination are: (1) to withdraw the nomination; (2) to close it per WP:SNOW when (a) there have been several requests for a snow closure, (b) nobody else who regularly closes TfDs and who hasn't commented is active AND (c) leaving the nomination open while waiting for a neutral editor would disrupt the encyclopaedia; (3) when the discussion has been open a very long time (more than twice the normal duration) and multiple requests for closure from others have not been fulfilled. In all other circumstances somebody else should close the discussion, regardless of what the outcome is. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't support a non-admin has no ability to delete, even their own posts, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to close anything as delete, further they shouldn't be closing anything they're involved with. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 10:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're outdated, KoshVorlon, community consensus was established, and enacted, that expressly gave non-admins the right to close TfDs as "delete", please see the RfC farther up this page. There was a reason to do so: closing the discussion is usual not the last step, after closing a discussion , there is "orphaning", "merging", "substitution" etc. which is a gigantic amount of work, partly backlogged since 2013, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Kraxler (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Example

Lets look at real example. I made this nomination on 25 July. Two other editors have agreed that the template should be deleted, one on each of the next two days. No-one else has commented. WP:NODEADLINE not withstanding, the discussion was due for closure from 1 August, and is now almost three weeks overdue. What harm befalls the project if I close it as "unanimous delete", orphan it by replacement of its 13 transclusions with a better alternative, and then tag it with {{Db-xfd}} for an admin to delete, which they would usually do within hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I just closed the "example" as "delete". Kraxler (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say that you should not close it, because WP:NACD says "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion ... should be avoided", and nomination of the template accompanied by a deletion rationale does constitute the offer of an opinion. Unless of course that NACD guideline has been amended or repealed - if it has, then where was it discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked my dictionary "should be avoided" did not mean "is absolutely forbidden". Otherwise I refuse to take part in another time sink. Going back to work. Kraxler (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We know what WP:NACD says. You should interpret and elaborate on the applicability of the guideline. Andy is arguing that, as the guideline appears to be of no benefit in this particular instance, it should be ignored. I expect, you'd now have to explain why it must be followed, besides it having the status of a guideline. In general, the prevailing arguments against "involved" closures appear to be the need for oversight and the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The question was "what harm befalls the project", not "Which part of a guideline can be selectively quoted". I'm not sure how many times I'll need to repeat this, but once again: The page of which WP:NACD is a part is headed with a notice that it "...is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The NACD guideline does not require to be amended or repealed - it (like many others) already has a provision for such a case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is something that's never been done in practice or in policy, and in fact, it shouldn't be done according to the explicit wording. No one has ever had a problem with this simple concept until one editor decided to ignore it and brush off the people who obviously questioned him closing his nominations. It resulted in an AN thread in which consensus was overwhelmingly against performing involved closures, but the editor insisted that in spite if the cavalcade of dissenters and written deletion guideline to the contrary, this was an okay thing to do. So here we are, discussing this non-issue in yet another forum, because one belligerent editor insists on not listening to anyone else and wasting all of our time. I've extensively pointed out at AN why Andy's claim of IAR being applicable is a bad argument. Swarm ♠ 22:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be the thread closed as no consensus. As for the "explicit wording" and "written deletion guideline", see above (so much for your "not listening to anyone else"). Why don't you address the example, and my question about it, for which this sub-section was started? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You must be lost; this isn't the "Chastise Andy" subsection. Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah right, that "reading of consensus" was a joke and didn't even mention what the discussion was even about at all. The consensus regarding this specific action was overwhelmingly obvious. And thanks for your input Alakzi, but you must be confused because I just gave an honest assessment of the situation. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, if there were more admins involved with TfD closures. It is only because the process is so backlogged that non-admins feel the need to NAC delete their own nominations. While there is no deadline, we can all agree that month-long delays waiting for discussions to close with clear consensus is frustrating and unproductive. I personally would have closed Andy's linked thread days ago had I not been busy working on a TfD closure script and also in the process of moving (ugh). The circumstances are far from ideal, so I can look the other way with these sorts of closures as long as they only come at a time of high backlog and there is very clear consensus. I would still prefer a strong admin poke (I am a willing recipient, in less stressful times than the next couple weeks), which is necessary anyway with the eventual {{db-xfd}}, but as long as the end result is the same expending energy arguing over the specifics seems like a waste of time. When we get more admins involved with this process and the wait time disappears, these closures are no longer necessary and shouldn't happen. — Earwig talk 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the above example, the only thing anyone can possibly dispute regarding the outcome is that there were not enough participants. I'm not incredibly familiar with TfD and its normal levels of activity but I'm comfortable enough saying three people agreeing on deletion is good enough to close a TfD as delete. I would personally choose not to close a discussion I had started/participated in, unless there was an immediate need to do so, to avoid any appearance of impropriety; however, I don't object to anyone else closing discussions they're involved in if it really is obvious and uncontroversial. TfDs are very small scale and closes by participants are hardly going to destroy Wikipedia's reputation, while on the other hand, I would object to (e.g.) a 'crat closing an RfB they had !voted in, however obvious the outcome was, because it's an important decision that can have very severe consequences. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Proposed modification for managing old unclosed discussions

I've been the only admin frequently closing TfDs recently. The new NAC processes have helped, but there's been a big backlog for a long time now and WP:TFD is still huge and difficult to navigate, often overrunning transclusion limits and making the oldest discussions harder to find. Last week I dumped a list of old unclosed discussions into my userspace (now at User:Opabinia regalis/TfD - and getting pretty dated, hooray!) by analogy to the way Mathbot curates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. I find this much easier to work with than Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions. I suggested here that AnomieBOT's TfD Clerk task be expanded to maintain a new subpage containing such a list, e.g. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. This seems to be an uncontroversial bookkeeping task, but: any objections?

Pinging others who have closed TfDs or worked on the holding cell backlog semi-recently and who might be interested: @Pigsonthewing, BU Rob13, BethNaught, Primefac, Codename Lisa, and Bazj; and other admins who have closed semi-recently @The Earwig, Northamerica1000, and Jenks24; and also @Dirtlawyer1 because it's his fault for dragging me into this in the first place I mean, because I'm sure he has insight on the matter ;) Feel free to ping whoever I forgot, if you think they care. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think turning TfD into something more closely resembling the AfD process will make it easier to keep track of things. In other words, the main TfD page should have a link to each day's templates for discussion rather than a transclusion of it. A bot could then count how many discussions are still open, allowing for easier archiving. I'd be happy to help out with the post-close actions (moving to the holding cell, doing the required actions, etc), but I think the main thing to focus on is making TfD easier to navigate. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but "make a page with a list of links" is very easy, and "change the whole structure" is not :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I like Primefac's suggestion quite a bit. It makes little sense for our deletion processes to operate in different fashions. By the time admins/editors navigate to TfD, they've almost certainly encountered AfD (oddly, I went the opposite direction, but YOLO). If our processes are aligned and look/operate identically, it becomes more likely that admins/editors will jump into TfD and help reduce the backlog. In the interim, I have no objections with Opabinia regalis's suggestion for a new bot task. It sounds entirely uncontroversial to me. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As to Opabinia regalis' proposal I have no objections whatsover. Whatever helps you be more effective is fine by me! BethNaught (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur! My earlier comment was meant as a sort-of "first step" which would (hopefully) make the rest of the proposal easier. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, I've finished up the TfDs in August 13, which was a date with a lot of nominations. Hopefully that will fix any remaining transclusion limit issues once the existing bot removes that date from the page. ~ RobTalk 23:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what is your concept of "closed some semi-recently" but I did so this month (well, maybe only one...? But I did). I do care, of the very few time I dedicate to WP I used to have TfD as my favorite spot; given the recent(?) excitement (and slight abuse, IMO) about NACs, I haven't looked there as much. If it worksm fine, but I do not like it. But I do care. To the point: I see no problem with Opabinia regalis' suggestion, and overall agree that the various XfD venues should get as similar as possible. - Nabla (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nabla: bad memory, sorry :) I think the recent NACstravaganza can be ascribed to the state of the backlog. Thanks!
Agreed with all of the above that moving all of the various deletion venues to a common workflow would be much better. Wasn't this on the meta:Community Tech team agenda? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: As a side note, I am still working on the TfD clerk script (and I realize I sound like a broken record at this point – another two weeks for a usable version!), which is the reason I haven't been doing closures here. I can add a feature to show all unclosed open discussions after the main clerk stuff is finished, assuming no one else has done it by the time I get to that point. — Earwig talk 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: excellent, thanks!! (Hey, I can't complain about how other people spend their time on work I don't want to do at all! ;) It just seems to me that there are so few closers here because that the pages are hard to read, the post-closing edits are fiddly, and people instinctively think "Ew, templates! I don't understand those!" - so if the first problem is simple to fix, might as well fix it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, Opabinia regalis. - Nabla (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the past, a lot of TfDs were closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs), who has not been very active for the last few months, hence the backlog. I personally avoid closing TfDs simply because of the outright hostility that goes on at TfD. I have mentioned this before. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Good call on pinging Plastikspork. Interesting, one of the reasons I went/go more to TfD than most XfDs is because it is (was?) less hostile than average. - Nabla (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering why anyone would actively choose TfD as their favorite :) I don't know, there seem to be a lot of hostile places around here lately. IIRC Plastikspork's decline in activity earlier this year was the reason some new admins, including me, were prodded to come take a look. I'd rather see more people involved - it's not so good if so many decisions are made by just a few people, even if most of them in isolation are simple - and I'm also trying to hand off some of the stuff I started working on around here over the summer, because I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I certainly have no objection to any bot task that would expedite and better organize TfD tasks. That said, we clearly need more administrators who are willing and able to close a few TfDs on a regular basis. BTW, where's NA1000 these days? He was closing a few per week . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: We could use your help closing a few TfDs on a regular basis. If anyone behaves badly towards you (i.e. "outright hostile"), send them my way. I'll explain a few things to him or her. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sounds like we are in agreement that using a subpage to monitor unclosed discussions is a good idea, and other process improvements may be discussed separately later. @Anomie:, I originally asked you because your bot already does the log clerking; can you do this easily or should we wait for earwig's script? (In the meantime, for those interested, User:Opabinia regalis/TfD has been updated, hint hint :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Y Done Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions should be created by the bot soon. Fortunately I thought to say "Other tasks affecting only WP:TFD and subpages as determined by consensus at WT:TFD" in the original BRFA. ;) Anomie⚔ 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. — Earwig talk 23:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Good thinking :) That's great, thanks Anomie! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed "Unmerge" of {{Incoherent}}

Discussion at Template talk:Incoherent shows consensus that the current situation is a mess and needs to be corrected - we have a template whose name and function disagree, confusingly. How do we now proceed? Is there a template guru around who can step in and help? PamD 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_20&oldid=704179643"