Template talk:Tfm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar version

Can a sidebar version similar to {{Tfd|type=sidebar}} be made for this template? There are currently two highly visible infobox templates nominated for merging and this would be helpful. AnemoneProjectors 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice parameters

Step 3

 {{subst:Tfmnotice|TemplateName|OtherTemplate}} 

should autopopulate "TemplateName" from the pagename, and if parameter 1 is supplied, shouldn't "OtherTemplate" be populated? Also be a clickable link to OtherTemplate as well? Then param 2 would become the header parameter. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I might have a bad day, but could you please explain yourself in plain language? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the template currently requires that parameter 1 signify the template on which the Tfm template is emplaced. This could be done away with, since it's just {{PAGENAME}}. At the same time, the instructions on the template (bullet point 3) could automatically indicate the source template with the same PAGENAME. With the loss of parameter 1, then the current parameter 2 would become the new parameter 1, and so the current parameter 3 would become the new parameter 2. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This one was crystal clear. Or I slept better. :) Tell me, please. What would happen if a template tagged with Tfm in this way would be transcluded without noinclude tags onto some article? Debresser (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't thought of that. Aren't all TFD templates coded so that the inline versions are subsequently transcluded after the first transclusion? (ofcourse, I might be misinterpreting the autonamespace handling for inline automation.) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all instances of parameter 1 can be thus replaced. I do see the advantage of it, if it were possible. I'll ask another more experienced editor to have a look at this idea. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might be nicer that way. As long as parameter 1 is never needed explicitly. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

If I make one merge discussion to merge both templates A and B into template C, I need to use the first parameter on at least one of A and B to make the template link to the correct discussion. In other words PAGENAME cannot always be used for parameter 1, because we sometimes need to point to a different discussion, particularly when multiple templates are discussed in the same place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The strange thing is that at some point this template was changed. Parameter 1 was intended to be used to link to a discussion, as here. At some point the template was edited so that parameter 1 is also used in place of PAGENAME. That makes parameter 1 do two different things. It is true that we can stop using parameter 1 for PAGENAME, but we cannot replace it with parameter 3 for linking purposes, because parameter 1 gets "Template:" prepended but parameter 3 does not. This edit [1] seems to be the one that caused the problem by conflating parameter 1 with PAGENAME. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really confusing, 3 is for cases where the discussion is not under the name of the template, and can therefore not only be things like "Template:Another template for mergeing" but also things like "All templates relating to fooian fooers merge to barian bazers". Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

The difference is that {{tfm|Foo||}} and {{tfm|||Template:foo}} should do the same thing. Note that the "Template:" is not included in parameter 1, but it is included in parameter 3. Thus we can't just use parameter 1 in place of parameter 3, or vice versa. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow per-article override to "type"

An infobox was today removed from an article because it made a TFD "merge" notice show up on an article prominently linked from the Main page. As it happens, the infobox didn't add much to the article and editors there have agreed to manage without it.

But I think we can do better than this. Suppose {{Tfm}} were modified so that after the subst the "type" parameter could be overridden by passing "Tfm notice type" from the article to the template that is being proposed for merging?

Thus at the top of [[2013 Highly visible article]] the code could read {{Infobox something | Tfm notice type = disable | etc etc}}, and the notice would be disabled, just for that article. Would that work? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 August 2016 (2)

I am requesting that the transclusion of the redirect Template:Tfm/dated be bypassed to Template:Template for merging/dated.

Pppery (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? Debresser (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Deactivating this request per your contest of the original move. Pppery (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you still think the move is a good idea, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion is probably the right place, like you did on WP:CFD for the category templates. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Started below Pppery (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Template:Tfm → Template:Template for merging – Needless brevity. Contested technical request. Pppery (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a long-established name, and is used as {{subst:tfm}} so renaming is pointless. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does a template being substituted argue against moving it? Pppery (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Because only the code will remain after the substitution, not the name. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the snow rejection of a similar proposal by the same editor at Template_talk:Cfd#Requested_move_8_August_2016 is relevant to this discussion at well, and a huge indication that this move proposal should likewise be rejected. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous discussion. These are long-established titles so moving might cause more confusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Less obtrusive notifications by default

I think the |type=tiny parameter should be used by default; the other notices are much too obtrusive. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of this template is to invite editors to express their opinion. The tiny version is insufficient for that purpose.

And since we are all expressing our opinions here, I think the tiny parameter should never be used, the small parameter is sufficient in all cases a more modest notification is warranted. I would propose to remove the tiny option from this template altogether. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with you, Debresser, except that doing so would strengthen the position of the editors who want them to be <noinclude>...</noinclude>d. Pppery 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think that when noinclude tags are needed, then they are needed regardless of the whether the size of the template is small or tiny. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: when noinclude tags are needed. That should be never. All of the problems that require it should be fixed some other way. Pppery 22:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that noinclude tags are a good solution. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which option should be the default one, but I know that for different templates different ones would work best. TfM nominators should be encouraged to give at least a passing thought to how the TfM message interacts with the template when transcluded. – Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If I had to throw out a crazy guess, I would say that's why we have the current default. It's a big notice that means people have to think about what they're doing lest they break things. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish that worked! – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, my impression is that most people nominate using Twinkle and that does discourage from thinking things through. I don't know if anything we ever do is going to change that. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that Twinkle gives you all four options for display, I don't see how that's discouraging... Primefac (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It does? Well, I've never used it, but from what I've been told it doesn't load the page after saving, and given what I see, editors don't always bother seeing what the RfM message is doing to the template (at least, that's very obvious in the case when the non-insertion of a new line breaks templates that start with a heading or a table). – Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that "most people nominate using Twinkle". I for one don't. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nor me. I've seen far too many edits by others who have trusted that the scripts are infallible, don't bother previewing, and leave it up to people like me to fix the mess. I prefer to make my own mistakes, manually (slowly if you like). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

TfM in template documentation

Please see Template:Webarchive. The template documentation page is being messed up by {{Tfm}}. I can see the need for the full box at the top of the page, but within the /doc subpage it should be the |type=inline (or none at all) as is defined. Would this be possible to do? -- GreenC 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the tfm notice has the habit of badly mangling the documentation. Because the doc is transcluded onto the main template, tfm thinks it should display the whole message box, it can't tell it's being called from within {{doc}}. I'm wondering too, is there any way to fix that? Of course, there's always the option to noinclude the tfm notice in this particular instance. – Uanfala (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good solution here. In fact I see someone did it at Template:URL. Maybe that could be documented as the solution. -- GreenC 15:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No. The reason {{URL}} was noincluded was because it was breaking infoboxes (according to CFCF's edit summary), which is unrelated to the doc page situation. Any further loopholes allowing enclosure in noinclude tags should not be introduced into the doc page at all, as they contradict WP:TFD#Listing a template, which only mentions noinclude tags in the case of substituted templates (which is a technical hack that should be dropped). This issue should be fixed instead of worked around in a way that incorrectly hides the notice. Pppery 22:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser and Green Cardamom: Wait - this whole class of issues could be solved by adding a |bigbox= parameter that, if set, causes the template to display the big message box, and if not set, always results in the small one regardless of namespace. {{subst:tfm}} would then result in {{tfm/dated|...<noinclude>|bigbox=yes</noinclude>, which would cause the message to display in the correct size in all cases. This would cause issues with wrapping the tfm tag itself in noinclude tags, however, but those could probably be worked around with a lua module. Pppery 23:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, if someone wants to fix it please do. Rewriting the template in Lua with finer control over display behavior sounds like a good idea. In the mean time for the particular case of {{webarchive}}, it's a new template not in use anywhere - except the doc and testcases page. And since the template is under consideration for merge it's important that the documentation and testcases page display correctly so that editors can see how it works while making a consensus decision if it should be used or not. In this case there is no downside to using noinclude (other than Platonic) but there is practical upside. -- GreenC 00:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy with adding parameters. Moreover, I didn't really understand the suggestion of Pppery. Please explain again. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: What I was suggesting is that instead of doing a hacky check for namespace, which makes the doc page unreadable and causes issues with templates transcluded on other templates and produces this doc clutter bug, the display of the big box is controlled by a parameter passed to the dated subtemplate, which is then set inside noinclude tags as part of the code resulting from typing {{subst:tfm}}. This would thus mean that the big box is shown only at the top of the template being nominated where it is supposed to be and the small message is shown elsewhere. An alternative if you are insistent on not having any new parameters is to luafy the whole system, which seems like needless change to me. Pppery 01:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

From a purely procedural standpoint, you'd have to wrangle in consensus from the Twinkle people, since any changes would affect its usage for XFD nominations. Primefac (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery Thanks or the explanation. Now I understand the purpose of your proposal. Sounds like an excellent idea. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser and Green Cardamom: I've coded my proposed changes in Template:Tfm/sandbox and Template:tfm/dated/sandbox. I use Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude as a module that has the same function as noinclude tags, but can be nested within them without causing issues. The module should be moved to Module:Noinclude or some other name if and when this goes live. Pppery 23:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you change "See Tfd" to "See Tfm"? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Huh? I coded my proposed changes to {{tfm}} on {{tfm/sandbox}}, which should and does say "See Tfm". Pppery 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, The change in wording there was because the sandbox was previously using an old version of the main template, and I merged in my changes with the current version in the edit with the summary of "sync". Pppery 23:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merges are discussed at Tfd, not Tfm. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: The message "see tfm" was also present before my changes. Pppery 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed now.[2] Please change this in the draft as well. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I disagree with your change to "see Tfd". It makes merges and deletions impossible to distinguish on |type=tiny, while their outcomes are quite different and they should thus be easy to distinguish. Also, we should probably let Frietjes, who changed it to "tfm", know. Pppery 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I think that my argument is stronger. Frietjes has many initiatives that are good and many that are less so. And he makes almost all his edits without prior discussion. So if you want to notify him, go ahead, but I see no real point in it. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Well, I guess this confusing brevity argues for getting rid of the tiny option entirely. In any case, I updated my sandbox version. (And I had already pinged Frietjes in my above edit) Pppery 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

:) Debresser (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So, is it time to sync the sandboxes and move my module at this point? Pppery 13:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You have my blessing. ;) Debresser (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please sync the sandboxes of Template:Tfm and Template:Tfm/dated to fix the doc bug mentioned above. Pppery 17:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Has it tested OK? -- GreenC 17:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: I believe Module:Noinclude should be template-protected? — Andy W. (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If that module should be template protected, that's fine with me. Pppery 18:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be protected? I for one don't think so. The chance that a user will understand it is being used on Tfm is no so high. And even then semi-protection would probably be enough. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I already submitted at WP:RFPP, feel free to overturn there. — Andy W. (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We now need someone to add |bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}} to every transclusion of {{tfm/dated}} (and {{template for discussion/dated}}, where I submitted the same edit request). Pppery 19:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: It's probably this. How necessary is this though? Is it worth it to stir the Help:Job queue for this? — Andy W. (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 @Andy M. Wang: If this isn't done, then all of those templates will show the small message instead of the big box at the top, which would be confusing. Pppery 19:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

{and your list includes templates than transclude other templates at tfd, which the above edit fixed an issues for) Pppery 19:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Appears done — Andy W. (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? Tfm shouldn't be transcluded at all. And I see no problems with the transclusions of Tfm/dated. Debresser (talk)

Purpose of template

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the purpose of this template is to tell readers of every article on which a proposed-for-merging template appears about the proposal for merging. It is something they could not care less about, and the message is ugly and distracting. There are other, much more effective, ways of letting interested editors know about such proposals. This kind of technical wrangling (which even by the standards of technical wrangling, is rather insignificant) should stay very much in the background where it belongs. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not; see what everyone else told you at the relevant Help Desk thread. The message is our only way of providing fair warning to those who don't pay tons of attention to the template itself; no method is more effective. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Usage of this template in another "live templates" is not acceptable, in my opinion. See e.g. http://archive.is/mvAEG, section Usage in quantum mechanics. Wikipedia is for people, not for Wikipedians. --Mykhal (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Inline version breaks some templates

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I posted an inline template at WP:TFD, and immediately got responses that it was breaking some other templates. To show what is going wrong, I have edited Template:Period start/sandbox and Template:Geological range/sandbox to use it; the result can be seen at Template:Geological range/testcases. The source of the problem is the line:

{{Tfm/dated|page=Period start|otherpage=Geologic Ages Inline|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 17#Template:Period start|type=inline|help=off}}.

RockMagnetist(talk) 18:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at here, but if the template is breaking other templates (such as tables) then it should be wrapped in <noinclude> tags. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at Template:Geological range/testcases, you should see a lot of instances of "Expression error: Unexpected" in red. For now, it has been wrapped in noincludes, but that neutralizes one of the purposes of this template: to notify users of pages where the subject of a TfD is used (see the previous discussion). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Templates can become extremely complex and developing a solution to cope with all of those complexity is impossible. At least, not without a good infrastructure similar to the one seen in Microsoft Word.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 August 2016

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please add <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> at the end of the template as I just created a minimal doc page.

Pppery (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

TfD vs Tfd

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: {{Template for discussion/dated}} uses "TfD". Is one of the abbreviations preferred? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

At WP:TFD we use Tfd, which is technically the correct one. Thanks for pointing out that the capitalization was changed in {{Template for discussion/dated}} since my last edit there. I fixed that now. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

:@SMcCandlish: Pppery 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a reader-facing question, just a matter of insider editor preference, so who cares? It's been my experience that the majority usage site-wide is TFD (per its shortcut), followed by TfD for clarity, with "Tfd" dead last, except perhaps for "tfd" (does anyone ever use that?). Not just with TfD in particular, but all the XfDs (which are usually called XFDs or XfDs, not Xfds – the pluralized versions tell you at a glance the obvious reason that a capital D is usually used, one way or another, in these acronyms).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that all are prevalent. Nevertheless, since all of them are at Wikipedia:... for discussion without a capital, technically that is simply incorrect. WP:Tfd and its related pages and templates don't use it, so based on that, an edit that suddenly introduces it should be canged, for consistency's sake. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms are sometimes capitalized even when the thing they refer to is not written in title case. For example, see FAQ. Pppery 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is an acronym for Frequently Asked Questions, all capitals. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the capitalization the article uses. Pppery 16:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

See also "RfA" vs "Requests for adminship"; "RfC" vs "Requests for comment". (It's likely that the template was supposed to be created and used with all-lowercase, which would probably be somewhat confusing in the template's text.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

These are all incorrect usage, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship etc. We shouldn't learn from mistakes that became accepted usage. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe we're arguing over a few capital letters... MOS:CAPSACRS says that acronyms should be in all caps. I think the lowercase f is due to MOS:CT being applied to the word for (and not the acronym itself). So if anything it should be XFD and TFM. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:CAPSACRS refers to acronyms that are commonly spelled as such in the big world, like NATO or NASA, not our petty abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, but in lieu of actually having a rule for how to format initialisms, I would defer to CAPSACRS (since they're pretty much the same thing). Primefac (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe we're arguing over a few capital letters – my impression so far has been that quite often the amount of heat generated by a contentious question varies inversely with its overall significance for the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Although on the one hand I agree, on the other hand, an encyclopedia is made by certain processes and rules, and this is one of them. Americans like to capitalize anything, even where this is not correct, and Wikipedia does not follow that erroneous custom, nor should it. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Americans like to capitalize anything, even where this is not correct —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Something which Wikipedia specifically fights against, e.g. in MOS:HEADCAPS. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll (not a redirect). There are roughly 12,300 non-article pages containing the string "TfD" and roughly 1,800 containing "Tfd". Again, usually abbreviations and acronyms are capitalized-except-for-sometimes-conjunctions-and-prepositions per the MOS; it would normally be inappropriate in articles to refer to, for example, AIDS as Aids even though it isn't capitalized at all mid-sentence. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I already said we shouldn't learn from mistakes. That is regarding RfA. In any case, it should definitely be either FooFD or Foofd, that is or all capitals or only first word capital, but no way should it be FoofD. Of the two valid options, I already said above that "MOS:CAPSACRS refers to acronyms that are commonly spelled as such in the big world, like NATO or NASA, not our petty abbreviations." and in general as a non-American I am against the American tendency to capitalize anything and everything. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely have no opinions on the matter, I'm just watching the page for TPeRs, but I think the only way to actually change how anything appears on this template will be to hold an RFC (or is it RfC?), because four people with two opinions will never reach a consensus. And of course, to quote SMcCandlish - who cares? Primefac (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I care. But yes, you can hat this, if you want, Or better, just leave it as is. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The proper place for a request for comment would be Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, not here. Pppery 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Request

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone use Lua to prevent transclusions of the TfM sh*tst**n from being transcluded? This h*llsp*wn is f*ck*ng up {{notability}}. KMF (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.. See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 23. Pppery 01:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen what's happened to {{notability}}? KMF (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen many occurences of tfd tags appearing in mainspace in various ways. This is not a problem to me: it is publicizing of the the discussion, and the archive I linked to failed to demonstrate consensus for a much narrower proposal, which means this would almost certainly fail. Pppery 01:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the way things should be. If there is reason to prevent the Tfm template from showing, it should be done on the tagged template by adding noinclude tags there. There is however clear consensus that such should not be the default. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In this case it was done in this edit in a different way. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Request

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add:

<noinclude>{{subst:Template for discussion|heading=Template:Tfm}}</noinclude>

to the header of this template.

Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 03:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Looks like you requested on the wrong page? The TFD is for {{tfm}}. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fix layout for infoboxes

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add clear: right; after float: right; (it’s in the |infobox line)—this brings this template in line with the infoboxes and prevents broken layout in case there are multiple infoboxes on a page for some reason. (Now, if the second infobox is proposed for merging, its notice is on the first infobox’s left side instead of below it.) Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixing display for modules

Moved from Template talk:Tfm/dated

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the edit I just made to the sandbox should handle the issue where modules are nominated to be merged rather than templates, am I wrong on that? I did two others today, but wanted to check on this one before saving. Pppery, I think you've been using a subpage to get around this issue, would this be sufficient? I had no idea until today how many templates didn't properly handle modules! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: That's not quite sufficient, as some changes will need to be made to Template:Tfm too, to match the changes made to Template:Tfd. The thing is, modules don't usually get nominated for deletion at TfD, and module merges are even rarer; I'm not sure if any have been proposed by users other than me, so templates in this area kind of bitrot. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; the backstory is that I'm trying to make Twinkle handle modules better, in particular nomination at TfD, and noticed this today. And yeah, I see that now; thanks for your (ongoing) efforts! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You're awesome, thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

Please make the following change in Template:Tfm/dated, in order to stop the line under the default message from overflowing other content (here is a current example).

Change:

color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;"

to:

color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA; overflow:hidden"

--Pipetricker (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done after testing in the sandbox with that page. Thank you for providing such a well-formed request with a link to an affected page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

Please mark this template with class="nomobile" to prevent this message from randomly appearing on talk pages without context (all header notices in amboxes etc are hidden on mobile). Add <div class="nomobile"> to the start and </div> to the end.  Nixinova  T  C  02:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not all templates nominated for deletion are hidden on mobile. This is a bad idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)