This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bsherr (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 19 January 2020 (→"Out of process" actions on templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:34, 19 January 2020 by Bsherr (talk | contribs) (→"Out of process" actions on templates)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Templates for discussion page. |
|
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, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Deletion (defunct) | |||
| ||||
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 | This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner |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, the following pages redirect here: |
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 43 | 45 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chinese name infobox merges
Our most long-standing merge requests are {{Infobox name module}} and {{Infobox East Asian name}}, both into (or with) {{Infobox Chinese}}, dating from April and May 2017, respectively. Is there an issue holding these up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- As usual it's mostly that noone has gotten to it. I'll give {{Infobox East Asian name}} a go tonight. --Trialpears (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. Some of them just look complicated. Never know 'til you try, though; the subdivisions merger was actually not as bad as I thought. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: Any joy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing {{Infobox East Asian name}} is mostly ready and will be added to my long list of things I should do this weekend, {{Infobox name module}} is significantly trickier and will require more module changes. Trappist the monk may want to help out though? The main reason for the stop now was the drawn out RM which decide to keep {{Infobox Chinese}} at its current unfortunate name. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Log time glitch
Hey, this doesn't exactly reflect well on me I guess, but I added a new entry to the log at midnight, September 23. The time in the signature is 00:01 on the 24th, but it's under the heading of the 23rd. Also, a minor thing that isn't a problem: That signature is an hour slow, it's 01:14. MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- MaelstromOfSilence, it looks (based on the lack of tags) that you added it manually to the 23rd. If you had wanted it on the 24th, you should have edited the 24th subpage. However, it's not the end of the world, as a few minutes either way isn't going to break things. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, thank you Primefac, my bad.MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, weird stuff like this happens all the time. If you think you might be nominating other things in the future (or just want a cool tool), you should enable and use Twinkle, which automates a lot of the annoying stuff like adding the nomination template to the page and the XfD log. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, thank you Primefac, my bad.MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links. (A proposal to add edit links to the "Old discussions" section) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48
Archives for holding cell?
Shouldn't we archive the holding cell? Plenty of discussions occur in the holding cell that could potentially be useful in the future. While it is avalible in the page history, having them in archives makes it significantly easier to find since it shows up in the normal search function. I could make a quick bot that archives anything marked with {{done}} or similar. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- With the exception of a few big discussions recently, there is very rarely (if ever) discussion about templates in the holding cell. I don't know if there would be a ton of use. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I guess it's just me who's using it like that then. I still think that many of the discussions recently ought to be archived and having the option of tagging items with discussions as
Done to prompt a bot to archive it would be beneficial. Would you object to me implementing this? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Let's back this up a second before we jump straight into whether I object wholesale; I mainly don't see what you're trying to accomplish. So, some questions:
- I won't tell you what my answers would be to necessitate this process, as I'm curious to see what yours are first as it was your idea. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sure,
- No, I don't see a particular need to archive that short ecxchange, it doesn't discuss anything about the implementation it self, just who's going to perform it (sorry for the delay, have been doing quite some non-Misplaced Pages related programming). In general I don't think all discussions should be archived, but the option to do so would be valuable.
- Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell/Archive 1 seems like the obvious choice.
- A few times a month, take for instance this revision which contains 8 discussions, all of which I could see a small benefit in archiving, especially since several of them got another reply or two. This is admittedly an extreme case since a few have stayed there for many months and this falls into a period where I started a lot of discussions for educational reasons as well as a quite large backlog, but even just in the last month there were four I would concider appropriate to archive (1, 2, 3, 4)
- I really don't see any harm to it and a not insignificant benefit. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Eh... I'm still not convinced it's necessary, but I don't mind waiting for some other opinions. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sure,
- I guess it's just me who's using it like that then. I still think that many of the discussions recently ought to be archived and having the option of tagging items with discussions as
"Out of process" actions on templates
I've had a couple of recent TfD discussions concerning "out-of-process" actions on templates.
By that I mean—
- the orphaning, or
- substituting (in the case of templates not mandated to be substituted)—
of a template prior to listing it at TfD, or while a discussion at TfD is pending.
Sometimes this is accompanied by a subsequent claim in the nomination that the template is unused or has few transclusions (because of the beforehand orphaning or substituting), and usually without disclosing that the disuse or low use is due to the prior actions to orphan or substitute it.
There is a long history of identifying when this happens, and sometimes admonishing the editors responsible for it, in TfD discussions. I gave a quick look to try to find one of the earliest examples of this, and here's one from 2005. However, as much as I can tell, a proscription against "out-of-process" actions is not in our guidelines.
So, is there a consensus that this is a proscribed practice (acknowledging that there would be exceptions for templates that are, for example, immediately breaking pages)? And if so, should it be documented somewhere? --Bsherr (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- If someone orphans a template, and then tries to TFD it based on it being "unused", and someone notices this, then by all means it should be discussed at the TFD. Occasionally it will be a valid orphaning (i.e. "single use template that I subst'd into the article"), but if it's been done purely for the purposes of having the template deleted then the reason of "unused" is no longer valid and a better reason will be needed.
- To answer your last question, I could potentially see something along the lines of "it is inappropriate to orphan a template prior to nomination" in the guideline, but with so much text on the page already I don't know if it would really do any good. Plus, I'm not sure it's that common of an issue. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- The perpetual problem of the choice not to document something on Misplaced Pages is the doubting that a consensus exists about it. I think there's a larger question about whether some of what appears on WP:TFD shouldn't be made a summary of prospective content at a page like Misplaced Pages:Deletion process and other policy and guideline pages (perhaps even a new page), which could contain better advice about templates and when each of the outcomes we use is appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bsherr is apparently referring to my TfD nominations here, and here (two sections of the same page), albeit without the courtesy of a ping or notification. In the former case, I substituted a single use wrapper, leaving behind the template that it wrapped. I subsequently nominated the wrapper template for deletion noting the substitution in my nomination, on the basis that it
"can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content"
. In the second case, I removed just three outdated instances of a time-limited template ("I am busy with exams") from the pages of people who have not edited in the last two years or more. I then nominated the non orphaned template for deletion, again on the basis that it"can be replaced by a more generic 'busy' template with suitable message content"
. Having failed to provide the requested evidence to substantiate his allegations that I acted "out of process" and was being "disingenuous", Bsherr has instead brought us here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)- Because I'm simply asking about documenting the guidance. Not about your conduct. And I said in that discussion that I would start this discussion on this talk page, which I assumed you would be watching. --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)