Template talk:Rfd notice

Substitution

The edits to this template on 18/20 January 2014 left it in a state that it no longer WP:SUBSTituted cleanly. One of the effects is that user pages have been left with a section heading that has no section edit link, unless |sectionheading=no was used. I've fixed up the template as best I can (which meant editing Template:If usertalk of and Template:If talkspace of to make those substable), and it now substs cleanly once again - unless the |target= parameter is used. This is because the {{notice page link}} template also does not subst cleanly, and cannot easily be made to do so without editing {{pagetype}} as well, which will put many thousands of pages into the job queue. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies Redrose64 for not noticing that, and thanks for the cleanup you have done so far. Im happy to do any remaining cleanup needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg: OK, I found that {{pagetype}} was already subst: friendly, so I've amended Template:Notice page link and I believe that {{subst:RFDNote}} now works when |target= is specified.

I've been through the various talk pages fixing up edits of the last three days. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

First person option

I find it a bit funny that I have to use a template that says "An editor has asked..." when I'm the one doing the asking. A parameter to make the template say "I have asked..." would be much appreciated! — Scott • talk 17:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple nominations

Would someone with the appropriate technical skills adjust this template so that it can simultaneously note that multiple redirects have been nominated. I think 5 would be a useful number to be able to notify of at once. Perhaps using redirect1= target1= redirect2= target2= named parameters (with these names being optional for the first redirect so the existing syntax still works). Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Repetition

@John Vandenberg and Redrose64: A template I just left reads "...you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so." I used it vanilla, no options. The text is needless repetition and slightly ungrammatical. I suggest "...you may wish to participate in the redirect discussion." I would do it myself, but it does not look straightforward to amend the text with multiple conditional parameters in the code, so I would be unsure of all the possible results. SpinningSpark 10:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: The instance being this edit. Template:RFDNote/sandbox is available; Template:RFDNote/testcases doesn't exist, but could do - see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing

((Also see #First person option above)

This template is written in a non-standard wonky voice. When placed by the editor that initiated the "discussion" (which often means "I want it deleted") the template comes across as outright disingenuous.

It currently reads (with some variation)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RRRR. Please participate in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/NNNN if you wish to do so.

I suggest a much more professional sounding

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect RRRR should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/NNNN until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Most importantly, let's not focus on WHO started the discussion. Especially move away from the effect in practice, where if I use this template after listing your redirect, I refer to myself in third person. That comes across as offensive.

There is zero need for the variations on whether you have already participated or not. The "if you wish to do so" phrasing is clumsy and redundant - just inform the user and they will decide whether to participate. WHY they got this message on their talk page is of minor concern. We're placing it there for a reason, after all.

Since I'm no wikicode expert, I'll give you a chance of fixing this before I break anything :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I assume everyone is willing to risk me violating WP:COMPETENCE :-) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Done CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Pppery for your cleanup. CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Two comments:

• You've removed the changes in language depending on where the template is being used. This template can be (and is by Twinkle) added to the talkpage of the redirect's target. There's not too much that's lost, but anyone, including you, is a weird thing to add to a talkpage. I'd suggest rewording that in such cases.
• I don't particularly care about the language, but The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern and The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines sound very patronizing to me.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback, and am not opposed to further improvements. Can I ask if you came here from Twinkle? (If so, cheers!) CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the language used, I simply lifted bits and bobs from Template:Afd notice. Personally I don't find the language patronizing at all - it's boilerplate text: formal notification is expected imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed I did. I made a change for the usertalk bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• @CapnZapp and Amorymeltzer: Just letting all know that I have reverted this change. Obviously, this is a highly-viewed template, but alas, since I did not have this page on my watchlist, and apparently this discussion was not advertised on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, I'm reverting to the version prior to CapnZapp's edit. Amorymeltzer and CapnZapp (Added by Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ), if there were any miscellaneous changes you made that you would consider necessary after the revert regarding "if" statements, etc. that need to be reimplemented, I think those should be okay, but I'm currently not taking the time to figure them out; my primary concern is that I am not a fan of the tone of the note's new wording ... so, if this has to have consensus forming, I oppose the new wording proposal. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  A notice has now been placed at WT:RFD regarding this discussion to encourage participation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

First off, are you aware of the criticism against the An editor has asked for... phrasing? What do you say to it? Please do not just revert and say you "oppose the new wording proposal" - why do you oppose it and how do you envision reaching a consensus? CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"First off, are you aware of the criticism against the An editor has asked for... phrasing?" That's what I was referring to in my note to Amorymeltzer regarding the "if" statements or whatever they and you did. (I'll update my note above since I now see you worked that resolution as well.) If that needs to be put back in there, go ahead and go for it. Other than that, I'm in the stance that there's no issue with the current wording of the template, and in lieu of alternative proposals, the wording should stay as is. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• @CapnZapp: Sandbox edit incoming as I see what you mean, and find that change rather uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox edit done. The change in the sandbox version seems uncontroversial and clear, and I think it would be okay if that gets implemented now. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I also believe that the second sentence in the current version (and the sandbox version) of the template can be replaced with the second sentence of the proposed wording. I'll have a counterproposal here shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

I propose that this version be used for the new wording of the template. From my standpoint, it meets some of the criteria as mentioned above, but differs in a few ways:

1. It still resolves the "An editor has asked for..." phrasing issue by retaining the "A discussion is taking place to address..." wording instead.
2. It still contains the namespace detection to change some of the wording of it is on the "User talk:" namespace.
3. It does not state "...deleted, kept, or retargeted." since stating that assumes those are the only three possible outcomes at RfD, which is just not true. Discussions can also end in "disambiguate", "restore article", etc. In my opinion, it's best just to leave that part out.
4. The second sentence begins with "The discussion will occur at..." instead of "It will be discussed at..." since the use of the word "It" is vague.
5. The final two sentences "The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines." have been removed since it contains a couple of possibly invalid assumptions: There is no guarantee that and policies or guidelines will be used or have to be used, and there is no requirement or definition for "high-quality evidence"; it's probably best to leave that part out.

Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, this diff compares the current state of the template (the version I reverted to) to my proposed version, and this diff compares the originally proposed version with my proposed version. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As above, I would generally agree with this. To point 5 in particular, it boils down to the fact that AfD and RfD are very different places with very different audiences. There are few first-time editors annoyed that their brand-new article is being deleted at RfD. As to point 3, I agree wholeheartedly, but, to be fair, the RfD instructions do list those as the options. Should probably be tweaked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Steel1943. Generally, I modeled the phrasing on AfD, unaware "AfD and RfD are very different places with very different audiences". I will bow to your expertise in that matter. I still don't think it's a good idea to have a 'fD with substantially different culture than the rest, but whatever. I did take the ...deleted, kept, or retargeted bit directly from RfD. If editors are so experienced, why would it be a problem that there might be expanded outcomes - wouldn't they all just assume it was the "short version"? Moving on... You could add a sixth bullet point for completeness: in both my edit and your counter-proposal the ...if you wish to do so phrasing is gone. The part about no guarantee policies/guidelines will be used I simply do not understand - of course they will be... (or did you just confess to operating a lawless hidden little corner of Wikipedia...? :-) But anyhoo - none of this counts as objections, just observations - the only major reason I'm here was the An editor has asked for... phrasing issue, and that seems to have been resolved amicably. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just regarding the substantially different culture, I wouldn't go that far, and of course the same policies, etc. generally apply everywhere, but the various XfD venues end up different just by their very nature. TfD might see someone argue that a template is "simple and unused" and RfD could see "unlikely typo" as an argument for deletion but those would never fly at AfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• @CapnZapp and Amorymeltzer: Considering that this discussion has been dead for over a month, I'm going to update the template with the contents of the sandbox. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  No prob. The language comes across as much more consistent with other projects, and especially no longer (potentially) insults the reader, so I'm good. Of course, if all these notice templates were to be standardized into one (per RM/RfC below) that would make all problems akin to why I started this section, past and future, go away in one fell swoop! CapnZapp (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd notice which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"An editor..."

This template STILL retains the potentially offensive use of "an editor". Back in 2020, we had this discussion (see above).

In many cases, the honest approach would be to say "*I* have an issue with the redirect Redirect..."

Remember folks, that editor is likely the editor that placed the template. It is completely inappropriate to refer to yourself as "an editor", and this template should make it easy to not do that by using better language. It needs to change, now.

Now, I'm not suggesting we actually phrase it using "I". I'm editing in the A discussion is taking place to address... phrasing there was consensus for back in 2020. CapnZapp (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect XXX and it has been listed for discussion" is fairly redundant, saying that a discussion is ongoing twice in the same sentence as well as implying that the discussion itself has been listed for discussion rather than the redirect being the target of discussion. "A potential problem has been identified with the redirect XXX and it has been listed for discussion" may be better, but it is in passive voice, which may raise some suspicions akin to using "an editor". Randi Moth (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I welcome you to refine the wording as you please. We appear to be in agreement about the pitfalls of the passive voice. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not like the use of the word "address" since it assumes bad faith. It assumes that there is a problem when in reality there might not be.

If we want to get at the very simple text we can just say "The redirect $1 has been listed at redirects for discussion. You are welcome to discuss any potential problems at its entry."

Just kinda sniped the phrasing from Template:Tfd notice and reworded it for RfD. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Support for multiple redirects

I don't know if anyone watches this page, but could this template's code be modified to add support for multiple redirects? Perhaps a |multi=yes option or something. Here is an example wording change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You should also drop a notice at WT:RFD -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Change <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> to <!-- Template:RFDNote --> to make this consistent with other user talk templates Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)