Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 25

Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Notification

Per the request at mw:Community Tech/Newsletters/Commons notification bot and SVG translate - August 2018, I nominate we utilize this new bots capabilities to post a notification on the talk page of all articles affected by a TfD nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, link's not working? I'm getting a "page doesn't exist" error. Primefac (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I sent you apparently to the wrong transwiki. I got the notification but my original link has disappeared, so please stand by until I can find my way back to the link. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Link Corrected Trackinfo (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The bot does not have that capability. It can only notify for file deletions on Commons. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I was invited to explore other uses. Let the bot owners define their limitations. With our request they might improve their technology. Trackinfo (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an improvement; it would be a completely new bot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Why exactly would we need do that when all articles affected have a quite visible notice? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Because they do not. When a Template gets discussed, notice might only appear on the template, NOT the articles that are transcluded. Essentially, the discussion for removal of some of the contents of the article happens without notifying the article that will be affected. The only actual notice is when that content is removed or at best, altered. Trackinfo (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
By default notices are transcluded on all pages that templates under discussion are used on. In some cases, such as when doing so breaks formatting, the notice is not transcluded. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not correct. For example, I went to one closing today Template:CBS Idaho and checked the transclusions. Most of those articles have not been edited in months, talk pages in years. Absolutely there is no notification of the potential deletion of this template there. So nobody monitoring any of those articles has any idea that the template that is contained in those articles is likely to, in this case merge. When they do notice its change, its too late to comment. A consensus has been reached. Currently a consensus of one commenter. That is the trend, changes to templates made with virtually no discussion because no editors outside of the small circle of TfD followers knows what is going on. Trackinfo (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It does not require editing articles that use the template. The notice is directly above the template in the articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
No edits to the article . . . and this will attract the attention of an article watcher, how? In my case, I watch almost 14,000 articles. Its a lot to keep track of. I don't go back and keep re-reading the articles, I see edits, indicating activity. I doubt other article editors will go back to re-read work they were satisfied with either. Trackinfo (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think there is certainly merit to this. Even though the TfD template is transcluded, an editor with an article on which a template is transcluded on his or her watchlist will not be notified by the watchlist. The guidelines already encourage notification of WikiProjects. I personally don't think that goes far enough, and often post notices on article talk pages, for example, when there is a TfD for a navbox, on the talk page of the article on the subject of the navbox.
Question, though. How does the bot decide which talk pages to notify? --Bsherr (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's why I ask. Let's say all templates are divided into three types: (1) editorial templates, part of our content, like infoboxes, navboxes, templates presenting content; (2) project templates, like anything using {{mbox}}; (3) tool templates, those used on content and project pages alike, like whats in Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates.
For templates falling in (2) and (3), it would be usually quite mad to notify the talk page of every page with a transclusion. But even for those falling in (1), it can be a judgment call. May usually a good idea to notify the subject of a navbox or infobox. Might be overkill to notify every article in a navbox. Might more so be overkill to notify every article using an infobox.
Any bot would have to be responsive to editor flagging as an initial matter, or very nuanced and then responsive to editor flagging as an override. --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The response from such a discussion will be proportional to its distribution. If one were to TfD a 2) or 3), it would mean a massive change to the wikipedia structure. If a template appears thousands of times, its absence would then affect thousands of articles. Are you proposing such a massive change should go through with two comments? The changes to the templates below probably affect some 40 to 50 articles each. Cumulatively that is several hundred. And none of the editors from any of those articles chose to comment deliberately? The bug (that some would regard as a feature) is that this process happens far enough in the darkness that those few can wag the dog. Trackinfo (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Unbeknownst to me as I made this proposal two weeks earlier, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 1#Athletics schedule templates 1 came through. Now I can't see what was deleted. I had no opportunity to participate in the discussion because it was essentially hidden in one date of TfD, where it was deleted on the consensus of two comments. No notification appeared at any of the articles I watch related to those multiple templates (and I watch a lot of them). No notice appeared at any of a few related projects I am a member of. My first notification was when the templates were deleted. This is the continuing failure of the current system. Trackinfo (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is done, some care needs to be taken to limit the number of messages produced, since templates with very high numbers of transclusions are occasionally discussed at tfd. For example a recent merge nomination I did would have produced ~200,000 bot notices, which is probably not desirable. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 26#Template:Wikipedia CD selection I have converted Template:Wikipedia CD selection to be a wrapper template for Template:WP1.0. Is it safe to substitute this template now? (It occured to me that they may be pages with two instances of {{WP1.0}} now.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can be subst'd out of existence. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You will get duplicate tags if you substitute it without checking to see if the {{WP1.0}} is already on there. You really need to merge the two tags! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
AWB can help with that, but it will be only a semi-automated process. --Bsherr (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No more transclusions, so it's done. For what it's worth, AWB does help with the duplicate transclusions of the final template, but it still needs a human eye to verify that all of the important information ends up in the right place(s). Primefac (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, I have now deleted this template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Unused templates

Hey, TfD folks,

I'm running across unused templates for species in Category:Taxonomy templates after following the work of a sockpuppet who created a few of them. For animal and plant species, are these kinds of templates nominated individually if they are not being used on any Wikipedia article? Or are they considered necessary for taxonomy purposes and kept with the idea that they will be used in the future? Thanks for any advice you can offer about this specific variety of template. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

​ If a group of similar templates are unused, they can be batch-nominated at TFD. I'd definitely loop in the Taxo WikiProject for their opinions (which might be "they should be kept just in case" but REFUNDs are easy as well. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac, that's good advice. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: 1 year moratorium on further merger nominations of infoboxes.

When someone nominates an infobox for merging, a TFM template is added to every article that the infobox is transcluded on. This template is an annoying eyesore, and I'm tired of seeing it. Can we please suspend TFMs of infoboxes for 1 year and close all ongoing infobox TFMs as "no consensus"? Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 22:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

.. or we can simply remind people they should noinclude the tfm notice if the template is highly visible? – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Noincludes should not be used for infoboxes. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

When someone nominates an infobox for discussion, too often that person does not allow the TfM template to transclude, and I and others never find out about the merge proposal until it is too late, especially because nominators hardly ever notify the relevant WikiProjects or talk pages of eponymous articles. Can we please prohibit the use of "noinclude" tags around TfD templates unless there is a technical problem caused by the TfD template? --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that you could follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Article alerts or the article alerts of relevant projects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria for unused templates?

I've proposed templates that are unused for more than 3 - 6 months as a new speedy deletion criteria. Please contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposal_to_add_T4:_Unused. Aim is to speed up the deletion of unused templates, please also contribute any caveats that are required if you think it could be a criteria with a bit of tweaking. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: move template and module rename nominations from RM to TFD

I propose that we move template and module rename nominations from RM to TFD, for the same reason that TFM was moved from PM to TFD circa 2006 and module deletion and merger discussions were recently moved from MFD and PM (respectively) to TFD: more templatespace-regulars frequent TFD than RM. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 23:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 19:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: split TFM from TFD

The consensus is against splitting infobox merger discussions from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The never-ending infobox merger discussions are cluttering up the TFD backlog. I propose that TFM be split into a seperate process. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call two days (total, not chronologically) a "backlog". Besides, splitting out M from D would just make one more place that people would have to look and keep track of. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
What Primefac said. It is going to be the same people closing the discussions at both places, so the "backlog" would just be split. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Wot PFac and Galo sez. ∯WBGconverse 11:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are split requests also in the scope?

Does TfD also handle split requests? Asking as it is not mentioned on the project page. --Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so, but only as a last resort. If it's pretty clear a template should be split, then just do it. If there's backlash, a small discussion can happen. If there's a deadlock and/or no clear opinion, then TFD would be a good artiber to get outside opinions. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Was wondering since no one was commenting on a talk page of a specific template about the issue so didn't know what would be the next step. --Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes templates don't get the watchers that articles do - I've found that if a proposal gets no input I might as well just go for it - people are more likely to notice and/or complain after the changes are made! Always easy to temporarily revert and have a discussion afterward. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Duplication by a module

{{Db-t3}} provides for speedy deletion of a template that duplicates the function of another template. However, increasingly, templates are rendered redundant by the creation of Lua modules (usually the very top level template isn't redundant – it invokes the module – but its 'support' templates are, because they are coded in the module). I've tweaked {{Db-t3/sandbox}} to allow |module=; you can see it in action at Template:Add new taxon. The sandbox version can be made live if there is consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This would seem to be a change to the WP:CSD criterion WP:T3 and so should be discussed at WT:CSD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it then. I thought it was obvious. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems a small enough change (and I'd even say subpages of a template could be G6ed if made redundant by a module); I don't think you need to leave that idea but best would be starting a discussion on WT:CSD and if there are no objections the change can be made. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I've copied my post there. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 22#Template:Ahnentafel-tree

As requested moved from User talk:PPEMES:

There is a good example of the use of {{Ahnentafel-tree}} in the artilce Ahnentafel. I think it complements the list better than the {{Ahnentafel}} template does. Also it is a good example of the width issue.


Ancestry tree with ahnentafel-tree

1. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (born 21 June 1982)

Horses for courses. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. However, would you mind moving the post to talk page morr related to the subject, so as to more readily make the discussion available for others to comment on, please? PPEMES (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I did that last year and included an example in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018_April 24#Template:Ahnentafel-tree, it was reverted because it broke the tempates in which the section was included (read the 2018 discussion for the details). That is why I have posted it here. However if you wish to copy it to elsewhere (or include it as a hard link) then it can be avaiable to others. -- PBS (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Header edit

I'd like to make this change to the header https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FHeader&type=revision&diff=879780194&oldid=864322953 , but I find my edit getting reverted repeatedly by User:Hhkohh who seems unwilling to engage in discussion over this seemingly non controversial change, but insists on bringing it here. So I'm bringing it here. I'm proposing to make this change. Does anyone have a problem with this change? Maybe we can make a something like a page that could be edited collaboratively, so we can find consensus on the wording. I propose to call this a "wiki", which is the hawaiian word for quick, because we can quickly edit it and publish changes. 217.100.152.226 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry! See [1] Hhkohh (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussing with you here for some reason works far better than on your talk page. Glad we got that done. 217.100.152.226 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Unused RfC

Adding a new CSD criterion for unused templates has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Should_a_4th_CSD_for_unused_templates_be_added?. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

50 template limit

I have a couple forthcoming cleanup TfDs for disused s-line templates where the total number of templates to be deleted will exceed 50, which I understand is the upper limit on {{tfd2}}. What's the best way to handle this situation? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Nothing stops you from expanding {{tfd2}} to support more templates; it's fairly easy to do now that I deduplicated the code. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Just post a list. — xaosflux Talk 03:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RS and verification for templates mimicking categories

The Template:Doomsday produces a big label Global catastrophic risk. I recently delved into relevant big picture sources at that article and it seems there are different definitions what that means. To some, sea level rise would be on the list, but to others, SLR is less than trivial, as it would only effect tens of living millions and according to these thinkers that is nothing compared to terminating the potential future of untold numbers of unborn generations of millions. And so we have these different meanings of what that label means. In my opinion the article by that tile is in poor shape. For reasons I'll keep to myself I chose to withdraw. Anyway, today i noticed this template. After screaming the scary sounding label, linked to the low quality article, we list a number of things and the naked listing under this label rather looks like a declaration, in Wikivoice, that each of these is indeed a "global catastrophic risk" (whatever that means). There are no RSs, its just a list in the template.

Is that OK in templates? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary level 3 headings

I don't wish to rock the stylistic boat but would there be support (or at best lack of objection) to me inserting some level three headings in the pages with more than 50 entries? It's very hard to scroll through the wikitext and risky to respond to all entries at once in case there's an edit conflict. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2 section 2

This would be an example of a heading I insert. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): 100% support! be WP:BOLD and do it. Definitely include a comment explaining what the heck it is for tho. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)