Add new requests for a new template or updates to existing templates to the bottom of this page. Please be clear about what the template is used for, roughly what it should look like, and which articles it should link to, if any.
I wish to propose a change to WP:DELETE such that a delete discussion should not end in a merge decision without the matter having been drawn to the attention of those looking at the page that is the target of that merge. Such a notiification is considered a key step in WP:PROPMERGE, it seems anomalous that it is not expected in WP:AFD.
I do not have the confidence to create what I think would be key to such a proposal: a template similar to template:merge from, but with the text adapted to "It has been suggested that rather than delete nnnn, which has been proposed, it might be merged into this page. Discuss." I'm sure I could handle creating the template and the change in text: it is making the link to discussion at AfD that I might struggle with (and how it might apply to multiple requests, though I suspect that multiple merger requests are rare). I think it is probably not too difficult, but I wouldn't be sure of not making a mess of it. I would propose the template name 'merge from afd', but am open to other suggestions if there is a schema of naming templates.
This sounds like a prefectly reasonable idea to me, but I think we need to actually sort of follow the same sort of reasoning behind this request before actually making the template. Namely you should start a discussion at WT:AFD and post a cross-link at WT:MFD so that we aren't creating policy through the template creation process. This might even rise to the level of an RfC, but I'd just start the discussion at those forums first and see what the response looks like. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS
I don't see any policy that would be affected by this. It is already perfectly permissible to propose to merge articles as a resolution to an AfD, and for the AfD closer to close with a finding of consensus to merge; it is also permissible to add ((merge to)) and ((merge from)) templates to an article while an AfD is pending. The proposal is merely to make a slightly more informative template indicating that the "merge from" proposal is being discussed in an AfD. I think such a template can be made boldly. BD2412T 05:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy change is explicitly laid out in the first sentence of the request: XfDs consensing on "merge" should be posted to the merge target as is required for explicit merge requests. I think it's completely reasonable, but I think it is a bit more integral to operations than would be appropriate to just WP:BRD it. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 05:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the thing is I did |try to start a discussion at WP:DELETE but it has had no reply, for or against the idea, in nearly 6 months. Maybe there would have been more response at WT:AFD, but my understanding is that WP:DELETE is the page for the deletion policy.
So apart from dropping the idea altogether, there seem to be two ways forward, one slow, one more of a jolt:
A) Get a template up made, start eavedropping on WP:AFD#Current discussions and pop in a template any time merge is proposed, and hope that the practice spreads; or
B) Upscale my discussion at WT:DELETE to a formal proposal, (and advice as to where is appropriate that might get more response than the current location would be welcome) presenting a fit for purpose template as part of that package.
Either way, a properly crafted template is integral to the next step, which is what brings me here in search of your expertise. Template:merge from would only lead to forked discussion, which is obviously not helpful.
Of course, advice from experienced Wikipedians such as yourselves as to which route to follow, or your response (perhaps being a catalyst for others to chime in) at the WP:DELETE discussion would be welcome. But I don't think I can move without the template... Kevin McE (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the only reason why I thought AfD would be the best place is because it specifically deals with their process. But given that there weren't any objections at DELETE, that's probably a bit more of a nod towards just making the template and adding it to the AfD/MfD instructions to see if anyone balks. Definitely want to link the previous discussion in the edit summary, though. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 23:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very much what I had in mind, many thanks (and to @Bruce1ee who I see has done some tweaking). The additional second template (merge from note) is an excellent idea.
Merge from notes usually sit on the target article itself, rather than the talk page, and that is how I have used it in my couple of trials so far. Because of that I have tweaked the merge from note template slightly to show that. I think it is best to avoid the talk page of the target article altogether, as that would only be a venue for a second parallel discussion. Obviously there might be discussion there subsequently over how to incorporate the merger, but at least with this new procedure they will not have been unwarned. Perhaps someone can check the edits I tentatively made to the template: I think it is OK but I am out of my confidence zone once there are several curly brackets.
One thing that I believe does need changing though. When I have trialled the template:Merge from AfD, the template box reads "It has been suggested that be merged into this article"; I believe the article that has been proposed for deletion (the field labelled disc) should appear between 'that' and 'be'.
Otherwise the only suggestion I would make is whether it is helpful to point out that the merger is proposed as an alternative to deletion. I would prefer it to be explicit myself, but I totally understand that it is implicit in the direction to an AfD conversation.
@Kevin McE: I've now created MfD versions at ((Merge from MfD)) and ((Merge MfD note)) and cleaned a few pieces of logic from the templates. Most importantly, I removed the namespace logic, as there is no guarantee that the merge target is necessarily in the same namespace as the source - and hence would not necessarily match the XfD forum you would expect from the merge target. I will get around to CfD and TfD versions some day soon, but I've got a graduation celebration to get ready for today. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's brilliant, many thanks. I'll launch into the AfD lists tomorrow. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I've just finished up the TfD and CfD versions. I think we are now DoneVanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 04:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request to create a template to obtain parameter WikiText
Hello, I want a template to get a parameter Wikitext. For example, I want to get ((coord|36|55|21|N|48|58|28|E|region:IR|display=inline,title)) in Ab Bar article. There is ((Template parameter value)) to get the value, but in this case, I need the actual Wikitext. I already created a section here. Thanks!
⇒ AramTalk 11:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solved! See here. I recommend turning the result into a new template. Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chess match infobox
Articles about a chess match, such as World Chess Championship 2021, have a table which looks like an infobox. I propose that an infobox template be created for chess matches, similar to the appearance of the table in articles such as this. --Cyrobyte (talk • email) 03:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cyrobyte: It's been a while since I've tackled an infobox, but I'm going to give this a shot over the next several days to see if I can't come up with something. I'm going to have to delve into the code at some other places because the dual-column format is a bit different than most infoboxes. I was thinking that the individual match results would be a nice addition, I'm just trying to come up with a good format for it. Couple of questions: Are draws always scored as 1/2 point each, with a win at 1? Is 14 games + tiebreaker a standard in chess competitions? VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer your questions, draws are always 1/2 point each. There is no standard of the format of a chess match. Fourteen games and a tiebreaker has been the format in the World Chess Championship since 2021. It was 12 games from 2008 to 2018. Other tournaments are single elimination, and so on. Thanks for giving this a shot. Cyrobyte (talk • email) 20:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to request a template similar to the great Template:Arrondissements of Paris for the postal districts of Dublin. It doesn't have to be as fancy! I am creating Wiki pages for each of the districts. With the two already in existence, I am up to four so far. There is a jpg of the districts already, but it is not interactive in the way the Paris template is. Thank you!
FYI Fayenatic london's an admin so can implement the request themselves. I can confirm as a Template Editor that I would do so now if the page were only template protected. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fayenatic, if you want to use your admin powers to do this, I've sandboxed this diff to implement the edit request. You'd just need to copy-paste that diff into the main template and you can answer the edit request at WT:Short description as answered. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 23:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fayenaic london:, it doesn't look like anyone is jumping at doing this. Would you mind implementing that sandbox diff? VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 08:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Fixing typo in ping. For what it's worth a response to an edit request this slow is not unusual, as there are only ~2 people looking at the fully-protected edit request queue. * Pppery *it has begun... 13:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Fayenatic! I just added a WP:CSD G6-maintenance tag to the category so the CfD deletion can now be carried out. So we're not quite done, but definitely YIn processVanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]