Template talk:Template for discussion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Issue with meta-templates

I just nominated Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Queue for deletion, a template which is used on other templates. However, once the template was tagged, the big notice, which is only supposed on the nominated template, is also showing up as part of the editnotice on the page, rather than the small box which is intended. Pppery (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(The page has been moved, this is the edit.) @Pppery: you didn't use <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: To me, this is still a bug. Noincluding the Tfd tag (which was actually added by Xaosflux following my edit request) should only be necessary when the template is substituted. The documentation doesn't mention this meta-template issue. Pppery (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Note, I didn't noinclude this on purpose - I wanted to ensure that people saw the tfd, and it was not visible to readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue occurs in much more cases then I thought. The full message box (rather than the abbreviated version) appears in doc page examples, which makes the doc page unreadable. Pppery (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please sync the sandboxes of this template and Template:Template for discussion/dated to fix the problem of the big box displaying in template namespace when the small message should appear instead. The corresponding change has already been made to Template:tfm Pppery 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have commented about this issue before. @Redrose64, Xaosflux, Eman235, and SMcCandlish:. Pppery 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: And now someone needs to add |bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}} to every direct transclusion of {{template for discussion/dated}} to prevent the small message from appearing on the template itself. Andy M. Wang did this last time. Pppery 21:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Andy W. (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Late to the party, but it makes sense to me. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New Request 2017-03-04

Trying to wade through TFD discussions, one has to sometimes examine original code to see what's happening. Can we get a break for our older editor's failing eyesight and generate a little whitespace and set off the subst'd template with a html separation comment: something like this:

TFD Template fair prose and poetic presentation of links... that just happens to look like vomit the cat threw up after kicking kitty-litter onto the top of the page and the bathroom floor so you step on it at 2:15 am when going to pee...<!--

       The above text is from substitution of the Template:Tfd with parameters.

   The body of the original template up for discussion appears below the end of the comment
 ----><noinclude>... (body of template below)

FrankB 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not done: Hello. I do see a vague semblance of a request in your message, but it appears your focus has been on having a smart mouth than actually helping us understand what you want. Perhaps you can start with an example of one of those TfD discussions whose source code you had to examine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Oh My word! Should be clear enough. (Nothing up there was fresh, unless you like 2am cat litter! )

Let me simplify. Just cut and paste the below in (viewed and grabbed in edit mode) (i.e. add this below verbatim), but play with the tags like includeonly, onlyinclude, nowiki, etc first in a sandbox to make the HTML comment & whitespace subst's with the tfd template:

At the tail end of your template code:

<includeonly><!--
  
                  The above text is from substitution of the Template:Tfd with parameters.
   
             The body of the original template up for discussion appears below the end of the comment
---></includeonly><noinclude>...subject's template code (being tagged by {{tfd}}).

(body of template below that)

The point Lisa, or whoever, is to move the tfd garbage text off the original template code with some whitespace terminated by a close comment ('-->') before the first character of the subject template being tagged. HENCE the subject template will be viewable away from text from the tfd mess. // FrankB 08:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted: I've reverted the change. This is a change that needs at the very least a discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But just a minor issue: You wrote "a major change like this". It is a null change. (See WP:DUMMYEDIT.) That's the opposite of major change. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be a dummy edit, but it's still a major change because this template is subst only. Thus, when it's used it leaves a huge block of text on the template. The scripts written to close TFDs are not designed to handle these blocks of text, meaning that when the discussion is closed the "dummy text" is kept there. This is the primary reason why I reverted the change. I'm not strictly against it, but it definitely needs discussion before implementation. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

New Request 2017-03-05

In browsing through the templates of the TFD I filed earlier (yesterday now), I'm seeing tonight {{Col end}}, etc. have a minimized text which does not match the language, where I'm pointing out the fact they were tagged with a notice by tagging the tfd notice within their common /doc page, hence they display the wrong name in the Template namespace (but do not break the table elements supplied within this family). So therein, at least, the language doesn't match the magicword context of 'PAGENAME' for the case of multiple templates linking to the same section of the TFD page. Depending on interior link formation an if test like {{#ifeq:Template:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}/doc|(then)... |(else)... }} can select the proper display phrase regardless of page.

Actual phrase displayed in {{col-end}}

‹ The template below {{col-end}} is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

1. Should say (Col-end) so the page self-link [[:template:Col-end|Col-end]] is displayed when directly viewing the page, not the section title of the discussion of the TFD.
2. Note current text forming logic is apropos and correct if the use of the template is examined, the text of the link says: "its entry", as does the link formation. // FrankB 08:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-templateeditor comment) The problem is that the tfd templates are not designed to support this "on common doc" method, but expect every template to be tagged. Nor should it in my opinion. I would oppose this (if I understand it correctly) as making it easier to circumvent the requirement that all templates be properly transcluded and tagged. Pppery 14:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Fabartus, you shouldn't be tagging the /docs anyway. The main template needs to be tagged. Yes, this is more work, but it's how it should be done. If you can't edit the page (due to protections) you need to make an edit request. You can put the TFD notice in the <noinclude>...</noinclude> section above the {{documentation}}. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

Please sync the sandbox of this template to make it work properly when |action= is explicitly specified without a value. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Parameter to change "Template:" prefix

This needs a parameter to change the hard-coded "Template:" prefix. Example use case: There's "Template:Donald Trump's lies", and a draft of it at "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump/lies banner". The latter should not have to be dealt with in a WP:DISCUSSFORK at MfD, but included as a second template in the deletion nomination of the main template, so we need to be able to do something like {{subst:TfD}} when tagging that second page. The hard-coding of "Template:" in the output of {{TfD}} cannot even be fixed by editing the substed template code.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the Template:PAGENAME could be changed to just FULLPAGENAME, but I'd have to sandbox it to be sure. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion is templates for discussion, not templates and related pages for discussion. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully, please. I never said anything about "related pages". Rather, there are templates that do not exist in the "Template:" namespace. It's pain in the ass to have to subst the the TfD tag in a sandbox and hack it into using the necessary namespace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Which isn't necessary anyway, as you can just work around it using Module:String. In any case, the recent change that makes modules discussed at TfD, which I wasn't aware of when I made my previous comment, makes this obviously necessary. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A) Which no regular editor is ever going to know or understand; even TEs who don't work in Lua much wouldn't go there. B) Yes, so whyTF are you arguing me into the ground about this? See WP:NOT#FORUM; these pages do not exist for sport argument to make some tedious WP:POINT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Please sync the sandbox of {{Template for discussion/dated}} to remove a bunch of unnecessary code.

Because of my previous edit request above, the situation in which the big box is shown and {{{page}}} != {{PAGENAME}} should never be true, and thus there is no reason to handle that by explicitly omitting the category or mentioning a different page in the big box. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

Please sync Template:Template for discussion/dated/sandbox and Template:Tfm/dated/sandbox to their respective pages. I have added tfd as a class to allow scripts, custom css etc. to find these templates. Someone ghas attempted to do this using an id, but this does noty work as well if there are multiple templates under discussion on a page. Danski454 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2019

Could the sandbox be synced so that the font size for the smallest notices are in compliance with MOS:FONTSIZE? The previous font sizes were font-size: x-small, which is smaller than the font-size: 85% minimum. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Apply this diff to Template:Template for discussion/dated to remove that jarring gray bottom border that's always overflowing to both sides (example). – Thjarkur (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Thjarkur:  not done. This edit does not appear to make a difference at the cited example when sandboxed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

​It does for me, see this example. The top one has a gray border overflowing and the bottom one does not. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had messed with your sandboxed version. Check your example again. I had gotten it to work; however, you may need a consensus for this. That border was put there by somebody for a reason. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That "somebody" is Cedrus-Libani, way back in 2005. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, * Pppery *, that's good research! So the border line has been there that long? 15 years is a good while for implied consensus. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, you're right, it only worked with your version and not mine. Will see if anyone wants to oppose. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to removing that overflowing border?

Is anyone is opposed to removing this border? See example. I personally find it jarring, especially when it's over infoboxes and gives an overflowing line into the content. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

When used on an infobox, the parameter |type=sidebar should be used to reduce the width. Please give an example of an article having an infobox where it does overflow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That line may be of particular importance in mobile view (example). Moreover, I still have not seen the border line "overflowing" anywhere, and I use the largest text size in my browser coupled with a zoom level of 125%. I even tried raising the zoom level to 200% but was unable to make the line overflow anywhere. While I use IE to edit, I also checked your examples in Chrome and still saw no overflow. So I see no good reason to remove the border line. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I just tested it in preview with your Alex. I example using {{Infobox royalty/sandbox}} both with and without the |type=sidebar parameter, and I was unable to see any overflow of the border line into the content – no overflow anywhere. So please show some examples of this overflow you've seen, and also, which browser version are you seeing this overflow with? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Overflowing as in flowing over the template in question, which it does on all infoboxes and especially the thin ones. Not seeing any purpose on mobile. But very well, annoyance with this line may not be as common as I assumed. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. In your over-the-ibox example the line and looks like the template message itself does appear to conflict a little with lead content. I suppose that's been tolerated in the past because it's only a temporary situation? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Still no example page names then. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There weren't any infoboxes for discussion then. Now however there is Infobox Scientist, so this line is seen on Carl Linnaeus and Albertus Magnus. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On those articles, the border is exactly the same width as the box that it is part of, this box being a <div>...</div> having styling that includes the declarations padding: 0 0.2em; color: #000; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAAAAA; width: 22em - it's the fact that the infobox is less than (22em + 2 × 0.2em) wide that is causing the apparent "overflow". Unless we can force all infoboxes to be exactly the same width as one another, that mismatch will always exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the proposal is to remove the border, which would eliminate the mismatch described by Redrose64. I have removed the border from {{Tfm/dated/sandbox}} (sidebar only) and put that into {{Infobox scientist/sandbox}}, and temporarily used that sandbox in Carl Linnaeus to show how it would look without the bottom border. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of border. Warming up to the improved appearance at L. with thanks to Jonesey95 for illustrating this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the border when type=sidebar/box/infobox, based on this discussion. I also reduced the width slightly, which looks better in my browser and will probably not have any severe negative consequences. Feel free to revert or continue discussing this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite the improvement, much less intrusive with this smaller width. Seems like every infobox is under discussion this week. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Two editors appear to be on a crusade to merge all infoboxes into a single infobox to rule them all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)