Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Sep 1 and 2 (2010) are missing?

Resolved

They're in the archives

Today, Sep 1 and 2 2010 are missing. A hiccup? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All discussions from those days have been closed, so they were removed from the main page. They can still be accessed via the archives page. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Template:Tfd2

I've sandboxed some changes to {{Tfd2}}. This doesn't affect current usage of the template, but it adds support for multiple nominations, i.e. it has ten unnamed parameters to allow for up to ten templates in a single discussion, and has an optional |title= parameter to create a customised section heading. Having submitted more than a few multiple nominations in the past I think this would be of benefit, either as an update to the existing template or as a seperate template. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tested fine in Template:Tfd2/testcases.--Salix (talk): 07:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That could be very useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, and bumped up the number of templates to 20 for good measure. I've also updated the front page accordingly, though anyone feel free to rewrite what I've added. Let me know if there are any issues with the template code. PC78 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Wondering if there should be a To Rename' section. This seems like a task which a bot could easily do, and could help when the number of pages reaches into the hundreds.--Salix (talk): 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

After a rename, a redirect is left behind, and replacing the transclusions under the former name probably falls under WP:NOTBROKEN. So it's probably not necessary, I think, right? --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Inline

For what it's worth, I can't get {{tfd-inline}} or {{tfd|...|type=inline}} to work. Is there a problem, or did I just not wake up fully yet? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Template problem, is this a good place to ask?

Not sure of the best place to find template experts, but this seems like a logical starting place.

I just completed an article move (Stoney units) and started looking through pages that link there.

One such link is {{Template:Unit of length/BigsmalllP}}

I'm not seeing how to fix the problem. I'm guessing mismatched braces, but I don't see how to fix it.--SPhilbrick T 15:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That actually wasn't an error, but how the template looks when it isn't passed any units. I beautified it a bit, by adding some noinclude tags. It is only used on one page (Planck length), and appears to be working fine there (see the infobox). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to figure out how a template unchanged since 2008 could be not working, now I understand it was working. I didn't think I broke it, but as I couldn't quite figure out what was going on, I wanted to make sure I didn't leave a mess. Thanks for beautifying, it, as it looks better now.--SPhilbrick T 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps adding the {{Unit of length}} /doc file or some similar note of explanation would be useful for it and similar subpages? It is a bit user-unfriendly at the moment, even in its beautified form... Grutness...wha? 01:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird templates used to avoid orphan tags

Hello, all. These templates: {{Tenterden}} and {{Rolvenden}} have been added to numerous articles about people and things that had some connection to these towns or surrounding areas. The templates' creator uses them to get rid of the orphan tags on his articles, some of which I do not think are notable. The deletion of the orphan tag makes it less likely that the articles will be considered for deletion. See Start Art magazine and Geering for example. Blue links in articles are supposed to connect relevant topics. These templates simply add a lot of irrelevant links to the "what links here" sections of articles and create WP:UNDUE weight - Tenterden, for example, is not of key significance in the fame of Ellen Terry, who merely lived nearby in later years. Yet it is the only navbox at the bottom of her article. If anyone thinks these templates ought to be TfD'd please let me know on my talk page, and I will support. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD minor rearrangement

Why? I don't think it's really necessary. Mhiji (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That way, you know when the creator is commenting, instead of looking into the history. The same reason as WP:FFD. Reh man 08:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The uploader is usually more significant to discussions about files than the creator of pages. Files tend to be less frequently modified than pages are, so the uploader becomes more important. Also, in discussions about files, the reason for deletion is often due to the license or lack of license for a file. That's an issue that the uploader has particular knowledge of, and a particular responsibility in, making it important to identify the uploader. For pages, while the creator can explain why a page was created, the creator's opinion really isn't any more valuable that anyone else's. --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. :) Reh man 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it be better if TFD's could list the entries in the opposite order; oldest-to-newest? Reh man 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer newest-to-oldest. Though I do think that all of the deletion and move pages should have the same order for consistency. The majority of the deletion pages (and WP:RM) are in the newest-to-oldest format so I don't see any need to change this page. Mhiji (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

True, there should be consistency, but currently that isn't the case. WP:FFD lists oldest-to-newest for instance. Having it listed that way would increase the chances of older discussions being noticed. Reh man 08:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If it would be beneficial here, it would presumably be beneficial at all XfD pages. Why don't you propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and drop notices on all the WT:XfD pages? Then, if successful, it can be implemented everywhere. --Bsherr (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a better idea. Thanks! Reh man 09:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with nomination

I would like to nominate a template for deletion. {{Metlink Display}} is being used to post bus schedules (sources, destinations, routes, times of operations) on hundreds of wikipedia articles about Melbourne. The template includes externally linking every instance of every bus route in every article to the Metlink website. Essentially, it is being used to post Metlink's bus routes in wikipedia articles. The template is linked to half-a-dozen other templates that have hundreds of parameters in switches with external and internal links, some show up broken in articles. I would like to get community input via a nomination for deletion. I posted some questions about the template at the village pump, but I think it should just be nominated for deletion as a location for a single discussion about it.

However, because the template(s) impact so many articles, I would not like to mess up the discussion nomination. I am unsure about the nomination template, that if I put it on the template, this will impact possibly thousands of calls to the template, and I don't understand how the noInclude tags work. Can someone explain this to me? I attempted to follow the directions, but, again, it's not something I am willing to mess up to the impact of thousands of lines of code in almost 300 articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't use noinclude. Use the inline parameter. {{tfd|Metlink Display|type=inline}}. See how that works. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink to date pages?

I suggest we make the date headers wikilinks to the date pages. Right now, there's no means of linking there from the main page, even though, after edits, users are returned there, and those are the more convenient pages to watch. The bot will have to be modified. Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a very reasonable idea to me. --RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Post-expand include size

If you check the page source for Wikipedia: Templates for discussion, you will find the following:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 32107/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2047993/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 131063/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 1/500

The item of concern is the "Post-expand include size", which is at its limit. Too many open discussions? 134.253.26.4 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. We have had a few very active nominators as of late. The good news is that at least the links are still there, and the ones missing are all at the bottom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

extreme activity

As this seems to have broken some Wikipedia handling limits, if ThisThat and Mhiji continue with their prodigious nomination rate, is it time to stop translcuding daily lists, and format TfD like AfD with links to day lists, instead of transcluding day lists? Or is this going to be just a blip in activity? 65.93.13.210 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A blip. For the most part, it isn't an issue. Moreover, it's not like the discussions are getting any less than the light attention they normally get. JPG-GR (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I recall, Mhiji was recently blocked, and ThisThat is on break, so this could reduce the rate for the near term. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How to proceed

What is the precedure when a template is to be orphaned & deleted? Does the closing editor take care of everything (even when there are some technical details to look after)? Or is there a way to communicate/act, re such orphaning details? -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the closing admin feels that he/she can take care of everything, then that's usually what happens (or what is supposed to happen). If it gets more complicated, there is the holding cell at WP:TFD/H. I frequently ask for assistance from the nominator or one of the !voters if I feel I don't have the time or expertise to take care of everything. If you notice that something isn't being handled correctly, or have a particular concern, please do drop a note here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarified. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Review instructions for Expand

Resolved

– Template:Expand has finally been deleted. Hey Mid (contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've placed draft instructions for reviewing {{expand}} in the holding cell. Any comments? My assumption is that, while we discuss instructions, any further process like deletion review will be occurring. Sjakkalle (as closing admin) or anyone else, please keep us updated here on the status of further process so we can determine when to begin the review. This is going to be an enormous job, of course. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bsherr, for a good start at this task. For the moment, I would add a sixth possibility: Articles which already are fairly complete, and where the {{expand}} tag should simply be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heh, of course! --Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is up for deletion review by User:BarkingFish. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DRV closed as "deletion endorsed". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of those instructions look sensible. If some people who were in favor of deletion stop removing the template indiscriminately for now, I think we can request someone to create a bot to do the following automatically:

Remove the template from any article with a {{-stub}} template
Replace {{expand|section}} with {{expand section}} (or {{empty section}} if the section is empty)
Replace it with {{incomplete}} when multiple sections are empty
Remove it completely when the talk page does not exist / contains only Wikiproject templates and it was placed with a generic Twinkle™-edit summary or no edit summary at all and |concern= was not specified

This way, we could remove/replace a lot of them automatically. If none of the above applies, we should change the template temporarily to display a large warning like "please check whether this tag is still needed and remove it or replace it with a more specific template. After a month, we should then remove the rest of the transclusions by a bot that leaves an edit summary and maybe notifies those who placed it in the first place (not for every removal of course, but kind of like "Hi, we removed {{expand}} from a number of articles, please check this List of your taggings and see whether a new template should be placed). What do you think? Regards So Why 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe a bot has already recently removed them from 3000 stub tagged articles. So we are already part way there. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support all of those suggestions except the one concerning the use of incomplete. I think human eyes need to be employed to determine whether multiple empty-section tags are better than incomplete. --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{incomplete}} is as bad, or worse, than expand was. It's even more vague and non-specific. If we want to use it for multiple empty sections, then it should be reworded to apply to that specific concern. If not, then we should delete it as what amounts to an alias for expand. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Went through this just a couple months ago at TfD and in an RfC. Incomplete refers to the very specific problem of a page that is clearly incomplete to the extent that it is a serious content problem in the article: table that abruptly end, multiple significant blank sections, sentences with blanks left in them, etc. It identifies as legitimate a maintenance issue as any other maintenance template. Where it is used wrongly as a substitute for Expand, it should be removed. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. When an article has multiple empty sections, then it's either not complete or someone added sections that make no sense. Assuming that the former is much more likely, it's fair to say that an article missing multiple sections is simply not complete. As with {{expand}}, it should be removed where it's misused. Regards So Why 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But templating the empty sections is less drastic than templating the article as incomplete. I would prefer that incomplete only be used for graver issues with an article. --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more that needs to be discussed here? This discussion has been inactive for nearly a week (at the time of writing this). HeyMid (contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only whether we should have another DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Removal

Well, I finally replaced the last of the expand templates; it's now deleted. I deserve a cookie. :D Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We're here to serve. Cookies. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TPH. Gigs (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

template:Rfd-t

{{Rfd-t}} was nominated for deletion. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing a template gracefully

Currently, I am replacing (recoding) three templates into two. I do sandboxing, testpages, keep deprecated params, invite using editors, stepwise no-break introduction. Before throwing code into production, is there anything else I should take care of? Critical Code Review (you're welcome)? Do I need browser-testing?
The templates are: old: {{IPAsound}} into new {{IPA soundbox}}. Old: {{infobox IPA}} into new {{infobox IPA}} (code replacement, keep the name). Old {{infobox IPA base}} incorporated into new {{infobox IPA}}. Sandbox, talk with outline, testpage are with {{infobox IPA}}. See the old code (by me) if we need motivation for this change :-) -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Deleted template

The new template {{Deleted template}} now provides a way to "delete" templates whilst retaining them for the purpose of displaying old article revisions better. See the discussion at Wikipedia:VPR#Keep_deleted_templates_to_support_viewing_old_revisions, and an example use at {{Expand}}. A note on the existence of this possibility should be added in one or more relevant places - perhaps someone could do that or at least point out what they might be. Rd232 ^talk 05:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page layout

Hi. Why does this page list all the deletions in one load-heavy list? Compare WP:AFD and WP:CFD which has links to the last seven days of listings. Why doesn't this have the same layout and how can it be changed? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it didn't used to be so load-heavy. The spike in nominations is fairly recent. The bigger problem, in my opinion, is the large number of nominations and the relatively small number of comments. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've been bold and copied the layout from CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like steps forward only -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you just broke all of the current discussion links from Template:Tfd, which are built on the assumption that all the discussions are transcluded into a single page. We also now have an odd situation where all the old discussions are transcluded onto the main TFD page, but the current ones are not. Also, I'm not sure what if any impact this might have on the nightly maintenance work of Zorglbot. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a change, but at a minimum I think the transition steps need to be planned out a little better, so I'm going to revert for the moment until there can be some more discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This would have absolutely caused problems for Zorglbot. I agree that planning is needed to make sure things don't break. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Page layout 2: entangled main steps

To me, the current main Steps recepy is not clear (actually, when I wanted to do a multiple-proposal, I had to filter & write down the step list by hand). Now it combines four (five) main ones:

(What not here introduction)
TfD single
TfD multiple
TfM single
TfM multiple

Of course, one only does one at a time, so three out of four have to be skipped (mentally checking every single line). I suggest separating the TfM and TfD steps into two lists. Later on we could see if the single/multiple sepearation would improve the lists of steps.

Illustrating for the complexity: when writing down the multiple TfD a process, I discovered that parameters called "SectionTitle" in place a, is called "TemplateName" in place b. -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When should be a nomination removed?

hello,

I want to close this here. I see it is not even seven days old (per instruction it should be older than 7 days before close). Now my question: Could I close (I am not an admin) such discussions earlier or is this not allowed? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's usually best to just wait for an admin to close it after the 7 days have elapsed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure, you are not allowed to close this as you have "expressed an opinion" in the discussion. Agree with Spork, best to wait until it runs at least a full 7 days, then an admin will eventually close it. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What {{for}}?

I've been tempted for a while to nominate {{For}} here - it seems to my largely untrained eye to do noithing not better achieved by {{About}}. It's such a heavily-used template, though, that I'm loath to nominate it directly... I thought I'd mention iut here to see what others think first - does it have a specific use, or is it something which can be phased out/redirected via TFD? Grutness...wha? 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive templates?

How do we feel about templates that are larger than many articles? As an example, see {{Nearest bright star systems}}; the output of which produces a 124 Kb HTML table. (Another example is {{Nearest star systems}}.) These can create a significant increase in the download time, especially for small articles. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of occasions when navigation boxes (such as your examples) with a very large number of links have been deleted. The typical argument is that massive navboxes overwhelm the articles and navigation in such cases is better handled either by using categories or by breaking the navbox into smaller, more focused components. However, there is no well-established standard saying one particular size is too big. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Realy not sure were or what to do on this page..Could someone add Template:WikiProject The Boondocks so that its deleted from all the talk pages that is still on.Moxy (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this template has not transclusions. We actually track these in Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates, but if there is a more pressing need, you can always drop it in WP:TFD/H with a link to the deletion discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk)

Twinkle fail

I tried to use Twinkle to propose Template:EBRPD for deletion, but it failed. I will try to add it here if its not as complicated as manually creating an AFD, otherwise, maybe some kind soul could complete what i started and add it?(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot for mass TFD nominations

I have opened a request for approval for a bot to apply the {{tfd}} tag to templates en masse. This may be of interest to TFD regulars (specifically, whether such mass tagging is necessary or desirable). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unclosed TFDs

Why are there still open discussions in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16 - those were started more than 7 days ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussions still open on that page didn't have a really obvious consensus, and many admins would rather let a discussion stay open a little longer in the hope of new comments, rather than closing them as "no consensus". (Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.) I've just commented on two of them in the hope of pushing them toward a conclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That, and the number of admins who actually patrol here relatively often is relatively small. JPG-GR (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators please read

There are two things concerning TfD which I would like to raise with administrators.

This is the background: Template:The Marcoses, a navbox used on Ferdinand Marcos, was proposed for deletion or radical reduction with repeated assertions that linking in the article is present and sufficient, and that links to be removed were marginally relevant. This was totally untrue. A lot of highly relevant articles about Marcos's political opponents and collaborators might easily have been orphaned from Ferdinand Marcos, and nobody would have known. (I have since posted on the relevant talk pages and Wikiproject pages so that this won't happen, or can be rectified.)

So these are the problems I want to raise (I'm not certain I should raise the first issue here but I'm acting on advice):

This, that and the other seems to be engaged on a mission to delete what he deems to be redundant templates and articles. Sometimes, he uses speedy delete. This example shows that he can be reckless and irresponsible, or at the very least, lacking in the judgement required to evaluate redundancy and usability. I want to request that his history of template and article deletion is independently reviewed.

I have a problem with the TfD process itself. Some TfDs strike me as poorly explained, poorly motivated and potentially harmful. Nobody replying to a TfD discussion is required to look at the relevant articles, and it's obvious that many people don't. There's nothing to ensure that linking in the article text is sufficient. Surely it would be better for a TfD proposal to start off with notices on the talk pages of all relevant articles and Wikiprojects, to engage editors who grasp the context within which the template is used, and understand its contents. Yes I know there's a miniature notice displayed on the actual navbox but it looks designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. You could edit an article all day long and never notice a navbox especially if it's inside an outer shell.

I'm trying to be concise here but perhaps I haven't explained myself properly. I expect there'll be aspects to all this that I have no visibility on. I would be grateful for your comments. Rubywine . talk 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Header instructions

I have refactored the nomination instructions in the header of this page. They were suffering from a severe case of instruction creep, and I felt that they needed to be made more accessible to less technically-minded users. The changes are mostly structural and copy-editing changes; however, some of the instructions have been removed, and others have been substantially rewritten. If you do not agree with the changes, please edit as you see fit. (I see that my change to capitalization of "Tfd" (to "TFD") has been reverted already, which is fair enough.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TfD/Header - Reasons to delete a template

I would like to see the amendment in red. I think the current TfD system is inefficient and creates an unnecessary threat to dependent templates in use. If there is a reason why this is unfeasible, would someone please explain. Thanks.

Reasons to delete a template

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance

The template is redundant to a better-designed template to which substitutions have already been made in all dependent templates

The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used

The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Rubywine . talk 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This, like many other issues, should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Any substitutions of concern should be brought up in the discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do we call this discussion if its only for delete

I am wondering why we call this templates for discussion if its only for deleting them. I realize that on occasion the result will be something other than delete but it seems like we should just call it what it is. Additionally, when used, the tool twinkle tags the articles as for deletion but then adds them to this "discussion" page. It seem like we need to sync the terminology of these tools up. If we are going to call it a deletion then they should both say that. --Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, discussion of a result other than deletion could be taken up in other fora. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well for example the main page here says deletions or merges, but then when I submitted a merge "discussion" I was told it was the wrong forum. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the title of this page is misleading. It incorrectly suggests this is a place for all sorts of discussion regarding a specific template, regardless of whether this discussion is about deleting the template or simply a change to the template (which should be brought up at the templates talk page). Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#How to use this page clearly is only concerned with deletion discussions though, thus it should be changed to "Templates for deletion". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So bearing that in mind I think we have 2 possibilities here:

Change the page name so that it clearly reflects for deletion
we could expand this to be all templates modification discussions in one place rather than have multiple places to watch and post the differnt things too
Leave it the same confusing name. --Kumioko (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I like idea number 2. Having a central place for template discussion seems to be a good idea as this could lead to discussions receiving a greater attention. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to discussing merging of templates? template:tfm -- isn't that under the purview of TfD?

65.94.77.11 (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Investigate Template:TJEd

Template:TJEd broken, vandalised, unused? Dalit Llama (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is used, as may be checked with Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:TJEd (look for "(transclusion)"). The template was blanked with this edit, seemingly intentionally: but whether to describe it as "vandalised", I don't know. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed discussions

I have modified the closure templates to collapse discussions. Usage is the same. Feel free to modify if you think it is necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need for it. Note that the clerk bot is now broken, as it expects <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd tfd-closed" to be just after the section header for closed discussions. Anomie ⚔ 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice the enormous the length of the TfD page now. It crashed my browser a couple of times (due to length not size), so I thought this might help. Maybe put the div class around the collapse? Or subst the collapse and edit it to suit this specific need? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Which browser are you using that it crashes on the normal page but doesn't crash when more content is added to the page? Anomie ⚔ 02:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by more content? The problem I have is with rendering the text-switching to another tab and switch back locks things up. If this is not the solution, feel free to revert my edits. Plus it makes it easier to look for the old discussions still open if they're not buried in a sea of closed discussions. MfD collapses with no problems (although it does use subpages)... — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The collapse box adds extra HTML (and thereby extra DOM nodes) to the page, so it seems odd that your browser would stop crashing when these extra nodes were added. As far as finding unclosed discussions, I personally use a bookmarklet along the lines of javascript:void($('.xfd-closed,.tfd-closed').addClass('mw-collapsed').makeCollapsible()) to collapse them when necessary. Anomie ⚔ 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can just handle this with css, rather than adding yet another template. I have reverted the addition. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to discuss

Why must it be so difficult to comment in a TfD? Allow me to elaborate with reference to my own experience.

A template I created is up for deletion. Consequently, I received a notification on my talk page. A notice also appeared on the template's page. Both notices advise me that if I wish to comment in the TfD, I should go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Fibre sidebar. This is where the problem begins. I followed the link as instructed, clicked edit and found the discussion wasn't at the page to which I'd been directed. It was merely transcluded from elsewhere. After some searching, I found the discussion and was able to add my comments.

You can imagine how much of a nuisance this was even for an experienced editor such as myself. Shouldn't WP:ASTONISH apply. If I click a link that claims to enable my participation in a discussion, I'd reasonably expect it to take me to the discussion. Claret Ash 11:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

When I follow the link Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Fibre sidebar, I arrive at the discussion; and to the right of the heading there is an [edit] link. When I click that I'm taken straight into the edit box for the discussion in question; it's headed "Editing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 20 (section)". Does that link not work for you? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The link probably would work, except that it apparently doesn't exist for me. There simply is no link (and yes, I am looking at the right page). Claret Ash 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

At Preferences → Editing → Advanced options, do you have the "Enable section editing via [edit] links" option ticked? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So that's what happened! Thanks for your help!! Claret Ash 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Script

Is it possible to close discussion using script, without manual copy pasting? Example: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_6#Template:Snote - deleted under G7 without closing discussion. Bulwersator (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Should AnomieBOT automatically close discussions for deleted templates?

If you've spent much time at WP:PUF or WP:FFD, you know that AnomieBOT will automatically mark discussions there as closed about an hour after the file being discussed is deleted, saving the closing admin some work if they don't feel the need to write a closing rationale. It has now been requested that AnomieBOT do the same thing here, since it already handles updating the transclusions on WP:TFD. Any objections? Anomie ⚔ 06:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Yes please. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Support Why not? Bulwersator (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have the bot start doing this now. If there are any problems, please post at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TFDClerk to stop the task. Anomie ⚔ 03:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FAQ

I keep seeing the same comments repeatedly— we need an FAQ. To start:

Q: Deleting a template will leave a lot of redlinks and/or broken articles.

A: We will not delete a template and leave broken articles. The proposer should have detailed a plan to replace or redirect the original template.

Q: Deleting a widely used template is a lot of work.

A: The proposer should have outlined a plan to migrate the template. There are automated tools to help in this, and there is no deadline. Templates being worked on are listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell.

Q: The TfD process is adding notices to articles.

A: Yes, this is by design to notify concerned editors of the discussion. If you consider this to be egregious, you can request that the TfD notice be removed by starting a discussion on the template talk page, but this will mean that concerned editors will no longer be notified. Appearance of the notice is not a reason to close a TfD.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are discussions here limited to just deletion

This is in relation to a comment made by Y (talk · contribs) on their talk page in response to one of their closes.[1] Can consensus here only be determined for merging or deleting? AIRcorn (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This in reference to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Template:Cleanup

Well there is WP:IAR so some leeway is allowed in closing. But deciding whether to make a field mandatory does seem out of the scope of TFD and it is better discussed on the template talk page. Also note the original proposal was to deprecate the template, not a standard closure result.--Salix (talk): 18:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

closing template?

Is there an easy way to close debates? I've speedied a few templates listed here (under G6-housekeeping), and I'd like to close these discussions, but I don't know how. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD G6 deletions do not come here for discussion. Where is the problem you are having? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some templates listed on TfD were also tagged with the G6 speedy tag. I found them while going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and saw that they were also listed on TfD. So I wanted to close the discussion after deleting the templates. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way is to just wait an hour and AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) will mark it closed for you with a message along the lines of "Delete; deleted as G6 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)". Anomie ⚔ 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I just thought there'd be deletion templates to use such as those at AfD. But I'll just leave it alone since a bot will do it. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

I proposed a change of the actual {{tfd}} template at Template talk:Tfd#link to "correct page" to change the system of the transcluded section to the actual dated page section. mabdul 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Template missed in mass nomination

Template:2011–12 Oklahoma City Thunder season game log was marked with {{tfd}}, but I omitted it in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#2011–12 NBA game logs. Since consensus is clear, can it be deleted too? I've already substed it. TimBentley (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)