Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 12 May 2014

	Deletion (defunct)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Holding cell redirects here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Station templates replaced

I have carefully replaced {{Infobox Norwegian station}}, {{Infobox Oslo Metro station}} and {{Infobox SPT subway station}} with the standard Infobox station. Could someone with the authority now delete them and any related sub templates, doc pages, talk pages, redirects, etc.? Thanks. Sw2nd (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

tagged with {{db-xfd}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple templates to be merged

The guide says under Multiple templates: you can propose multiple templates for merger in step 1, but then step 2 doesn't actually support the discussion title through tfm2. I added part of the functionality to tfm2. I think the guide should be updated in Step 2's Multiple templates: to mention using the new title parameter of {{tfm2}}. Also, I changed the guide's recommendation for {{tfm}} (step 1) to use |heading= since what the guide said to do before didn't work. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A club ≠ a team

Why should Template:Infobox bandy club be merged into Template:Infobox sports team? One club can have many teams, like men's and women's teams, youth teams for different ages etc. One sports club can also have teams in many different sports. Bandy boy (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bandy boy: Please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 1#Template:Infobox bandy club; bear in mind that the discussion was six months ago, but if you disagree with its outcome, you could take it up with the closing admin, which was Plastikspork (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have sent Plastikspork a question about it. The discussion gives no clues, as no reason for the suggestion is given there except that the template is not used in many articles, which isn't a sufficient reason in my book. Even if the discussion was six months ago, noone has done anything about it yet, which also seems to point at that it wasn't such a good idea after all. Bandy boy (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source of the deleted template, and it was indeed redundant. If you have a problem with using {{Infobox sports team}}, then use {{Infobox sports club}}. If there are parameters which are missing from the more generic template, then propose adding more on the talk page for the generic template. I, personally, don't see what the problem is here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 23:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong?

At Warren Cuccurullo#1980–1986: The Missing Persons years, there is a message:

‹ The template below (Rellink) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

Clicking the link "templates for discussion" leads to Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 24 but there is no mention there of this template.

A link at the page "Template:Rellink" purporting to go to "this template's entry at templates for discussion" points to the same irrelevant page.

In any case, the section at Warren Cuccurullo#1980–1986: The Missing Persons years does not contain any reference to any "rellink".

86.128.2.151 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

the notice has now been wrapped inside some noinclude tags, so it shouldn't appear in any articles. but, in case you are interested, the notice was appearing due to the fact that {{main}} uses {{rellink}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion to add instructions to use "noinclude" tags for highly-visible templates

Hello everyone,

If you haven't heard about me by now, I'm the editor who placed a {{Tfm}} notice on {{Rellink}}, a template with a huge amount of transclusions. You may have seen the small notice for the Tfm discussion on almost every article on Misplaced Pages for about half an hour until <noinclude> tags were placed around the notification template. Yay, go me; I am awesome. However, here's the thing: I was following the instructions on this page to post the notice on {{Rellink}}. So yes, the small notices you have probably seen everywhere, they were there per the directions on this page.

Now, here's my point: I propose that an adjustment be made to the instructions to specifically tell the nominator to place "<noinclude> tags around the {{Tfd}} or {{Tfm}} template in the event of nominating certain highly-visible templates. At the present time, the only instructions that nominators are given reads like this:

For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.

I have an idea of a certain wording that should probably be added to the instructions to prevent the great "{{Rellink}} calamity of April 2014" from happening again. Here's an example of wording that could be added to the instructions:

For any high-risk templates with template or permanent protection that are not intended to be used on talk pages, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent the small discussion notice from appearing on the transclusions of the template.

...That's an example of what could be added to the instructions. Any thoughts? Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been suggested before, several times; and always rejected. Here's the crux: people who are interested in a given template do not like to be kept in the dark that it is up for TFD. When the TFD closes as delete, the bot going around removing/substing/replacing the template is often the first that they heard about it, and they (justifiably) kick up a stink that the template is gone without their opinion being heard. Unfortunately, not enough people participate in TFD: a lot of TFDs get relisted due to lack of participation; and after two or three weeks, get closed with perhaps too few !votes - see for example Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 7 where of the 13 entries, only four were new - nine are relistings (one being a second relist), and only about half have had more than two participants, nominator included. The TFD message is one of the methods to inform people of the discussion (others include {{subst:tfdnotice}}, which is underutilised; and Article Alerts, which many people are not aware of. Alternative means exist to keep the TFD message visible, but make it less in-your-face: for example, judicious use of the |type= parameter will reduce the size of the displayed message, but still provide the necessary information and link to the discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I basically understand. That, and I just realized that my exclusive example is not really going to be opposed anyways. This discussion can be closed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've undone Steel1943's close of this discussion, as I don't think this issue is so clear-cut. Of course we need to make users of the template aware of the TfD discussion; I don't dispute that at all. I do think, however, that we need to bear in mind how a given TfD tag will affect our readers.

For example, if a widely-used maintenance banner is nominated for deletion, the TfD notice will only appear once, at the top of the page, and some readers may (perhaps) be interested in the discussion as it may affect other articles they are interested in. In Steel1943's example, though, the TfD notice would often appear many times on a page, and if the change was made it wouldn't affect readers or most editors, so it is probable that only technical editors would have an interest in the discussion.

If we showed the TfD tag in the latter case, I can easily imagine us receiving many emails through OTRS saying the tag is "broken" or similar, and I am not sure that we would be notifying any interested editors that we couldn't do with talk page messages or notes on WP:VPT. I think that at some point we have to balance the benefit of notifying editors against the inconvenience the tags cause to readers. Might it not be wise to add wording to the TfD instructions that editors should use common sense in such situations? I don't think it would be possible to come up with specific criteria, but it might at least be worth encouraging nominators to think about these issues when they nominate widely-used templates. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another thought - I remember it being proposed on VPT a while back that there should be a CSS class that hides content for anonymous users. Might that be a good compromise option to add to the TfD templates in cases like this, if the capability was made available? — Mr. Stradivarius 07:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was started on VPT, but was moved to WP:VPP where it snow closed within the day. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I, personally, think the notice should be wrapped in noinclude tags in very rare cases. the {{rellink}} is a good example of when it is useful to do so, but that's because it's a meta-template used within other templates. it was confusing since it wasn't obvious to novice editors how the articles in question were using {{rellink}} (e.g., through {{main}}). I can also see wrapping it in noinclude tags if the discussion has been open for a long time (e.g., over a week), and it hasn't been closed due to general backlog. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping templates

Is there guidance on what is and isn't appropriate for a "ping" template, e.g. {{Ping}}? Or barring that, are there ping templates introduced since the echo notification change which have been to TfD? Protonk (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Closure decisions

I'm increasingly concerned that many TfD/TfM dsicussions ae being closed based on the number of "votes", rather than an anlysis of the merits of the points raised (and as as secondary issue, that many people "vote", but do not then linger to discuss any points arising). How might we address this, to the benefit of the project? I'm aware that the workload is high and we rely on a small number of volunteers to carry out this unrewarding task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)