| Revision as of 18:58, 20 March 2024 editHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,841 edits please see WP:CFDWM#Other← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:48, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 27) (bot |
| (44 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inline styles? == |
|
== Automatically listing old discussions == |
|
|
|
{{mdt|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?|2=] (]) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot}} |
|
{{Other TfDs|page1=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023 December 1#Template:Example|result1=Keep |
|
|
|
Right now it's <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"><div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"></syntaxhighlight> |
|
|page2=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Template:Example|result2=Merge}} |
|
|
|
This seems to be some kind of dark mode thing? I don't really understand though -- shouldn't we be trying to use stylesheets for stuff and not inline styles? Moreover, we already have styles (e.g. <code>afd</code>, <code>vfd</code>, <code>xfd-closed</code>), I assume these are styled somewhere already -- why do we have inline styles in the afd-top template at all? It seems like a gigantic headache. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've long been jealous of AfD and their box with previous discussions about a page. I've started working on a bot that can add these here and just wanted to make sure there's consensus that this would be a good thing and discuss potential implementation questions. My plan is that if a template is linked in {{tl|Tfd links}} has been linked in {{tl|Tfd links}} in any previous discussions said discussion will be linked in a template like {{tl|Other TfDs}} (example included) where the date and result is included. My hope is that this functionality will both be convenient and improve decision making and hopefully be expanded to include other venues in the future. --] (]) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think I'm being dense, but are you wanting to have a bot automatically add in the Special:Prefixindex box that is automatically included in {{t|afd2}} (since the nomination process is different for TFDs)? In other words, if Template:Example has been nominated three times for deletion, it would have a box (as you've given as an example above) to show previous discussions. If so, I'm in favour - while old TFDs are often linked on the talk page, they're not ''always'' linked and/or easy to find. ] (]) 14:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yep that's exactly what I want. --] (]) 14:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Cool. Brain ''is'' engaged today, albeit in an apparently low gear. ] (]) 14:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The only issue I can think of, would the bot detect templates that were listed in a sub-page because the page size was too large (like ])? Not a big issue if it can't. (I don't have an example of a list that was kept if it only checks of non-deleted templates) ] (]) 17:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::That has happened a handful of times ever with no consistent format so I don't plan on supporting that. Same for pre-2006 nominations because they didn't really do closing consistently. There are also 50-ish other discussions that for some reason aren't detected properly. It can be April's fools weirdness, containing = signs in the template name, a manually edited results sentence or that person who used to enclose the header in the close div messing up my section based system. I may fix some of these manually but generally I think it's fine given that only about 0.1% of discussions are in this category. I'm planning on doing a BRFA when I'm back at a computer since the code is nearing completion. ] (]) 16:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::]. --] (]) 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Pinging {{ping|Sohom Datta}} who was the one who made this edit. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Substituting a template before taking it to TfD== |
|
|
|
::My thought process here for adding inline styles was twofold: |
|
Hi! ] and I are currently ] whether it is permissible to substitute a template ''en masse'' (e.g. by adding {{tlx|always subst|<nowiki>auto=yes</nowiki>}}) when you plan on taking it to TfD immediately afterwards, in the interest of saving time. We tend to disagree on a lot (in my opinion, collegially), so rather than argue back and forth I figured I would just ask for some outside perspectives on this issue. Best, <b style="font-family:Courier New;">]]</b><sup>]</sup> 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::* I was unsure if adding ] could cause the ] limit to be breached on bigger pages |
|
:Absolutely not. That is gaming the system, giving yourselves an excuse to claim "this template should be deleted because it is not in use". --] 🦌 (]) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::* If the {{tl|afd top}} template was substituted, it could cause issues due to the fact that the styles might not being carried over |
|
::We had already agreed that further uses of these subtemplates would only occur via auto-substitution. So there was no gaming. And these subtemplates are breaking stuff in some cases when not substituted. So we could have auto-substituted before any TfDs. Houseblaster rushed to TfD without agreement. The other participant in the discussion wanted to auto-substitute first also. It also gives us time to change our minds on the subtemplates if we decide to keep any of them, but only after rewriting them. It would not be wise to rewrite them until the auto-substitution is done. This way we can do more tests before undeprecating any rewritten ones.--] (]) 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::To my knowledge <code>afd</code> <code>vfd</code> <code>xfd-closed</code> don't apply any specific styles and while the inline styles do take precedence over other user-generated styles, the behaviour of the inline CSS will be analogous to it's previous behaviour if the CSS variables defined for vector-2022 are absent. ] (]) 08:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::My argument is that there is a fundamental difference between deciding to convert a template to subst-only and keeping it versus convert a template to subst-only and deleting it. I agree that if they are to be used further they should be substituted. At the talk page of the template, we can debate whether it should be substituted or not, but ]. To resolve which of those two paths to take—either subst-and-keep or subst-and-delete—we go to TfD <em>before</em> substituting it so people can get an accurate picture of where it is used. I brought the two templates I did to a discussion—namely, "templates for discussion"— D because I believed they should be merged/deleted, and wanted to discuss that point. We should not waste time on a discussion about having a discussion to delete a template.<span id="HouseBlaster:1704243045500:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNTemplates_for_discussion" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">]]</b><sup>]</sup> 00:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
::::We can debate on the overall template talk page which subtemplates should be revised, substituted, deprecated, redirected, deleted, etc.. Discussion can happen anywhere. If we decide on the talk page to delete, then we have to go to TfD to actually get it done. You are misinterpreting ]. --] (]) 02:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What I am trying to say is we <em>could</em> decide to delete the template at the talk page, but we would have to go to TfD anyways to get wider opinions before deletion. TfDs can be closed as '''keep''' or '''delete''', but '''keep but make subst-only''' would be a valid outcome, too. I don't see having a discussion, deciding we should delete the template, just so we can have another discussion at TfD about potentially deleting the template to be a good use of anyone's time.<span id="HouseBlaster:1704250195650:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNTemplates_for_discussion" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">]]</b><sup>]</sup> 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::::::We are talking subtemplates, not templates. Nobody knows the arcane nature of their interaction better than the 3 of us currently discussing them at ] and the following sections. And at the subtemplate talk pages before that. And one of the templates you put up for discussion can be redirected. No TfD needed for that. No TfD needed if we decide to auto-substitute and then keep a template. You should not be putting up subtemplates at TfD until the 3 of us agree that is the next step. Once we agree, there is little reason others will disagree at TfD. Because we three are currently the most knowledgeable about the intricacies of their interactions with each other and other parts of tables. So actually we save time by agreeing among the 3 of us first. --] (]) 03:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:''sigh''. The question asked here is not the situation that is occurring. Making a not-subst template subst-only and then sending it to TFD is not kosher. However, discussing ''sub''templates as they relate to the master is a perfectly acceptable talk page matter, since the subtemplates are all directly related to the main template. If no decision can be made, then it should go to TFD for further discussion. If the discussion is to delete the subtemplates, then they can just be blanked, marked historical, redirected to the main template, or (depending on the number of participants and strength of consensus) potentially deleted as a housekeeping measure. ] (]) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion at ] == |
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
⚫ |
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tfd top dark mode == |
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ] about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. ] (]) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|JPxG|Sohom_Datta}} Related to ] ({{slink|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?}}), can we have a similar dark mode implementation for the ] template {{t|tfd top}}? ] (]) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Scope == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== TFD linking discussion == |
|
Can this page be used to discuss matters relating to a template, other than deletion or merging? For example, the use of the parameters of a template, if agreement cannot be reached on the template talk page. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Despite the name of the page, not really; it's only "for discussion" because template mergers were not deletions (according to ]). Every once in a while someone tries to go the route of "it says discussion so let's discuss this template" but often ends up getting more backlash purely for the action than any useful feedback. If agreement can't be reached on a talk page, then I would traverse the various levels of WikiProject before maybe hitting up VPT {{small|(cross-posting to the original discussion to avoid decentralised debate, of course...)}}. ] (]) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is ] about changing how we notify users about TFDs. Please join in the conversation. ] (]) 18:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
| ⚫ |
] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled ''']'''. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! <b>]]</b> (] · he/him) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
Moved to Template talk:Afd top § Inline styles? – 172.97.141.219 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)