This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

So we need to discuss the size of this page. Currently the page is landing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Pppery is doing a valiant effort trying to cut down the page size so that things will transclude properly, but in my opinion their solution (which they have self-described as a hack) is creating other problems. For example, edits like this. While yes that does cut down the size of the page, there is a reason that ((tfdl)) is used for template links on a TFD page. I think we need to look at other solutions. Do we really need to be transcluding ALL tfds onto one page? What about just a link to the currently open discussions? It should be noted that part of the reason this is coming up is that there is a group of us who are working to eliminate unused templates, so we are nominating a LOT of templates for discussion. In the coming weeks I predict a dramatic increase in the number of templates being discussed so I think we need to figure out a good long term solution. @Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: I'm sure you will all want to chime in here. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this specific iteration of the problem will likely go away when all the discussions on the same days as the very highly-attended infobox merge discussions near the bottom of the backlog are finally closed, but you are right about the general idea. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: gotcha. Well let me know. I appreciate you attempts to fix the issue. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: I'm going to have to strongly recommend you stop the hack you're doing as I just realized that it breaks XFDcloser from working correctly. When there are bulk nominations, that is particularly important. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

... just revert my edit when you try to close the nomination. The template limit issue is more pressing that what will happen days in the future. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, I endorse Pppery edits in log pages. But I think when TfD is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, we can use ((tl)) template in a mass templates nomination. When a closer is closing TfD, they should use ((tfd links)) temporarily. After closing, use ((tl)). Hhkohh (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: that creataes a whole extra level of complexity for those of us closing these nominations. Now we have to go in and edit each nomination just to be able to close it? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: in essence what you are doing is saying that in order to facilitate the use of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion to view EVERY open nomination, you are going to restrict the ability of editors to use the TFDL links on every other nomination. If the pages are so big that they won't transclude, then go view the pages themselves. Don't restrict the content so that the entire page can be transcluded. Either way, I would ask that you please follow WP:BRD and now discuss this before making any additional changes that remove ((tfdl)) from pages. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, because this issue has been appeared last year, see last year this date page history. Oh, I forgot it! If log page is no longer transcluded in TfD (all nominations in this log page has been closed). Back to TfD links template Hhkohh (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, Also, there is a rare TfD case. See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Mass Fb team templates Hhkohh (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of this page and why it appears to transclude every TFD discussion. Would it be possible to "noinclude" sections with closed discussions on this page? That might help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, good idea! But no need to perform further action for now because TfD page is not in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded for now Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We had this problem over at WP:PR (see my documentation page). The solutions are (1) close more threads or (2) transclude less either via not including full text, or including full text partially with a size limit as we do over there. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed thi problem on many pages over the years. In this case the issue seems to be overly officious attempts to "clean-up" the template name-space. If you need the name of an existing unused template, then you have a case to delete it. And for some of the old redirects like ((Physics)) there may be a case for preemptively clearing the way. But a lot of the stuff people are trying to delete lives at names that are unlikely to be wanted. It would be more useful put the effort into categorizing these templates in case they are useful in the future, rather than into analysis of whether they are useful now (which I venture to suggest, many !voters don't actually do). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC).

One thought, @Evad37: could you possibly update XFDcloser so that it does not include |module=)) in every nomination? Obviously if the module link is needed it can be included, but removing it when not used would be great. Only saves 10 characters, but those will add up! See this diff for example... Many thanks in advance. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not an XFDCloser thing, that's a Template:Tfd2 thing (I wrote the code), and no that can't be easily done without re-duplicating all the code in the current implementation of Template:For loop. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, can we modify ((tfd top)) template? Like ((rfd top)) template, after closing the discussion, we only see a result summary instead of the whole discussion in WP:TfD Hhkohh (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That could in theory be done, but wouldn't resolve much of the problem, since open TfDs contribute more than closed TfDs. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it will resolve more. Try it! Although opening ones are more than closed ones. But why WP:RfD works well? Hhkohh (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, can you update the TfD top code? Thanks. BTW, now February 21 is excluded now Hhkohh (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think consensus is necessary for that change, and if it is done, the better solution would be to get AnomieBOT to #section-h the open discussions in the "Old discussions" section. Furthermore, I don't like the way RfD does it, because it is a hack that relies on Template:Rfd top producing unclosed wikimarkup. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, we also should modify ((tfd bottom)) as well to avoid unclosed wiki markup. Oh, WP:TFD/All is down now Hhkohh (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason is today TfD log is over 100+ nominations Hhkohh (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have borrowed format from CfD. Hope works well Hhkohh (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, I LOVE the current format of just linking to the last 7 days. A+++++ --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the problem is resolved now. What I would have suggested is <noinclude>-ing ((tfd links)), and putting plain links in <includeonly> tags – or if there are a whole bunch in one nomiation, noinclude-ing all the tfd links except the top few, and putting something like "and 16 more, see [link to logpage discussion]" in the includeonly. - Evad37 [talk] 00:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's rather clever. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37 and Pppery:, good idea but if the mass TfD goes closed, we should back to previous version. Hhkohh (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

... although I personally think that when Zackmann08 finishes his unused-template-cleanup campaaign and the number of open nominations goes down, we should revert to the original method, except for the obvious change of not showing closed discussions that were opened on the same day as open ones. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ha Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: "Ha" how? ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: I concur. Once the number of TFDs per day returns to a normal number, we should definitely revisit this. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• And now the elephant in the room. If there are so many TfD nominations that the main page can't load them all, then possibly, maybe, I guess, it might be the case that there are, well, too many TfD nominations. We do need volunteers to look at and comment on nominated templates. Or has the recent surge of nominations of unused templates been matched by an equal increase in the availability of editors willing to participate?. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it has become far too bureaucratic to nominate unused and hence unnecessary templates for deletion. If admins were willing to act rather than wait for discussion that either doesn't happen or takes a long while, the problem would diminish. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the "elephant in the room" comment is a bit out of place. From one side there was an objection of allowing unused templates to be speedy deleted, and now from the other that either don't nominate unused at all or just nominate less. Can't have it both ways and this is just the compromise we all have to make I guess. --Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

with so many open discussions, it's hard to get useful feedback, and we have situations like this one where the only additional comment is "keep", but the discussion closes as "delete". in the past, these would have been relisted. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Frietjes, in fairness that should have been relisted. Not really sure why the closer made that decision. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I think I need to agree with Primefac here. I'm happy to give my rationale if people are really interested, but at the end of the day I think I got a little overzealous here. Need to step back and be a bit more cautious with closing of TFDs, particularly because I am NOT an admin. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hhkohh (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So I wanted to issue a challenge to everyone watching this page... Let's see if we can get the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell down to ZERO! :-) And yes, I realize this is coming from the guy with like 500 open TFDs.... But would be great to get some assistance with finishing up the stuff in the Holding Cell. Just a fun idea. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD, DannyS712, JJMC89, Hhkohh, and Pppery: pinging frequent contributors to the holding cell. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to help when I can Zackmann08. Best wishes to everyone that works on this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to some cunning Lua programming by @Pppery at Module:XfD old, I have created a template to dynamically display the current state of the backlog at WP:CFD and WP:TFD.

The template is ((XFD backlog)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a whole host of unused documentation templates (1,111 to be exact). The vast majority are the result of the base page being redirected. For example, you have Template:Bible/doc. Well Template:Bible now redirects to Template:Bibleverse. Since the base page has been redirected, there is really no reason to keep the documentation. Technically you COULD redirect the old doc as well, but why? Again I want to emphasize this is ONLY regarding documentation subtemplates (I.E. Template:<sometemplate>/doc) that are UNUSED. It seems to me this is a clear WP:G8. Anyone have any strong feelings? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a G8, as the parent page does exist. What is wrong with redirecting the doc of the old template to the doc of the new template? ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, does G8 then apply to documentation pages for deleted or otherwise nonexistent templates? I would assume so, as documentation pages are technically subpages, though it is not entirely clear. ComplexRational (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. If Template;X doesn't exist and wasn't speedy deleted out of process, then Template:X/doc is a proper G8 deletion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to pursue the claim that doc pages of redirects should be deleted, then take it to the proper venue (RfD) rather than misusing speedy deletion criteria that do not apply. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake Pppery AGF. I'm discussing it at templates for deletion because they are TEMPLATES. You are of the opinion that G8 is not valid, but so far that is just your opinion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Simply redirecting them or deleting them per WP:CSD#G8 are both perfectly fine and functionally equivalent options. -- Ed (Edgar181)
• Support only for non-subst templates. like CSD C1. It should await 7 days after tagging CSD before actually deletion. For any subst templates, should always be posted to TfD Hhkohh (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Zack, some of these could be the result of cut-and-paste moves, if the template at the base page was moved. Some could also be the result of a merge, for which the page should be preserved for attribution, and might not be properly labeled as such. I'd worry that expanding a speedy deletion criterion to this therefore could be problematic. --Bsherr (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Black metal is a redirect. There is absolutely no justification for keeping any sub-pages: Template:Black metal/doc was, quite rightly, deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    ok. Based on feedback from two admins (Edgar181 & RHaworth) I am going to continue to CSD these templates. If anyone else has any strong feelings, feel free to ((ping|zackmann08)) me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion these /doc pages leftovers should be deleted. A redirect has a function (or purpose if you will), in that it serves to lead users reaching it to the correct end-point. How exactly would a user reach an unused and unlinked sub-page of a page that itself was redirected? The only way is by manually searching for that exact title, and that should not be a valid result for a page that serves no purpose. --Gonnym (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) In reply to Gonnym, who I edit-conflicted with: I'm not necessarily saying we need to keep these unused or otherwise "orphaned" /doc subpages. I'm just saying that CSD is completely inappropriate to use in this case. I don't think you need to go about putting in a TFD for every one (hell, I don't really think we need to worry about these pages), but at the very least there needs to be a discussion to determine their fate. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  As seems to be case with all the latest discussions making the system more efficient, more bureaucratic proceedings which serve absolutely no editors. The result of this will be that they will just get put up on TfD slowly, make the discussion list longer for no reason, and end up with the same exact arguments - "unused and should be deleted" and "redirect to new /doc page" - as there can't be any other argument (for valid unused /doc pages of redirect). --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  Or Zach could go through and BOLDly redirect all of the /doc subpages and call it good. It's a heck of a lot easier to undo the creation of a redirect than it is to deal with an undeletion, should it prove necessary. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly, if we're striving for efficiency and we absolutely must do something about these doc subpages, then redirecting them is the one action that's the least time for everyone. And yes, a proposal for extending some CSD criterion to cover them is unlikely to pass: they don't do any harm that I can think of and there all sorts of problems that can arise if they get deleted: attribution could get broken (as pointed out by Primefac), or it might be difficult to fix errors resulting from template merges if you don't have access to the merged template's documentation. – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. ​ The /doc subpages do not meet the criteria of G8, and WP:G6 is not a deletion criteria that means "well I don't really like it so it should be deleted". In the Black Metal example above, the /doc actually precedes the newer doc, and there could have been an attribution issue if the newer /doc had been copied from the old one. There is nothing in G8 or G6 that allows for deletion of these templates, barring IAR from admins who don't really care and just click "delete" when they see a CSD tag. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Reasonable argument made below... still not overly thrilled but w/e. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support CSD If the base template was made into a redirect, then G6 should apply: the doc template was "orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD". In other cases, I note that the list at G8 says "Examples include", not "these are the only possible cases" as some above seem to want to interpret it. An unused doc subpage would be "a page dependent on a nonexistent page": doc subpages exist only to document a template, and if there's no template to be documented then it's dependent on something that doesn't exist. If someone really did do a cut-and-paste move of the doc page (but not the template? why?), WP:REFUND exists. Anomie⚔ 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Eh... fair point. I suppose my main concern is that some admins don't care why a template/page has been nominated, just that it's not an "obviously wrong" tag. I know REFUND exists, but I would just strongly caution anyone wanting to deal with this "issue" to take care and not just batch-nominate 1k+ pages, because that's when mistakes get made. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please can the consensus above be implemented? SITH (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done StraussInTheHouse although you should actually use WP:RMTR for these kind of requests. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, thanks, I've applied +te at WP:PERM/T because I'm seeing more of these types of requests. SITH (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI all, I wrote a little user script that others might find useful... User:Zackmann08/unwatch_deleted.js. All it does is add an Unwatch deleted link to the tools when you are on your watchlist. This will remove recently deleted pages from your watchlist. Feedback welcome! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been pinged lately to a number of TFD-related DRV discussions regarding what some view as poor closures by non-admin editors. Some of these discussions are awfully troubling (supervotes, closing a discussion one is involved in, etc). While I most definitely appreciate the support of these editors in helping to keep the backlog down, I am also concerned that they're trying a little too hard to either be the "first" or the "fastest" or (heaven forbid) purely using TFD as a gateway towards an RFA. I have left a few notes in a few places, and I think the editors I'm referring to know who they are, but before I start wondering if there should be a temporary moratorium on NACs at TFD (for specific editors or everyone) I thought I would just say something.

Again, I totally appreciate the work everyone is doing, both here and at the Holding Cell. However, we all need to remember to weigh consensus (not count !votes) and also remember that TFD isn't as highly-patrolled as other XFD categories. Some quick tips:

• If a discussion has only one vote (especially if it's a "keep") it should probably be relisted.
• If you !vote on a discussion, you should consider yourself involved and thus recuse yourself from relisting or closing.
• If you're on the fence about how to close a discussion, then don't close it (you're welcome to comment/vote of course).

We all make silly mistakes (my talk archives can attest to that), so don't beat yourself up if you've made some, but also remember that a small(ish) backlog at TFD isn't the end of the world (especially now that we've got our new layout that will keep the page a little more manageable). Take your time, make good decisions. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: yea this DEFINITELY applies to me... Appreciate the reminder. I'm being MUCH more careful about not closing things that I've commented on in anyway. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, it's not always easy to close discussions and I want to say your and other editors' work is very much appreciated. You make some reasonable points in a levelheaded way that I hope are taken on board. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If I could a piece of general advice re the Holding Cell? It's great that people have been working so efficiently, but it's only natural that mistakes do occasionally happen – we all make mistakes, that's fine. But when a mistake has been pointed out – it might not always feel very pleasant (nobody likes being told they've made a mess!), and it might be natural to feel like responding with something not nice in return, but the decent thing is to go back and fix those mistakes. We can't expect other people to do that for us, and for something as technical as templates, chances are there isn't going to be anyone else with skills to do that anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, any chance you could take a pass at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions? I know there is no deadline, but there are currently 75+ old discussions that are still open. Would be great to get some of them resolved if/when you have a chance! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Zackmann08, we have set a setting: if backlog is more than 75 lists, admin backlog will be automatically turned on. So do not worry it Hhkohh (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, not worried about it bud... Just asking if he would mind taking a look. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I cleared out a bunch today. Work caught up with me, though, so I didn't have time to tackle the longer ones. Will try to take a look in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a rather interesting reversal of past precedent I finally got around to creating WP:TFDOUTCOMES; I haven't populated it with anything yet but I would encourage anyone interested to help edit it and flesh it out a bit more before I go and add it to places like Wikipedia:Common outcomes or ((precedents)). Primefac (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. An actual improved guideline on templates would be better than the few bullet points we got scattered around different pages, but since that ain't happening, this should do. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The instruction for merging at WP:TFDAI includes:

2. On the to-be-deleted template page, replace ((Tfd)) with ((being deleted|YYYY Month DD)). For YYYY Month DD, use ...

I am experienced at CFD, but new to TFD, and could not make out what to do to (permalink). It does not start with ((Tfd but with ((Tfm/dated. Being confused, I did nothing about that part of the instructions. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the directions, thanks. As a note, you should use WP:XFDCloser to assist with and semi-automate the closing so you don't have to worry about the nitty-gritty details. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, WP:Twinkle should now, if invoked from a page with the Scribunto content model, attempt to place the tag on the documentation subpage, as per instructions. Relatedly, the module display type will be checked. Also, if nominating an infobox, Twinkle should autoselect the sidebar display type. Other recent changes here. Please let me know if there are any issues! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So that ((tfd links|Foo)) gives

• Template:Foo (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions (count)· logs · subpages)

instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:Search/hastemplate:Navbox also yields a number and is rarely off by too much. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys.

I made an infobox draft for law enforcement units as shown here. I had a talk with someone who has voiced the use of the military unit infobox to illustrate law enforcement units such as police tactical units and the like.

So I did have a talk with the user and agreed to do this one. Except that this is a draft and I wish to bounce some ideas. I looked at it now and it seems that I'll have to remove anything related to military stuff since this proposed infobox will be for LE units/divisions that are under civilian police control.

Appreciate any thoughts on this.

Ominae (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Cross-posted/transcluded to WT:WPT. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How is this different from Template:Infobox law enforcement agency? – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac.

Jonesay95, I'm trying to specifically boil it down to make it to a specific division within law enforcement (civilian) agencies? I've seen wiki pages of police units using the military unit infobox and I think that it's not the proper infobox to use. Ominae (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently revising it. Ominae (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

I was busy updating the template proposal for a separate infobox for law enforcement specialist units (e.g. SWAT units, etc...)

Though there wasn't much reception, I was wondering if [the LEA infobox] should just be strictly implemented at all. Ominae (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I non-admin close a TfD as delete if there are no transclusions to orphan?

Background (copied from User talk:JJMC89)

Hi. I wanted to ask you about this edit with the summary revert delete closes done contrary to WP:NACD. I realize that I made a mistake with the tagging of the category for deletion, but can you explain how this is contrary to NACD? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The relevant part of NACD is below. Those closes only required deletion, not orphaning, so a non-admin should not close them as delete.

• Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.
  • Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan.

Additionally, itAs an aside, such closes just makes more work for admins since WP:XFDC can't be used if the discussion is already closed. — JJMC89 02:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: I have read that policy, and have observed other non-admin closes. I have realized that "orphan" means "delete once all transclusions are removed". For the relevant background, See Special:Diff/695098674, where the TfD exception was first added to NACD, Special:Diff/716267935, where it was partially corrected, and Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD, which proposed that non admins be allowed to close TfDs as delete (Consensus in favor of this proposal would interpret the WP:NACD guideline as permitting delete closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators.) and was closed as consensus in favor of implementing that idea (However, there is clear support for at least trying out the alternative proposal. I recommend looking into a trial of the orphan/CSD mechanism, and if this fails to resolve the issue then the first question can be revisited.). Since the templates were already orphans, the CSD mechanism applied. There is no evidence that the closes are limited to orphan only when templates are still transcluded, and since orphaning a template is the same as marking it ready for deletion, I merely skipped the step of listing it as "to orphan" and then immediately moving it as ready for deletion and tagging the templates individually. While I understand you point about XFDC, I don't believe that you desire to use it warrants undoing my close with a summary that says I violated a wikipedia guideline. In short, as far as I can tell you reverted my close claiming I violated a guideline that I believe I followed, and then proceeded to make the same close yourself. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaning a template is just removing all tranclusions. It is a prerequisite for deletion. Something that has no tranclsuions does not require orphaning, thus NAC is not permitted. The initial proposal in that RfC (delete NACs) did not have consensus, only the alternative proposal, which allowed orphan NACs. XFDC was just an aside about increasing the amount of work needed and had nothing to do with reverting your close. (Clarified above.) — JJMC89 05:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Would you be okay with moving this discussion to WT:TFD? I disagree with your interpretation, and believe that NACs can close a discussion as delete even when there are no transclusions. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

NACD would just say Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphandelete. if that were the case. Discussing the interpretation of NACD there is fine. — JJMC89 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: discussion copied. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO TfD NAC-closed-as-delete isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't prevent users from being helpful provided they've spent the time to review each discussion and are willing to be accountable for each close. -FASTILY 19:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Templates_for_discussion explicitly says that non-admins can close TFDs as "delete". There is nothing to discuss. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  WP:NACD is the actual guideline. As an explanatory supplement, WP:NAC must agree with WP:NACD. Also, read the RfC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'm a bit perturbed at WP:NAC getting quoted as much as it does. :^) --Izno (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm a little surprised at how much mincing of words seems to go on. I'm genuinely confused - it's okay to close as discussion as "orphan then delete" but it's not okay to close an identical discussion where orphaning is unnecessary? At that point we're just splitting hairs; when I started at TFD (Sept 2015, shortly after the RFC) I was closing discussions as "delete" and as far as I recall no one ever had issue with it between that time and when I got the mop. If people insist on codifying what has been acceptable practice since that 2015 RFC then so be it, but let's not pretend that there's a significant difference between "orphan then delete" and just "delete". Primefac (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  For an orphan close, there is work (orphaning) that a non-admin can do before deletion, but nothing for them to do when orphaning is not needed. NAC deletes when no orphaning is required just create more work for admins compared to just letting an admin close it. That is a significant difference given that the point of the RfC was to reduce, not merely displace, admin backlogs. A delete NAC (with no orphaning) only displaces the work (and prevents the use of scripts like WP:XFDC) from TFD to WP:TFD/H and/or CAT:CSD. NAC delete (original proposal) closes did not have consensus in the RfC, only orphan (alternate proposal). Primefac, if you were closing as delete when orphaning wasn't required, perhaps no one noticed. I noticed it happening now largely due to the recent trend of TfDing unused templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fair points, though I'm a bit confused by your statement A delete NAC...prevents the use of scripts like XFDC - XFDCloser works perfectly well for NAC closures; tagging the page with G6 and listing it at the holding cell. If that's not right, what is it supposed to do? Primefac (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to the admin not being able to use it since the discussion was already closed. This is more meaningful for batch TfDs. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fastily recently dropped the "number of threads to keep" to 0, likely because there are two long(ish) RFCs on this page. I don't know of any "big" WP talk page that does this (CSD, AN, and a handful of others I frequent all keep 4 threads). Rather than have an edit war over something so silly, I figured I'd get opinions from TFD regulars. My !vote is to keep 4 threads, since that seems to be the norm and allows the most recent conversations to be seen. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh yeah, because this page looks like shit on mobile. Instead of citing a hand-wavy "seems to be the norm", why don't you actually try justifying zombie threads which are de facto archived and therefore belong in an archive. -FASTILY 20:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The oldest thread here is from 29 March, which is less than a month ago. Doesn't really sound like much of a zombie to me. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If threads are eligible to archived, then they should be. I've already stated my reasoning above, so I won't be repeating myself here. -FASTILY 22:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I'm starting this discussion to see what other users feel, since a consensus either way will stop us from bickering about it via edit war. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not just archive the things you think should be archived? --Izno (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Because that defeats the purpose of automatic archiving? Primefac (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Archiving any talk page to blank, zero threads, makes it look like not a talk page, and discourages uncertain people from posting. If the only thread is massive big and irrelevant, manually archive it and leave an explanation or what you did as a lingering thread. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• To be fair, I also believe that it's pointless leaving threads that should be archived on the talk page, even if that leads to 0 open threads, as to me that is a non-issue. --Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing this infobox being used for agencies like the basic SWAT unit in North America. I did ask about making a separate template and there's no good reception. Should the law enforcement infobox be strictly implemented (eg it should be used to replace the military unit infobox)? Ominae (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC) ~

I see that if a closer finds consensus to merge, they'll list the template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_merge (and in Category:Wikipedia templates currently being merged or deleted). I'm curious what happens at that point. Does the user who proposed the merge usually do the work of updating the transclusions and merging the template code? Can anyone help out by just picking one off the list? If they're not an admin, do they leave a note behind so an admin can delete the template that got absorbed? Or should it just be turned into a redirect to the absorbing template? Colin M (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone with the required technical skill can help implement the result of a merge. Sometimes the closing admin does it, but more often it is done by someone else. When a merge is complete and one of the templates should be deleted, the template is moved to the "ready for deletion" section and tagged with ((db-xfd)). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the templates in Category:Rus templates by country, Category:Rut templates by country and Category:Rut templates by competition are simple links and it really isn't necessary for them to exist as templates. I would therefore like to nominate them all for substitution and then deletion. However, there are hundreds of templates in those categories (and their sub-categories). It would take ages for me to tag them all for deletion, so I'm wondering if there is a simple way to mark them all using a bot or an external tool or something? – PeeJay 15:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I have a bot to assist with the tagging of categories for CfD(s), and could file a new brfa to tag these templates. But, I suggest first doing a small scale tfd on a few of the templates. DannyS712 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is really an IAR situation too, tagging and listing THOUSANDS of templates is a complete waste of everyone's time - especially in this case where they are all basically the same template. List a few exemplars and then heavily advertise the TFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and Xaosflux: Thanks for the advice, you two. I'll do a trial run on a couple of the templates in the lesser-populated subcategories and then, if those are deleted, have a go at the wider lot. – PeeJay 18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note for when you go for the "whole group" nomination - on the TFD "daily log" page itself, you should only list a small handful (maybe 5) of the templates, and put links to the rest in a subpage. This way, users can see which templates are being nominated but it doesn't clutter the daily log with thousands of pages. I suggest using Petscan to create the full list of templates if and when you get to that point. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

What sort of subpage are you talking about? – PeeJay 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, when the ((link language)) wrappers were nominated, they were listed here as a subpage of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9. Another (less complex) example is this subpage for when a bunch of Olympics templates were deleted. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

And notably on that second batch, with the templates all being virtual identical with identical use cases and authors, there was no need to manually tag each one with a TFD discussion notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Notifying the authors/editors of them, related wikiprojects, etc is usually enough. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Could a link to the subpage be added to the date headers (ie September 9) under the "Current discussions" section? These links are already present in the old discussions section and the apperance on the subpages will be the exact same, but navigation will be slightly easier. Posted here to gain consensus after request at User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 11#Change TfD headers to links.--Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done this for this weeks subpages and if noone complains will ask for it to be the default again. --Trialpears (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I object to this being done manually. the bot should be the one to do it, since the bot repairs any unrecognized headers. I have fixed the double headers on the ones that were changed manually. Frietjes (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that, thanks for fixing it! I thought it wouldn't interfere with the bot, but apperently it does. It did accomplish the thing I want though, until the bot "repaired" it. --Trialpears (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the cause of the delay in merging Template:Infobox historic subdivision with Template:Infobox historic subdivision, which was listed here on 13 April 2018? There's nothing on either template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Besides that you are trying apparently to merge two templates that are the same template? :) --Izno (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Meh. With ((Infobox former subdivision)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Been working on some other mergers, honestly didn't see this one. Will get to it this weekend. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems done. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this doesn't exactly reflect well on me I guess, but I added a new entry to the log at midnight, September 23. The time in the signature is 00:01 on the 24th, but it's under the heading of the 23rd. Also, a minor thing that isn't a problem: That signature is an hour slow, it's 01:14. MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MaelstromOfSilence, it looks (based on the lack of tags) that you added it manually to the 23rd. If you had wanted it on the 24th, you should have edited the 24th subpage. However, it's not the end of the world, as a few minutes either way isn't going to break things. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you Primefac, my bad.MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, weird stuff like this happens all the time. If you think you might be nominating other things in the future (or just want a cool tool), you should enable and use Twinkle, which automates a lot of the annoying stuff like adding the nomination template to the page and the XfD log. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links. (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we archive the holding cell? Plenty of discussions occur in the holding cell that could potentially be useful in the future. While it is avalible in the page history, having them in archives makes it significantly easier to find since it shows up in the normal search function. I could make a quick bot that archives anything marked with ((done)) or similar. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of a few big discussions recently, there is very rarely (if ever) discussion about templates in the holding cell. I don't know if there would be a ton of use. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's just me who's using it like that then. I still think that many of the discussions recently ought to be archived and having the option of tagging items with discussions as  Done to prompt a bot to archive it would be beneficial. Would you object to me implementing this? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's back this up a second before we jump straight into whether I object wholesale; I mainly don't see what you're trying to accomplish. So, some questions:

1. What type of discussions would be archived? Does the discussion about the ((Copied)) merge (permalink) need to be archived? Would all template listings be archived?
2. Where would they be archived?
3. Based on #1, how frequently are you seeing conversations that would require archiving being removed?

I won't tell you what my answers would be to necessitate this process, as I'm curious to see what yours are first as it was your idea. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure,

1. No, I don't see a particular need to archive that short ecxchange, it doesn't discuss anything about the implementation it self, just who's going to perform it (sorry for the delay, have been doing quite some non-Wikipedia related programming). In general I don't think all discussions should be archived, but the option to do so would be valuable.
2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell/Archive 1 seems like the obvious choice.
3. A few times a month, take for instance this revision which contains 8 discussions, all of which I could see a small benefit in archiving, especially since several of them got another reply or two. This is admittedly an extreme case since a few have stayed there for many months and this falls into a period where I started a lot of discussions for educational reasons as well as a quite large backlog, but even just in the last month there were four I would concider appropriate to archive (1, 2, 3, 4)

I really don't see any harm to it and a not insignificant benefit. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Eh... I'm still not convinced it's necessary, but I don't mind waiting for some other opinions. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Our most long-standing merge requests are ((Infobox name module)) and ((Infobox East Asian name)), both into (or with) ((Infobox Chinese)), dating from April and May 2017, respectively. Is there an issue holding these up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As usual it's mostly that noone has gotten to it. I'll give ((Infobox East Asian name)) a go tonight. --Trialpears (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Some of them just look complicated. Never know 'til you try, though; the subdivisions merger was actually not as bad as I thought. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Any joy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing ((Infobox East Asian name)) is mostly ready and will be added to my long list of things I should do this weekend, ((Infobox name module)) is significantly trickier and will require more module changes. Trappist the monk may want to help out though? The main reason for the stop now was the drawn out RM which decide to keep ((Infobox Chinese)) at its current unfortunate name. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've had a couple of recent TfD discussions concerning "out-of-process" actions on templates.

By that I mean—

• the orphaning, or
• substituting (in the case of templates not mandated to be substituted)—

of a template prior to listing it at TfD, or while a discussion at TfD is pending.

Sometimes this is accompanied by a subsequent claim in the nomination that the template is unused or has few transclusions (because of the beforehand orphaning or substituting), and usually without disclosing that the disuse or low use is due to the prior actions to orphan or substitute it.

There is a long history of identifying when this happens, and sometimes admonishing the editors responsible for it, in TfD discussions. I gave a quick look to try to find one of the earliest examples of this, and here's one from 2005. However, as much as I can tell, a proscription against "out-of-process" actions is not in our guidelines.

So, is there a consensus that this is a proscribed practice (acknowledging that there would be exceptions for templates that are, for example, immediately breaking pages)? And if so, should it be documented somewhere? --Bsherr (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone orphans a template, and then tries to TFD it based on it being "unused", and someone notices this, then by all means it should be discussed at the TFD. Occasionally it will be a valid orphaning (i.e. "single use template that I subst'd into the article"), but if it's been done purely for the purposes of having the template deleted then the reason of "unused" is no longer valid and a better reason will be needed.

To answer your last question, I could potentially see something along the lines of "it is inappropriate to orphan a template prior to nomination" in the guideline, but with so much text on the page already I don't know if it would really do any good. Plus, I'm not sure it's that common of an issue. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The perpetual problem of the choice not to document something on Wikipedia is the doubting that a consensus exists about it. I think there's a larger question about whether some of what appears on WP:TFD shouldn't be made a summary of prospective content at a page like Wikipedia:Deletion process and other policy and guideline pages (perhaps even a new page), which could contain better advice about templates and when each of the outcomes we use is appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean; WP:TfD is set up pretty much the same as WP:AfD, and they both link to the same secondary pages about deletion. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr is apparently referring to my TfD nominations here, and here (two sections of the same page), albeit without the courtesy of a ping or notification. In the former case, I substituted a single use wrapper, leaving behind the template that it wrapped. I subsequently nominated the wrapper template for deletion noting the substitution in my nomination, on the basis that it "can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content". In the second case, I removed just three outdated instances of a time-limited template ("I am busy with exams") from the pages of people who have not edited in the last two years or more. I then nominated the non orphaned template for deletion, again on the basis that it "can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content". Having failed to provide the requested evidence to substantiate his allegations that I acted "out of process" and was being "disingenuous", Bsherr has instead brought us here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I'm simply asking about documenting the guidance. Not about your conduct. And I said in that discussion that I would start this discussion on this talk page, which I assumed you would be watching. --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned no specific talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As we were at WP:TFD, I thought WT:TFD would be apparent, but I can see I could have been clearer. Sorry. --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as I said above, the argument in those two discussions is both "unused" and "unnecessary", and I'd say that your removals (with or without the subsequent TFD) was reasonable. I think raising the issue here is perfectly reasonable, especially since it was done without specifying either the editor or the templates in question. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I've had cases where, as part of general cleanup, I would remove inappropriate uses of a template, only to realise at some point that there are no appropriate uses left and that the template ought to get TfD'ed. Though of course, it's a must for there to be a mention of the prior orphaning. But yeah, over the years there have been occasional situations where editors would orphan a template and then immediately nominate it as unused, "forgetting" to mention the reason for it being unused. You would think this should all be common sense, but I guess we can't completely take that for granted. I don't think it will hurt to have a one-sentence mention of that somewhere at the top. At the very least, we'll have somewhere to point to if an editor asks "Where does it say I can't do that?". – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit to WP:Deletion policy changing a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan to a non-administrator may close a TfD as delete, but was reverted by JJMC89. I think this should be changed since non-admins closing as delete is a common practice and the guideline should reflect this especially since it has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 26#NAC delete closes where I interpreted it as a consensus for allowing non-admins to close as delete with JJMC being the only dissenter. I don't think a whole RfC should be needed to change this just a small change to the guideline to reflect current, uncontroversial, practices, but feel free to turn this into a RfC if you have to. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about changing WP:DEL. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(You changed the deletion process guideline, not the deletion policy.) Non-admins may only close as orphan, not delete. Allowing non-admins to close as delete was originally proposed and failed to gain consensus in the RfC. As such, it is not an uncontroversial change, and you'll need a new RfC to demonstrate that consensus has changed in favor of allowing non-admins to close as delete. The archived discussion was not advertised like the RfC (not representative of the wider community) and therefore doesn't demonstrate a new consensus on the matter.

On the substance of it, I oppose non-admins closing as delete. They do not have the tools to implement the close. If they are trusted enough to close as delete, WP:RFA is that way. Otherwise, it just creates more work for the admin that will have to process the NAC instead of just closing it themselves. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89, fair enough. I still think consensus has changed here as can be seen how these nominations are handled in practice. There was also the 4 day holding period for the CSD tagging, from the same RfC and that did not need a new RfC to remove. I really don't think the RfA argument works since I think my track record clearly shows the competency required to close these discussions but if I were to go to RfA I would undoubtedly fail. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with JJMC89. Furthermore, a track record of competency is exactly what is needed to become an admin, even if that competency is narrow (eg: I ran solely to close RfDs as delete with a track record built primarily at RfD). -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, a lot more is also needed such as tenure of probably more than 18 months, a stellar civility record and not too many controversial opinions. I can come up with several users that I would trust with closing these discussions but doubt would pass an RfA, at least yet. We should of course encourage our good closers to go to RfA, their work would be even more valuable if they're admins, but stopping them from doing good work now is not productive. I will continue closing as usual, but I guess it's not a good idea to put this into policy without significant discussion since there is significant opposition. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

When you're ready to run for admin, I'd be happy to support or even nominate you. Until then, I recommend you leave deletion to those with the technical ability to actually carry out such closures. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not that many 0 transclusion templates and the benefits are close to zero in these cases. I will be more hesitant to close these in the future. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any consensus discussion on the use of the templates in Category:Political party shortname templates? I know that the football teams had similar templates which resulted in around 12k templates being deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

...for the party to mark the third birthday of ((Infobox Chinese)) being listed in the holding cell.

Seriously folks, what's the hold up here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Despite the TfD, the editors on that talk page and on related TfDs keep claiming either that it can't happen, or that Chinese is not an OK name, which was enough to be cause at least one TfD to end at no-consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Whereas the TfDs listed closed with consensus. Have they been overturned at deletion review? Complaints about the name are straw men, since there is no proposal to or mandate for the retention of the name "Chinese". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No deletion review as far as I'm aware. You also don't need to convince me that opposing because of name change is irrelevant. I'm not the one that closed that as such, and would have never even gave any weight to those arguments. --Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Several reasons really. First there's the naming issue. Using Infobox Chinese without Chinese in an article not in any way related to China is problematic. My attempt at changing the name was unsuccessful, partly due to misinformation and partly due to differences in what people think the template should be used for. Perhaps it's worth another go addressing some of the consents from the get go and after some improvements to the template and it's documentation. There's also the issue of direct replacement not being possible. The module version and the template versions of Infobox Chinese don't have the same features requiring significant changes to the modules before going ahead with the merger. I was not knowledgeable enough with lua to do it at the time and the original creator Trappist the monk didn't want to do it either. I think I'm capable of fixing the module now but I still have quite a few ongoing projects so it will probably be a month away. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions#Delete (diff) and added a new section Pages in the Template namespace under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#On deleting pages (diff) to clarify that transclusions must be removed before deleting any page in the template namespace. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's transclusion mechanism will transclude articles if there is no template page with the same name Is this really true? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd, it has happened to me before. Must have been a bug or more likey a misplaced colon after the [[. It is not happening now. I left the first change and part of the 2nd change as they are generally helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox royalty#Infobox advisory detached from infobox. (relating to a recent edit that had the effect of hiding all non-inline TfD tags on mobile) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Text for Template:Tfm2 is explicit in that a merge is proposed. However, Template:Tfd2 is not so explicit. Documentation does not mention deletion. Instructions at WP:TFDHOW suggest that ((subst:Tfd2)) is about deletion:

• For deletion: ((subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~))

Is ((subst:Tfd2)) used exclusively to propose deletion of template? And related question: is merging and deleting the only proposals made at WP:TfD? —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

((tfd)) is used on the template, ((tfd2)) is used on the daily log page. ((tfm2)) is for merging, ((tfd2)) is for everything else. Templates can be nominated to TFD for things other than deletion or merging, which is why it's called Templates for discussion (there's a rather long history behind that, but it's likely the reason why deletion isn't mentioned on the template /doc). Primefac (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know a tool to compare transclusions of two templates? For example, if you have two navboxes, determining the extent to which they appear on the same pages? --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PetScan. Usually used for cats, but can be used to do the same for templates. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. Seems to be timing out on me at the moment, but I look forward to checking it out. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Search/hastemplate:"Warcraft universe" hastemplate:"Blizzard Entertainment" will give you the intersection. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I forget that the search tool has more than just "insource", "intitle", and "incategory". I've been using PetScan because you can set negative templates (e.g. Template A but not Template B). Primefac (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Which you can do also with Special:Search. :D --Izno (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing like learning new things :-) Primefac (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow contributors, I have been prompted by a couple of users that my edit summeries when trying to he propose nominations to the templates for discussion pages have been inadequate. When trying to provide better edit summaries, I have been informed that they are not good enough. Is this edit summary requirement unique to this location on Wikipedia, and if so why? When and where was this requirement originally discussed and then decided upon? Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@PPEMES: are you referring to your edits such as this one? "Inadequate" is a bit of an understatement - as you are using no summary at all. The directions for listing TFD, with examples, are on the associated page here, and it doesn't really matter what some other project (say the Belarusian Wikipedia) does. Now, it is unlikely anyone is going to be very very picky about this, and putting "nominated for merge", "list at tfd", or anything that is a bit more helpful for page watchers as your edit summary will generally suffice. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I didn't know that edit summaries were required also on template pages. I have strived to use "Suggestion" as edit summary on templates for discussion since some users nagged on my talk page about it. Yet, now I found that edit "Suggestion" is inadequate enough to risk a topic block on Wikipedia!

Throughout out my years, I have met with a few mistakes and inadequacies around Wikipedia. Yet, my general attitude is always gratefulness of the time and effort that the contributors offer. Never have the preposterous thought crossed my mind of complaining about anyone's edit summaries, much less threatened them with blocking for that reason! For starters, what right have I to demand that other people are generous with their time and efforts to contribute to Wikipedia - and even less so to demand that they report how they are doing this service to me in edit summeries in the fashion that suits for my personal convenience as a mere observer while they are doing the hard work? That is why I am addressing this page to ask how and when and why this policy was up for policing on this location, if you don't mind? In order to learn which of Wikipedia's five pillars that blocking-grounding policing relies on? PPEMES (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never said anything about blocking anyone - think this is mostly about how everyone can work together the best? Help:Edit summary has some good tips for what makes a good edit summary. I think it is way to early to think about blocking anyone, but the stretch guideline would probably be the catch-all Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I hope you can take the feedback as a way to make things better, by improving your ES's when nominating pages for xfd; think about it from the point of view of other people using watchlists: they may not bother to check up on a small edit from an established editor such as yourself, but when the edit is for xfd reasons they may want to participate in the discussion you started and it would help bring them to it. Using WP:TW as Primefac mentioned below is a way to automate that most of that, but it is completely optional. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well. To have a local rule that says not providing edit summaries according to special standard equals disprupting editing, I'm curious, do you know where this policy was discussed and decided upon? PPEMES (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES, you should probably use Twinkle to assist in nominating templates for merging or deletion; it will take care of all of the edit summaries, put things in the proper place, etc. The only time you should really be manually editing a TFD log page is if you're a) !voting on a nomination, or b) combining multiple nominations into one (which, unfortunately, Twinkle cannot do at this time). Primefac (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Having, rightly, decided not to merge this (see 27 May 2020 discussion) how do we remove the irritating little template that says we're thinking about such a merger? See the example, top right, here, A History of Monmouthshire from the Coming of the Normans into Wales down to the Present Time. I can't see how to get rid of it. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why WP:TFDAI isn't linked from WP:TFD, but I'd encourage Knowledgekid87 to read through it (WP:XFDCloser can also make it easier to close discussions). That being said, both templates are protected, so a ((TPER)) would be required had I not seen and responded (and done what is necessary). Primefac (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: The link is at the very top right of the page. Easy to miss. --Bsherr (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now, but I've added an explicit section as well. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

We have some really recurrent types of proposals here that almost entirely seem to result in deletion. I want to discuss with people active around here about whether it's worth, and what their thoughts would be, about either making some proposals for speedy deletion criteria, or otherwise codifying some of these in an essay that can be easily referred to.

Things that we see all the time are

1. Topic-specific (I just wonder if we could have some limited duration 'cleanup-type' speedy deletion criteria for some of these):
   • Squad templates for non national teams used once or no times
   • Election result templates used once
   • Train route templates that have been superseded by lua modules and are unused
2. Topic agnostic:
   • Unused subtemplates of templates
   • Unused multiple sandboxes of templates (like /sandbox2 etc.)
   • Templates that are just a reference that are unused
   • Templates that are just a link that are unused

I am fully in favour of having discussions about some templates, however it's clear that there is a limit to how many proposals a day this venue can sustain, because of the fact that the vast majority are very straightforward and repetitive. In my mind it might be better just to find a way to deal more speedily with those ones, so that more thoughtful discussion can occur with the remainder. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and comments! --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Ping to PPEMES, Izno, Primefac, TheImaCow, and I do heartily apologise to others I've missed.

The bar at WT:CSD for frequency is pretty high. Some of these also have uncontestability issues, specifically that lack of use is not necessarily a controlling reason to delete. However, I have long desired and fully support the idea of better documentation about general principles for deleting templates. --Bsherr (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "unused" - a CSD category for that grouping has been shot down at least a dozen times in the last few years.

As far as "rules and guidelines" go, I think the best we can do (in the short-term) is to flesh out WP:TFDOUTCOMES (which I must admit is so far down my priority list that I often forget I created it). Primefac (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Get back to reading that novel length RFC. *whipcrack* --Izno (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC))

@Primefac didn't realise that exists, but that's where some of the supplementary material should go.

@Primefac and Bsherr. Just wondering about the unused thing. Putting that to the side some of the common nominations (eg for a reference that has been put into a template, or for a link to an article that's put into a template, or for a subtemplate of a template). These are independent reasons for deletion; the fact that they are unused just highlights how useless they are. It doesn't sound like either of you are optimistic at all for passing something at CSD. I'm thinking of proposing two trial proposals - one for the train set (as it's so pointless to have it recurrently here), and one relating to templates that are just a link or reference. Is there a way I could word it to be more likely to pass? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll cite our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused, and add that, if you could show (1) that the criterion's issue is likely to occur indefinitely (so, of your examples, that probably rules out the train templates, which will eventually be exhausted), (2) that the criterion has super clear boundaries that enable the admin to make a split-second objective determination of whether the criterion is met, (3) that the existence of the page is creating an immediate need for summary deletion, as opposed to allowing the 7 day wait at TfD, like it's causing confusion or presenting a technical issue, and (4) that it arises more than a couple times a week, then I think you stand a chance. Also helpful would be if there is a backlog closing TfDs. Not saying these are any kind of inclusion criteria, just circumstances I think would make a proposal persuasive. --Bsherr (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. Ignoring the regular "unused" kind, a lot of these, such as election templates being replaced in article, or train routes replaced with the module, or football templates being replaced with its module, are always deleted, usually with no actual discussion. Just seems a waste of time and more importantly, makes finding other templates harder. --Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose adding a fifth reason for deleting a template: "The template is currently used, but you believe it should not be used on any pages, because it does not serve the interests of readers or editors." I've seen people object to proposed deletions because they don't fit any of the four reasons, but the reason for deletion was something like:

• A navigational template that is unsuitable, either because it's not scoped well or just doesn't lend itself to an intuitive or helpful organization of articles.
• A "problem tag" like ((cleanup)) that is seldom used or overused or badly used or which the nominator thinks shouldn't be applied to articles.

It's a bit odd to have to find a particular guideline that is violated by a template, rather than just being able to say that using it is worse than not using it, for some concrete editorial reason. That's generally what editing means. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your rationale/examples sound like mixtures of #2 and #3 (leaning obviously more towards #2). Primefac (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This might be related to Beland's attempt to delete ((rn)) which is used at Roman numerals (example: one is I versus one is I). The correct procedure would be to make a proposal at the article's talk that the template should not be used. After gaining consensus, possibly with an RfC, the template could be removed from articles which would make deletion possible. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey I don't know where to talk about this but I have an edit conflict regarding a navbox. Template: Great Lakes Megalopolis. Apparently at least two editors want it gone because I placed it on Missouri cities etc. I am basing it on a source and I don't really want it gone but it seems useless for now. A major discussion on it will be Talk:Detroit. But I do seek more admins and highly knowledgeable editors on it. I should note there is two navboxes like it. One of them is not my creation so I can't speedy delete that one. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you one way or the other, but if you created the page and there have been no significant edits by other users then you are more than welcome to G7 the template as a user request. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok it's on TFD right now. So at least the edit conflicters are doing it right this time now besides removing it on the article's placement. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Originally mentioned at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser/Archive 4#TfD categories

I've long been thinking that separating mergers into template types (Infoboxes, navigational templates, link templates, meta, others) would be a better way to organize the holding cells than the current by topic system. I can update XFDcloser (and sync with an ER). What do you all think? --Trialpears (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

wrt the original idea I posted, I was more getting at the odd temporary category rather than dozens of permanent ones, but admittedly that idea may also suffer from the same issues. If we keep the current structure, perhaps it's worth adding a "science" category at least. 3 of our main page portals are science-related, and "science" is broad enough to chuck stuff like medicine into as well. I can't remember the link for the graph of mainspace articles on Wikipedia by topic, but I think we had a fair number of science articles on it. Course, this is moot if we change to a type split. For the suggestion here, I think I'm a fan; categorising by template type is much more useful to people implementing TfDs than categorising by topic imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I do suppose if we were to add one more category, it would be "science". Simple change all around (one extra section, one line of new code). Primefac (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So basically easy and hard merges? :) --Izno (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hah! Primefac (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm because you've implemented supposedly easy merges that made you want to murder... whatever your choice of murder target is, or if it's a bald laugh because my joke was so spot-on. ;) --Izno (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea. My sense is that implementers look for templates that are within their ability to merge before considering whether it is a subject matter they like. So, actually, Izno's joke might be spot on. --Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a rough consensus to categorize per template type. I've implemented it at User:Trialpears/sandbox/XFDcloser.js and tested it here where it placed my test in the proper holding cell section. Pinging Evad37 for syncing of the gadget. I'll take care of fixing the holding cell as soon as XfDcloser is updated. --Trialpears (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Gadget updated, thanks for taking care of the coding - Evad37 [talk] 01:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The instructions currently says nothing on the rather important question: If you decide to close a discussion, do you have to implement it?

I'm guessing the expectation is yes, in other words, if you're not prepared to implement the delete/merge/whatever, don't close it. But the instructions doesn't say either way!

Is this just an unspoken rule/assumption that "everybody" abides by, or is it really that you can close an xfD without implementing it - not even taking the steps to put it in a holding cell? (I tried looking through the archives, and it seems that back when non-admin closures were discussed, one argument to allow it was that non-admins could still implement outcomes, implying that no, you shouldn't close without implementing)

Either way, I feel the answer needs to be clearly explained on the page. Otherwise we can't tell people they forgot to implement after closing. CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just putting it in the holding cell is very common and an accepted practice. I think we should encourage people to implement it, especially if it's easy to do, but it shouldn't be required. If you had to implement it as well it could take ages before some discussions get closed and it's quite common that the nominator wish to implement the close. --Trialpears (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the instructions should stipulate two stages of a three-stage rocket? Okay, I'll phrase that. (The reason I'm following these talk posts with bold action is that in my experience, people can't be bothered to discuss unless prompted by actual change the disagree with). CapnZapp (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

While I re-type my edit-conflicted message, don't just go ahead edit that page again - you've been reverted, so now it's time to stop being bold and discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because TFD has a non-admin closure exception (i.e. it's perfectly acceptable for non-admins to close the discussions, even as "delete") there is no expectation that the implementation has to be performed by the closer. I think just about every "regular" closer frequently lists things at the holding cell, either because they do not have the time, energy, inclination, or ability to perform the task that is required of the close. Hell, even the admins do it. Unlike other XFDs where the outcome is essentially "keep/do nothing" or "delete", template closures can result in rather labour-intensive follow-up, which isn't always possible at the time of closing. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I didn't see this until just now. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, sometimes people who implement TfDs wouldn't have closed those particular TfDs, so this requirement has that issue. Most the TfDs I've implemented I wouldn't have closed personally, either due to being a participant or lack of relevant experience. The roles of closing vs implementing TfDs certainly aren't the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No objections. I just want the instructions to reflect these insights. CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In lieu of any discussion, do you have a proposal Primefac? (I assume you didn't revert because you actually prefer the status quo.) At the current rate, we're getting nowhere. CapnZapp (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to be going somewhere? I see no reason why this proposed guideline is a good idea, as, for instance, I regularly implement my own TfDs. The job of a closer is to determine if consensus for a proposed course of action exists, which is separate from the technical skill required to implement that action. I expect the likely result of this would be that TfDs that propose difficult-to-do results never get closed, which is clearly not an improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. These are closing instructions, not implementation instructions. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Are you discussing some other page than this: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions?

I see I didn't actually link to the page I'm talking about. Maybe there's closing instructions elsewhere. Anyway, on the page linked there's four sections. First "Close", then "Implement the Close". If they're not all part of "Closing Instructions" maybe that's the disconnect here? CapnZapp (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's be painfully clear: I go from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Closing discussion to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions and I find zero guidance on who performs which steps, if all steps are required or if I can pick just some. Hence my initial question: If you decide to close a discussion, do you have to implement it? Now you're telling me maybe not. That in itself is fine. But it shows the instructions aren't clear or complete enough. I have no intention of actually changing procedure here. Just to have our instructions actually straighten out the very first question mark I had when I got here. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on your latest explanation, I believe we're talking about two different things. We (or at least I) are talking about "closing the discussion", while you are talking about "implementing" the result of that discussion. This section, which is the only section that would involve any sort of "implementation", says that if the discussion is closed as merge/review/etc it should be listed at TFD/H. This is as much information as needs stating, because anything after that (i.e. the "implementation of the result") is handled by a different process. A similar example would be using ((Afd-merge to)) to indicate that an AFD has resulted in "merge"; the closer is not required to actually perform the merge themselves, just close the discussion. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Closing discussion. It says Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Again at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Completed discussions, specifically the "Closing discussions" step, it says The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions. If only PART of that page is meant to be followed during this step, and that some parts aren't actually part of the closing stage, that is not at all clear. Why is even the implementation instructions on that page? The page is called "Closing instructions", so it's natural to assume it contains the, wait for it, closing instructions...! I call for the instructions to make the answer to If you decide to close a discussion, do you have to implement it? simple and clear. What steps are actually part of "closing"? How, when and by whom does the process move from the closing stage to the implementing stage? I am telling you that unless you're an experienced TfD closer, for which all of this might be crystal clear, it is actually incomplete and confusing. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think this is a common misconception. The closing instructions already say to list it at the holding cell. Someone who doesn't know that they don't need to implement it themselves probably doesn't have enough experience in TfD to be closing discussions anyway. I personally don't see the issue here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, we don't write your guidelines only for the people that already know what they say. Either you understand my concern, or I'll help explain - if you ask. CapnZapp (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed any instance of the word "implement" on the closing instructions in an effort to hopefully clear up this misconception about what that word actually means. CapnZapp, is it any clearer now? Primefac (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but you still don't seem to get my point. I see a list of steps to be taken. There are zero indication you shouldn't do all of them. Now, you guys says only some of the steps need to be taken at the point of closing. Okay fine, but then please make the page explain the details: is it okay to do a close without doing the "post-close" actions? If so, under what conditions? Look at the edits I made (now reverted) for examples of language that actually attempts to fix the issue, which is that a reader needs to be able to understand the closing procedure just by reading the instructions; with no details "that you just know". CapnZapp (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There are zero indication you shouldn't do all of them. Right, because you're supposed to do all of them. I've further condensed the instructions to make that explicit. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we're getting to the issue at hand. @Trialpears: How does this jive with your initial reply: Just putting it in the holding cell is very common and an accepted practice. I think we should encourage people to implement it, especially if it's easy to do, but it shouldn't be required. If you had to implement it as well it could take ages before some discussions get closed and it's quite common that the nominator wish to implement the close. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks to be consistent with current norms, so no complaints from me! --Trialpears (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, hope that you're well. I was hoping there might be an automated way to remove ((Inflammation)) from these articles:

| group4 = Specific<br/>locations
 | list4 = ((Navbox|child

   | group1style = background:LemonChiffon;

   | group1 = [[nervous system|Nervous]]
   | list1 =
* ''CNS''
** [[Encephalitis]]
** [[Myelitis]]
* [[Meningitis]]
** [[Arachnoiditis]]
* ''PNS''
** [[Peripheral neuropathy|Neuritis]]
* ''eye''
** [[Dacryoadenitis]]
** [[Scleritis]]
** [[Episcleritis]]
** [[Keratitis]]
** [[Retinitis]]
** [[Chorioretinitis]]
** [[Blepharitis]]
** [[Conjunctivitis]]
** [[Uveitis]]
* ''ear''
** [[Otitis externa]]
** [[Otitis media]]
** [[Labyrinthitis]]
** [[Mastoiditis]]

   | group2style = background:MistyRose;

   | group2 = [[cardiovascular system|Cardiovascular]]
   | list2 =
* [[Carditis]]
** [[Endocarditis]]
** [[Myocarditis]]
** [[Pericarditis]]
* [[Vasculitis]]
** [[Arteritis]]
** [[Phlebitis]]
** [[Capillaritis]]

   | group3style = background:MistyRose;

   | group3 = [[respiratory system|Respiratory]]
   | list3 =
* ''upper''
** [[Sinusitis]]
** [[Rhinitis]]
** [[Pharyngitis]]
** [[Laryngitis]]
* ''lower''
** [[Tracheitis]]
** [[Bronchitis]]
** [[Bronchiolitis]]
** [[Pneumonitis]]
** [[Pleurisy|Pleuritis]]
* [[Mediastinitis]]

   | group4style = background:#fd6;

   | group4 = [[Digestion|Digestive]]
   | list4 = ((Navbox|child
     | groupstyle = background:#fd6;

     | group1 = ((nobold|''mouth''))
     | list1 =
* [[Stomatitis]]
* [[Gingivitis]]
* [[Gingivostomatitis]]
* [[Glossitis]]
* [[Tonsillitis]]
* [[Sialadenitis]]/[[Parotitis]]
* [[Cheilitis]]
* [[Pulpitis]]
* [[Gnathitis]]

     | group2 = ((nobold|''tract''))
     | list2 =
* [[Esophagitis]]
* [[Gastritis]]
* [[Gastroenteritis]]
* [[Enteritis]]
* [[Colitis]]
* [[Enterocolitis]]
* [[Duodenitis]]
* [[Ileitis]]
* [[Caecitis]]
* [[Appendicitis]]
* [[Proctitis]]

     | group3 = ((nobold|''accessory''))
     | list3 =
* [[Hepatitis]]
* [[Ascending cholangitis]]
* [[Cholecystitis]]
* [[Pancreatitis]]
* [[Peritonitis]]

   ))

   | group5style = background:Linen;

   | group5 = [[integumentary system|Integumentary]]
   | list5 =
* [[Dermatitis]]
** [[Folliculitis]]
* [[Cellulitis]]
* [[Hidradenitis]]

   | group6style = background:WhiteSmoke;

   | group6 = [[Human musculoskeletal system|Musculoskeletal]]
   | list6 =
* [[Arthritis]]
* [[Dermatomyositis]]
* ''soft tissue''
** [[Myositis]]
** [[Synovitis]]/[[Tenosynovitis]]
** [[Bursitis]]
** [[Enthesitis]]
** [[Fasciitis]]
** [[Capsulitis]]
** [[Epicondylitis]]
** [[Tendinitis]]
** [[Panniculitis]]
* [[Osteochondritis]]: [[Osteitis]]/[[Osteomyelitis]]
** [[Spondylitis]]
** [[Periostitis]]
* [[Chondritis]]

   | group7style = background:#BBEEBB;

   | group7 = [[urinary system|Urinary]]
   | list7 =
* [[Nephritis]]
** [[Glomerulonephritis]]
** [[Pyelonephritis]]
* [[Ureteritis]]
* [[Cystitis]]
* [[Urethritis]]

   | group8style = background:#BBEEBB;

   | group8 = [[reproductive system|Reproductive]]
   | list8 = ((Navbox|child
     | groupstyle = background:#BBEEBB;

     | group1 = ((nobold|''female''))
     | list1 =
* [[Oophoritis]]
* [[Salpingitis]]
* [[Endometritis]]
* [[Parametritis]]
* [[Cervicitis]]
* [[Vaginitis]]
* [[Vulvitis]]
* [[Mastitis]]

     | group2 = ((nobold|''male''))
     | list2 =
* [[Orchitis]]
* [[Epididymitis]]
* [[Prostatitis]]
* [[Seminal vesiculitis]]
* [[Balanitis]]
* [[Posthitis]]
* [[Balanoposthitis]]

     | group3 = ((nobold|''pregnancy/newborn''))
     | list3 =
* [[Chorioamnionitis]]
* [[Funisitis]]
* [[Omphalitis]]

   ))

   | group9 = [[endocrine system|Endocrine]]
   | list9 =
* [[Insulitis]]
* [[Hypophysitis]]
* [[Thyroiditis]]
* [[Parathyroiditis]]
* [[Adrenalitis]]

   | group10style = background-color: LightGreen

   | group10 = [[Lymphatic system|Lymphatic]]
   | list10 =
* [[Lymphangitis]]
* [[Lymphadenopathy|Lymphadenitis]]

Following a closure by Bsherr here Special:Diff/prev/973741037. Fingers crossed, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup. So the goal is to remove the template from the pages linked in the bottom half of the navbox, which you are removing. So, we can take the template and throw it into a sandbox, then delete the top half of the navbox, which we are keeping, so what's left is the part we are getting rid of. Then we can use AWB. We make a list using as our source "Links on page" from our sandbox page. Now we have a list of all the pages we want to rid of transclusions of the template. Set your find and replace to nullify the transclusions of the template, and run! --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful! Will get to this on the weekend, hopefully. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That Primefac is fast! --Bsherr (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that was very speedy! Thanks Primefac! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Of course, it helps that a) I was around, and b) I have a bot that can deal with the hundred-odd pages that needed it. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/973977999

That's not good enough as an undo reason, User:Primefac. What do you mean? Address each change individually. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you insist... italics are what I removed/reverted:

• Determine whether or not a "rough consensus" to delete (or not) has been reached. If a consensus to delete has not been reached then it has not been reached; i.e. if the answer "is there a rough consensus to delete?" is "no" then the "(or not)" has been met without it needed to be stated explicitly.
• See Deletion guidelines for administrators for more, in particular guidelines on what constitutes "rough consensus". I suppose this could be reworded to "See also Deletion..." but the name of the page gives a pretty good indicator of what will be there.
• If after seven days there is no consensus or little participation an editor may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion, thereby closing the old one, and starting a new one. If you decide to relist: That's just wordy and unnecessary.

All of what I've removed is "implied" by the statements that precede or succeed them, which means I can use one edit summary for all of the removed statements. We're trying to go with a philosophy of "less is more" with guidelines. Don't use seven words when four will do. I get that you're wanting to improve the guide, and I appreciate that, but "more words" doesn't always equal "better". Primefac (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You did not mention my addition of an anchor, so your undo again breaks the in page link. In your haste to undo my work with minimal effort you probably didn't even see it. The "(or not)" is copied directly from Deletion guidelines for administrators. It refers to the result, that can be delete, but can also be something else. It does not mean the consensus has not been reached. (Feel free to improve, but undoing is not constructive progress!). If you suppose something, please don't blanket undo - it comes off as incredibly dismissive. I wanted to cue the reader in to why he or she is sent to deletion instructions even when attempting a keep or merge etc. I disagree the changed phrasing is unnecessary, after all I made the edit. But in this context "wordy and unnecessary" is not "implied statements", so again, consider stopping wholesale undo's with minimal edit comments. My rationale was to make it clearer that any editor can relist a discussion, not just some special kind of "closing editor". Relisting is not listed under Closing Instructions, so the distinction feels useful. You're not closing the discussion, you're relisting it. That relisting means following some of the Closing steps doesn't change this. Again, feel free to suggest improvements. But if your approach to less is more is terse reversion, I'd rather ask you to leave the page alone and wait for more verbose editors to offer suggestions.... Regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be wise for future proposed changes to have consensus before implementation to avoid this sort of situation. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I made bold edits, you reverted me. But you did it with the least effort possible, missing half the reasons why I made changes. I also note that when you were called out on this unfriendly behavior, you spent maybe 90% of your total effort so far, not on the article, but justifying your shitty behavior here on the talk page! Again you dismiss me with phrases like "We're trying to go with a philosophy of "less is more" with guidelines." No, Primefac, you might be trying to do that. For me, that phrase basically only means "I didn't like your contributions so I shot them down without having to explain myself". Do you realize "reverted because the number of words increased" is a really unhelpful explanation on how to do better?

Then you reverted me again, and now you aren't even bothering to engage at all. No, I don't need your permission to make changes. Explain to me how your engagement is constructive and not gatekeepery. Now please finally realize that with reversion comes responsibility to actually constructively explain what you like and what you don't like about the reverted addition (if you don't simply improve them further on the page). If you can't do that, maybe it's time to leave the additions in for a week or so, to give other editors a shot at engaging (in a much more constructive way than you can be bothered with). Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you want here; I think the page is fine so I don't need to keep editing the article. That means that of course I'm going to [justify my] shitty behavior here on the talk page.

So let's discuss it with others; you've made your point, I've made mine, and neither one of us is finding the other's argument convincing. My last post was to imply that rather than "I'm going to change it again and then discuss" we should discuss changing the language first. I'm not gatekeeping (hell, you've made some very good points that have resulted in changes like this), just doing what I feel makes the most sense. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"I think it was fine" is a poor argument - why is it fine? It doesn't leave me anything to work with. You clearly know I find the previous version lacking. If you want to argue why my concerns are adequately addressed by the previous version, you are free to do so. But so far, you have only provided arguments once, you did not do so voluntarily or friendly, and you missed half my improvements. So since you aren't sure what I want, here's what I want:

* Why did you revert me clarifying "(or not)" now that you know the real reason?

* Consensus is linked, but arguably "rough consensus" is the important term here. Explaining to the reader what he should look for in the linked guidelines seems relevant. Why do you not agree?

* Relisting isn't closing. Read the instructions and you'll see the difference (hint: Relisting is now its own section!) Why did you think "rmv implied statements" would convince me to stick with the previous version?

Let me just say having to drag it out of you like this is testing my patience. You should reconsider your approach to Wikipedia if you truly think it is okay to spend two seconds just reverting somebody else's hard work, and then feign ignorance, repeatedly forcing me to drag answers out of you! Either don't spend the energy Primefac - and stand aside without interfering, or engage on the issue by constructively working with me, not against me! CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, and this is important, statements such as It would be wise for future proposed changes to have consensus before implementation to avoid this sort of situation and So let's discuss it with others are 'disingenuous. If nobody else has a problem with my improvements, they respond by... doing nothing. Silence is consensus. By first reverting, and then asking people to discuss, you engineer the situation where people with no strong objections appear to agree with you. That does not fly. You are the only one objecting, so you need to be the one spending time on talk arguing for your position. If you want to give the floor to others, first stop reverting my improvements, then let some time pass to see if anyone engages! CapnZapp (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pppery for fixing the anchor, but really your edit comment kinda misses the woods for all the trees. It's not as if the matter is resolved - we're at the stage where my changes have been reverted wholesale and I'm waiting for Primefac to explain what compromise phrasing he suggests to move us forward. CapnZapp (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary does not miss anything. I said, correctly, that there's been too much drama over the entirely uncontroversial addition of an anchor. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed all sixteen links and redirects to the page to confirm, and the section link on this page is the sole link to the anchor. Can we just change the section link to use the name of the section? That would be preferable for clarity, anyway. Are there other changes we need to discuss? --Bsherr (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody made any drama over the anchor addition, Pppery. The drama has never been about the anchor addition. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr: you are free to change the link, the section title or both. But update, don't remove, the anchor - its function is to safeguard the article from breaking when inevitably a future editor changes one but not the other. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the section link should always be the name of the section, it would be better to put in a code comment at the section heading identifying the existence of the section link below and directing it to be updated if the section heading is changed. May I do that instead of the anchor? --Bsherr (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the point here is that it used to just be called "close". In theory, this means that any old links pointing to #Close wouldn't go to the correct section any more, hence the ((anchor)). Primefac (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above, I checked them all, and none of them actually do. --Bsherr (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, wouldn't figure there would be that many places even linking to WP:TFDCI other than folks using the shortcuts. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points on the closing guidelines I'd like to clear up, following discussion:

1. The case for attribution, following a recent TfD. I see in the archives a couple of discussions on attribution, but no clear consensus on how attribution should be done consistently for all TfD closures, particularly in subst+delete cases. I would note that generally we do not provide attribution in such cases at present, but that seems to be more an oversight than deliberate policy? I think turning into a redirect and tagging with ((Attribution history)) works for many cases, but where a template has multiple usages that were substituted, it's not really clear what the "target page" is when preserving attribution (in such cases, perhaps the edit summary of subst could point to the preserved redirect)?
2. Are non-admin TfD closures subject to refunding at WP:REFUND, or should they always go to WP:DRV?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To answer the second question first, a TFD closure should almost never go to REFUND unless the discussion was closed as a soft delete. Despite using "G6" i.e. "uncontroversial" as the delete reason, the closer needs to be contacted and either the discussion re-opened/relisted or sent to DRV. Back in my pre-admin days, there were quite a few templates that I asked for to be undeleted so that the discussion could be relisted.

As to the first question, it's never really been discussed. I've probably performed all permutations, from saying nothing but "substing template" to moving the template to a subpage of the article's talk space, but until recently (one or two TFDs in the last month come to mind) no one has ever said anything about what I (or any other TFD-involved editor) was doing. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To respond to second para (first question), it looks that way generally too. I can't see much consistency in how anybody applies attribution in these cases. I suppose with templates it's trickier because, unlike articles where content goes A -> B, templates go A -> B,C,D,E,[...]. One initial thought I have is:

• In one-usage subst+delete cases: do what you did with TfD Instructions (redirect + my tag of ((Attribution history)), or a template variant of this, for purpose of categorisation).
• In multiple usage subst+delete cases: blank and replace with ((Attribution history)) with no redirect (as no target would be obvious).
• In both cases, move template to a subpage of some prefix (eg Template:Preserved/TfD instructions) to stop the main template namespace getting polluted with blanked templates.
• Have the subst edit summary mention this archived page to serve as attribution (e.g. "Substitution of Template:TfD instructions following TfD. See for attribution: Template:Preserved/TfD instructions")

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine editors here could have deliberately decided to violate Wikipedia's license. Probably this was not something they have been conditioned to pay attention to, and that's likely been made easier by the fact that many templates contain too little content to be easily recognised as subject to copyright. There's a small paragraph about "subst and delete" at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Discussion, and sure enough it mentions the issue, but I think it's better if all this is unpacked into a page of its own. I've had an initial stab at it with Wikipedia:Substitute and delete. It's got a brief intro and a little section on considerations when deciding whether to delete. You're welcome to expand and modify it: it could definitely do with some practical advice on implementing "subst and delete" closures, and probably some guidance on when this outcome is appropriate in the first place. Oh, and obviously, any process for preserving histories that is agreed to in this discussion can be added there. – Uanfala (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding one specific point: if a redirect is preserved because of its history, then the common way of marking this is with ((R from merge)). I'm not quite sure what niche is occupied by ((Attribution history)), it appears to be used mainly on talk pages and as far as I can see it duplicates the more commonly used ((Copied)). – Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Not saying there's a violation of Wikipedia's license, just that the closing instructions are unclear & there's no consistent practice on the matter. I personally haven't paid that much attention to it, either. Ideally (hopefully) this section can come up with a general practice. I think any considerations on this can just be added as a section into the closing instructions. Would like to hear what experienced editors who have implemented TfDs for years think is a good way to consistently address the issue, whilst not polluting the namespace or something. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Following up, what do we think would be a good practice to create on issue (1)? Or thoughts on my suggestion above, as a starter? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There's some proposals on the XFDcloser talk page regarding non-admin soft deletes and holding cell formatting; please comment at WT:XFDC § Soft deletion at TfD and WT:XFDC § TfD merge to holding cell - Evad37 [talk] 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, having used Twinkle quite a lot for my own template editing and seeing Pigsonthewing's opera proposals recently (which I hope we can respectfully disagree on), it does occur to me it would be quite useful to have the option on Twinkle to be able to set a defined link for a discussion about a group of templates, rather than having Twinkle list the discussions piecemeal. I do recognise piecemeal discussion this is often done intentionally but at the moment there isn't an option that lets you group things.

I think as an optional feature this would be really useful for us here.

I've requested this proposal on Twinkle - please feel free to comment - here: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Request_for_custom_template_deletion_name. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, small question here - I remember someone mentioned there being a tool which outputs articles which there is a mismatch between transcluding the template and being linked on the template (ie. which articles are linked from but don't include the template, and which articles link to the template but don't include it). I am sure there was a tool that printed a list, but I just can't find where that discussion was, so I have lost the link to the tool. Does anyone have the link? --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name= It would probably be useful to put it somewhere (maybe TFDH?) but I'll have to think about that. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :)! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the non-admin close at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 22#Template:RFArcasenav a valid close? Is there a guideline or policy which states that a set of templates are untouchable? If so, I'd very much like to see that exception. --Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to unpack in your statement, in the close made by Cthomas3, and in the nomination itself. I see the rationale behind AGK's statement and the close; this is an ArbCom-specific template, and whether it's used or not is mostly up to them to decide. I've been seeing a lot of these "cart before the horse" nominations lately, wherein someone tries to get rid of the underlying template without having discussed the substance of the template beforehand (examples being AFD hatting templates, blocking policies, and even rcat templates among others).

Were the clerks contacted about this template? Doesn't appear to be the case. Should they have been contacted? Probably. Do they likely have a reasonable authority to decide which templates they use, deprecate, and delete? Kinda.

To answer the initial question, I think because of this template and (for lack of a better term) the BEFORE/discussion with the clerks did not happen beforehand, it's a reasonable close. There isn't a guideline that says if a template (or set of templates) is verboten for deletion, but I should hope one would give serious thought before nominating a set of templates from one of the most bureaucratic groups on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Gonnym, and thank you for asking the question, and thank you Primefac for chiming in. No, I don't believe there are templates that are untouchable or off-limits for discussion. The reason I closed this discussion wasn't to quash it, it was to use this as a catalyst to make a decision among the clerks that has come up before a few times. We've periodically kicked around some ideas for changing how casenav fundamentally works, but there was never any urgency to it. However, since the subject of one of the templates has come up, it now makes a lot of sense to actually decide what we want to do before anyone takes on a great deal of effort to fix something that we plan to make wholesale changes to anyway. I hope that helps explain my actions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I suspect you're looking for a particular policy reference, Gonnym, the policy authority stems from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Procedures and roles ("The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages[...]."). Arbitration pages aren't "untouchable", but the arbitration policy provides that their management is in the hands of the clerk team. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Too wordy" is sweeping and non-specific. That is not constructive, since it leaves little to build further improvements on. I would not have made the edit if I thought everything was already top notch. What is your suggestion? Please propose an alternative that acknowledges my goal without falling foul of yours, or in other words - cooperate. Just reverting is not cooperative.

"grammar and sentence structure is fine":

The sentence "Determine whether or not a rough consensus to delete has been reached" means editors are instructed to proceed only if consensus on delete has been reached. This is incorrect. Your reply reads as if you either blow off my concern or don't understand it, yet you take it upon yourself to revert the change!

This reply also totally ignores the difference between consensus and rough consensus which I attempt to highlight. Two concepts, defined differently, at different locations. Understand not everybody has mastered this page, as you might have. My suggestions actually help newcomers to understand the process described here.

Finally, your last edit was technically not a revert. And yet, somehow it completely erases my efforts... making only a non-substantial change in phrase. When you relist what about step one isn't starting a new discussion? What about step two isn't closing the old one? Please explain exactly what's "technically incorrect" here?

More in general, Primefac, please respect when editors make an effort by at least making a similar effort in your responses! So far you are the only editor opposing my changes, and so far you have been less than forthcoming. Step up your game or step out of the way! Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally, your last edit was technically not a revert. And yet, somehow it completely erases my efforts... making only a non-substantial change in phrase. When you relist what about step one isn't starting a new discussion? What about step two isn't closing the old one? Please explain exactly what's "technically incorrect" here? The discussion is not closed. The whole point of relisting is to keep the discussion going. It is, for technical purposes, just moved (to the new dated page, hence preventing a fork). Saying the current discussion is being closed and a new one is started is perhaps in purely technical terms a correct description, but it's not an accurate one, and so is confusing.

Regarding grammar on "or not" I feel the current wording seems more grammatically correct.

For info on the procedures I personally think the wiki-wide policies are more helpful, combined with just observing TfD for a while. The TfD closing instructions are mostly technical advice, much of it made moot day-to-day by XFDCloser. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned reply, Procrastination. I'll continue the discussion below. CapnZapp (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to write a treatise for every edit summary I make; "too wordy" means exactly that - you trebled the number of words in that sentence without changing the meaning. I will admit I realized after I saved that I should have said "...structure in current text is fine", but I wasn't about to make a null edit to correct it. As PR says above, your interpretation of the consensus statement is incorrect.

Additionally, as I have said multiple times after the multiple times you have made unnecessary (but I will admit, good faith) changes to these instructions, if I don't propose an alternative about how to improve the wording it's because I do not feel that there is an alternative (i.e. the current wording is acceptable). Also, as per previous discussions, I am more than happy to discuss any proposed changes you may wish to make, argue over grammatical structures, etc, but when you immediately come here and imply that I'm some sort of grand overlord who refuses to listen to anybody and is making horrendous changes without the slightest consideration for the little man, it doesn't really make it easy to find a middle ground. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC) also, for those curious, we're discussing recent changes to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions, the talk page of which redirects here

You can't just revert with "it's fine as is". That completely fails to distinguish between "I understand the impetus for change but feel every aspect of this is already covered" (fine) and "I just don't like it" (off-putting). When you make a revert, you negate sometimes hours of work of another editor. Please respect the work of other editors enough to actually engage with their points! For instance you just revert me AGAIN with a dismissive "we don't need this word" edit summary over at Deletion process, as if a) you're part of a community, but I'm not and b) "we" know better than I do. It's incredibly condescending and you need to stop. And now you make me appear as if I have demanded that you "write a treatise for every edit summary". This is a gross mischaracterization! CapnZapp (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed. The whole point of relisting is to keep the discussion going. It is, for technical purposes, just moved (to the new dated page, hence preventing a fork). Saying the current discussion is being closed and a new one is started is perhaps in purely technical terms a correct description, but it's not an accurate one, and so is confusing. I wanted to explain that what a Relisting really is, is closing an older discussion and opening a new, identical, one with the current, fresher, date. I consider that an editor that understands this is better armed to make the relisting. PS. I noted that the process of relisting involves closing the discussion with result of "relisted". So which is it, is it technically just moved, or closed - you claim both above, and what's the difference between "for technical purposes" and "in purely technical terms"? CapnZapp (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding grammar on "or not" I feel the current wording seems more grammatically correct. The important distinction I'm trying to get at is when there's consensus irrespective of what result. Maybe I'm wrong but with respect, please try read the following with no preconceived notions. Let's boil down the sentence

Determine whether or not a rough consensus to delete has been reached.

to it's essence:

Determine whether or not X has happened

X here is "consensus to delete". Thus, the sentence covers "consensus to delete has been reached" and "consensus to delete has not been reached". It does not cover the case of "consensus to merge has been reached", for instance.

In my suggested phrasing Determine whether a rough consensus to delete (or not) has been reached. The "or not" is meant to mean "or other outcomes". It is taken directly from WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators which says Once the decision to delete (or not) has been made. I am open to other approaches to solving this, but so far the only other editor (Primefac) has not engaged constructively, merely shut me down with no attempt to actually enter in conversation or ask me what I'm trying to do. CapnZapp (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As for for more, in particular guidelines on what constitutes "rough consensus". we've just introduced the concept of "rough consensus" without meaningfully defining that term (or how it differs from regular consensus). I note that this definition can be found within the page we link to (Deletion guidelines for administrators). In order to ensure the reader looks for and find this definition, I suggest we explain WHY we link to the page. I myself was stopped in my tracks when I read this sentence with the question "what is this rough consensus thing" and being able to see that I would find a definition by looking in the linked article would have been clearly helpful. CapnZapp (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This concerns edits over the last few weeks at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions. This discussion is extremely vague and unhelpful. Please make one concrete proposal with a brief explanation of why it would be desirable, then wait for opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

you negate sometimes hours of work of another editor. You have been reverted multiple times here and elsewhere. You should expect at this point that your changes will be controversial in some way and should accordingly propose first, edit second. That way your time will not be wasted.

Secondly, are you attempting to close discussions? If not, your concerns are largely hypothetical. Please show us where you are having trouble closing discussions, not just with reading the instructions. Succinctly describe the issue you are having. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay so let us discuss the proposed changes in different subsections for your overview and convenience. Let's start with what I'd like to call "Consensus to what?" and "Rough Consensus". CapnZapp (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to what?

Page Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions, section Closing the discussion, 2nd point:

Primary suggestion. Change:

Determine whether or not a rough consensus to delete has been reached.

to

Determine whether a rough consensus to delete (or not) has been reached.

Rationale: The text asks you to choose between A) a rough consensus to delete has been reached and B) a rough consensus to delete has not been reached. It does not provide instructions for when, say, a a rough consensus to merge has been reached.

The proposed change uses the language from Deletion guidelines for administrators: Once the decision to delete (or not) has been made where "delete (or not)" is shorthand for "delete, keep, merge etc". If this parenthetical expression is deemed unclear here (if not there as well), please consider the secondary suggestion:

Secondary suggestion. Change:

Determine whether or not a rough consensus to delete has been reached.

to

Determine whether a rough consensus to delete (keep, merge, etc) has been reached.

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no objections, I will have to assume silent consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend instead removing "or not" entirely. If we want to keep it, the parenthetical isn't particularly idiomatic or necessary as a parenthetical, and its cue to the deletion guidelines that you're implying is too subtle.

I don't see a need for the second change. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point; a similar real-world example is "checking to see if it's raining", wherein there is the implication is that "or not" is still one of the binary options. I would support removal of "or not". Primefac (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not just "Determine whether consensus has been reached"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I considered that last night. I wasn't sure if I liked it. We're shooting for rough consensus according to the current guide... --Izno (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Andy's point is to remove the "to delete" as well. In other words, the closer should say "is there a <rough> consensus?", regardless of whether that consensus is to delete or do something else. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, and I'm saying that I considered the same. --Izno (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rough Consensus

Page Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions, section Closing the discussion, 2nd point:

Suggestion: Change

See: Deletion guidelines for administrators.

to

See: Deletion guidelines for administrators for more, in particular guidelines on what constitutes "rough consensus".

Rationale: The preceding sentence contains the phrase "rough consensus" (note the link). Thus we introduce the term "rough consensus" but do not define it. The link to consensus only defines consensus, not rough consensus. So a reader is left hanging here (maybe asking themselves "what is rough consensus and how does it different from regular consensus?"). Only a bit later did I realize this definition is in Deletion guidelines for administrators, but we don't say that here. We only say "See Deletion guidelines for administrators" - but that sort of advice is often general. And so it would be useful to add specifically that the definition the reader might be seeking right here right now will be found at this location.

Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no objections, I will have to assume silent consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made a change here that I think should satisfy. "Rough consensus" should probably be in WP:CON. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I can support Izno's change, since it's solving the problem with a better link. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Recently, I nominated ((Message box)) and ((Messagebox)) for merging; I want to close the discussion early because I edited ((Message box)) so it includes all the functionality of the other template. After redirecting the inferior template, is it okay for me to close the discussion early? JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether you are an admin or otherwise, you should not self-close your own nominations (with minor exception). --Izno (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; unless you are withdrawing a nomination (generally when there is no support and/or there is opposition) you should not be closing a discussion that you started. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just attempted to merge ((Top25)) with ((Top 25 report)), I think it went well, I have checked pages and it appears to have no issues. Should I have also removed their entries from the WP:TFD/H page aswell? Terasail^[✉] 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Converting it to a redirect doesn't really solve the issue of there being both templates on the same page. See Talk:Audrey Hepburn. I have no idea how many pages have both, but the end goal is to have only one version. --Gonnym (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, I've gone through with the bot, about half the ((Top25)) transclusions were duplicates. The following pages need to be checked manually as they have different values between the two templates:

  • Talk:Roger Ebert
  • Talk:Tom Brady
  • Talk:R. Kelly
  • Talk:Maria Sibylla Merian
  • Talk:Rami Malek
  • Talk:Facebook
  • Talk:Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
  • Talk:Mulan (2020 film)

  Thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an RFC proposal to deprecate WP:T3 deletions of templates ("duplicate or hardcoded instances"). Your opinions are appreciated at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The closing "keep" statement in a 2019 deletion discussion about a group of related sidebar templates included: "There is significant opposition to deleting these in a mass nomination... No prejudice against individual renominations."

This necessitated three sets (September 28, October 5, October 8), so far, of individual nominations (and even there there were objections made on the basis that several had been nominated simply at the same time). Every one of which either resulted in a "delete" result, or in the case of the latter set, has unanimous "Delete" comments at the time of writing.

The second of those was closed, with the comment "any future nominators of these templates are encouraged to consider bundling any closely related nominations, as far as is practicable".

So, if I nominate another set of these templates should I do them as individual nominations, or in a batch? If I do the latter can I be sure that further "significant opposition to deleting these in a mass nomination" will not carry any weight? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with batch nominations from my experience, is that a lot of the "oppose" result in people not really looking into the list and just voting because "it's a lot". Another smaller group of opposers, might find a problem with one, but don't care to state that, and just blanket oppose the full list. It's tedious for everyone TfD one at a time, but if you really want to delete a set of related templates, that is sometimes the only way. --Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  If you've put through three sets of ungrouped-but-basically-batched nominations, and all three sets have been deleted in their entirety, and you were encouraged to submit a batch nom the next time, I'd say it's perfectly acceptable to batch-nominate. I would agree with Gonnym about the potential opposition; there will be a number of !votes that are purely made to be ornery and/or trying to nitpick. It might be tedious (and deary me, am I well aware of that right now), but those sorts of generalist "you shouldn't do this" opposition usually receives a much smaller weight when I close things. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

[restored from archive] The TfD has been closed as "no consensus", with a recommendation "I suggest usage be addressed on a per-page basis". I despair. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Can't say I didn't tell you that would happen. --Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you extrapolated my comment too far. What I said was: Noting the fractured and forked nature of these discussions, any future nominators of these templates are encouraged to consider bundling any closely related nominations, as far as is practicable. When I wrote that, I was thinking of (for example) bundling together all templates you want deleted for a same "unused" rationale, and additional bundles for another closely related rationale, etc., and single nominations for what has no closely related rationale or is individually controversial. I was not thinking you'd nominate the single master template and everything that depends on it in one discussion, which even the 2019 discussion did not do. The recent close you're referring to similarly states: bundling where appropriate (eg when arguments are the same, such as 'unused'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that bundling as you suggest would have given a different result if the bundle had over 10 templates. Andy, just nominate 5-10 a week, which would slowly work. --Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then bundle together 10 templates? If they're all unused, or have a close rationale and aren't individually controversial, it's hard to validly make arguments such as There aren't any horizontal navigation bars for many of the composers that use this template, the other format remains permissible, there is no consensus to remove it from Handel opera articles. I cannot discredit valid arguments such as these, which come up when you nominate the master template rather than bundles of the children. Nominating 5-10 a week is fine, if you prefer. The per-page part of the trimmed quote is, to be clear, referring explicitly to the Handel case (Robert's comment). The full quote was: I suggest usage be addressed on a per-page basis in line with Robert.Allen's suggestion, or templates be nominated on per-composer basis, bundling where appropriate (eg when arguments are the same, such as 'unused'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I could tell you which are unused if not some were reverted quoting the close as the reason. Example Rita (opera), compare and mind edit summary. Not ready to despair but not far away. These duplicated "clunky" things are good for nobody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Some long-term templates that actually had a purpose are later made redundant by a TfD, in such a manner that a redirect would not be suitable. In such cases we delete. But this sometimes seems like a bad idea, when the contents are not a duplicate of their target (eg a typical infobox merger) and may have future relevance.

Case in point, this TfD. A redirect to ((Talk header)) would be nonsensical, so I tagged ((Findnote)) for deletion, but on reflection those templates have certain ways of doing things which may be useful to a template editor in the future looking to refine this logic beyond its minimally necessary TfD implementation. Many people will not bother ask for a copy of a deleted page, though (I've only done so twice ever, I think).

Should we be doing something else with these templates to retain their history / content somewhere so someone strolling along the archives could find it? Similarly related this discussion I started on attribution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A graveyard of good ideas done wrong the first time? Nah. If it really was a good idea, someone will reinvent it for their need. --Izno (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That assumes that all TfD discussions actually achieve the correct outcome, which isn't necessarily always true. Some merges are unnecessary / problematic, and some keeps are knee-jerks that gets resolved later, etc. But I suppose your point is fair, in that a later iteration could be built from scratch and would probably be better than the original, designed for a need rather than recreating what was once deleted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The deletion of old templates is very frustrating to wikiarchiologists who look at old versions of pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion is only really necessary for pages eligible for speedy deletion (we don't want to have copyvios and attack pages), or for articles (we don't want the project's credibility further damaged by the existence of articles on non-notable topics). Outside of that, I don't see any particular reasons to specifically opt for deletion, rather than some other form of archiving (and deletion is a form of archiving, just a very messy one). I had floated a related idea, though for different reasons, a few years ago: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 24#Unused templates, archivability, and simpler alternatives to deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Our template coding language isn't that hard, nor are any tricks one can do with it likely to only be found in one place. And if someone desperately wants one back to borrow some code from it, they could ask for a WP:REFUND to a user-space sandbox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Group of users interested in changes to CSS. Izno (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Should we have Support/Oppose/etc. survey convenience templates?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

III: Notify users. overlaps heavily with the following III: Notify users.After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, in that it includes not only procedures that are required but also those that might be "helpful". If it is indeed a policy requirement to notify the template creator, then the "helpful" stuff should be removed from the required procedure, and some clarification regarding notification of the creator (such as You are not required to notify the template's creator if they have not edited English Wikipedia in three/five/ten years or are indefinitely blocked or You are still required to notify the template's creator even if they are no longer active on English Wikipedia or are indefinitely blocked.

FWIW, for the template I nominated for deletion earlier today, the page creator was put under a self-block to enforce their retirement more than a decade ago, and notifying them of the discussion was arguably, if not a completely redundant/useless act, disruptive (they do not have email enabled, so I guess they would not necessarily receive an unwanted notification that their talk page had been edited, but still...).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is not any requirement (and never has been) to notify the page creator of a deletion discussion (for any XfD). I'll note that the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO have similar steps, in that step 3 is also "notify creator" along with a later paragraph about other interested parties. I don't necessarily have any issue with changing the how-to guides, but if we're going to change one we should change them all. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm 90% certain that I've been called out in the past for failing to follow AFDHOWTO's "explicit requirement" to notify the page creator (or at least seen others being called out so), but that's not an issue in the present case. If that situation ever occurs again, I'll hopefully remember to point them to what you have written here. Thanks for clarifying! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify: "explicit requirement" isn't me attributing a strawman argument to anyone, since that's my reading of it and I can definitely see others reading it the same way. I came here today looking for instructions on what I must do and what I should do to open a TFD discussion, and I saw a list of imperative instructions, I'm sure there's something written somewhere in here that would justify reading "following this three-step process" in which the the third step is "please notify the creator" as meaning that notifying the creator is optional, but I don't use TFD often, much less have a detailed knowledge of the process and how to interpret the wording of the instructions (and I have to imagine that the instructions are meant for people who don't already have a detailed knowledge of the process). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't a requirement, but a strong expectation. See, for example, the last section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, which contains advice that's consistent with the much briefer instructions in other deletion venues. If a nominator doesn't notify the creator, then barring extreme cases (e.g. being confused about the process, or acting in bad faith) this is an indication that the nominator has a good reason not to notify: the creator may have retired, they may be blocked, or they may have previously expressed a desire not to get notified of similar discussions. Also, a notification doesn't have to be a talk page message. For example, when I nominate less consequential pages (like redirects), I tend to send a notification using a ping (provided the editor is active), so as not to clutter their talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Found 3 content tables hiding in template space that I'm not totally certain should be templates. They're transcluded multiple times but even so I have some doubt that they should be. ((Worldwide broadband subscriptions)), ((Broadband subscriptions)), ((Internet users by region)). Any opinions from the peanut gallery? Izno (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as the code goes, they're fairly simple/short tables, so I don't see any issue with putting the code directly into articles. With LST it's easy enough to transclude from a central article, but I guess it depends on if one exists. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Pages watchers may be interested in MediaWiki talk:Common.css § Preview warning and hatnotes moving to TemplateStyles. Izno (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that having the notification, “Template X is being considered for merging” show to readers in every article where that template is used is distracting and should be removed. I doubt that any readers are interested in knowing this, and editors who are interested in such things can monitor the relevant noticeboards. 193.48.225.132 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC).

This gets proposed a lot, but there is never any strong consensus to change the current behaviour. Of course, I'm not saying that we will never change how templates appear on pages (w.r.t. deletion) but it would likely require an RFC. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

How about only showing it for logged in users? I feel like we really should try to get input from people who aren't TfD regulars on this, probably through a RfC. --Trialpears (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Esp when a large infobox or metatemplate is proposed it can clutter a lot of articles. Hiding it from non-logged-in is probably a good idea imo, but best to ask at VPP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, I think we should avoid making logged in-logged out a proxy for editor vs. reader. We want readers to be creating accounts even if they never plan to edit, and if doing so causes a bunch of extra annoying notices, that's a perverse incentive. Using autoconfirmed as the proxy might be better. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh definitely, I don't even think it's possible to do what I said using group css. --Trialpears (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, to implement this, wouldn't we just add ((If IP)) or ((If autoconfirmed)) around ((TfD))? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb As usual you are correct. I thought the list of group css pages at MediaWiki talk:Common.css was comprehensive (which it is now). I will make an actual proposal at the pump now. Although I wouldn't just wrap it since that would hide the notice on the template page as well which wouldn't be desirable. --Trialpears (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, sounds good. I think the core consideration here is that we need to find a way to balance the fact that the IP is correct about the notices not doing anything for readers with the need to find some way to ensure that editors are notified about big TfDs. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hide TfD notices for non-autoconfirmed users. --Trialpears (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• One problem is that we can not assume that an IP is a reader and not an editor. We have IP editors (some of whom have been editing for years) who have never created a user account, and thus can not be auto-confirmed. They may want to see TfD notices. Also... seeing notices may turn a mere reader INTO an editor. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in wrapping up the discussion I started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Auto archiving notice? It's going to continue drawing !votes as long as it's open because it has such a prominent notice, but I think after three weeks the consensus has become clear enough, and it'd be nice to get that notice off of the top of every major talk page. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That was my plan for this evening. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: On the 8th, Template:Indefinite article, was put up and then 3 hours later, closed, with the rationale "This can just redirect to ((a or an)) without any negative consequences. I don't think that needs a TfD discussion as the usage etc will remain identical, it's just a straightforward improvement to Indefinite article." Is this problematic? Techie3 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GKFX could have just redirected the page without involving TfD at all, so I don't see a problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Technically it's a withdrawal followed by a BOLD action. If you wish to contest that last bit you're welcome to revert and take it to TFD yourself. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't get involved with templates too often and know little about guidelines for keeping or deleting them, so I will just start a discussion here. I found this: Template:Los Payasos de la tele, which seems wasteful to me because it has more red links than blue links (note that "Gaby" is currently being discussed for deletion as well), so it seems pretty pointless as a navigational aid. However I don't know if that is a reason to delete a template, so discuss accordingly. If anyone thinks it could be deleted, I can start the TfD process, or someone else could and I will cast a vote. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Not enough bluelinks" is an often-seen reason at TFD, usually supported by WP:NENAN. The general precedent for such nominations is a minimum of 4-5 bluelinks. For a template like this, it's a reasonable-enough borderline case that it can't hurt (i.e. the discussion wouldn't be SNOW closed). Primefac (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The TfD page has currently past the post-expand include size and is now broken, with the last day not showing and older discussion link not even not displaying. Not sure if there is anything that can be done, but posting here in case there is. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing ((Tfd links)) is a major culprit, perhaps it could be made lighter, or twinkle could be changed to use the module directly. Since this is unusual I don't think it's worth consider larger changes than that. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That would likely require XfD closer changes as well though. --Trialpears (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was going to quickly help by subst'ing some of them - but that template is broken for subst.... — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There were some massive lists of nominations. I've moved the bulk of them to subpages, which has allowed all of the discussions to be transcluded. WP:TFDH still isn't being transcluded, but to be completely honest I always thought it was dumb that we transcluded that here so I'm not going to inconvenience too many more of the existing logs to allow for its transclusion.

And yes, I realize this is a short-term fix, but for the moment it allows for all of the logs to be shown. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The holding cell isn't displayed so often that I think it's fine to turn it into a link. --Trialpears (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This comment may or may not be of use, but there was a similar problem at WP:RFD a few years ago, which lead to a few tweaks here and there (for example, closed discussions are omitted from the transclusion and are instead replaced with a single line of text linking to the relevant section on the log page). – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  TfD already omits closed discussions from transclusion (not even leaving a placeholder), and has since a previous episode of transclusion-size problems in 2019. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry. I did notice one apparently transcluded closed discussion though: [1]. There must be something I'm missing here. – Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Only closed discussions in the "Old discussions" section are omitted. There generally aren't very many closed discussions in the "current discussions" section, so I doubt that's a significant PEIS problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• It has continued with only the 4 most recent days being showed earlier today. To combat this I edited Module:Tfd links. Some of it were quite minor such as removing Example as a parameter default, changing how concatenation is done dropping support for categories (I think I'm the only one semi-regularly using catfd anyway). I also removed the delete link since I think all active admins use XfD closer and the transclusion link since it's just a click away from links. This reduced the size by over a third and solved the issues for now. If we return to smaller nomination quantities it would probably be good to make a partial revert. --Trialpears (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  There are probably other ways to decrease it further especially with the date features. I would very much want to continue having TfD as a one page thing. --Trialpears (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Trialpears: it looks like this edit to the module has broken ((Tfd links)), which is showing a Lua error. This in turn has spread HTML5 incompatible misnested tag Lint error to over 50k pages. Please fix this. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ fixed. Broken ((Tfd links)) is a bit of an exaggeration, I would say caused script errors on 4 pages and some lint errors. --Trialpears (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not a big fan of that change. In particular, I used the transclusions link a lot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I also use it but, one click isn't all that much. I've re-added it while making some other minor PEIS improvements. It still increased by over 20% but it's enough to keep everything on the page right now. --Trialpears (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for bringing back the transclusions links. That is the link I used the most and for large nominations it saves me quite a bit of time. Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Still a problem... How about removal of the edit link? I can't recall when I last used personally. --Trialpears (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe it's better to ask which of the extra links we do use? For me I only really use transclusions, history and subpages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd add talk to that list, there are often some relevant discussion or an old TfD template. That leaves links, which I use but feel is largely redundant to transclusions and logs which I guess happen but not often enough to deal with the PEIS. Perhaps it's time to seriously consider using the module directly. Updating XfDcloser to recognize it would be the first step in that. Ping to Evad37. --Trialpears (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone following this page is familiar with the considerable productivity of WikiCleanerMan in nominating templates for deletion when they have a few transclusions, but more than one, with the proposal to use section transclusion (or, in some instances, to substitute duplicate content on multiple articles). I will leave the merits of this proposal to a different discussion, but I have serious concerns with how I have seen section transclusion implemented as a result of these deletions.

Firstly, our guidance states that when section transclusion is used, Common sections like this should be marked with an explanatory header, and/or given a special layout, to inform the reader that this section of the page is in a different location, since transcluding shared article sections can easily confuse novice editors and readers alike if left unmarked. See Help:Transclusion#Transcluded section hatnote.

Secondly, section transclusion is succeptable to breakage when the heading name is changed at the transcluded article. And users edit section headings often enough for this to be a serious problem. Accordingly, we should be following the guidance at MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS to add comments at the transcluded article warning that the section is transcluded.

Thirdly, unless an entire section is being transcluded, it is almost always better to use Help:Labeled section transclusion than to rig up a section transclusion with "include only" tags. Section transclusion gives the false impression at the transcluded page that an entire section is being transcluded when it is not. It adds confusing "include only" tags to the transcluded article, often without explanation of their purpose. And it is more susceptible to breakage when a section heading is unwittingly renamed.

For the implementations I have seen (and I won't call out names but I hope they see this discussion), many of these things are not being done. So I think we should take the opportunity to discuss best practices and any questions, because it is awfully difficult to track down substitutions after they have been made and the templates deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagging Number 57, Gonnym, and Frietjes (who has been doing the transclusions from the Tfd's) who can add some insight to this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't exactly section transclusion though, it's transclusion of a table, with the section heading simply used to locate it in the article (as in many cases the table is the only thing in the section). If using #section-h is an issue, it could be replaced with the simpler ((: and use of onlyinclude tags, which is done for transcluding sports league tables from the league season article to other locations they are used (for example, ((:2016–17 Serie A)) is used to transclude the league table from 2016–17 Serie A to other articles it's used on.

Frietjes has also suggested having a tracking category for articles containing broken section tranclusions, which would seem like a good way to pick up such errors. Number 57 16:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Using parameterized section transclusion is no different than using #section-h. Both have to be rigged up with "include only" tags to get around the issue that you're not actually transcluding a section. That's why LST would be better. If you are using LST, you will greatly curtail the risk of broken transclusions, since it's not dependent on heading names. --Bsherr (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the result being to use labeled section tags. The ((Transcluded section)) hatnote can be added above. Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that @Anomalocaris mistakenly deleted this nomination of @WikiCleanerMan. I've re-inserted it to today's listing. Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice catch. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, but, for the record, this was not my fault. WikiCleanerMan and I were editing simultaneously. WikiCleanerMan saved first, and I saved two minutes later, and there was no warning that I was stomping on another edit. Thank you to Gonnym for finding this and taking care of it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I relisted a bunch to help with the "expand size" preventing all the listings from appearing on the page. Please feel free to close any that I relisted if you feel as though consensus has been reached. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re this. For the 5 or 6 years I've worked on these the to orphan section was populated by templates that needed orphaning. As soon as that task was completed they were moved to the ready for deletion section and then removed completely after the template had been deleted. Now there is one template that has been in the to orphan section for months and another that has a note to leave it untouched pending DRV. In other words there are items there that are not being orphaned so they are just cluttering up the section. I'm guessing that the message "XfDcloser but entries in the wrong section" means that new ones to be orphaned wont be put in the new sub-header I created so I understand the problem. I can see three options a) move the on hold ones to a new place b) change XFDclosers programming to put new entries in the new subsection c) leave things as they are. There might be other possibilities that I am unaware of. Whatever the rest of you decide is fine by me - apologies for being OCD about this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops I didn't pay attention to the fact that this talk page is a redirect from the one for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell so I'm adding this link to help avoid extra searching. MarnetteD|Talk 23:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel both those entries should just be moved to "To review" as they aren't straight orphaning in either case. Where XfDcloser puts entries is based on the section numbers. It would be trivial to change a constant to fix it if there's consensus, but if it's just changed we would get all the ready for deletion ones in "Ready to empty". --Trialpears (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving those two items to "To review" sure seems like the simple solution to me. Other input is always welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Infobox sportsperson

 – This has nothing to do with TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have recently become aware that TfD has been the venue used to discuss template splitting proposals, a much better solution than following WP:PROSPLIT given the extremely low number of people that are typically attracted to template talk pages and the lack of a dedicated template split discussion banner. Would it be appropriate to add instructions for splitting proposals to the instructions here? Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC).

I think you are misinterpreting my comments here. I never said that TFD is the venue for discussing template splits, and the majority of the time "delete or split this template because it's too big" nominations are the result of either pushback or low-consensus turnout. It might be the next logical step following PROSPLIT, but I do not think split discussions should exclusively happen at TFD. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake, I’m all for reducing work loads not further burdening our regulars. One way of increasing talk page participation may be to amend Template:Split, or a new “template template” that renders like Template:Template for discussion but directs interested parties to the TP discussion. That being said, I am not sure how common template split proposals are, again this may be extra work for little benefit. Cavalryman (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC).

I figured people who watch this page may be interested in helping another WMF wiki editor with tips for WP:VPT#Updating infobox templates. Izno (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeez, they should have asked here first! Either way, replied. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

VPT is more visible for an foreign-to-English editor, so I think it was probably reasonable to say something there. Izno (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, though to be honest I thought we were at WT:WPT... Primefac (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Review/Message boxes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 25#Wikipedia:Review/Message boxes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Template folk,

I've been deleting some of these element templates that have gone through TFD after they've been readied for deletion. I always check to see if there are links and most of the templates haven't had links although a couple did have doc pages which I also deleted. Then there is Phosphorus. It was linked to Template:Engvar, Template:Engvar/doc and Template:Engvar/sandbox. I don't know the purpose of using the Phosphorus template on these pages but I thought maybe someone who did could check and see whether you wanted to substitute a different template for this deleted one.

Many thanks for your ongoing work to clean up the template world! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I linked to to Phosphorus, which appears to provide the necessary demonstration. Thanks for the note, and for your TFD work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 17#All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates @Izno, @Tom (LT) and @Peter coxhead (on Izno's talk page) supported having these templates G6. How do we move this forward? Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, just to double-check, you're asking if we can delete the 0 pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates per the XFD? Primefac (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes (per the past 6(?) discussions) Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think there's any harm in having the category holding a dozen or so templates at any given time, but if it gets above about 20 feel free to ping me to clear it out again. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) update: HAH! I just noticed there's a line in the cat specifically stating to post here...

@Primefac 90 templates. Can you take care of this? Gonnym (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)