Jump to content

Template talk:Cfd main page banner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category

[edit]

This should probably have a category or two, but offhand, I don't know what. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

[edit]

I've given this template the same layout as other talk page templates (WP:TS). Also, it now takes a parameter to indicate which category it actually is, e.g. {{cfd-article|Your category name here}}. Finally, I've made a shortcut, maybe {{cfda}} to redirect here. Feel free to change any or all of what I just said, it's just suggestions. Radiant_>|< 08:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good changes, thanks. Maurreen (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template messages -- need help, please

[edit]

I added this to Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance. But it now says there, "This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance," and I have no idea why. Maurreen (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do :) read the source of the template, you'll see. The trick is simple - subst it into the maintenance page, and remove the talkpage bit. Radiant_>|< 22:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Two argument form

[edit]

Wondering if its a good idea to have a two argument form of this template so merges and renamings could list the intended target? --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, although that will be apparent at the CfD page itself. However, need another argument for the date to direct them to the correct day page, and assist in finding these templates to cleanup afterward. There are currently hundreds (thousands?) from ancient debates.
--William Allen Simpson 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

[edit]

After the rename, renamed this template and its category to match, as it seems to be put on Talk and other Categories more often than articles.

--William Allen Simpson 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved documentation

[edit]

It's now at Template:Cfdnotice/doc. +mwtoews 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there a way that this template can be used to link properly to a mass CfD? As it is now, if a CfD is part of a group, the "discussion" link will point to a section that probably doesn't exist. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second parameter. Also, when I redesigned the template using parser functions, it most definitely was not intended to be subst'd, so I have no idea what prompted such a silly mistake. Obviously, the documentation needs work!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd-notify which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cfx main page banner, which seems to be ticking most of the suggested boxes. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]



– Now that Template:Cfd-notify has been renamed Template:Cfd notice per the result of Template talk:Afd notice#Requested move 21 April 2020, the fact that these templates have such similar names (same name but without a space) can be seen as confusing/problematic. However, I'm not sure what to rename these templates given their purpose, which is to tag the articles that would normally be used in the respective {{Cat main}} template on each category (usually, the article is eponymous with the category.) Either way, after these templates are renamed, their leftover redirects should be retargeted to Template:Cfd notice for conformity (once their incoming links in documentation pages and instruction pages have been corrected, of course.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, Netoholic, Þjarkur, QEDK, Bsherr, Pppery, Amorymeltzer, and CapnZapp: Pinging participants in the previous discussion liked above. Also, pinging SMcCandlish, who has been involved in the creation of the latter two templates. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Cfdnotice

[edit]

Redirects to Cfdnotice

wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What was the point of this 16 July 2006 edit by William Allen Simpson to make the link [[Template:Cfdnotice|.]] Who's gonna notice that a period (full stop) character is a link. Doesn't the comment <!-- Generated by Template:Cfdnotice --> cover that. Of course, if this is re-targeted after moving that means the old comments won't be pointing to the correct template any more.

Template:Deletion tools and Template:Wikipedia templates sidebar each include a link to {{cfdnotice}} which is responsible for it being linked from over 300 user pages.

It's linked from 180 talk pages.

It's also linked from 93 Wikipedia talk pagges, 83 user talk pages and 59 category talk pages so it's not just a "main article talk" notice. Linked from 809 pages in all. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the dot was the kind of thing we used to do so the Talk pages showed up in What Links Here, as we only put the article/category page in the Xfd category. That was part of a (then new) parser functions edit. Also, I'd written the wiki PHP (the only PHP I've written in my life) for the date function that we then used for automating Cfd and Tfd 7 day rollovers. Before that, we rolled them every day by hand. As you note, much has changed in 14 years.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, we didn't distinguish between category and template Talk pages. They are all "main" Talk, with the others as "user" Talk. I don't remember how the article/category/template Talk form was merged with the user Talk form. Once upon a time, we distinguished them, and they had slightly different text; the former to record the result, the latter to invite folks to comment.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, you'll notice the earlier talk here about subst'ing. Originally, they were not subst'd. We expected hundreds, not millions. So I'm not sure why there are 809 extant instances to worry about. Failure to subst?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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