Template talk:Closed rfc top

This template was considered for deletion on 14 April 2023. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Documentation?![edit]

Could someone please add some 'Template documentation' to this template (and probably {{Rfc bottom}} too)?! I assume it works like the other discussion 'closing' templates, but it would be good if it included the documentation explaining that!... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It would appear that all parties are in agreement that the issue here is the bot in question. As such, this is the wrong forum for solving the issue. JPG-GR (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Quoting Redrose64's edit summary on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template, Legobot will add a |rfcid= to all templates beginning "{{rfc" (not just {{rfc}} itself), so these template names cannot without causing bot issues, and thus they should be moved to titles that can. Ppp ery 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support both moves. If anybody want's a fuller explanation of why {{closed rfc top}} is preferable to {{rfc top}}, just ask. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - More concise to type than adding "closed". Also, the current titles are consistent with such templates as {{afd top}}, {{discussion top}}, {{archive top}}, {{rm top}}, and {{mfd top}}. Shall we add "closed" on others, Redrose64 and Pppery? George Ho (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: No, because Legobot (talk · contribs) doesn't screw with those. It's only a problem when the five characters "{{rfc" occur together in the wikisource and are not a transclusion of the {{rfc}} template itself. See for example this edit which caused Legobot to make these two bad edits resulting in these mis-listings.
Yes, it's a problem with the bot. But I have asked Legoktm (talk · contribs) to fix it, with no result yet. So, as long as Legobot continues to make these bad edits, I will continue to clean up after it - and that includes altering transclusions of {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}} to go through the redirects {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... That's a lot of pressure. Nevertheless, have you tried WP:VPT yet? George Ho (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To get a bot amended? I'd send it to VPT if I thought that they could do something (I'm a regular there) - but after watching Legobot's edits for several months, I came to the conclusion in mid-2016 that it doesn't look for transclusions of {{rfc}}, but instead it looks for the aforementioned specific sequence of five characters (case insensitive). This is based on two groups of observations:
that it honours the transclusions via those redirects that begin "rfc", such as {{RFCtag}}, but it ignores transclusions via those redirects that don't begin "rfc", such as {{Requestforcomment}}

that it treats templates that begin with the letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) that are not intended for use on open requests for comment, such as {{rfc top}}, as if they were open RfCs, and adds a |rfcid= parameter to them and then adds the text following that to a page like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted, this also occurs for redirects that begin "rfc", such as {{Rfc t}}; but it ignores that template if it's used through the redirect {{closed rfc top}} since this doesn't begin with the letters "rfc"

The bot task approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 33, and the source code is available, but I can't find my way through that to even locate the problem section of code, let alone fix it. I don't even know if that's the live version of the bot code, or merely a published copy. So until and unless Legoktm (talk · contribs) is willing and able to amend the bot to look for transclusions of {{rfc}}, and not to look for a five-character string, we need to work around it. Using {{closed rfc top}} instead of {{rfc top}} is such a workaround, and it has proven successful over several months. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...... My head... ugh... I've not seen discussions about this in VPT yet. We'll try VPT if this RM fails. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since when do we title our templates for the convenience of a bot? If the bot is broken, that should be fixed, not inconvenience editors by making them type extra verbiage when closing, and change their practices. The current titles conform to the same format as other templates of this nature, e.g. {{RM top}}, {{Rfd top}}, {{Afd top}} etc. so keep as is per WP:CONSISTENCY. — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Yes, the bot should be fixed; and I have asked for it to be fixed, but have been ignored; and in the absence of any forthcoming fix, the bot will continue to make bad edits that we can only prevent in either of two ways. The first is by blocking the bot - which will be highly unpopular since Legobot (talk · contribs) carries out many useful tasks. The other is by not giving it anything that is prone to misinterpretation by the code that the bot presently uses. The two templates {{rfc top}} and {{rfc bottom}} are demonstrably prone to such misinterpretation. Using the redirects {{closed rfc top}} and {{closed rfc bottom}} demonstrably prevents any such misinterpretation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per User:Amakuru. If some scheme of consistency was being enforced, I would back this, but such a scheme needs to be proposed. bd2412 T 20:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: We're not aiming for any such scheme. We're aiming to prevent old threads from being treated as if they were active RfCs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that no one is treating them that way except for this bot. That makes the bot the problem, not the template. bd2412 T 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: OK. But why don't you try to get Legoktm (talk · contribs) to fix the bot? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legobot matching[edit]

I see that Legoktm accepted Enterprisey's pull request to prevent Legobot from matching {{rfc top on July 28. However, Legobot is still matching this string, as seen in Special:Diff/930501821. Has the code at https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/blob/master/rfcbot.php not yet been deployed, or is there some other issue that's causing Legobot to act this way? Pinging Redrose64 and ToThAc, who were recently affected by this. — Newslinger talk 00:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It matched {{Rfc bottom}}, not {{Rfc top}} in that edit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pppery, that makes sense. I guess we would need another revision to prevent that, too. — Newslinger talk 02:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PR created. Good catch. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Enterprisey. Thank you! — Newslinger talk 07:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Template:Rfc bottom for merging of Template:ACR bottom[edit]

Template:ACR bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Cem bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Please read through your post carefully. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I may have cut some corners on that one.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 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. The fact that the documentation says not to use the title it's at because it'd break an automated process, and that the automated process hasn't been edited to stop the breaking, means that the least harm option is moving this template. Sceptre (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfc top → Template:Closed rfc top – The documentation for this template, Template:Rfc top/doc, explicitly instructs editors not to use the template's current name – Template:Rfc top – because doing so frequently interferes with the operation of Legobot:

It is important to use the redirects {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}} since if the direct transclusions {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}} are used, Legobot (talk · contribs) can interpret them as open RfCs, making edits like these with this result.

The proposed name – Template:Closed rfc top – is the name that need to be typed out in order to correctly use this template while ensuring that Legobot functions properly. Legobot has been the only bot that administers requests for comments (RfCs) since September 2013, and keeping Legobot in working order is essential to the RfC process.

The current name is a problem because editors frequently use it without understanding the disruption it causes to Legobot. This creates a maintenance burden in which editors have to manually fix the resulting problems (as in Special:Diff/956097780 and Special:Diff/956098403). In practice, most of this burden falls on a single editor, Redrose64, who monitors and addresses the situation every time it arises.

By renaming the template to the proposed name, editors would be more likely to use the proposed (correct) name, thereby reducing this maintenance burden.

This move was requested over three years ago, but the request failed because editors preferred to have Legobot fixed. However, Legobot has not yet been fixed despite previous efforts (see Enterprisey's pull request from five months ago), and we have been stuck with the maintenance burden. I propose to move the template to address the issue immediately. If Legobot ever gets fixed or if another bot ever replaces Legobot's RfC administration (which may not happen for many years), we would always be able to move this template back to its current name. — Newslinger talk 12:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page {{Rfc bottom}} is a redirect to {{Archive bottom}} and cannot be used as a current title in a move request, so this request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this. As {{Closed rfc bottom}} currently redirects to {{Archive bottom}}, a move of {{Rfc bottom}} (which also redirects to {{Archive bottom}}) would not be necessary. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the proposer of the previous requested move. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 12 May 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.