Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(766 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 8: Line 8:
}}
}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Deletion}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1={{WikiProject Deletion}}
{{WPBannerMeta|PROJECT=Templates}}
{{WikiProject Templates}}}}
{{central|Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell|Template talk:Tfd links|Template talk:Tfd2|Module talk:Tfd links}}
{{central|Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell|Template talk:Tfd links|Template talk:Tfd2|Module talk:Tfd links}}
{{XFD backlog|right}}
{{XFD backlog|right}}
__TOC__
__TOC__


==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other]]==
== RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions ==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual §&nbsp;Other]]. &#x0020;Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles]]'''. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = {{Done|Passes|reason=The proposal passes with ''almost'' unanimous consensus. The general intent is to move towards a RM-like process where discussions are held on talk pages. No further consensus was reached on exact procedures. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 16:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)}}
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----


== Readability of [[Template:Tfd top]] ==
Should we make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions? 05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


[[Template:Tfd top]] uses background color #e3f9df (as of [[Special:Permalink/1172064855]]). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this:
We have four issues (at least) that are combining in a negatively synergistic way:
# There's a [[WP:PROCESSFORK]] of sorts between coding (and discussing) [[Wikipedia:Template|templates]] versus doing so with [[Wikipedia:Lua|modules]], despite the latter being an adjunct to the former.
# Few editors care to participate and [[WP:Watchlist|watchlist]] in either [[WP:Namespaces|namespace]], but it's probably at least an order magnitude lower for Module namespace.
# The editors involved in implementing and maintaining modules are a much smaller and more self-selecting group. While this is necessary when it comes to directly changing the code, it's an [[WP:CONLEVEL|unproductive narrowing]] when it comes to decision-making and consensus formation.
# Templates are being converted into Lua modules without good reason, making them further developable by a far smaller number of editors; such conversions need broader discussion on a case-by-case basis.


<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="padding: 0 10px 0 10px; background-color: #e3f9df;">''... <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> ...''</div>
Overall, getting stuff done in Template and Module namespaces is [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY|taking longer and longer, with more inconsistent results]]. Particular individuals deeply involved in modules have [[WP:VESTED|much more personal control]] over Module space than Template space, and our "geeks" in general (especially those with the [[WP:TemplateEditor|TemplateEditor user level]]) have more control over both namespaces compared to main (article) or project ("Wikipedia:") namespaces – which leads to problems even with the best of intentions. In the "Extended discussion" section below I've outlined some examples (and I do so as someone with the TemplateEditor permission bit; this is not a sour-grapes "class struggle" between user levels).


This combination of colors – background #e3f9df {{Color box|#e3f9df}} and foreground #ff0000 {{color box|#ff0000}} – is not very readable. It fails [[WCAG]] for normal text in [https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=E3F9DF a contrast checker].
'''A possible solution''': The status quo seems likely to continue (or worsen) if an explicit change isn't made. {{strong|[[WP:Templates for discussion]] (TfD) should serve as more of a "clearinghouse" of template and module changes (like how [[WP:RM]] works for proposed moves), not just as an [[WP:XFD|{{var|X}}fD process]]; this will draw additional editorial attention to template and module matters.}} It should be as simple as having a {{tlxs|tfd-thread}} template and [[WP:BOT|bot]] that adds RM-style pointers to the [[WP:TFD]] log, directing people to Template_talk and Module_talk discussions, in addition to the existing "settle it here at TfD" deletion and merger entries. I think this would both even out the discrepancies between Template and Module namespaces in "getting the work done", and also give the WP community much more say into how its templating system operates. It's also consistent with TfD's rename several years ago to "Templates for {{em|discussion}}" not "{{em|deletion}}". It would be a new norm that any potentially controversial template/module change proposals should be listed in this manner, the way potentially controversial moves are listed at RM. (As with manual moves and [[WP:RM/TR]], trivial fixes need not be so listed – if you need to fix an obvious typo in a template, [[WP:BOLD|just do it]]; this is [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY|not a bureaucracy]].)<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC); links added 10:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


In the interest of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility|accessibility]], I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to [[Web colors#Basic colors|maroon]] (aka #800000 {{color box|maroon}}):
=== Comments ===
* '''Comment.''' I might be relatively new here, and I might be showing my [[Wikiquote:Ronald Reagan#DebateOnAgeQuote-Youth|youth and inexperience]]. However, this is news to me that we have a [[Help:Module|module namespace]]. &#8213;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
*:{{ping|MattLongCT}} Yes, we have two different namespaces (and associated talk spaces) for dealing with templates, and this leads to some problems this proposal would help address. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
*::{{u|SMcCandlish}}, I see... &#8213;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MattLongCT|<span style="color:black">MattLongCT</span>]] <b>-[[User talk:MattLongCT|Talk]]-</b><sup style="font-size:75%">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Uh?''' I can't figure out what exactly is being asked, what 'RM-like' means, or what supposed problem this is even supposed to addressed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Headbomb}} The proposal seems pretty clear to me. Look at [[WP:RM]] and what it does: it lists ongoing move-related discussions which are at various talk pages. Look at [[WP:TFD]] and note that it does nothing like this, but only hosts deletion/merged discussions in TfD itself. It can {{em|also}} provide listings of ongoing template and module-related discussions, through the same method as RM (apply a template to the top of the discussion, and a bot will list it; we also have bots that do this with RfCs, listing them in topical pages according to which {{tlx|RfC}} parameters are used). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Simplify this please''', as technical jargon will probably not be known to the majority of Wikipedians. <span style="color:#F2CEEC;">Kirbanzo</span><sup>([[User:Kirbanzo|userpage]] - [[User talk:Kirbanzo|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Kirbanzo|contribs]])</sup> 21:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I've linked all the jargon at first occurrence. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 10:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some kind of clearing house system that gets more eyes on discussions. No opinion on specifics of implementation such as putting them in its own section, auto-collapsing, etc.. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' general concept per {{u|Patar knight}}. Good to get more voices in some discussions --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 09:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Agree with above. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – It's easier to keep track of and participate in conversations (and watchlist just those you've participated in) if they're held at the template talk pages, with a central listing of all of them, like RM. [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">[[User talk:Levivich|ich]]</span> 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per above. [[User:MrClog|MrClog]] ([[User talk:MrClog|talk]]) 23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''': the proposal would aid organisation of discussions on little-watched pages and speed up uncontroversial code fixes. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. The nom identifies as a problem the lack of clearing house for discussion on changes to templates and modules. That need clearly should be met ... but this is the wrong way of solving the problem.
:TFD is full of discussion about deletions and mergers. Most of those discussions are rightly non-technical -- nobody needs to know how to code even a navbox to know that a navbox with >1300 links is way too big or that one with 2 bluelinks is too small. Just as most of the topics are non-technical, most of the participants are not technical.
:TFD is already quite busy. Plenty of days in March had over 40 deletion discussions.
:So what this proposal would do is dump the "experts assess ''how'' to do this" issues into the already-busy workspace of the "should we do this at all" discussions. That's an oil-and-water combination, not helpful for either oil or water.
:Additionally, adopting an RM style format would involve moving deletion discussions to the talk pages of templates which might be deleted ... so we'd end up either deleting those discussions along with the template, or retaining a mound of talk pages with no corresponding template.
:It would be much better to create a new page with an RM-style centralised log page for the technical discussions, and leave the deletions/merges/renamings at TFD. That way the geeks wouldn't be tripping over debates about whether to zap the navbox [[Template:My neighbour's ex-husband's second cousin's abysmal garage band]], and the navbox debaters wouldn't be wading through discussions about the intricacies of Lua code .. but the geeks would finally get that much-needed clearinghouse for geek issues. We could call it something like "WP:Requested coding". --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 02:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' (Disclosure: I'm a template editor and converted the [[WP:Automated taxobox system]] to Lua.) I agree with {{U|BrownHairedGirl}} that it's important to distinguish between discussions about the purpose and functions of modules and discussions about their technical details and coding. I can't either support or oppose the proposal because I don't think it's clear what it entails. {{Tq|It would be a new norm that any potentially controversial template/module change proposals should be listed in this manner}} – is converting a template's inner working to Lua to be considered {{Tq|potentially controversial}} if it makes no change to either the parameters of the template or its behaviour? If so, this would be a proposal that I would strongly oppose. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 21:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' Some kind of process like described can be very helpful as it can help in situations where low participation can block changes with WP:OWN issues. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 13:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="padding: 0 10px 0 10px; background-color: #e3f9df;">''... <span style="color:maroon">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> ...''</div>
=== Extended discussion ===
While I've been thinking about this for a few year, this was more immediately spurred by a comment at [[Module talk:Zh#MOS:SINGLE|a particular module fix-it request]]:{{tq|1=On a more general note, the fact that this request took three months to get executed is exactly why I think there is far too much use of lua and go around TfDing modules. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)}}


which passes the [https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=800000&bcolor=E3F9DF contrast check]. You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in [[Special:Permalink/1221415895|the sandbox]]. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I certainly agree in general. There have been other cases where it's taken much, much longer, including when only Template-namespace, not Module-namespace, code was involved. Ex.: Despite it being {{em|stark raving obvious}}, it took over two years and a pointless RfC to get [[Template:YesNo]] fixed to support values of <kbd>on</kbd> and <kbd>off</kbd>. This did not happen because there was any legit reason to stall or oppose. Rather, some TemplateEditors are excessively wary about blame (declining even simple requests if they don't see a prior discussion about it), and some editors who fancy themselves TemplateEditor candidates have no idea what they're talking about, and will make bogus (like, utterly disproven) claims about server/parser efficiency (adding a single pair of <code>#switch</code> cases has no measurable impact on performance, and we have templates, like for railway lines, album/singles chart stats, and post-nominal letters, with hundreds of <code>#switch</code> options, sometimes in nested levels of templating).
: <small>Other templates in [[:Category:Deletion archival templates]] are also affected, but they are out of scope for [[WT:TFD]]. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
:: {{small|I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change ''all'' of the affected templates, such as {{t|atop green}}, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)}}
::: <small>{{tq|we might as well change ''all'' of the affected templates}} – sure, I'll go be [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]]. {{tq|why is this thread small?}} – because it's out of scope. Important enough to be mentioned, but not important enough to have normal text size. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
:For reference, the brightest color for foreground which [https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=A90000&bcolor=E3F9DF passes the contrast check with the same background] is #A90000 {{color box|A90000}} (see also in [[Special:Permalink/1221418291|the sandbox]]). —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 20:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::I'll be honest, no one is likely to care because you're improving readability, I say just go for it (for ''all'' affected templates). If people complain, point 'em here. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::: {{u|Primefac}}, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:Bold text has an exception that your average color contrast checker will not catch that allows 3:1 (web-aware ones will note that this use is allowed). This particular line is accessible. "Accessibility" isn't a very good argument on the point.
:One reason not to change it is that this is our standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not and should perhaps be reconsidered. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:: The contrast checker above, webaim.org has a "Large Text" section, which is 14pt (18.6667px) and bold (font-weight: 700). For this font-size and font-weight, the red foreground color passes "WCAG AA", but doesn't pass "WCAG AAA".
:: In the templates, the font-size is 14px, which is 25% smaller. For me personally, the boldness only makes the readability worse for smaller text. Best way I can describe it is that because elements are thicker, the gaps between them are smaller, which makes distinguishing letters harder. I only came here, because I had been reading some TfD archives, and I have noticed that my eyes completely glossed over the the "Please do not modify it." part, because I couldn't read it.
:: {{u|Izno}}, could you please clarify what you mean by {{tq|standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not}}? Do you mean that the chosen maroon color is not eye-catching? —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm saying that red (#f00) is our standard red for such things. The background color OTOH has no standardization. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for {{tl|afd top}} in particular - there are more than half a million substed uses of the old color. Changing it isn't worth the inconsistency. It's ''certainly'' not worth changing them all. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: All changes were reverted. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::: Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green {{color box|#e3f9df}} is bad ([https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=E3F9DF contrast ratio 3.59:1], with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are [[Special:Permalink/1148688274|Rfd's pale orange]] {{color box|#FFEEDD}} ([https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=FFEEDD 3.52:1]) and [[Special:Permalink/1168269960|{{tlf|Archive top}}'s light purple]] {{color box|#EDEAFF}} ([https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=EDEAFF 3.39:1]). —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Andrybak}} You may wish to read [[mw:Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
==Discussion at [[:WT:Deletion process#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues|WT:Deletion process §&nbsp;Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:WT:Deletion process#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues|WT:Deletion process §&nbsp;Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues]]. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->


== D MENA topic ==
Rarely, it's actually been easier to add options to a module than a template, including in this very case, at [[Module:Yesno]]. However this can (and in that case did) easily result in an undesirable [[WP:TEMPLATEFORK]], with the module version supporting options (e.g. <kbd>T</kbd> and <kbd>F</kbd>) not supported in the old-school template edition, for no actual reason other than probably another round of [[WP:DRAMA]] at the template talk page with the tiny handful of people trying to over-control it. This is also an example of the unhelpful forking of template and module editors (and non-code-editing concerned parties) into [[WP:FACTION]] nonsense across namespace lines (not out of any kind of ill will, but just as a consequence of isolation from broader community input).


{{t|d MENA topic}} The template was deemed delete-able mostly for not being in use, and is now on a list of things to remove from pages, this is a bit contradictory. [[User:MWQs|MWQs]] ([[User talk:MWQs|talk]]) 06:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Usually, it's the other way around, due to the larger and broader participation in Template_talk than in Module_talk. Ex.: Implementing consistent hatnote-style italicized cross-reference templates that work inline instead of being indented and on their own line has been simple, as templates. Getting this implemented in Module-space has been like pulling teeth from a smilodon because of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] antics by some self-appointed gatekeepers; it took an actual code fork to do it, despite the modules being identical except for one or two lines.


:And for being an unnecessary fork. I asked for an example of where the original template wasn't working and you didn't give one. If there isn't a problem was the current one, we don't need a duplicate template. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
We had a similar "gatekeepers" problem for several years in which two or three individuals had near-total control over MediaWiki namespace (where the CSS and JavaScript live), defying changes they didn't personally agree with – even when consensus was against them and when what they wanted produced [[WP:ACCESSIBILITY]] problems, [[WP:MOS]] rendering style conflicts, etc. Yet they remained convinced they were doing The Right Thing, mostly based on their subjective sense of what other websites have in their own [[house style]], or (much worse) based on nothing but what [[WHATWG]] has browsers do by default (browsers made by members of that small consortium, anyway). One of them ended up just quitting the project after being overruled a few times, and this mostly brought the [[WP:CONLEVEL]] / [[WP:OWN]] / [[WP:VESTED]]] problem to an end at those pages (though the ability to just go change them willy-nilly has of course been locked down tighter with the InterfaceAdmin bit). But it should never have happened in the first place, and it's incrementally happening again in Module space. This will not do.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Any chance of an executive summary? Did you mention [[WT:Lua]]? It's likely that a request for technical assistance at [[WT:Lua]] (say to fix [[Module:Zh]]) would get a reasonably fast response. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::This discussion appears to be about multiple things. The extended discussion portion appears to be about how long it takes to get simple things done, but the first example did not appear to use an edit request template, and the second example used such a template, had an objection, and the objection was not responded to. In both cases, the onus is on the person who wants the change to draw attention to the change and to show consensus for the change.
:
::As for {{tq|some TemplateEditors are excessively wary about blame}}, I am absolutely one of those template editors who is wary of changes, and I do not consider wariness excessive in cases where I have never seen the template before, let alone seen it used, and where there are zero or limited testcases to illustrate the suggested change. Templates are often used in many pages, and changes can have unexpected effects. When an edit request appears on a template that I have never visited, and I see no discussion about the change other than the request, I am unlikely to make the change unless I trust the requester's reputation or the change is transparently harmless; as the editor making the change, I am responsible for the edit and its effects. Again, the onus is on the requester to do a bit of work beforehand. As someone who frequently responds to edit requests, I have found that it is the rare request that has been sandboxed and tested, let alone discussed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 07:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jonesey95}} Given your comment above, as well as the high(er) number of watchers on this page, can someone please take a look at [[Template talk:Single-purpose account#Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019]] - both sandboxed and tested --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 07:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::::I have to agree with Jonesey95, I understand the concern over blame, as looking at code that you aren't familiar with or a template that you don't know what it does, it is something hard to understand the overall impact of a change. If we look at the 2 current examples of template edit requests, one is following the guidelines on how to ask for one, while the other just mentions the issue, leaving the research work to whoever responds to the request. I also think that the resistance in creating a consistent coding style makes changing (and reading) other editors code even harder. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Jonesey95|Gonnym}} As a TE myself, I would suggest that the appropriate response when you are uncertain is to leave the edit request unanswered, so that someone more familiar with the template/module in question can address it later, rather than marking it answered but declined out of simply uncertainty/unawareness. There's a major meaningful difference between "I don't know" and "I'm certain this requires closer examination by the community". (This is a variant of the [[WP:IDONTKNOWIT]] principle.) Another solution, of course, is to actually find out – see how the template is used, how much it is used, what it is doing step-by-step in the code, what its talk page may say about why it is written the way it is, etc., etc. There's not really a rationale for "I don't know and refuse to bother to find out." :-) I regularly resolve template editing requests by taking the time. Probably the majority of them have been at templates I wasn't intimately familiar with when I arrived at them. It's work, but it's one of the reasons this is an advanced user-right. Being a page-mover, file-mover, edit-filter-manager, or admin also generally entails judgement and direct experience, which are arrived at by effort. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:So, you proposing to get rid of any centralized hub where templates can be deleted or discussed? And admins will need to jump from one talk page to another one to find the specific discussion instead of just looking at a single page? What will happen with the holding cell? What will happen with archives as with this change there will be no way to just look at one page and read all discussion that happened on a particular date? [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 08:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{U|Ruslik0}} I'm not sure who this is in response to. The proposal here says the exact opposite of "get rid of any centralized hub where templates can be deleted or discussed"; rather, it's an aim to make TfD do this more broadly, as a centralized hub to at least {{em|find}} template/module discussions that are not only about deletions and mergers; TfD's more traditional functions would be completely unaffected. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:I've been thinking about a similar (if not the same problem) in that, because template editors are generally conservative (being one of them) because our templates and modules are usually highly-used, and the standard edit page requires an edit request, which requires a consensus, we do need some better way to generate input (not per se consensus). This is not a problem isolated to templates and modules however. All pages behind a protection have this issue as well. I regularly reject some proposed changes in the semi-protection queue as being inappropriate because they don't have consensus for change. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{U|Izno}} Right. And the gist of this proposal is that we actually {{em|have}} a centralized protection/unprotection queue. This proposal is to have TfD serve, in part, a similar purpose for templates/modules changes. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] ([[User talk:SMcCandlish#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contribs]]) </small>
::: I think I'd have to see what this looks like. Are you thinking a section on each day's TFD page which is "Discussions started February 28" and then a bulleted list? I think that would be interesting/valuable, though it almost duplicates the template-protected edit table that AnomieBot does, it would allow for the kind of discussion I'm thinking. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::::That would work for me. I don't have a particular layout vision in mind. A difference from AnomieBot's table is it would include discussions about more than {{tlx|edit template-protected}} requests. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 10:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{green|I think there is far too much use of lua and [so I] go around TfDing modules. -- 3xpery}} - how obnoxious. It's a crusade and not good behavior for anything on Wikipedia. It's funny, on the one hand they say only a small number of people use Lua. But in reality more and more people are using Lua, and more Modules are being created all the time. To which they respond, there are too many Lua modules. It's crazy! -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 14:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:: {{u|GreenC}} as modules and templates that I write are a frequent target of Pppery's clean-up campaigns, I sympathise. However, for creation of articles, we have firmly established criteria of notability as the threshold required, but when it comes to templates and modules, there is virtually no bar on creation, and little consensus on standards or criteria for deletion or merging. I am sometimes guilty of thinking "I'll just knock up a solution to this in a module (or template)" with scant regard for what might already be available, thus increasing the proliferation of modules and templates. It's a truism that having built a better mouse-trap, nobody will be beating a path to your door if they don't know the mouse-trap exists.
:: I'd like to see solutions to the problems caused by the lack of policies on creating, naming, organising, merging and deleting modules and templates; and to the problem of organising and advertising what's currently available in the area. That will need a lot more discussion. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:: {{U|GreenC}}, see also {{U||Pppery|Pppery}}'s own comments below. I think you're misreading and [[WP:AGF|assuming the worst]] without evidence. Pppery isn't anti-Lua, but just shares a concern about unnecessary complication with insufficient discussion. Note that Pppery even defends the Lua-ization of [[Module:Yesno]], one of my examples (though I wasn't actually criticizing that particular conversion, but rather the later forking of functionality between versions due to lack of cohesive discussion, the kind of thing this proposal would help resolve). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::: To be honest, I actually do consider myself anti-Lua, but don't hold the extremist view that all Lua modules are bad. My position is that Lua modules should only exist if there is some specific reason that the code in question needs to be in Lua rather than Wikitext, and furthermore Lua modules should be generalized rather than focused on one specific case. Many Lua modules in existence fail these standards, and I then TfD them. But this is veering a bit off-topic from the proposal. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 03:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:The problem of how few module coders there are is largely a problem about documentation and helping newcomers to code. The solution is to encourage new editors in the module namespace. It would not surprise me that some of those simple modules are made from users that are new to the module namespace. Very few users can just jump to the level of writing a complex module. Look at phabricator. There is a reason why bugs are marked as easy and suggested to new developers.

:Many modules are used on multiple pages or are complex. Updating those is going to cause either many updates in the job queue or take a bit longer per page to update. Changing that practise is not going to happen, but I would welcome any well thought attempt to improve ways to generate input.--[[User:Snaevar|Snaevar]] ([[User talk:Snaevar|talk]]) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Snaevar}} I don't agree that encouraging more editors in Module space is "the" solution. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not learn new general-purpose programming languages. While no one's going to be harmed by learning Lua, of course, it's not the point and doing so should not be an effective barrier to entry, or a discouragement, to helping determine consensus on what our templates are doing and why, from an editorial standpoint. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
: {{ping|SMcCandlish}} [[Module:Yesno]] isn't an undesirable template fork, see [[Template talk:Yesno#Switch to lua]]. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, it supports "T" and "F" because {{u|CRwikiCA}} edit-requested that they be added in 2015 but never made a request to add them to the template. As to the general merit of the proposal, it seems like a reasonable idea (but may exasperate the template limit issues). [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 22:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
: Also, {{u|Mr. Stradivarius}}, the editor who declined the [[Template:Yesno]] request based on performance, isn't a {{tq|editor[] who fanc[ies] [himself] a TemplateEditor candidate[]}}, but rather an admin. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Pppery}}, I didn't suggest that all Lua conversions are undesirable (though someone above thinks you think they are!). Plenty of them are vast improvements, but as a general matter they need broader discussion than they've been getting. If we had a more efficient and inclusive process, then adding a feature to a module and its corresponding non-Lua template variants would be much more likely to be consistent, without depending on any single editor to "auto-know" that the variants exist; more brains {{lang|la|in situ}} would likely ferret out other places to implement conforming changes. We also have a conflict involving [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]], [[WP:PROCESS]]: A consensus discussion is what it is; it's helpful process to centralize certain kinds of them to some extent (to get more eyeballs on them), but it's not helpful to treat a discussion as meaningless because a specific template wasn't used, or because a specific individual dropped out of the discussion. An idea should proceed or be rejected on its own merits, and this happens best when more editors are involved, which is what this proposal is about.<p>Side matters: The problem of people making bogus efficiency arguments is a general one; the fact that in one case someone who should know better did it doesn't affect the overall issue, and he was not the only one to raise the idea in discussions relating to YesNo. (Nor does being an admin confer technical knowledge automatically.) Let's not get hung up on nit-picks; this proposal is about an overall site-wide issue, not three particular cases.</p><p>PS: I'm not sure what "may exasperate the template limit issues" refers to in the context of the proposal as a whole; maybe that's actually about YesNo details?<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)</p>
::: {{ping|SMcCandlish}} [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion]] is currently very close to ending up in [[:Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded]], and I've had to resort to several hacky fixes to keep it out of that category (see [[#Page Size Exceeded]] below). Adding even more content to it would make it harder to deal with that issue. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 03:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:::: Noted. I'll go over that other thread and catch up. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:::: Done. This is it right here: "Do we really need to be transcluding ALL tfds onto one page?" Obviously, the answer is "no" ([[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:CFD]] don't, and instead provide a by-day index; [[WP:MFD]] and [[WP:RFD]] do as TfD does, but they are comparatively quite short). I also have to observe that one proposed solution, "What about just a link to the currently open discussions?", is remarkably in line with my own proposal. TfD should be a way to get to discussions, like RM is, not a monolithic pile of entire discussions. It could also be by-day as AfD and CfD are; they're not mutually exclusive. RM includes the opening statements of each RM listing, since it's templated that way, and this is an idea worth considering for TfD, both as to what I'm proposing and perhaps as to its current "in house" deletion/merger discussions; or go ahead and display all the !voting for the within-TfD merge/delete threads, but not for those being, per this proposal, cross-referenced from other talk pages in Template_talk or Module_talk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

*Well, I agree that there needs to be more of a connection between templates and modules in terms of discussions, deletions, etc., so to that extent I support the proposal.
:It does concern me though that there's an "anti-Lua" flavour to some of the comments above. As one who works with both the template language and Lua, I am very aware that for complex problems, Lua is vastly easier to write and to maintain. Yes, you need to learn Lua, but it's much easier to read and write than the template language whenever the problem requires complex control statements. If you look back at the history of templates, they started off as a way of using "boilerplate text" and later developed into a poor quality programming language. Ingenious editors ({{U|Smith609}} is a great example with the automated taxobox system) managed to use templates to do things they were never designed to do. But they always did them badly.
:So we should be clear about the value of each approach. The template language is valuable for straightforward uses, such as those which avoid repeating text, with limited control logic involved. Use Lua for cases where complex if/then logic or repetition is needed. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::Fair points. Nothing here's intended as "anti-Lua". Lua does have more of a learning curve, and the concern is that a) conversion of templates to modules without any actual gain in functionality or noticeable efficiency isn't helpful, and b) conversion of high-use templates into modules without discussion (and often with idiosyncratic functionality changes or mismatches) is probably also contra-indicated. But that's only a small part of this; it's mostly about discussion centralization like we have for other things. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 10:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Hide tfd-inline for unregistered users ==
{{closed rfc top|Proposal '''fails'''. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)}}
Currently [[Template:Infobox U.S. state]] is nominated for TfD, and as a result every single U.S. state (e.g. [[California]]) has a notice saying ‹ The template Infobox U.S. state is being considered for deletion. › Now as an editor, I appreciate the notification, but for the vast majority of our readers that the TfD discussion has very little to do with, it looks ugly and unprofessional (and certainly unacceptable for a featured article like [[Oklahoma]]). Infoboxes by their very nature are highly trafficked, and I don't think it is useful to serve up a deletion notice to every one of those visitors. Is there a way to display it only for logged in users? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 03:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|King of Hearts}} maybe we should wrap the notices with <code>class=autoconfirmed-show</code> and take advantage of [[MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css]]. If implemented properly, this would hide tfd notices from all non-confirmed users --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging users who participated in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 139#Proposal: Deprecate the TfM template, or at least force people to put it in the template documentation|the previous (to my knowledge) discussion about TfD tag visibility]]: {{ping|xaosflux|Jc86035|Uanfala|Thryduulf|verdy_p|Fornaeffe|Jo-Jo Eumerus|George Ho}} [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 04:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
:Seems like a pretty good idea to only show only to autoconfirmed/users (one can use <code>user-show</code> to only display to logged-in users using [[MediaWiki:Group-user.css]]). Would hide the notice from 99% of people who don't even know what a template is but display it to 99% of people who actually would comment on a Tfd/understand what is going on. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 07:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
::Oppose. Non autoconfirmed users who are interested in our processes do exist; it's been a Wikipedia philosophy for a long time. Besides, maintenance tags are a common sight, one non-problematic tag is surely not a problem. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 07:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Jo-Jo. Not every person interested always logs in when they read Wikipedia. Some people (e.g. me) read Wikipedia on mobile devices logged in to a different account to their main editing one, and the possible deletion of a template could be what causes a new editor to start editing. Also per the comments in the last discussion. If deleting a template causes problems then perhaps consider whether the template should be nominated for deletion in first place. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf. Openness to editing and the fact that we're unfinished (and may improve) is one of our core principles as an encyclopedia. I don't see a convincing reason to hide these templates. In addition they are only attached for a relatively short period of time and really aren't that disruptive. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 10:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
* It appears that I missed {{u|Redrose64}} in my previous list of pings. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as a step in the right direction. TfD notices aren't much use anyway: their intended audience is the editors who use the templates concerned but they instead reach the people (most of whom are not editors) that happen to be looking at the articles that use the template. These two sets of people: the ones that the message is intended for and the ones that it actually reaches, are different, and it's only by a fluke that there might occasionally be a tiny bit of overlap. Even removing all tfd messages altogether is unlikely to make a massive difference to participation, and hiding them from unregistered users is unlikely to make a difference at all: I don't buy the argument that a casual reader might be tempted to become an editor by seeing a notice for what is probably wikipedia's most arcane deletion venue. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 16:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' this has long been established as Wikipedia policy. At the VERY LEAST this would require a much broader RFC. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the arguments presented above to not show (to non-editors and a few editors) are much more compelling than those to show. If editors are particularly interested in knowing about TFDs there are many other ways (watchlisting templates, looking at wikiproject alerts, looking at TFD). <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 17:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Given [[user:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]]'s comment about needing a wider audience (which I agree with) I've made this into an RfC . [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
**I've also placed a notice advertising this discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I agree with Uanfala that this is a step in the right direction. After almost 20 years, the encyclopedia isn't ''as'' unfinished as it once was, and "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" isn't as novel of an idea as it once was. People know they can edit Wikipedia; I doubt that a TfD notice will prompt new editors to start editing. Anyway, do we really want completely new users voting in TfDs? The inconvenience for those editors who use alternate accounts that are not registered or autoconfirmed doesn't strike me as a reason to show TfD notices to millions of readers. [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">[[User talk:Levivich|ich]]</span> 17:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I see no worthwhile reason to hide such information from anyone.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' You are falsely equating "users who are not logged in/autoconfirmed" and "readers". [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Pppery}} good point! --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the previous talk about TfD notices, I prefer if Wikipedia doesn't not show notices at all in pages where the template is used, except from the template pages. I think an editor interested in that templates will probably visit their pages and find the TfD discussion, while any other users (i think about 99,9%) would only be bothered by the notice, and (99%) does not know what a "template" is, or (0,9%) doesn't care about the deletion/merging. But almost all users care about readability of wikipedia pages. However, hide tfd-inline for unregistered users could be a quite fine solution, IMHO. 100% agree with Uanfala and Levivich.[[User:Fornaeffe|Fornaeffe]] ([[User talk:Fornaeffe|talk]]) 21:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
**That's simply not true - I only discovered today that [[Template:Wikipedia categorization navbox]] had been nominated for deletion when I saw the notice above its transclusion on [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates]]. I've never had cause to visit that template's page and it's not on my watchlist. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It's arbitrary to single out TfD template messages. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 23:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
**If this proposal passes, then TfD's will get advertised in exactly the same way that all other XfD's are advertised: by a message at the top of the page concerned. TfD is the odd one out ''at the moment'': advertising a discussion on every page that transcludes a template is without parallel elsewhere; I'm trying to imagine what the same system could look like when applied to articles, placing AfD notifications on all pages that link to the nominated article? – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
***Templates are primarily encountered through their transclusion onto another page. Thus the existing system of transcluding an abbreviated deletion template message with every transclusion of the template is actually parallel to how deletion template messages appear in other namespaces. Not transcluding that deletion template message with templates is, for other namespaces, actually akin to placing the deletion template message only on the talk page instead of the subject page (thus, in both instances, one page removed, so to speak). But also, I didn't only mean singled out in relation to other deletion processes, but also other template messages. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 00:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Unregistered editors are not prohibited from participating in XFDs, hence, they must not be prevented from being made aware of those XFDs. Also, our readers are potentially our editors of the future. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Opppose''' since there is not a technical difference between "readers" and "IP Editors" to differentiate upon. If someone wants to propose never transcluding TFD tags at all, that is a different discussion to be had. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' (invited by {{u|Legobot}}) -- per the opposes above. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 04:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:...and below. :) [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*Displaying these sort of notices to non-editors is a good thing! It's easy to just be a consumer of the encyclopedia and not even think about editing (there's a lot here) but showing messages like this to readers increases the chance that someone will be curious and join in. It may not all be great, but deletion notices are probably one of the best "advertisements" we have for non-editors that they can edit. It's a (hopefully welcoming) invitation, and we should encourage it. I'm against this, whether for just inline TfD or anything else, and if we hid them would support unhiding them. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 11:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' {{sbb}} Per above, could invite people to edit Wikipedia. [[User:SemiHypercube|<b style="color:#090">Semi</b>]][[User talk:SemiHypercube|<i style="color:#099">Hyper</i>]][[Special:Contributions/SemiHypercube|<u style="color:#009">cube</u>]] 11:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' TfD notices are very often just not relevant to the articles they show up at. Tags like {{tlx|unreferenced}} and {{tlx|copyedit}} are inviting (in a sense), but TfD notices are confusing. If they have to be shown, what about showing them below the templates instead of at the top? Currently these notices are one of the first thing you see when opening an article with an infobox. – [[User:Þjarkur|'''''Þjarkur''''']] ''[[User talk:Þjarkur|(talk)]]'' 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}

== Feedback on a law enforcement-related infobox ==

Hey guys.

I made an infobox draft for law enforcement units as [https://en.chped.com/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_unit/doc shown here]. I had a talk with someone who has voiced the use of the military unit infobox to illustrate law enforcement units such as police tactical units and the like.

So I did have a talk with the user and agreed to do this one. Except that this is a draft and I wish to bounce some ideas. I looked at it now and it seems that I'll have to remove anything related to military stuff since this proposed infobox will be for LE units/divisions that are under civilian police control.

Appreciate any thoughts on this.

[[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 08:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Cross-posted/transcluded to [[WT:WPT]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::How is this different from [[:Template:Infobox law enforcement agency]]? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 10:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Thanks Primefac.
::: Jonesay95, I'm trying to specifically boil it down to make it to a specific division within law enforcement (civilian) agencies? I've seen wiki pages of police units using the military unit infobox and I think that it's not the proper infobox to use. [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 13:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: Currently revising it. [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 11:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

== RfC on templates storing data ==

{{transcluded section|Wikipedia talk:Template namespace}}
{{#section-h:Wikipedia talk:Template namespace|RfC on templates storing data}}

== UPDATE: Proposal for law enforcement infobox for specialist units ==

Hello.

I was busy updating the template proposal for a separate infobox for law enforcement specialist units (e.g. SWAT units, etc...)

Though there wasn't much reception, I was wondering if [[https://en.chped.com/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_agency the LEA infobox]] should just be strictly implemented at all. [[User:Ominae|Ominae]] ([[User talk:Ominae|talk]]) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

== NAC delete closes ==

Can I non-admin close a TfD as '''delete''' if there are no transclusions to '''orphan'''?

;Background (copied from [[User talk:JJMC89]]):
:Hi. I wanted to ask you about [[Special:Diff/893099029|this edit]] with the summary {{tq|revert delete closes done contrary to [[WP:NACD]]}}. I realize that I made a mistake with the tagging of the category for deletion, but can you explain how this is contrary to NACD? Thanks, --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 01:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:: {{Reply to|DannyS712}} The relevant part of NACD is below. Those closes only required deletion, not orphaning, so a non-admin should not close them as delete.
{{talk quote|
* Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as ''delete'', because only admins can delete pages.
**Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as ''orphan''.
}}
:: <del>Additionally, it</del><ins>As an aside, such closes</ins> just makes more work for admins since [[WP:XFDC]] can't be used if the discussion is already closed. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] 02:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJMC89}} I have read that policy, and have observed other non-admin closes. I have realized that "orphan" means "delete once all transclusions are removed". For the relevant background, See [[Special:Diff/695098674]], where the TfD exception was first added to NACD, [[Special:Diff/716267935]], where it was partially corrected, and [[Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin %22delete%22 closures at TfD]], which proposed that non admins be allowed to close TfDs as delete ({{tq|Consensus in favor of this proposal would interpret the WP:NACD guideline as permitting delete closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators.}}) and was closed as consensus in favor of implementing that idea ({{tq|However, there is clear support for at least trying out the alternative proposal. I recommend looking into a trial of the orphan/CSD mechanism, and if this fails to resolve the issue then the first question can be revisited.}}). Since the templates were already orphans, the CSD mechanism applied. There is no evidence that the closes are limited to orphan only when templates are still transcluded, and since orphaning a template is the same as marking it ready for deletion, I merely skipped the step of listing it as "to orphan" and then immediately moving it as ready for deletion and tagging the templates individually. While I understand you point about XFDC, I don't believe that you desire to use it warrants undoing my close with a summary that says I violated a wikipedia guideline. In short, as far as I can tell you reverted my close claiming I violated a guideline that I believe I followed, and then proceeded to make the same close yourself. --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 02:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:::: Orphaning a template is just removing all tranclusions. It is a prerequisite for deletion. Something that has no tranclsuions does not require orphaning, thus NAC is not permitted. The initial proposal in that RfC (delete NACs) did not have consensus, only the alternative proposal, which allowed orphan NACs. XFDC was just an aside about increasing the amount of work needed and had nothing to do with reverting your close. (Clarified above.) —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] 05:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJMC89}} Would you be okay with moving this discussion to [[WT:TFD]]? I disagree with your interpretation, and believe that NACs can close a discussion as delete even when there are no transclusions. --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 07:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::: NACD would just say {{tq|Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as ''<del>orphan</del><ins>delete</ins>''.}} if that were the case. Discussing the interpretation of NACD there is fine. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|JJMC89}} discussion copied. --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 06:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:IMO TfD NAC-closed-as-delete isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't prevent users from being helpful provided they've spent the time to review each discussion and are willing to be accountable for each close. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 19:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Templates_for_discussion]] explicitly says that non-admins can close TFDs as "delete". There is nothing to discuss. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 21:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*: [[WP:NACD]] is the actual guideline. As an explanatory supplement, [[WP:NAC]] must agree with [[WP:NACD]]. Also, read the RfC. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 22:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*::Indeed, I'm a bit perturbed at [[WP:NAC]] getting quoted as much as it does. :^) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::I'm a little surprised at how much mincing of words seems to go on. I'm genuinely confused - it's okay to close as discussion as "orphan then delete" but it's not okay to close an identical discussion where orphaning is unnecessary? At that point we're just splitting hairs; when I started at TFD (Sept 2015, shortly after the RFC) I was closing discussions as "delete" and as far as I recall no one ever had issue with it between that time and when I got the mop. If people insist on codifying what has been acceptable practice since that 2015 RFC then so be it, but let's not pretend that there's a significant difference between "orphan ''then'' delete" and just "delete". [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::: For an orphan close, there is work (orphaning) that a non-admin can do before deletion, but nothing for them to do when orphaning is not needed. NAC deletes when no orphaning is required just create more work for admins compared to just letting an admin close it. That is a significant difference given that the point of the RfC was {{tq|to reduce, not merely displace, admin backlogs}}. A delete NAC (with no orphaning) only displaces the work (and prevents the use of scripts like [[WP:XFDC]]) from TFD to [[WP:TFD/H]] and/or [[CAT:CSD]]. NAC delete (original proposal) closes did not have consensus in the RfC, only orphan (alternate proposal). Primefac, if you were closing as delete when orphaning wasn't required, perhaps no one noticed. I noticed it happening now largely due to the recent trend of TfDing unused templates. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 01:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::::Fair points, though I'm a bit confused by your statement {{tq|A delete NAC...prevents the use of scripts like XFDC}} - XFDCloser works perfectly well for NAC closures; tagging the page with G6 and listing it at the holding cell. If that's not right, what is it ''supposed'' to do? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
*:::::: Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to the admin not being able to use it since the discussion was already closed. This is more meaningful for batch TfDs. —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

== Talk page archiving - how many threads to keep? ==

{{u|Fastily}} recently dropped the "number of threads to keep" to 0, likely because there are two long(ish) RFCs on this page. I don't know of any "big" WP talk page that does this (CSD, AN, and a handful of others I frequent all keep 4 threads). Rather than have an edit war over something so silly, I figured I'd get opinions from TFD regulars. My !vote is to keep 4 threads, since that seems to be the norm and allows the most recent conversations to be seen. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:Uh yeah, because this page looks like shit on mobile. Instead of citing a hand-wavy "''seems to be the norm''", why don't you ''actually'' try justifying zombie threads which are de facto archived and ''therefore'' belong in an archive. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 20:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::The oldest thread here is from 29 March, which is less than a month ago. Doesn't really sound like much of a zombie to me. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. If threads are eligible to archived, then they ''should'' be. I've already stated my reasoning above, so I won't be repeating myself here. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 22:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::::That's fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I'm starting this discussion to see what ''other'' users feel, since a consensus either way will stop us from bickering about it via edit war. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
::Why not just archive the things you think should be archived? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Because that defeats the purpose of automatic archiving? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
* Archiving any talk page to blank, zero threads, makes it look like not a talk page, and discourages uncertain people from posting. If the only thread is massive big and irrelevant, manually archive it and leave an explanation or what you did as a lingering thread. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
* To be fair, I also believe that it's pointless leaving threads that should be archived on the talk page, even if that leads to 0 open threads, as to me that is a non-issue. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:55, 18 June 2024

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 25 0 25
TfD 0 0 10 0 10
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 42 0 42
AfD 0 0 5 0 5

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other. Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readability of Template:Tfd top[edit]

Template:Tfd top uses background color #e3f9df (as of Special:Permalink/1172064855). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this:

... Please do not modify it. ...

This combination of colors – background #e3f9df   and foreground #ff0000   – is not very readable. It fails WCAG for normal text in a contrast checker.

In the interest of accessibility, I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to maroon (aka #800000  ):

... Please do not modify it. ...

which passes the contrast check. You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in the sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates in Category:Deletion archival templates are also affected, but they are out of scope for WT:TFD. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change all of the affected templates, such as {{atop green}}, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? Primefac (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we might as well change all of the affected templates – sure, I'll go be BOLD. why is this thread small? – because it's out of scope. Important enough to be mentioned, but not important enough to have normal text size. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the brightest color for foreground which passes the contrast check with the same background is #A90000   (see also in the sandbox). —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, no one is likely to care because you're improving readability, I say just go for it (for all affected templates). If people complain, point 'em here. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text has an exception that your average color contrast checker will not catch that allows 3:1 (web-aware ones will note that this use is allowed). This particular line is accessible. "Accessibility" isn't a very good argument on the point.
One reason not to change it is that this is our standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not and should perhaps be reconsidered. Izno (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contrast checker above, webaim.org has a "Large Text" section, which is 14pt (18.6667px) and bold (font-weight: 700). For this font-size and font-weight, the red foreground color passes "WCAG AA", but doesn't pass "WCAG AAA".
In the templates, the font-size is 14px, which is 25% smaller. For me personally, the boldness only makes the readability worse for smaller text. Best way I can describe it is that because elements are thicker, the gaps between them are smaller, which makes distinguishing letters harder. I only came here, because I had been reading some TfD archives, and I have noticed that my eyes completely glossed over the the "Please do not modify it." part, because I couldn't read it.
Izno, could you please clarify what you mean by standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not? Do you mean that the chosen maroon color is not eye-catching? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that red (#f00) is our standard red for such things. The background color OTOH has no standardization. Izno (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for {{afd top}} in particular - there are more than half a million substed uses of the old color. Changing it isn't worth the inconsistency. It's certainly not worth changing them all. —Cryptic 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All changes were reverted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green   is bad (contrast ratio 3.59:1, with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are Rfd's pale orange   (3.52:1) and {{Archive top}}'s light purple   (3.39:1). —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrybak: You may wish to read mw:Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D MENA topic[edit]

{{d MENA topic}} The template was deemed delete-able mostly for not being in use, and is now on a list of things to remove from pages, this is a bit contradictory. MWQs (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for being an unnecessary fork. I asked for an example of where the original template wasn't working and you didn't give one. If there isn't a problem was the current one, we don't need a duplicate template. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1229822969"