Template talk:Template for discussion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template for discussion template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 180 days

This template (like all templates) is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Wikipedia's templates. This particular template is especially important to the project because it is used in the maintenance of other templates. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject TemplatesTemplates articles

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Protected edit request 4 May 2020

This edit request to full has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The name of the notification template has changed from Template:Tfdnotice to Template:Tfd notice. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add .mbox-tfd as a class to this template to make it easier to locate this template using code. A a s i m 09:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding tweak

I propose changing the bolding on this template so that only the "its entry" is bolded, as that's really the main link people are going to want to use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but just this one? I often have to read the notice twice to remember where to click to find the discussion, because of "bolding blindness", if that is a thing. It seems like this one should be consistent with {{Article for deletion}}, {{Catfd}}, {{Cfd}}, etc. Viewed as a system, the naming and formatting of these templates is kind of a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. I'll go ahead and make the change here in the spirit of marginal improvement, but for anyone who wants to take this on as a larger project, standardizing all these notices is a task awaiting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please document: what with protected templates?

Please add to /documantation: how to handle with protected templates. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I do note that you could have done that yourself (the /doc is not protected). Primefac (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thx. The XfD docs & manuals are complicated, I often miss steps I need. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:VPT § Infobox deletion discussion notice

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT § Infobox deletion discussion notice. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type = doc page

I think it would be helpful to have a new param value |type=template doc page, so that the message could start out with "This template doc page" when nominating Template doc pages. Or maybe just |type=doc page, and then it could be used for Module doc as well. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I know there are certain editors that are convinced that every unused /doc needs to be sent to TFD, but really it could just be redirected or (gasp) ignored and left alone. There is zero reason to modify the template just to add an extra word to indicate that the /doc itself is being nominated. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity. The reason is because if one sees "This template is being nominated for deletion" it could very easily be interpreted as being the template that is nominated (that's what it says; why wouldn't it mean that?). To prevent confusion, and maybe alarm in readers viewing that statement, it should say that only the doc page is being nominated for deletion. Redirecting it is still a possibility, and WP:TFD stands for "Templates for discussion", and the one-sentence lead at that page says that it is about discussing "deletion or merging", and either one may involve creation of a redirect, so that is the proper page to discuss it. (Then again, why keep a page around and provide a redirect from it for a dead doc page with no inlinks to it other than Tfd itself?) To prevent alarm or misunderstanding on the part of users seeing a big, red-bordered box at the top of their favorite template doc page saying, This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy it would be wise, in my opinion, to add the two extra words. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation pages should not be deleted if they are being actively transcluded onto a template, and if they are, the TFD nomination should be put in noinclude tags or use the parameter that disables display. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am talkig about orphan doc pages transcluded nowhwere, other than Tfd itself. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]