Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 13

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

How do I edit the discussion?

I'd like to add my comments to the thread on UK railway stations. But when I click Edit, there's nothing in the resulting code that contains the discussion. What do I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Click the edit link nearest to the article you want. If you click edit at the top of the page you get the master page which uses templates to include the various discussions. I think the page you want is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 2.--Salix (talk): 13:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That was the page indeed, thanks. But I have those "mini-edit" buttons turned off (I think they look like ass) so am I basically out of luck? That seems like bad design. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Operational Distinguishing Device

How do we add an image of the Operational Distinguishing Device to the "Ribbon device" templates? Allen (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass catting

I've been coming across a lot of templates, such as this one, that are being placed automatically into Category:Templates for deletion. That's a redirect template that we probably want to keep, and many of the others I've seen auto-categorized in the same manner are also needed templates. Is or was there a discussion about this? If so, where is (or was) it? It's almost as if someone is using auto-categorization as a tool of vandalism! – p i e (Climax!)  21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I just fixed it. – p i e (Climax!)  21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Stupid mass tagging of chemical elements

A stupid bot is tagging a lot of chemical elements infobox templates, but this was already discused Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_11 --Stone (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is this the page to discuss that templates should be started? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmh, likely not. Be bold and simply create one, or if you don't know how to do, then ask at WP:RT. mabdul 12:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Holding cell list formatting

Anyone know why *; and ** are being used in the holding cell? Is this required for a bot? It's pretty funky. — Bility (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

Why is this page semiprotected? I only see a few edits not by the bot that updates this page. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this page because it is being targeted by a spambot. There don't seem to be many other edits to page, other than the legitimate bot and the spambot. Anything of interest is transcluded. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national sports federations

A user has created this infobox two months ago: 1) It has obtained the consensus of the community as required here; 2) He created entirely out of standard (it's too long, too large, too much information and does not meet the requirements on this page) 3) It has applied for more pages he created a "National sailing federations" and, in error, the page International Sailing Federation, that is an "International Governing Body", when all other international federations have long used instead the Template:Infobox Organization. Of course he has only used this template. I ask, at this point, if the template to the right to remain on Wikipedia, or at least until today remains in the bad version. I would be satisfied that the user had accepted at least the latter. But instead he did a "revert" in my attempt to replace the old template. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominate the "bad" template for discussion. It's likely that the result will be delete. mabdul 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely yes, because the author's own admission the template has been realized, as a "try" and without the proper experience. Here I have proposed to remedy this, but he seems unable to do so. Any other extreme decision should be made by an admin. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Contributing to discussion

What do I need edit to contribute to the discussion of one of the proposals? Editing this page clearly isn't the right thing to do. --Kvng (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Each listing is a heading you should be able to click "edit" on and go to the proper place. Otherwise, they're all on pages in the form of "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/YYYY Month DD". — Bility (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion not working

Why is the transclusion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12 under "Old discussions" in this version not working? Instead, it show as a regular wikilink. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the Template limits have been exceeded.
<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 40172/1000000
Post-expand include size: 1861606/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 125531/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 14/40
Expensive parser function count: 20/500
-->
This happens when there has been a high rate of TFD noms, a slow rate of TFD closures, or a combination of both. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Obviously, this makes further contributions to the open cases for May 12 difficult. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
More difficult yes, but not impossible. Follow the link that you already mentioned, and you'll be taken to the page containing all the discussions for that day. Each discussion will have its own [edit] link as usual. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Subpages at TfD

Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Subpages at TfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice

Discussion relevant to this deletion category

We are currently discussing the possibility of moving stub type discussions into templates for discussion (as well as other venues). Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive load time

I've noticed that the project page that goes with this talk page has an excessive load time. Is it due to the large number of transclusions? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect so.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bot to substitute templates

Hello. I have filed a BRFA for Hazard-Bot to do substitutions per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To substitute. The bot will be manually started for this task, but will run unsupervised. This should be a simple task, so there shouldn't be any problems. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 13 for more details (if more are there).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  21:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

May 28 not appearing

May 28 is not transcluding into the discussions list. I can't figure out why. It is possible that the reason that there are several unclosed discussions from then is that it's not appearing in the list. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is likely the same as Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 13#Transclusion not working above. Anyway, it's there now. But when the rate of nomination exceeds the rate of closure, this is bound to happen every so often. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Page too long

Related to the above discussions (about discussions not appearing due to too many transclusions), is that this page is just way too long with all the discussions on it. I would recommend moving all discussions to a separate page. Comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you move all discussions to a single separate page, this will merely alter the threshold as I noted above. Other than increasing the closure rate (or decreasing the nom rate), the only fix that will work long term is to avoid attempting to cram all the open discussions onto one page. There are already separate daily pages, such as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 17, so if instead of transcluding those at present, we make them links instead, this will produce a system more like WP:AFD (but not exactly like AFD). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
We could also go with a hybrid like WP:FFD: current listings are transcluded, while old discussions are merely linked. It could still break if we get very huge numbers of nominations or extremely long discussions, of course, but it could help. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This may be workable. In my experience, the transclusions problem never happens unless there is a backlog of old unclosed discussions. Transclusions aside, thought, I still think the page would be too long. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that there are two problems here - the technical one, and the readability one, and I'm more concerned about the readability. I think the AfD approach of linking to today's page may be best. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Links should be fine. It's how things have been done on WP:CFD for some time.

Incidentally, I'd like to see the tfd templates fixed so that they link directly to the log page and not to the TFD page. (Again it's how cfd templates work, and works well.) - jc37 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the TfDs only on their daily page similar to AfDs. I would do it myself if I understood the complex templates involved. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Was this page always edit-protected? I thought at one time I could add comments. Has it been protected now because of particular problems? 86.181.206.168 (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected this page about two months ago, as it is being targeted by a virulent spambot. It is still being targeted by the same spambot, and it's my opinion that having this page full of spam instead of deletion discussions is not an attractive prospect. However I want to stress that this page is only a container for all the sub-pages which contain the discussions. Therefore if you want to contribute to a discussion you can, by clicking on one of the edit links near to your chosen discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but because the page is protected I do not see any edit links. There was just a comment that I wanted to make about one of the templates, but it's not a big deal ... 86.160.82.156 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I never realised the links didn't show. I've unprotected the page for now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
a partial way around the missing edit links would be to have the dates linked to the discussion page for that day. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template PROD

One way to possibly reduce the load here is to have a Template version of Proposed Deletion (PROD). Everyday there are a bunch of nominations that are simply for unused or redundant templates. Do these ones really need discussion? How about leaving a tag on them for seven days and delete if no one complains? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Sounds good to me!--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, we don't need a new process, we just need to modify Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to include templates. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that (See the Village pump). - jc37 04:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific than that - the village pump has a massive amount of discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of my comments here.
Regardless, PROD was a major community discussion. expanding it the way you suggest should also require a community-wide discussion. - jc37 04:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisting instructions

I have added a section to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions about how to relist discussions. I would be grateful if people could look it over and check it complies with common practice. Since the {{tfd}} template now links directly to the daily log page, it is now necessary to update the link to the new page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) tag

I suggest that this tag is inappropriate. It is insensitive and it trivializes a genuine issue. The term stalker should be replaced with something less sinister and offensive. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. "Talk Page Randomer" springs too mind, but possibly too slangy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, almost anything would be preferable to the current term. "Talk page follower"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems perfectly reasonable and neutral. But also a bit sad to see an element of goofy quaintness/ humour being lost here - halcyon days when the project was less stressed perhaps. Those pictures of big wild carnivorous cats are quaint, aren't they?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you make a good point. What I try to remind others is that this is a family friendly site (at least I think it is), and children can and do see the things adults post here. Even follower seems a little creepy. There must be an even better term. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk page eavesdropper? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk page watcher? Not quite as sinister as stalker (?) and technically accurate. DH85868993 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Talk page stalker" is no more inappropriate than "a murder of crows". "Stalker" in this case does not mean "sexual predator". This is twisting the language into something that it isn't. And this is not exactly a "family-friendly site". If "not family-friendly" were a valid reason to delete something we wouldn't have articles like this or this. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Even "watcher" isn't entirely innocent. See Lady Godiva, last sentence of opening paragraph. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Talk Page crow-murderer" sounds fine to me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How about "Talk page snoop"? (It's non-serious, and gets to the point.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Talk Page Sleuth" perhaps, complete with appropriate hat? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Can't have that kind of hat - we'd be back where we started! ... How about "Talk page onlooker"? DH85868993 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn nominations

I recently nominated a template for deletion, then subsequently withdrew the nomination because the issue which caused me to nominate the template for deletion had been resolved. A non-admin then closed the discussion. Could I (a non-admin) have closed the discussion as soon as I withdrew the nomination? Or do discussions have to be closed by someone other than the originator? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If no one else is supporting the deletion, feel free. If other people are supporting the deletion, it generally shouldn't be closed (by anyone) only because the nominator withdrew their own support. Anomie⚔ 23:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist?

I've nominated some templates for deletion. I see that I'm supposed to watchlist the templates themselves; no problems with that. But how do I keeps tabs of the discussion itself? Do I really have to watchlist the discussion log for the whole day? This appears to be a high traffic page, drowning my watchlist with a lot of line items that I'm not really interested in. Not sure whether it's been suggested before, but the nomination system at DYK might be a good system to copy. Each item sits on its own subpage, and I watchlist the subpage only, i.e. anything that shows up on my watchlist is of relevance to me. I'm happy to explain it in more detail if there's interest. Schwede66 09:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to follow every edit to the discussion, but instead, just check it once every couple days. as far as a redesign goes, the most recent suggest was probably here. Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed nomination

I just answered an edit request for {{Citation needed}} after it was nominated for merging, but due to the large number of transclusions I added the {{tfm}} template with "noinclude" tags rather than the usual {{tfm-inline}} template. Can people more experienced than me at TfD take a look at the request and see if I made the right call? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have stuck with your first instinct there, particularly since the proposed merge doesn't seem too well thought through. But what's done is done. Anomie⚔ 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, next time I'll ask first before doing anything that looks like it might crash the servers... So, just to get this straight - even though the change I made to the template is all between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, the servers still have to process the change for all 250,000 transclusions? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Don't worry too much about crashing the servers, though; the most you're likely to be able to do by editing templates is slow things down a bit. Anomie⚔ 12:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete

After being recommended to put in my input, I skimmed through the last discussion and can clearly see their is no reliable citations sourced and none of the top 3 contestants have become successful enough post the series except for Elliot Yamin so it is not worth even having the template here on Wiki. ATC . Talk 23:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? 65.94.50.212 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh I was forwarded to here for a template. Let move this to the appropriate talk page. ATC . Talk 22:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok then. What template? What are you trying to do? Can I help you? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

TfD for NFL coaches infobox and proposed merger

Whoah, fellas. You have just held a TfD for the NFL coaches infobox and several editors are now proceeding to merge it into one of the most used infobox templates on Wikipedia, and NO ONE ever posted a notice on the talk page for Wikiproject NFL (WP:NFL)! Something is very wrong with this TfD process when a major and active project was not notified nor consulted concerning a merger target template that is used on over 10,000 articles. This process needs to be halted for review now.

Furthermore, no one ever posted a TfD notice on the page for Template:Infobox NFL player, the proposed target page for the merger, and editors are now talking about unilatertally altering the target template with no further discussion. This appears to have been a major process error. I suggest you immediately reopen the TfD and provide proper notice to WP:NFL and place notice on the target template page. Otherwise, you are going to have a riot on your hands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:NCOP - 2012 December 8

I think this is an inappropriate closure. The TFD template appears at Template:No content on page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and not at {{NCOP}}, since the template was renamed, but the section wasn't. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I will update the closure to reflect the fact that the discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 10#NCOP. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Box order

Is there a convention on whether to put the tfdend template underneath or above other boxes (e.g. wikiproject banners)? delldot ∇. 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tfdend refers to a process that's finished, so I'd put it beneath boxes that are about ongoing issues. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I have typically seen it placed below the project banners, so that seems like the place to put it. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I use this page or CSD?

Over the last couple months, I've replaced hundreds of duplicate /meta/color and /meta/shortname templates and nominated them for for speedy deletion. Today, however, User:Nyttend told me that I should have been sending them here. Is that right? What exactly has to be present to qualify for the "not employed in any useful fashion" rule or "substantial duplication" rule? If you want them sent here, how many should I save up before submitting them (I assume you don't want hundreds of them submitted one-by-one). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ask User:Plastikspork to take care of it. I nominate a really big batch of them very recently, and they were all deleted in one big discussion. I would see if that precedent is enough to take care of more of them, but make sure they are completely orphaned first. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a big batch of them, I've just been listing them for speedy deletion as I found them, averaging maybe one per day. I assume that you don't want me opening a new discussion for these things every day, so how many should I save up at a time? Would once-per-week group nominations be reasonable? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
if it were me, I would just try {{db-xfd|votepage=/Log/2012 December 5#Unused template:*/meta/shortname, template:*/meta/color, template:*/meta/abbr}} and see if that works. or, once you have a list of more than a dozen, just ask User:Plastikspork to delete them per that discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One admin is closing the vast majority of TfD discussions?

I am writing to express concern that Plasticspork is closing the vast majority of the TfD discussions. Is anything being done to get more admins involved in this process? Some of the templates are sitting in TfD for over one month, when relisting should only happen twice after one week per relist. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been posting links to the very old ones in the request for closure section of WP:AN. if that doesn't work, I would suggest looking to see which other admins have recently closed discussions and starting pinging (e.g., Ruslik0, Delldot, ...) however, it looks like the AN posts are working, since a couple were just closed. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move of WT:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives

Please see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives#Requested move. I would do this as a technical move if somebody who understands TfD could tell me that it wouldn't break anything. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't know if this is the correct field to do it because it's my FIRST time, my apologies if not:

User:Alexgreene87 has asked that the following templates be deleted, given that they are out of date. He has vowed to create the current/updated Portuguese Second Division soccer templates.

The "old" ones are: {{Portuguese Second Division Serie A}} {{Portuguese Second Division Serie B}} {{Portuguese Second Division Serie C}} {{Portuguese Second Division Serie D}} {{Portuguese Second Division Série Norte}} {{Portuguese Second Division Série Sul}}

Attentively, thank you very much in advance and sorry for any inconvenience - --AL (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I will place them on the discussion page, but in the future, you can just follow the steps at the top of WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot update languages refs

Asking permission to request a bot.

{{Ethnologue}} has been used as a shortcut to {{Ethnologue16}}. However, with the publication of the new edition of Ethnologue today, this is no longer appropriate. I'd like a bot to convert all transclusions of {{Ethnologue}} to {{Ethnologue16}}.

— kwami (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

not sure if this is the appropriate venue, but I see you were sent here from BOTREQ. if I look at the usage in Czech language, it's just in the external link section, and not used as a source. so, I would imagine the best thing to do here would be to link to the most recent version? Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If it were only used as an external link, then yes, but often it's used as a reference to data in the article, which might not be what's in the new edition. And occasionally the language might no longer be supported at all (if it's been merged or is extinct).
What I could do is change the template to an instruction: Replace w E17 in the case of external links, replace w E16 in the case of a citation.
Or the bot could leave it alone in an external links section, but change it elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Experienced template coder needed

Hi. I'm an experienced content editor, but I have virtually zero background in template coding. I'm a template user, but a complete novice when it comes to coding. Is someone who is an experienced coder available and willing to help with the modification of the coding for an existing complex template (an infobox), and also able to create a visually representative mock-up of same before it goes live? If you are able and willing to help, please fee free to leave a response here or on my user talk page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

yes. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Frietjes. You are the best template coder I have encountered to date, but in light of your recent comments I wasn't sure if you wanted to work with me. If you're still willing, I am trying to put together a small committee to address the outstanding Infobox NFL player issues and gain consensus from the WP:NFL and WP:CFB editors before going live with the new-and-improved infobox. I can manage the WikiProject politics, but I do not have the technical coding skills to make the necessary coding changes and produce a mock-up. I've also had an offer to help from User:Technical 13. Do you know him or his work? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
yes, I have no problem with helping with the implementation. I don't have any problem working with you, nor do I anticipate having any problems working with you in the future. as far as other editors go, I find it's always best to start with the editor's talk page, then check recent contributions to say template space. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very gracious of you. I will be in touch on your user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 December 31 – Merge Coptic Popes with Patriarchs of Alexandria

I went through and updated Articles that had been using Template:Coptic Popes, namely all the Articles on Coptic Popes. If I can have an Admin's attention, I'm pretty sure Template:Coptic Popes is ready for deletion as per the Merge decision already reached in TFD. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the Coptic Popes template, which seems to make more sense than outright deletion. Either way, we can call it done. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:The_Acc.C3.BCsed

Can someone reinstate Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_25#Template:The_Acc.C3.BCsed and its corresponding navbox? This discussion was closed prematurely by an uninvolved administrator. Just because I said "No Contest" does not mean that the one week discussion period should be averted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

until the template is un-deleted, the bot will continue to try to close the discussion (as far as I can tell). Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A possible new speedy template for navbox templates

Under discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Navboxes with no articles. Please comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

I'm curious... This page is referred to as "TfD" yet the name of the page is "Templates for discussion" which would lead one to expect that it should be referred to as "Tfd" or that it should be or the name of the page should be "Templates for Discussion". Then to make it even more confusing, the shortcuts coming here are listed as "WP:TFD" and "WP:TD", and although they work, "Tfd" and "TfD" aren't listed. What would it take to get some uniformity in the naming convention for this page? I'm guessing the best consensus to unify the references to this page would be to start with the "TfD", rename the page "Templates for Discussion", and add the shortcut "WP:TfD" to the box (remove "WP:TD" from the box, but leave the redirect for it). Just my two cents on the issue. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 15:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

in my opinion, you should start with the one with the highest visibility, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and see how things go. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
They all follow the appropriate standard for their type of reference. "TfD" is proper abbreviation of the title-case subject, so it's not surprising that people use it in conversations. "Templates for discussion" is the correct article name, per the article naming rules. "WP:TFD" and "WP:TD" are correct as a matter of convention for all WP: shortcuts. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect instructions?

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Archive 13 § Listing a template, it says to insert {{TfD}} and friends at the top of the template. Later, it says to surround the new code with <noinclude>...</noinclude> only if the template is designed to be subst'd. AFAICT, this is not correct. I followed the instructions and inserted at the top of {{Marriage}} and the discussion notice appeared in all the (thousands of) articles that transclude it!

I propose to add the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to the first section, where it shows the template code to be added (and remove the later comment about only adding the noinclude tags for subst'd templates).

Right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No the instructions look good to me, why do you think the discussion notice appearing on all the thousands of {{marriage}} transclusions is not intended? There are options to use for inline templates such as {{tfd|type=tiny}} that are designed to be less disruptive. You can't remove the instructions to use <noinclude>...</noinclude> with subst'ed templates because if they aren't used, new uses of the template will include the contents of the {{tfd}} template in article space where it doesn't belong. — Bility (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Template:Rozz Williams" not relisted for over 30 days

Template:Rozz Williams has not been relisted for over 30 days since inception. Will it be dispositioned any time soon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted discussions

I've just been pointed at Template:Rozz Williams, and following the link to the discussion in the TfD takes me to the April 19 page. That would be find but it has been removed from that page and relisted on a different day. It itself that isn't a problem, but what is a problem is that there is no link to the discussion on the original page the the TfD note on the template leads, indeed there is no reference anywhere other than the page history.

I've had a look at the other open TfD's that have been relisted, an it seems that they were all relisted by user:Plasticspork who manually edits the TfD template to point the new day. This is good, but does not help people who arrive via other links (e.g. in article alerts, watchlists, contribution histories, manually left notes, etc). See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 20#Discussion of Template:Sidebar subsection & 2 others has been relisted at April 8 for an example of this confusing people.

At RfD we use the template {{Rfd relisted}} to leave a pointer to the new location of the discussion, which could be easily adapted for use at TfD to solve these issues. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't any help! If you want to relist it - do it properly. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm talking about the general case and just using the Rozz Williams template as an example, this affects all relisted TfDs. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming consideration

I am not sure what protocol is on this matter. I am not sure if the names associated with the following templates are correct. Should we nominated these just to reconsider their names: {{The Sandman}}, {{Sandman}}, {{Sandman navbox}}?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Be bold! If you think there is a problem with those names, just move them to something more appropriately matching each main article name. Go ahead, make my day! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I would if I were sure what to do. Thus, I am am asking should I open a discussion to get some feedback. Maybe I will try WP:RM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. That was my initial thought, and you could do that, but what sort of tiger are you? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it... what's wrong with these names? — Bility (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I just created {{Sandman navbox}}, but am not sure if it should be at either {{The Sandman}} or {{Sandman}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

what about templates that need cleaning up but not deletion?

What are the rules for what can be included in a template?

Is there a place to list templates that need cleaning up rather than deletion? Like there is a template that includes lists of Wikionary terms - I was told by at the Reliable sources noticeboard that the purpose of templates is to link to other articles, not to sister sites like Wikionary.[1] This template also lists articles that don't include a justification for the template in the article. Also, some of the links to articles are given misleading names in the template. Where can these problems be discussed?

The problem template is below. Farrajak (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

you should open a thread on the talk page of the template, and invite editors from the associated wikiproject to comment. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
ok, I've opened a thread at Template talk:Narcissism. I guess I'll invite editors from the psychology project if there is one. Farrajak (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I modified {{tfdlinks}} to temporarily fix the problem of the last two days not being transcluded (see Template talk:Tfd links#complexity). hopefully this doesn't cause any serious problems. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)