Template talk:File deletion template notice

Due to an edit request - proposed changes may be required

An edit request at Template talk:Rfu#Editprotected will (if done) create the need for a change to the documentation, which thus requires a change to this template. The change I would suggest in this case can be seen at Template:File deletion template notice/sandbox. Please discuss. fredgandt 01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Fred Gandt: It's good that you started this discussion as it made me realise that there are more things to fix in the documentation. I assume that you only meant to change the part of the template which describes usage and parameters and that other sections won't be touched. Some quick notes:

1. The template currently says "Optional parameters" for {{npd}}. I'm not sure why you want the header to read "Optional reason parameter" for {{rfu}}. To me, it looks more consistent if all templates with optional parameters use the same header title.
2. If {{rfu}} allows both {{{1}}} and {{{reason}}}, then it's enough in my opinion if the documentation only mentions one of the parameter names. Maybe it's also less confusing if only one parameter name is documented.
3. {{Dfu}} has an undocumented parameter. You can use {{subst:dfu|concern=some concern}} if you want to specify why the fair use rationale is disputed. This parameter should be documented. If users are used to specifying a concern parameter when using {{dfu}}, then maybe the same parameter name also should be used in {{rfu}} to avoid confusion.
4. {{Furd}} was create for {{non-free reduced}}, but that template was merged into {{orphaned non-free revisions}} in 2014. Codename Lisa changed {{furd}} so that the template does the same thing as {{orfurrev}}, but in my opinion, we should go one step further and redirect {{furd}} to {{orfurrev}} so that the same code does not need to be maintained at two places. The template could then be removed altogether from this template.
5. {{Or-fu-re}} has a mandatory replacement parameter which is currently undocumented. It should be documented. Also, in my opinion, we should merge {{or-fu-re}} into {{orfud}} by adding an optional replacement parameter to {{orfud}}. A matter for TFD, I suppose. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, yup and yup. I may be slow, but for good reason; there's always more to stuff than first meets the eye. There's no way around the fact that my dog wants his walk, so can I get back to you? fredgandt 13:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

1 - 3 and some of 5 addressed in the sandbox for (needs work) approval. Let's get that sorted and the original Rfu matter and now the related Dfu upgrade (both reason and concern?) done, then think about mergers and redirects - yeah?

If Rome were built in a day, it probably would have sucked. fredgandt 19:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On the specific point of documenting parameters: I'm absolutely against not documenting purposeful and expected behaviour. If an editor can use multiple methods, we should make that known and clear. This is no different than documenting WP or Template shortcuts. I will not change my mind about this point; as a (predominantly web) developer, I cannot abide poor documentation. fredgandt 03:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the sandbox:

1. The main template contains {{subst only}} which tells a bot to substitute the templates if the tagging user forgets to do this and a 'see also' section which lists all templates. I skipped those things in the sandbox since we aren't discussing those things. Let's just preserve those in the way they currently are.
2. I cleaned up the header a bit.
3. I reworded some reasons.
4. I adjusted the parameter names so that we only include the name of the parameter, not the entire template syntax. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the sandboxes should contain all code that will eventually be moved to the main page, but as long as we're careful, this shouldn't be a problem.

Generally I prefer to see usage examples for parameters which are complete syntax to avoid misunderstandings. The output of the documentation should be clear to even the completely unfamiliar with templates IMO. fredgandt 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can be useful for new users who are unaware of how templates work. Not sure if such users would use these templates, but I guess it doesn't hurt to be extra clear. The documentation could maybe become more complex if a template later gets more than one parameter. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the sandbox to what I consider an acceptable compromise. Fewer examples (not documenting all possibilities) but full syntax. fredgandt 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The template seems to work, so let's keep it the way it is now. Since the documentation is dependent on modifications to the "dfu" and "rfu" templates, we should synchronise the edit to the documentation with the edits to "dfu" and "rfu". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Fred Gandt, I made two minor changes for the replacement parameter:

1. {{Or-fu-re}} uses an unnamed parameter (but substitutes into {{di-orphaned fair use}} which uses a named parameter), and we must have misread the template when we documented that the parameter is named. We should probably edit the template to accept a named parameter to avoid confusion, but in the meantime, I changed the documentation to mention an unnamed parameter.
2. There are two templates which do more or less the same thing: {{or-fu-re}} and {{orfur}}, but we had overlooked this. I have fixed the documentation so that both templates have a documented replacement parameter, and proposed some very similar templates for merging at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 18#Template:Or-fu-re. The documentation may need to be revisited when the TfD discussion closes. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Orfud doesn't handle the replacement param, but the other two seem to be effectively identical. It seems the "d" is for "date" and the "r" for "replacement". My eyes need a rest, so I'm way off my game (which isn't that great most of the time) - wouldn't redirecting Or-fu-re to Orfur be the least disruptive option? fredgandt 13:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• {{Orfud}}: No replacement parameter.
• {{Orfur}}: Mandatory replacement parameter.
• {{Or-fu-re}}: Optional replacement parameter.

I think that these should be merged into one template which has an optional parameter as I do not see any need for three different templates which do approximately the same thing. {{Orfud}} is the only protected template of the three and probably the most commonly used one, so it's probably the desired name of the merged template. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable :-) fredgandt 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Undocumented templates

{{Nfurd}} and {{dnfcc}} were missing from the list. {{Nfurd}} is essentially a dupe of {{nrd}} but with a different protection level and the templates should probably be merged. {{Dnfcc}} needs to be documented properly. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and Yikes! Are you doing both? fredgandt 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that criteria #7 and #9 were supported by {{di-fails NFCC}} but not by {{subst:dnfcc}}. I added them to {{subst:dnfcc}} since the two templates should provide the same parameters. Your documentation states that users should do other things when files fail criteria #7 and #9, but that is also the case with other criteria. For example, files which fail #10c should normally be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}, and files which fail #1 should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}} (gives reduced delay too). It can be more compact to tag a file with {{subst:dnfcc}} if the file violates multiple criteria instead of adding multiple tags, so I suppose it is useful to have a complete list of all criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)