Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 27#Module:Tfd links

: Done, looks like they were tagged, but not added to the discussion. Given how many discussions there have been for this type of unused template, I have deleted them. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved editor please close the the merger and the discussion as soon as possible so we can remove the Tfd and Tfm from the templates under discussion. Alternatively, an uninvolved editor can move the Tfd and Tfm to the respective talk pages of the templates under discussion is this special case while leaving the discussions active.

More generally, I believe we need a way to prevent Tfd and Tfm from breaking the nominated templates in such cases, for example by adding a parameter to suppress the emitted notification. The notification is there in an attempt to notify editors on all pages that use the template that a discussion is underway, but the effect is to mess up these pages.

At least one uninvolved editor seems to think {{u|The Page Maker II}} is acting in bad faith. I have not reached this conclusion, but the effect is the same. -Arch dude (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Jonesey95}} and {{u|Alkivar}} are the only other editors who have so far commented on the template discussions. They may or may not wish to comment here. -Arch dude (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::Place noinclude tags around the nomination and it won't cause any problems. Gonnym (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::It also won't provide the in-article notifications that were intended. This also needs to be documented. -Arch dude (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::It is - Template:Template for discussion#Disabled. Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

:::{{re|Gonnym}} This did not work. {{T|Tfm}} contains magic code that re-interprets the noinclude. When the {{T|Tfm}} is invoked within noinclude tags, it changes waht is emitted, but it emits something anyway. -Arch dude (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I have moved noinclude tags so that excess whitespace introduced by the TfX templates is no longer present. Did that help? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

::::: Here is a table with one cell that contains {{T|scrapped}} and one with {{T|intentionally destroyed}}:

:::::So yes, it helped. Thanks -Arch dude (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:I totally agree but have been out-voted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{U|John Cline}}, I agree that it would be quite nice if there was an elegant solution to this problem. BTW, is it irony, regret, or something else that motivates your question? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::My question is motivated by some research I recently did and the concurrent realization that such research is hampered by deletions, re-named sections, and other modifications like discontinued template parameters for example. Until then, I assumed that a permalink rendered a permanent version of a page, as it existed at the timestamp when saved/published. I realize now, how naive that assumption was, yet all things could painstakingly be overcome except for deletions (being a non-admin). I suppose [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_25#Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths_in_2012 this deletion] reflects the way I look at deletions now, and the outcome suggests my keep !vote carried no weight. And so I asked my question here. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::This is the same "problem" that even editing any template, including every nested template, makes - history view can't show you the rendered version as if every single template was at some previous date. For example, todays featured article has 137 transclusions in it - if you wanted to know what it looked like a month ago, not only would all the templates at that time need to still exist - but would also need to fetch all of those prior versions - so this is a "hard" problem. External services like archive.org can help. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::See also :meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Archive#Time_Machine_mode. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: Thank you {{U|Xaosflux}}. I have one question: when performing a manual history merge or restoring a deleted revision, does either of those actions allow an opportunity to modify the revision in conjunction with it's restoration? I'm trying to ascertain how one might substitute a template transclusion in one or more editing history revisions without destroying the timeline and recorded attributions. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{re|John Cline}} no it does not, and would open a new problem of maintaining proper attribution. Also keep in mind that pages, including templates, are deleted for a myriad of reasons - some of which is that the content is inappropriate for one reason or another. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I understand. Thank you for your reply.--John Cline (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{not done}}, not enough vandalism to merit protection. It's been twice this week and nothing since the New Year. Not worth it. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:Can the subscribe feature be modified to work with level 4 headers or at least level 4 headers in XfDs? Gonnym (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

:There's [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275943 a ticket on Phabricator] for adding subscriptions to level 3 headingssubheadings (h3, h4, etc.) that you guys may be interested in leaving a token or commenting on. This would allow subscribing to all sorts of useful things such as all XFD pages, RFPP, DRV, and ITN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

::Current individual discussions are level 4. Changing to level 2 would require a significant redesign, but it might be worth trying. Changing to level 3 would probably be pretty easy, so maybe we could defer to see if the phab ticket is resolved. I know that I don't put the individual pages on my watchlist, because with 20 to 50+ discussions on each page and with most of the diffs consisting of "Keep per nom" or similar, the signal to noise ratio is too low. I just come back to the main TFD page every few days to see if there is anything of interest. Being able to subscribe to sections of interest would be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

:::I say wait until the phab ticket is sorted, because that will likely make this request moot. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In this discussion, several editors expressed their opinions on where the most recently posted templates brought to Tfd should be placed on the page. Editors debated two options: whether the templates should be placed on the top or on the bottom. Editors discussed a number of factors, including the relative intuitiveness of the different layouts, the technical considerations in changing the method, ease-of-use when looking for new discussions, as well as consistency with other similar discussions on Wikipedia. Some editors noted that there is no universal consistency among the various XFD venues, with WP:FFD placing new pages at the bottom while WP:CFD, WP:AFD, and WP:RFD place new pages at the top. Others say that discussions on Wikipedia generally tend to have the top be the oldest, such as discussions on talk pages. Some editors arguing in support of putting new nominations at the bottom, indicated that they would find it easier to scroll and find what discussions are new, while some other editors argued that it was easier to find new nominations at the top of the page. With respect to technical considerations, {{u|Izno}} noted technical concerns regarding the effect of a newest-on-bottom ordering on the transclusion limit and {{u|John Cline}} expressed skepticism that a bottom-first order would be a significant burden for script-writers. Several editors expressed no preference.

Consensus is not determined by a vote, but is ascertained by viewing the strength of arguments through the lens of Wikipedia's policies. And, through that lens, there is no consensus on a particular way of doing this. In the absence of a consensus to change from the longstanding practice, the longstanding method of new entries being placed on top should be maintained unless a community consensus is later obtained to change the method of chronological ordering within TfD. {{{nac}} — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

}}

{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Survey}}

:Discussion moved here and converted to WP:RFC around this time. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion's instructions and user scripts were recently changed from placing new entries at the top, to placing new entries at the bottom. Should we revert to old way (new entries on top), or keep the new way (new entries on bottom)? Changing involves updating multiple pages and user scripts, so let's get a clear consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging every editor of the page Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 1 to get better visibility: {{ping|AlisonW|AnomieBOT|Chlod|Dhtwiki|Elli|Explicit|GiantSnowman|Gonnym|Grahamec|Hurricane Noah|HurricaneCovid|Johnson.Xia|Jonesey95|Mackensen|Miniapolis|Nigej|Oknazevad|Pegship|PhiH|Pi.1415926535|Plastikspork|Scott|Tdslk|Useddenim}}. Not pinging WikiCleanerMan since they seemed to object to pinging above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• At XFD venues where all the nominations are placed on a single log page, there is no consistency. At WP:FFD, new nominations are placed at the bottom, while new nominations are placed atop at WP:CFD and WP:RFD. There should probably be consistency between these venues, regardless of which setup is ultimately chosen. Whether they should align with venues that utilize subpages, like WP:MFD and WP:AFD, may be worth considering as well.

:From an "ease of scrolling" perspective, I prefer the placement of new nominations at the bottom of the page. ✗plicit 03:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• No real preference. I'm used to seeing new entries at the top of the page, but I'm sure I'd get used to the opposite since I see that every day on talk pages. After all, it's only one extra key click: {{keypress|End}}. Useddenim (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep the "new posts at the bottom" method, per my frustrated note above: "Top-posting means that sometimes clicking on a section edit link results in editing the wrong section. It happens to me multiple times per week." Most other discussion-oriented pages are date-ordered from top to bottom (oldest at the top), so it is confusing to newbies to see new stuff at the top and old stuff at the bottom. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• :In case my note is incomplete, I agree with {{U|Steel1943}} below that the whole TFD page should be ordered in the usual order of discussion pages: oldest dated section at the top (excepting the permanent stuff), newest dated section at the bottom. Each TFD subpage should be ordered in the same way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• List new nominations at bottom only if the daily subpages are listed in descending order on the main TFD page (oldest date higher on the list of subpage transclusions), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&diff=1069997525&oldid=1064220114 as I did here] prior to reverting myself. As long as all the nominations appear in chronological order while viewing the main TFD page, it doesn't matter to me. Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Bottom. Per Jonesey95's comment about editing the wrong section, although I can see that the main TfD page order is now in a confusing order. Nigej (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Replying since I was pinged. I also experienced the issues Jonesey95 mentioned. I do however find the top easier (personally, might just be because that is what I'm used to) to find what has been updated instead of having to scroll down to unknown point - in mobile it is even more difficult. But whatever people here want, I don't really care {{em|that}} much about this. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Place newest entries at the bottom. It should be trivial to modify associated scripts so I am considering that a non-issue. If I'm wrong and script writers convince me otherwise, I'll consider changing my !vote. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Bottom for consistency with how new sections on talk page work, and per local custom of putting new comments at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• New nominations on top, older on the bottom. It's just easier to see the order of how and when nominations were made and has been done for a long time this way. Going back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=35080937 January 14, 2006]. But a wider discussion should have happened. The "Why are new postings placed at the top?" discussion was more a general question than a discussion prompting a widescale change. And such a change from this discussion was done in haste. And I think Primefac assumed that was a discussion necessary of making a wholesale change. It wasn't. The lack of dissenting views doesn't apply to that discussion as there was no Rfc initiated. We should revert to the old way of new nomination on top. This change was done without merit or request. An Rfc like this one is a proper venue for discussing such changes. Side note: I didn't object to pinging, it's just that Steel pinged me three separate times and I explained only one time was enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a new TfD watcher; so, I'm not aware of how it has been done in the past. However, where I encounter chronological ordering (e.g. talk pages, AIV, RFPP), it's usually oldest first. Is the FAC page a rare exception to that? In any case, I'm used to "bottom posting" on Wikipedia but wouldn't think that it has to imposed against local consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• I am a fan of consistency with talk pages here. Reorganizing WP:TFD on the other hand feels painful in one way since we often hit the transclusion limit there, which means new pages would not be visible on WP:TFD for a day or two in some cases (or worse, depending on if we lose admins to then have more days in the backlog). That feels bad to me. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• :Regarding hitting the WP:PEIS limit, I think that may be coincident with very heavy activity over the past couple of months by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates/Unused Templates Task Force. That task force has reduced the number of unused templates in the database report from something like 13,000 to under 5,000, so I anticipate many fewer nominations of dozens of templates at a time as we move forward. Perhaps something can be done to reduce the post-expand size of {{tl|Tfd links}}, which is the main contributor to PEIS at the TFD page. Even if it can be trimmed by 10 or 20%, that would give us significant breathing room on the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::If necessary, I would be OK with the current method of new posts going to the bottom of the daily page, but daily pages being posted with the newest day at the top of the page. The new arrangement has prevented the problem I was repeatedly experiencing until recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I thought the standard way for Wikipedia logs was to have new discussions at the top. That's how it's done at WP:RFD, the daily AfD logs (example), WP:MFD, WP:RM#C,WP:DRV, WP:MRV, WP:FACGO, WP:GAN, WP:ITN/C.. (though not at WP:DYKN or WP:CP). – Uanfala (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• : So, when one compares like with like, there's either no consistency of a consistency in favor of top-posting. Personally I see no good reason to deviate from the status quo, which is that new posts go to the top. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::MFD, at least, uses subpages for each discussion, so the problem of clicking "edit" on a section and getting the wrong section cannot occur as it does at TFD. Not that I am recommending switching TFD to that model, as it makes things like merging discussions much trickier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• No real preference. I once thought "bottom, obviously" before learning that this preference is probably little more than the default for my first email program. Not asked, but the thing I really dislike about TfD and RfD is the relisting of interesting discussions by cut-paste to a new page, result in idle watchlisting losing track of the discussion entirely. If relisting must be done and by cut and paste to a new page, I think the relister should have to ping all prior participants to the new page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• :Feel free to start a new discussion about that. I do not think you will be successful in seeing a change, but regardless that is offtopic for this discussion. Izno (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::I think it is on-topic to the point that if there is a structural revamp, it’s something else that could be considered. I feel free to start the discussion, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort on its own. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• This is so confusing! TFD should be structured like other XFD pages with the earliest postings at the bottom of the page and the latest ones at the top. It is very confusing as an admin to scroll to the bottom of the page at AFD and to the top of the page at TFD. As far as I remember, RFD and CFD is also structured like AFD with the oldest requests at the bottom and the newest at the top. XFD pages aren't talk pages if that's why TFD does it different from other XFD pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think one should cater more for the future than the past and a bit of consistency on where to put new entries is good, so I'd go for the bottom. NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• New at the top please! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Howdy. Just a quick note that Twinkle was just now updated to put new entries at the top again. Sorry for the delay, Twinkle changes take awhile. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to place this query so I'm just posting it here at TFD. It's about a recent problem with :Template:CS1 language sources but that template doesn't have a talk page. The problem is that even though there is an "Empty Category" tag included when the template is placed on a category page, for some reason, the bots are not recognizing it and so I need to place a second Empty Cat tag on the category page so that these language categories do not show up on the Empty categories list when they become empty. See :Category:CS1 Flemish-language sources (nl) as an example of an empty category with this template (and Empty Cat tag) that is showing up on the Empty categories page.

Do you know why suddenly this would be a problem? I figure that either a) it's a problem with the template, b) it's a problem with the bot putting the lanuage categories on the Empty Categories list or c) we just haven't had empty language categories like this and haven't had to face this problem before. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

: I think Special:Diff/1096824142 should fix the prolem. The problem is that Template:CS1 language sources/core used some clever magic to only show {{tl|empty category}} if the category is actually empty, but it fails due to caching of template transclusions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

::Oh, that is awesome if it works, * Pppery *. We'll see when the next Empty categories list gets issued tonight. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

::: Apparently we won't see, since the category was deleted by a different admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

: Not aware of any policy either way, but I don't see any reason this shouldn't be allowed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::I recommend allowing wide latitude for pages in User space unless they are violating some guideline or policy. Plenty of editors create transcludable pages to enable a set of nice-looking user subpages. User-space pages should not be transcluded in article or Template space (I don't know exactly which guideline this is, but it must be one). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::: If there is such a guideline, it's not being enforced, as there are twelve user pages transcluded in mainspace: User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8, User:Ben5218/Egyptian clubs in African competitions, User:RMCD bot/subject notice, User:Shaav/HPTransBloomsburyCount, User:Shaav/HPTransDoubleCount, User:Shaav/HPTransTotalCount, User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles, User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork, User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/ta, User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/ta/pri, and User:WP_1.0_bot/WikiWork/ww * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::: ... and a total of [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/history/63531/671462/652090 362 userpages transcluded in template space]. It appears that there was once a Wikipedia:Database reports/Transplanted user templates reporting this than went inactive in 2014. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::::A user page being transcluded onto other userpages, or user pages that look like templates (e.g. the ChessEric page linked by Liz) is perfectly acceptable. I agree with Jonesey that we should not be transcluding userpages into the Article space. There are some obvious caveats or changes that could be made, for example User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8 and other bot-created pages probably should be in the template space, though they're obvious enough that they could probably stay there and most seem to be used in more maintenance-related areas. It looks like most of the user templates should be in the template space or deleted, as I question whether we really need half of them. Primefac (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::+1 - I don't see any brightline issues with otherwise constructive editors making non-content space navboxes or other templates in userspace for their own use. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::I agree that user page templates should never be transcluded in other namespaces. If it is, it should be moved to the template namespace. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Just a minor note, there are cases where userpage templates can be transcluded in the Template space, for example {{t|Vandalism information}} is designed to pull content from the user's space, which is why things like User:Enterprisey/Wdefcon show up on the Quarry that pppery linked to above. I think our primary concern here should be user templates being transcluded in the article space. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::I've nominated Shaav and Ben5218's templates. Tompw is a simple template which should be moved to the template name space. Anomie and RMCD are bot templates which aren't simple moves, but should really be moved to the template namespace and configured accordingly. The WP 1.0 ones I'm not sure. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Tompw is a simple template, and I've copied the text into the article directly to avoid the need to transclude. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::{{replyto|Gonnym}} Pages in user space should not be sent to TFD but to WP:MFD, even if they are being used as if they were templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::Pages that are templates, and being transcluded as templates, can very much be discussed at TfD. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::Except for user boxes, even when they are in template space, apparently. Quirks of history are quirky. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::WP:TFD#NOT says {{tq|The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page.}}, it doesn't say {{tq|Pages that are templates, and being transcluded as templates}}. TfD is specific to those two namespaces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you want to go into the letter of the guideline and not the spirit of the guideline then...

::::::::::::# WP:TFD#REASONS says {{tq|The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.}}

::::::::::::# WP:TMP then says {{tq|Although the Template namespace is used for storing most templates, it is possible to transclude and substitute from other namespaces, and so some template pages are placed in other namespaces, such as the User namespace.}}

::::::::::::# So we then conclude that TfD covers template pages in the template namespace and pages which are transcluded as templates from other name spaces. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Jonesey95}} This is Wikipedia:User pages#Userspace and mainspace: {{tq|encyclopedia articles should never link to or transclude any userspace pages}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

::::Thanks for finding that guideline page. It looks like, aside from the obvious moves or TFD candidates, there are only three or four bot-oriented pages that are legitimately being transcluded in article space. We can either get them officially moved to Template space with the help of bot ops if we want to be strict with the guideline, or we can IAR in those cases and not worry about it. I would lean toward IAR for the bot pages, since they appear to be harmless and well-behaved. I might be persuadable in one or two individual cases.

::::

::::As for transclusions of User pages into Template space, as long as they don't end up in article space, it's probably not a problem. Some of them could be moved if they are really templates and are not maintained by or needed by bots. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Potentially only cases with multiple taskforces involved, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMC_Bioinformatics&diff=prev&oldid=1098419332 this edit] at Talk:BMC Bioinformatics (only WP:COMPBIO) looks ok, but then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CRISPR&diff=prev&oldid=1097936763 this edit] at Talk:CRISPR seems ok. I just noticed because Environmental DNA's lost importance info had filtered through to WP:COMPBIO's assessment table.

If this isn't the place for this discussion, I'd be happy for someone to point me in the right direction. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

:For the record, first place to check is the bot operator's talk page, then WP:BOTN and (I guess) here as well, in order. Talking to the bot op is the easiest way to resolve issues like this.

:I'm a little confused as to what info has been lost, though:

:*Special:Diff/1098427392: class preserved, importance info for each task force preserved

:*Special:Diff/1098419332: class preserved, importance info for each task force preserved

:*Special:Diff/1097936763: as above

:Primefac (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's useful info. My main query was for Special:Diff/1098427392, where importance info for each taskforce hasn't been preserved: the importance for Genetics has been carried over, but is missing for MCB & COMPBIO:

:::{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=B|COMPBIO=yes|COMPBIO-importance=|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=|genetics=yes |genetics-importance=Mid}}

::Here the importance ratings were different for different taskforces as well. This is the only case that I've seen so far, but not sure if other articles will be affected in the same way. Amkilpatrick (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

:::OH! That's rather problematic. I didn't even notice (downsides of staring at diffs for three straight days). I appear to have missed a \s operator in there, so any {{para|importance|}} with a space after the = got skipped. Hopefully there aren't that many that have that issue, but I'd have to check the importance cats to figure that out. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

::::Yep, I know that feeling of staring at code for hours too! The comp bio articles that lose importance info I guess will show up on the assessment summary table, and I expect this will be a small percentage which I can fix manually if need be -that might be less trivial for the other taskforces which have many more articles though. If different importance criteria for different taskforces were getting mixed up, that might be more complicated to unravel, but I don't think that's the case (or at least I haven't found an example of that). Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

:::::The one thing I can guarantee (as well as anything is 100% foolproof) is that importances never got swapped -- the workflow was to change each WikiProject template, and then merge them together -- so the regex mixup will just have dropped the occasional importance rating. As far as COMPBIO goes, it looks like there is only one page that doesn't have an importance rating. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::That's good to know. Maybe the one exception just happened to be one on my watchlist! If any more pop up the next time that table is updated, I'll just fix them manually, no problem. Thanks for helping with this transition, btw! Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Philippine name with Template:Family name hatnote.

to avoid confusion regarding the differences between the Philippine and the Portuguese name templates. Also, there's an alternate template written on my User:RenRen070193/sandbox and I tried to replace the current one but I was prohibited by the administrator of this particular template.RenRen070193 (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|RenRen070193}}, are you trying to file a formal TFD for these templates? Primefac (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

::@Primefac How's the format and example? RenRen070193 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

:::Irrelevant. If you are attempting to file a TFD nomination, you have done it incorrectly. If you are not attempting to file a TFD nomination, then you are in the wrong location. I am just trying to determine how best to help you get the discussion you're looking for. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

::@Primefac Hello @Primefac. I'm sorry for my late response. I wrote a proposal to merge Template: Philippine name with Template: Family name hatnote for the reason to avoid confusion regarding the differences between the Philippine and the Template:Portuguese name templates since it appears to cover wide variations of naming customs across the world. Also, there's an alternate template written on my sandbox (User:RenRen070193/sandbox) and I tried to replace the current one but I was prohibited by the administrator of this particular form doing that particular template. ````

{{abot}}

:WP:DRV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I even had to add the help=off parameter when tagging the templates for deletion, because it would ask me to open an entry log for discussion here, something I had done already.

Wouldn't it be more logical to start with step 2 by starting the discussion here and THEN tag each template accordingly, thereby linking to an existing talk page in the edit summary, which makes more sense, than the proposed order of steps?

I am sure this is common practice by now to follow the current guide as is, but for me it is somewhat illogical and would make more sense if the two steps were swapped or written to better inform newcomers about Tfd nomination process.

I am inviting other editors to weigh on this matter, so I can get a better picture of this quandary of mine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure we all just use Wikipedia:Twinkle so that the steps are semi-automated, so we have probably ignored the instructions for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, AFDHOWTO (which I suspect is what TFDHOWTO is based on) has the same order of operations - tag the page, then create the discussion. This makes a bit more sense (from an AFD perspective) because the nomination template gives a link to a dedicated discussion page, wherein the user can then follow Step 2 and create the discussion. Since TFD does not structure their nominations in the same way (sections rather than transcluded subpages) it might make sense to swap the order. However, I don't think that anyone is going to be clamouring to !vote on a TFD within minutes of the template being tagged.

::In other words, I do recognise there is a bit of dissonance between "best practice" and what we currently advise folks to do, but I am mostly indifferent as to whether this is a needed change (so don't "count" my comments here as anything other than comments). Primefac (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

:::@Jonesey95, was gonna use Twinkle, but needed to nominate multiple templates at once, hence why I went the old-fashioned route. Writing the same TfD reason 4 via Twinkle times would have been copious. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth, if you're doing multiple pages in a single nom, use Twinkle for the first page, add the other templates to the nomination, and then tag the templates manually. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::Sort of like a combo of both Twinkle and regular template tagging. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

::::::I use Twinkle to nominate all of the templates in a group (I find that I need to pause for three or four seconds between them to avoid self-edit-conflicts). I use a real rationale for the first nom, then put "will merge" as the reason for the others. I then edit the TFD page to merge the noms. It's a bit clunky, but it works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

::::::::So, you are applying an AfD approach to a TfD nom with summary line "will merge" with Twinkle. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, I've done that before as well. Most of my batch-noms have been things like 100+ templates, so "manual" via AWB is actually how I do it! Primefac (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

::::::::@Primefac I mostly focus on tennis articles, so while it would be cool to weed out single-use templates using AWB and batch-nom them, I just don't have the know-how to set up the regex for that purpose or any other for that matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::There isn't really any regex; on each template you would prepend the TFD notice (which I usually copy/paste from the first template I've nominated), changing the page name in that copied text to {{tls|PAGENAME}}. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

{{tqb|If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:}} YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

:Does this mean the Catfd2 template goes inside the Tfd2 template? YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

::Correct; all that {{t|Catfd2}} does is add a {{t|tfdlinks}} line for the category, with the category-specific parameters to make sure it shows up properly. After publishing changes, the cat will appear in the list along with the other template(s). That being said, I can see the issue, so I have updated the wording to make it more clear that it goes in the {{para|text}} field before the rationale. Primefac (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

:Ha, looks like the section right above mine is related! Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

::If you want to delete a category that is populated solely by templates, I believe CfD is the proper venue for that; if the discussion determines that deletion is appropriate, the cat will be removed from the templates accordingly. Of course, if you are referring to "what to do with the category if the template that populates it is deleted", that's a case for WP:G8; you don't need to tag the category during the TfD. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

:Template talk:Timeline Windows is the place for that discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

::Thank U {{reply|jonesey95|prefix=|p=}}. I posted a discussion there months ago but nobody responded. What to do now?197.244.78.225 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

:::You could try cross-posting to Talk:Microsoft Windows to garner more opinions. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Liz}} Please provide examples of a few TfDs which you believe were closed early. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, Redrose64,

::Well, if you look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 17, you'll see nominations that were filed two days ago being closed today. Often I see them closed after 4 or 5 days open but these were closed after just 2 days. I will say that as far as I know, there are only 3 or 4 admins who patrol and close TFDs and only a few editors who participate in discussions so it could be that closers believed they had heard from all of the regulars and there would be no further input coming to a discussion so it can be safely closed. I also don't want to single out a particular closer, I regularly see this at TFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

:::Have you tried asking {{user|Plastikspork}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

:::: We have had dozens of orphaned "match convenience template" discussions all close as "uncontroversial delete". I considered these as an extension of prior discussions, but I am happy to reopen the discussion if anyone feels as though there is something to discuss there. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

:You've added that at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but that page is overwhelmingly geared towards AfD. You might want to move that section to the dedicated Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in template deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

::Good shout - I didn't even know that page existed! Primefac (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

: Done! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

:The problem occurs only on the main WP:TFD page, right? In such a case, an alternative solution is to follow the example of RFD: closed discussions transclude only the header and the closure statement onto the main RFD page, with the discussion itself (including all the log and history links) then visible only on the daily log page (example). – Uanfala (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

::Yes, that would work when there are too many closed discussions. I have been closing many early since they are basically continuations a long series of "convenience template" discussions. If they weren't closed early, it wouldn't help, but I do like the idea. It would also reduce the amount you need to scroll through to see the active discussions if you don't use the little widget button to hide them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

::: TfD already uses something similar to RfD's approach, in that already closed discussions more than 7 days old are omitted from the main page entirely (even if there are other open discussions on the same day). RfD's collapsing logic only makes sense there because they only remove discussions from the base page when the entire day is closed. The fact that sufficiently many discussions are being closed early to warrant special code for handling that case is shocking, and I would oppose doing anything to address solely it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

:::: I will cut back on the number of discussions I am adding each day which will hopefully solve the problem ... Frietjes (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::Another way of dealing with this problem is to create a subpage with the list of TFD links. We had to do that about a year ago when there was a lot of unused template cleanup happening. The PEIS limit of tfd links templates on the main page is somewhere around 600. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:How about deleting the delete link? I believe all regular closers use XFDcloser anyway? --Trialpears (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

:: That's fine with me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Done. Hopefully enough for now. --Trialpears (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Yes, that worked, at least for now! Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

::And even if we didn't, we would probably use Twinkle. Izno (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

:"sure, good idea". Primefac (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah, seems like a good idea. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where to report this issue: all babelboxes in :Category:User templates val use {{code|val}} as language code for Valencian language, but it's actually the language code for Vehes language. Compare the boxes I generated here using {{code|{{#Babel:val-0|val-1|val-2|val-3|val-4|val-5|val-N|val}}}}. After fixing this issue, we should also take care of moving :Category:User val and its subcategories. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

:I suspect that {{user|Valencian}} set up the templates and categories without realising that val was not the language code for Valencian (which is vlca apparently) but actually for Vehes. The #babel: system is supposed to use exactly the same codes across all Wikis that use the MediaWiki software - something like 1,000 Wikis or more. See mw:Extension:Babel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

::Yes. I suggest to move :Category:User templates val (and its templates) as well as :Category:User val (and its subcategories) – changing {{code|val}} into {{code|vlca}} – without leaving redirects; and we should use a bot to fix all the entries to the wrong categories, that's essential to start a correct category for users who actually speak Vehes. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

:::There are less than 20 transclusions of all of the templates, no bot needed. Primefac (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Fine. I'll try to fix them on my own then, but – in case I make any mistake – your contribution is always welcome. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::Was away for the weekend and still catching up on things (both IRL and here) but I'll give a hand if I can. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{Done}}: I edited and moved the templates, categorized them into :Category:User templates vlca and fixed their respective entries, tagging the redirects I had to leave with {{tl|db-g6}} and a link to this talk. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please prove me wrong. I want to contribute to TfD but can't care enough. These kind of nominations feel pointless. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

: I like to think of it the other way? What's the point of keeping code that's not being used? No matter how obscure something seems people will eventually run into it when doing some cleanup project or other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

::Hmm. It still seems like a waste of effort. If you live in an infinite house, and one day you come across some books you never read and don't plan to, you could track down a second-hand bookstore- or you could just move on and avoid the pointless hassle. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

:::The above house example is a disease and it's called compulsive hoarding. Gonnym (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

:::But if you want a real answer then keeping around unused templates still requires work. If a template has WP:Lint errors then someone will need to fix them. If a template uses code (templates, modules, MediaWiki, css) code that has been removed or merged, it will need to be fixed. If a template gets vandalized and then used, someone will need to fix it (and unused templates usually don't have watchers). If an editor searches for a template and finds a few options and picks the unused and unmaintained one instead of the one that is maintained, then the readers will (usually) get an inferior experience. These are all real live costs to keeping around unused templates. Additionally, the editor experience is worse with multiple of similar templates, some unused and some not. It's harder to know what to use, and usually the documentation is lacking with the unused ones (unsurprisingly). And finally, while clearing out the backlog of unused templates, you can find templates that were removed (accident, vandalism, etc.) but should be used. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

::::What Gonnym said. The infinite house analogy is a good one. If you have a bunch of stuff in your infinite house, and someone needs to dust or clean the house occasionally, or all of the bookshelves need to be oiled, or some other maintenance task needs to be performed, having more stuff in the house makes those tasks take longer. It's the same here. Changes are made to the MediaWiki software every week or two, and pages are deleted or moved, and some of those changes mean that pages need to be updated to continue working properly. Humans do that work, generally, especially in Template space. (Look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox+drug%2Fdoc%2Farticles+with+infobox+drug&action=history this edit history] for one example: one creation edit, and then ten maintenance edits.) Asking humans to do necessary updating work on pages that are never used is pointless; it's better to take the time to delete those pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

::::Ahh, that makes sense. Maintenance remains necessary. Thanks. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Module:Sandbox/DePiep/sfw/testcases
• Module:Sandbox/DePiep/cc/testcases

Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:Done. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copy_edit_section]. Should this be added at the top of this page (since these templates are still regularly nominated for merging)? Mach61 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

:If you're talking about a prohibition to be listed at {{slink|Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#What_not_to_propose_for_discussion_here}}, I would say no, because not all of them are kept. If you are talking about suggesting not to nominate these types of pages, WP:TFDO might be the place to edit. That being said, I'm not 100% sure to what template(s) or type(s) of template you are referring. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

::Added Mach61 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Did I miss links to actual TFD discussions in which these templates were kept? Some examples would be nice. I have vague memories of at least one of them being merged, but I could be wrong. Either way, a statement like this added to TFDO should have a couple of TFD links backing it up, either there or here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

::::I linked the talk pages in my initial post Mach61 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

:::::You should really link the discussions directly. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

::::::Or at least clarify what people should be looking at - presumably the first boxed / {{tl| Old AfD multi}} section of the pages linked to that in turn links to failed delete and merge discussions. I can't tell what keep discussion the diff is supposed to highlight. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

|page2=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023 March 1#Template:Example|result2=Merge}}

I've long been jealous of AfD and their box with previous discussions about a page. I've started working on a bot that can add these here and just wanted to make sure there's consensus that this would be a good thing and discuss potential implementation questions. My plan is that if a template is linked in {{tl|Tfd links}} has been linked in {{tl|Tfd links}} in any previous discussions said discussion will be linked in a template like {{tl|Other TfDs}} (example included) where the date and result is included. My hope is that this functionality will both be convenient and improve decision making and hopefully be expanded to include other venues in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

:I think I'm being dense, but are you wanting to have a bot automatically add in the Special:Prefixindex box that is automatically included in {{t|afd2}} (since the nomination process is different for TFDs)? In other words, if Template:Example has been nominated three times for deletion, it would have a box (as you've given as an example above) to show previous discussions. If so, I'm in favour - while old TFDs are often linked on the talk page, they're not always linked and/or easy to find. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

::Yep that's exactly what I want. --Trialpears (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Cool. Brain is engaged today, albeit in an apparently low gear. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

:The only issue I can think of, would the bot detect templates that were listed in a sub-page because the page size was too large (like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 10/Link language wrappers with under 100 transclusions)? Not a big issue if it can't. (I don't have an example of a list that was kept if it only checks of non-deleted templates) Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

::That has happened a handful of times ever with no consistent format so I don't plan on supporting that. Same for pre-2006 nominations because they didn't really do closing consistently. There are also 50-ish other discussions that for some reason aren't detected properly. It can be April's fools weirdness, containing = signs in the template name, a manually edited results sentence or that person who used to enclose the header in the close div messing up my section based system. I may fix some of these manually but generally I think it's fine given that only about 0.1% of discussions are in this category. I'm planning on doing a BRFA when I'm back at a computer since the code is nearing completion. Trialpears (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

::BRFA filed. --Trialpears (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. That is gaming the system, giving yourselves an excuse to claim "this template should be deleted because it is not in use". --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

::We had already agreed that further uses of these subtemplates would only occur via auto-substitution. So there was no gaming. And these subtemplates are breaking stuff in some cases when not substituted. So we could have auto-substituted before any TfDs. Houseblaster rushed to TfD without agreement. The other participant in the discussion wanted to auto-substitute first also. It also gives us time to change our minds on the subtemplates if we decide to keep any of them, but only after rewriting them. It would not be wise to rewrite them until the auto-substitution is done. This way we can do more tests before undeprecating any rewritten ones.--Timeshifter (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

:::My argument is that there is a fundamental difference between deciding to convert a template to subst-only and keeping it versus convert a template to subst-only and deleting it. I agree that if they are to be used further they should be substituted. At the talk page of the template, we can debate whether it should be substituted or not, but we can't debate whether we should delete it. To resolve which of those two paths to take—either subst-and-keep or subst-and-delete—we go to TfD before substituting it so people can get an accurate picture of where it is used. I brought the two templates I did to a discussion—namely, "templates for discussion"— D because I believed they should be merged/deleted, and wanted to discuss that point. We should not waste time on a discussion about having a discussion to delete a template. HouseBlaster^talk 00:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

::::We can debate on the overall template talk page which subtemplates should be revised, substituted, deprecated, redirected, deleted, etc.. Discussion can happen anywhere. If we decide on the talk page to delete, then we have to go to TfD to actually get it done. You are misinterpreting WP:LOCALCON. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::What I am trying to say is we could decide to delete the template at the talk page, but we would have to go to TfD anyways to get wider opinions before deletion. TfDs can be closed as keep or delete, but keep but make subst-only would be a valid outcome, too. I don't see having a discussion, deciding we should delete the template, just so we can have another discussion at TfD about potentially deleting the template to be a good use of anyone's time. HouseBlaster^talk 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::We are talking subtemplates, not templates. Nobody knows the arcane nature of their interaction better than the 3 of us currently discussing them at Template talk:Static row numbers#All subtemplates should be deprecated or auto-substituted and the following sections. And at the subtemplate talk pages before that. And one of the templates you put up for discussion can be redirected. No TfD needed for that. No TfD needed if we decide to auto-substitute and then keep a template. You should not be putting up subtemplates at TfD until the 3 of us agree that is the next step. Once we agree, there is little reason others will disagree at TfD. Because we three are currently the most knowledgeable about the intricacies of their interactions with each other and other parts of tables. So actually we save time by agreeing among the 3 of us first. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

:sigh. The question asked here is not the situation that is occurring. Making a not-subst template subst-only and then sending it to TFD is not kosher. However, discussing subtemplates as they relate to the master is a perfectly acceptable talk page matter, since the subtemplates are all directly related to the main template. If no decision can be made, then it should go to TFD for further discussion. If the discussion is to delete the subtemplates, then they can just be blanked, marked historical, redirected to the main template, or (depending on the number of participants and strength of consensus) potentially deleted as a housekeeping measure. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

:Despite the name of the page, not really; it's only "for discussion" because template mergers were not deletions (according to this RM). Every once in a while someone tries to go the route of "it says discussion so let's discuss this template" but often ends up getting more backlash purely for the action than any useful feedback. If agreement can't be reached on a talk page, then I would traverse the various levels of WikiProject before maybe hitting up VPT {{small|(cross-posting to the original discussion to avoid decentralised debate, of course...)}}. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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].

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

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 the sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

: 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)

:: {{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? Primefac (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)}}

::: {{tq|we might as well change all of the affected templates}} – sure, I'll go be 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. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

: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 the sandbox). —⁠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. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::: {{u|Primefac}}, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —⁠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. 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? —⁠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. 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. —Cryptic 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

::::: All changes were reverted. —⁠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 Rfd's pale orange {{color box|#FFEEDD}} ([https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=FFEEDD 3.52:1]) and Special:Permalink/1168269960 {{color box|#EDEAFF}} ([https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=FF0000&bcolor=EDEAFF 3.39:1]). —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{replyto|Andrybak}} You may wish to read mw:Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

: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)

:Closed and updates requested. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:I assume this would be for templates that may be substed or otherwise hard to tell transclusion count? Primefac (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, a lot of times when I'm not sure about a template I search with insource to make sure it's not hidden away somewhere in might-be-used scenario. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

{{cot}}

Right now it's