Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Procedure for non-administrator closes at TfD

I've been trying to work on an update of WP:NAC for a little while now. Today I came to the issue of trying to document best practice here, and...pretty quickly realized that I have no real grasp on how here actually works.

Per this RfC, it seems that there is consensus for allowing non admins to close discussions as delete, and then proceed to orphan the template prior to deletion. But it's not entirely clear what the actual steps are involved, what CSD criteria is used in such situations (T2 and T3 don't really seem applicable), or if the template is instead listed as opposed to applying CSD.

Perhaps more importantly, reading through old RfCs may give an insight into the letter of the "law", but it doesn't really help in understanding how things actually work in practice, or whether the result of that consensus is still regularly applied (or even supported).

So I submit myself humbly to you TfD regulars, and beg for advice on how to document TfD best practice. In my draft I've gotten as far as a single sentence, and I would greatly appreciate advice in changing, expanding, and clarifying. Thanks in advance. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As the result of a 2015 request for comment,[1] consensus allows for non-administrators to close discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion as delete, and then proceed to carry out the process of orphaning the template prior to tagging for deletion.

References

  1. ^ See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19
Timothyjosephwood, the steps you've outlined are pretty much accurate. When I close a TFD, it gets listed at the Holding Cell and I take the appropriate actions (orphan, merge, subst, etc). After the template has been appropriately dealt with, {{db-xfd}} is placed on the template with a link to the discussion. Technically this tag is a G6, but specifically for XFD links. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Primefac: So, this should pretty much cover everything eh? TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As the result of a 2015 request for comment,[1] consensus allows for non-administrators to close discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion as delete. Non-administrators should follow the same steps and administrators, found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions, with the exception of the final step of proposing speedy deletion using {{db-xfd}}.

References

  1. ^ See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19
Looks good to me. I'll ping Opabinia regalis and BU Rob13 for a third set of eyes/thoughts. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I really am tiptoeing around instruction creep, but as of right now, I believe there is exactly zero places on the project that puts these two things together (admin instructions and the RfC). TimothyJosephWood 15:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much, and given that it's come up a few times in the last few weeks I'd say an update is necessary. WP:BADNAC is the only place that even mentions the RFC, and even then only links directly to the RFC with no further info. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. ~ Rob13Talk 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good. We didn't write a lot of detail in the beginning because there was a little bit of experimentation early on to figure out the best workflow. I think as a matter of practice there hasn't been much impetus to update the instructions since then, because most people who have gotten involved in NACs here were already TfD regulars who knew how it worked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The goal really on my part is not so much to write new instructions per se, but to document the existing institutional knowledge. To that end you all have been quite helpful. Thanks. TimothyJosephWood 13:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of unnecessary and unused taxonomy templates for species

Taxonomy templates (i.e. pages with names like "Template:Taxonomy/taxon") are slightly odd. They aren't really templates in the normal sense – they aren't designed to ever be transcluded or substituted in articles, and they're not really parts of programs written in the template language, either. They are effectively entries in a database – the taxonomic database that underlies the automated taxobox system.

It's almost never necessary now for there to be taxonomy templates for species. If the taxonomy template for the species X y (i.e. the page with title "Template:Taxonomy/X y") has |parent=X, it is completely unnecessary. The species name X y necessitates that the parent taxon is the genus X; there's no need for a taxonomy template that says this. If the article about X y (if there is one) uses an automated taxobox, it should use {{Speciesbox}} rather than {{Automatic taxobox}}, and will then obtain taxonomic information from the genus taxonomy template.

So why are there any species taxonomy templates that simply say that the species' parent is the genus?

  • Many were created by Taxobot 2 in 2011/12. This bot no longer operates, and the task it performs is unlikely to ever be approved again. See as one example Template:Taxonomy/Pseudoceros cruentus.
  • In the earliest days of the automated taxobox system, {{Speciesbox}} had not been written, and for a year or two it was necessary to have taxonomy templates for species. So templates like Template:Taxonomy/Idiophyseter merriami were created in 2010. It took time for editors using automated taxoboxes in articles to learn to use the system properly; thus I created Template:Taxonomy/Phormium colensoi in 2011 when it wasn't actually necessary.
  • I suppose a few still get created by editors who don't know they aren't necessary now, although I haven't found any recent ones.

Because of this historical background, a very few such species templates are still used, and will be until the species article is edited to replace {{Automatic taxobox}} by {{Speciesbox}}, so it wouldn't be right to delete them en masse without proper checks.

I've been blanking those I've checked and found unnecessary and unused and putting them in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for species. All of them can be deleted. The spirit of {{Db-t3}} applies, in my view, since the functionality of any species taxonomy template which simply names the genus as the parent is necessarily provided by the genus template. However, the wording of {{Db-t3}} doesn't quite apply, so I'm reluctant to tag all of those in this category without discussion.

Comments, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: My recommendation would be to have a TfD discussion relevant to these and get consensus to delete these as WP:G6 referencing that deletion discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Nominate at TFD - make a list of all current contents of this category as a aubpage of the day's TFD page; create a discussion explicitly linking to this subpage with an absolute link (so that pages transcluding the day's TFD page would point to the correct place); tag all of them. I would certainly vote to delete them. Once you find any others, make a new list to nominate later, using the firct discussion as a precedent. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Od Mishehu: currently I'm working through all the taxonomy templates for species, checking each one to make sure it has no transclusions (and fixing the taxoboxes that use the very few that do have a transclusion). Those I've checked and blanked are in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for species. I have about another 280 to check, of which maybe 20-30 are actually needed.
When I've finished checking, I was going to wait a few days, just to make sure that nothing shows up in the taxobox error-tracking categories, and then move on to proposing deletion. Will it be necessary to have them tagged for deletion first? If so, it will need a bot to do it as there will be more than 1,000. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You could use AWB - if youaren't autherized to, make a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Od Mishehu: if you mean use AWB to tag all the 1,000 odd templates, then (a) I'm strictly a Mac user, and although AWB is supposed to work under the Wine emulator, I've not found it very reliable (b) sorry, having spent ages checking all the templates for transclusions, I'm not going to go through them again one by one tagging them for deletion, tool or no tool. So long as they are blank, they don't interfere with the functioning of the automated taxobox system, which is my real concern. I'm happy to leave deletion to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I wouldn't worry about tagging. Instead, drop a notice at the talk page of relevant WikiProjects when the discussion starts. We typically don't bother with tagging when >500 templates are being considered. ~ Rob13Talk 11:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Especially when it's 500 unused templates. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion question

After a rather interesting revelation it turns out there have been a large number of templates being speedy deleted as "G8". The rationale is that all pages transcluding the template have been deleted.

Does this jive? I've been under the impression (based on previous discussions) that you can't speedy an unused template; only post-TFD G6, T2, and T3 are valid reasons for speedy dels. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's a mess. Almost as bad as the way WP:T2 ("unambiguous misrepresentation of policy") gets used for virtually any undesirable template, sometimes for ones that could easily be speeded by other criteria ("wrong namespace"), or ones that couldn't, but which the nominator (as well as the invariably obliging deleting admin) see as having no chance of surviving at TfD. – Uanfala (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You definitely can't speedy an unused template now, but in my opinion, we should be able to (i.e. new CSD criteria). ~ Rob13Talk 02:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Edgar181, Maile66, Plastikspork, and RHaworth: you each deleted at least one template as G8, so I'm pinging to get your thoughts on this. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • (came here from WT:CSD post) I think G8 can apply to such pages the same way it does to talk pages, i. e. if the template cannot be used in any meaningful way without the deleted articles and there is no reason to assume that those articles could be recreated in the near future. In all other cases, just nominating all templates for TFD is imho the correct way since G8, like G6, is only for housekeeping purposes (talk pages of deleted pages, redirects to deleted pages etc.). Regards SoWhy 07:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there are definitely situations where G8 can apply to templates. For example, I recently deleted Template:2010 PIHA Founders Cup Playoffs bracket using G8 as the rationale. All ten links in the template were red links to deleted articles about sports teams. In this situation, the template is inarguably "dependent on non-existent or deleted pages", and therefore meets speedy deletion criteria. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • if all the links in the navbox have been deleted (or all but the parent article), then G8 should apply since the template depends on the deleted articles. clearly, (1) talk pages of deleted pages, (2) redirects to deleted pages, (3) documentation pages of deleted pages, and (4) sandboxes of deleted pages also fall under G8. I also support speedy deletion of unused templates where there is recent precedent and the candidate clearly falls under the precedent. for example, we routinely delete unused 'meta/color', 'meta/shortname', and 'fb team' templates, so we don't need to have a new discussion to delete those each time. however generally unused templates which could have a use should be discussed here, unless some other CSD criteria applies. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some templates may appear to be unused because they are always substed but a good admin should detect this if they see a speedy tag on such a template. So I consider a "what links here" check is necessary and sufficient before deleting. I have deleted numerous templates with speedy tags and cannot recall ever having to reverse such a deletion. The matter is not worth fussing about. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I do suppose there's some discretion on the part of the deleting admins here. I guess I'm still trying to rectify pre-admin notices (i.e. "don't CSD templates unless they fit T2/3") with post-RFA observations, which is why I wanted to start the discussion. Thanks for the input. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I had to go back and look at what templates I recently deleted, to see why I got pinged on this. Having found 3, I remember nothing more than is in the summary, that they were "Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". Two were Template:2011-12 ECRHA Division I standings and Template:2011–12 ECRHA Division I standings, where the difference between those two is the dash between the years. The other was Template:Veryshort/doc. I like to think I checked that out before the deletion. Other than that, I don't think I've done enough template deletions to comment on whether or not we should use G8 for such deletions. But, I would like instructions somewhere to be very clear on that. Templates aside, I see CSD candidates all the time that are questionable to me, so I leave them alone. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Loading time affected by transclusion of subpages

The transclusion of subpages has been affecting the project page about templates under discussion. Attempting to change the layout of the page would affect the bot operated by Anomie. Also, any layout may affect anyone's easy access to any discussion about a template. What is the easiest, if not the best, solution to resolve the slow loading? What layout would be loading-convenient without affecting access to discussions? BTW, the WP:redirects for discussion page also suffers from slow loading times and bot operation's hindering to allow changes. Its own matter was discussed there. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Request for comment

FYI

I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Unused templates, archivability, and simpler alternatives to deletion

Just sharing some thoughts occasioned by the recent spate of nominations of templates with the sole rationale for deletion that they are unused. I understand that we want to keep things tidy and discard any tools that we don't use anymore (although the concept of "polluting the template namespace" will probably need to be explained to me). The tidying up however comes at a price. Templates that get deleted as "unused" often enough have transclusions in old revisions of pages. Deleting the templates results in the loss of their content from these revisions. I know that such concerns for digital rot shouldn't have great weight, but if we add the fact that getting a template deleted takes up community time, then on the overall I'm beginning to think that the whole exercise might not be quite worth the effort.

Couldn't the benefit of tidiness be achieved via a simpler process? What if the template is simply taken out of any previous categories, placed into a dedicated category for unused templates, and somehow (any suggestions how?) excluded from the search results? That way it would effectively be taken out of the way, without disrupting the readability of old article revisions and without requiring community effort. And if anyone decides to use this template again, they'll be able to simply reverse these steps. That way the deletion (and deletion discussions) of unused templates could stay focused on only those templates whose use can be seen as harmful. – Uanfala 01:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala, I assume you're talking about things like this, where someone goes "oh noes, I can't see the distances!" However, you need to think about it this way - there is a reason those templates became unused, replaced, or removed entirely. Many of the templates I see at TFD never had transclusions, because they never reached a point where they could (or should) be used. What differentiates a crap template that never got used from a formerly-used template that everyone decided could be deprecated? Keeping unneeded and unused templates simply because they "might" be useful later on down the road is akin to my grandmother, who kept every newspaper she ever read from the 50s until the day she died; all it does is create a pile of crap that someone else has to sift through down the line.
Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate where you're coming from, but I simply see no good reason to have a dumping ground of thousands of unused templates. Also, remember that you can ask an admin what a template might have done in a past life. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, as another thought, keeping the history is more about attribution than an actual 100%-accurate historical record. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your assumption that the vast majority of unused templates aren't ever going to be needed. And we already have a dumping ground for such templates: after all when deleted, templates don't just disappear, do they? The crux of my proposal is simply to have an alternative dumping ground where templates would be easier to dispatch to, and easier to recover from. – Uanfala 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Uanfala, it's not so much about having an easily-accessible dumping ground. To paraphrase MusikAnimal, it's less about physical disk space and more about clutter. If there are a dozen unused-but-not-deleted templates that have a similar name to a can't-quite-remember-the-name-of-it thirteenth template that I actually want to use, I have to wade through them all until I find the right one. If the 12 were deleted at TFD, then there is only one template, and it's easier for people to navigate.
You're welcome, of course, to propose some new dumping-ground namespace, and maybe that idea will get traction (it takes up the same disk space whether deleted or active, right?). Of course, admins are always willing and capable of restoring and/or userfying pages upon request, and the WP:Incubator was abandoned for a reason. For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to not-deleting unused templates, I just don't think they should be cluttering the Template space. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how a template is determined to be "unused"? Are clicks on a template's links being recorded somewhere? I saw a film director's navigation template posted as "unused" and cannot tell how this determination was made. (Or even if this determination is applicable to decide that a template should never be had going forward.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: "Unused" means "no transclusions", which is recorded in Special:Whatlinkshere. Pppery 18:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Reviewing the case I was concerned about, it does appear that the template was unused at the articles it linked to (for some reason), but that was fixed by Frietjes, so the template is now being used. Seems like there should be a kind of WP:BEFORE step to ensure usage before assuming it has to be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Several template redirects are discussed at RfD

Comments are welcome in the RfD discussion for several redirects to CC licensing templates at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Template:Cc-by-sa, where one of the questions is what to do with existing transclusions. – Uanfala 10:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Templates outside Template namespace

AnomieBOT repeatedly closed a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 28#Draft:Template:Paramount Group because Wikipedia contributors attempted to use {{Tfd links|Draft:Template:Paramount Group}}, which produces links to Template:Draft:Template:Paramount Group, a non-existent page. I found no ready substitute for {{Tfd links}}, and largely recreated the links myself. Perhaps I should have just moved it to WP:Miscellany for deletion, but Templates for deletion seemed more appropriate.

  1. Do others agree that WP:Templates for discussion is an appropriate place for templates even if they are not in the template namespace?
  2. Should {{Tfd links}} be modified or a similar template created for use cases such as this? eg. Draft:Template:example or User:Template:Example?

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth the effort, especially since it would involve modifying the Lua module. At any given time there are less than 50 templates in the draft space, and aside from Legacy's ridiculous deletion spree most of them end up G13'd or accepted. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox conversion listing?

What about incuding templates considered for Infobox code conversion here, as for instance Template:Infobox surname (see the bottom of the code of the template for explaination)?. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Convert to use Infobox}} places pages into Category:Templates suitable for conversion to use Template:Infobox, so I suppose we could list the cat here... Primefac (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

AlfaRocket

I find AlfaRocket's comments here at TfD to be at best pointless, and at worst distracting or completely incorrect. The comments are almost always either (a) "I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia" or (b) unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. The second comment is frequently about templates which are still being used, so clearly AlfaRocket doesn't know what "unused" means, or doesn't bother to check. Attempts have been made to communicate with this editor on his/her talk page. For example, see the comments by Izno and Soetermans in this thread, and the comments by Woodensuperman in this thread. I wish there were some way to tell him/her that he/she does not need to comment in every thread, and when commenting to provide some useful commentary, and not just cut-and-paste some random phrase. It would be a shame to push for topic ban for someone for something as pointless as this. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take with good faith my comments , surely I'm not a master and I'm trying to do my best , there many comments here that are copy and paste of other users ( because there no time for explain better since most of this pages is a deletion or a keep) a question.. these Page is only for special user, for new user, I would like to know it AlfaRocket (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Just like at AFD, if it is clear a !vote is made with no thought put into it, it will be discounted. AlfaRocket, I have no doubt you are commenting on TFD discussions in good faith, but phrases like I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia are a) hard to understanding, and b) not particularly helpful. Just because a template is nominated for deletion doesn't mean it must be deleted, even if it's unused. I highly suggest you take a step back for a bit and look at how other people comment on the various discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
unused: means not used, so of course my comment go for a deletion! I have recently add to to my comments the word " Comment", so it is cleary that Im trying to do my best, it is true that users had comment on my Talk Page because in the beginning I have started to comment only " delete it" without saying why. now I have add a "reason", .. Why all the attention on me, when there other users that do the same,.. so it is clearly that someone is against me.Please take with Good faith my Comments, I think Wikipedia is a free place.AlfaRocket (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it is better to take a little time out of these discussion. maybe two or three weeks, Thanks. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@AlfaRocket, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a "free place", whatever that means. If you want to contribute in a constructive manner, you're more than welcome to do so. If you keep on randomly commenting on deletion discussions without any substantial input, Wikipedia might not be the "free place" for you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I've inserted an outdent. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Alerting all involved: @Izno, Soetermans, AlfaRocket, Frietjes, Woodensuperman, and Primefac: Guys, be patient. I do not think AlfaRocket's first language is English. He was saying "unused" a lot because Frietjes was nominating a bunch of templates and using that as the rationale (as he should). AlfaRocket likely saw that as a legitimate reason to delete a template, but I'm not sure he knows how to check. AlfaRocket, you check by going to a template's page, and on the left of your screen under "Tools" click "What links here". and click "Transclusion count". That will take you to a page that tells you how many transclusions (how many active uses there are, see Wikipedia:Transclusion for more) that template has. AlfaRocket says they are half Finnish and half Italian. He's following your lead on the English language. So please be patient. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is not meant to be rude in any way, but if AlfaRocket isn't fluent in English, his skills may be better put to use on the Finnish Wikipedia or the Italian Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

There is a merger discussion regarding merging WP:TFD and WP:MFD. Your input is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

PROD for templates

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD. – Uanfala 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Should pages in the "Module:" namespace be discussed at TfD instead of MfD?

Consensus seems clear that Modules ought to be discussed at TfD instead of MfD due to the more technical-minded audience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

This question was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Proposed Merge of MfD and TfD by multiple editors. I myself have thought about this in the past, so I'm curious if there is consensus for this as well. So, to kick off this discussion, I'll start with the most basic question, but then open this up for counter-proposals (if necessary): Should all discussions for pages in the "Module:" namespace occur at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? When I say "all", I mean under any circumstance regardless if it needs to be paired up with any other page, such as a template(s) that invoke the module page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(At the present time, I'm not going to make this a WP:RFC since even I have doubts about the consensus for my question as currently proposed, but if anyone else wants to make this an RfC, I won't stop you.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinging participants in the previous discussion: KATMAKROFAN, Primefac, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, Mr rnddude, Uanfala, Ivanvector, and Xaosflux. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Along these lines, if we're going to suggest that it's right to discuss modules at both venues in different circumstances, then we ought to write down somewhere that a module discussion which closes for lack of interest cannot "default to delete". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't recall seeing many modules at MfD and I'd support nominating wherever the nominator deems appropriate given the situation. I'd hope they would pick the place where any associated elements were brough for deletion to minimize the number of discussions and possibility of different outcomes. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • it seems logical to discuss modules and templates together, especially since most modules have template frontends. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What Frietjes said. It makes sense to me to lump modules in with templates for discussion purposes: the editors most familiar with the applications of modules are more likely to be participants at TfD than at MfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This discussion seems to have stalled out, but I don't know that there's a proper consensus yet. As an MfD regular, I think there might be better participation on Modules at TfD since it attracts a bit more of a technical-minded crowd. The two Module MfDs I've closed recently have had pretty low participation. I'm gonna place a note at WT:LUA about this discussion since I think they might have some interest, hopefully we can get some of the Module editors there to weigh in. Perhaps we could also request that editors advise the WP:LUA people when a Module gets nominated for deletion, just as a courtesy, to get experienced eyes on it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    PMC, it looks like you just got your consensus :-p Primefac (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, deletion discussions regarding modules and templates should be at one place, namely TfD. That is because the desirability and consequences of deleting a module should be considered by editors with an interest in that technical area. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. Fragmenting discussions simply reduces participation. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, templates and modules should be discussed in the same discussion space, due to the significant overlap in concerns relating to them. bd2412 T 13:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No doubt. Module-based templates often have up to 99% of their code within the module(s), the template itself being only a wrapper for that. Such templates depend on the corresponding module(s) completely. And even if the module is used somewhere else instead, the module editors are usually the same people who work on templates. — Mike Novikoff 13:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In reading over the above, having TfD be the default location for these seems fine - however if one ends up at MfD for some reason (or on purpose for some special reason) don't think we should just say 'wrong venue'. — xaosflux Talk 16:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'd be perfectly happy to put in a courtesy note at TfD if a Module is nominated at MfD in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    While I agree it's not appropriate to just close discussions in the wrong place as "wrong venue" and then do nothing, it would be good practice to open a new discussion in the proper venue, close the discussion that's in the wrong place, and leave courtesy notes in both directions. That's what normally happens in the other xfD forums (I'm most familiar with articles being listed at RfD, and template redirects coming up at TfD). A properly-formatted discussion in the proper venue is likely to have commonly useful tools in its discussion header. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oops, for some reason I had assumed the initial post meant people wanted the discussions to just run where they were put. Yes, close and reopen is better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Should be at TfD, since it's about templates, just in a different language than the basic templates. So, closing MfDs of modules and re-opening them at TfD would work, though so would just notifying the nominator that they used the wrong venue; let them do the work properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. And support saying "wrong venue" should a module appear there. As a frequent participant there, I have no idea what a module is, and I see no other regular there having much more idea. The deletion rationales do not speak to my experience, they are completely opaque. I think the MfD forum does not have sufficient expertise to make meaningful decisions on modules. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:IUCN status for example. WTF? It looks like code for something! If TfD can interpret these things, send them all there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
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.

Mangled table

The "Listing a template" section's colorful table is showing up in a mangled state all of a sudden (Chrome 61, MacOS 10.12).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, screenshot? I'm not seeing anything odd. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Screen: [1]. It looks correct for about 0.5 sec, then flips out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if something in my common.js is doing this, or what. I dumped a "view source" copy of the rendered table into User talk:SMcCandlish/sandbox21. Might need to have a bunch of coffee to get brain out of MW mode into HTML5 mode to absorb it ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Likely a script issue - I copied the source code into my own sandbox and there is no difference between the two versions. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New TfD template |action parameter

I added an |action= parameter to Template:Template for discussion ({{TfD}}), primarily for cases when one template is nominated for deletion/merger and another is nominated for renaming over the former's page title: {{subst:TfD|action=rename}} on the second template's page. This allows us to provide TfD notice at both templates without falsely stating that the one to be renamed has been nominated for "deletion" in the TfD mini-notice that appears when the template is transcluded. I updated the docs in this regard, including that WP:RM is the usual process for template renames, and that for mergers people should use {{TfM}}. PS: Also created obvious missing shortcuts like {{TfM}} itself (actual pagename is Template:Tfm), and {{Templates for merger}} and {{Template for deletion}} and so on, so people don't have to try remember the template names down to the last character case (that's been slightly irritating to for a while, as was the fact that the canonical name of the TfD template is Template:Template for discussion but no corresponding merger/merge/merging name existed, and neither did a deletion one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

DRV

FYI, the closure of the Template:Kiryat Motzkin – Haifa line discussion is being discussed at DRV. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominated Template at MFD

I nominated Template:Tennessee college preparatory schools as a MfD instead of TFD. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion:Template:Tennessee_college_preparatory_schools. I’ve tried to clean up my mistake, but I would appreciate help from a more experienced editor to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Billhpike (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Please nominate at TfD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Listing modules at TfD

There was a discussion on this page a few months ago ([[archived here) which determined consensus that modules should be discussed at TfD rather than at MfD. I have tried to list a module today using Twinkle and it has been badly mangled - Twinkle doesn't seem to support this yet, and the {{tfdlinks}} template inserts the Template namespace somewhere in its companion module code and doesn't seem able to list links for a module. I think these things were probably not considered in the original discussion but they should be fixed if we're going to list modules here. Can someone more technically proficient look into it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The module that supports tfdlinks supports modules. I was able to get it to work by passing a "module=module" parameter in here. There should be a cleaner way to do that, but I stopped once I had something that worked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The docs should be updated for the next person, but preferably not with my kludge above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

I changed the {{tfd links}} to {{tl}} in the mass fb team nominations to remove this page from Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. please feel free to change them back before closing the discussions (or ask me to and I can do it for you). you can change them easily using search/replace in edit mode. Frietjes (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It was still broken due to a very large example in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Template:Ahnentafel-tree which I disabled. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Renaming templates

There is a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_30#WP:TfD_a_better_place_for_template_re-titling_discussions?. Should template requested moves be sent to TfD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Was opposed with small participation and archived --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles TFDs

As raised at this TFD, tfd tags cannot be added to TemplateStyles pages. I've added a plaintext version of the main text from {{subst:tfd}} in a comment [2]. Unless anyone can come up with a better way, this should probably be mentioned in the instructions somewhere. - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_24&oldid=871117391"