Template talk:Cfd2

Discussion

I agree with SPUI's edit - making this less vote-like is good.TheGrappler 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

--William Allen Simpson 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing bullet

This template isn't making the little bullet before the Delete, reason. ~~~~ part (like {{cfm2}} does, for instance). Picky, I know, but it's bugging me. 8). Recury 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition

I recently added a link here which, indeed, is a duplicate. That wasn't really the aim though, the idea was to have the template contain a [[:Category:Name]] so that this could easily be copy/pasted into the CFD/W page when closing nominations. The CFR2 tag has one like that, and it's pretty useful. I was wondering if people had suggestions on how to put that here. >Radiant< 07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It should always contain a link to the category somewhere.

And the {{lc1}} template doesn't. The problem is that we want to be able to use What links here to find discussions. Otherwise we're just lost in the fog. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Word(s)

{{editprotected}} On the template where it has [[:Category:{{{1}}}]], before this it should have Proposed deletion. Simply south (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 Not done, CfD is also used for renames, merges, etc. Other similar templates do not use this wording. —Random832 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Purpose proposal

Can i direct people to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Create documentation

{{Editprotected}}

Please create a doc subpage, move the categories, and add the documentation template. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Change that to remove the categories and add the documentation template. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 19:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Propose deleting"

Please remove the colon after "Propose deleting". This would standardise this template with other CFD templates, which lack such a colon. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Extend to bulk nominations

I think this template should natively support bulk nominations, like the otherwise similar {{tfd2}}. {{Cfm2}} and {{Cfr2}} would likely be affected as well. This simply entails adding more optional numbered parameters similar to the first, e.g. {{#if:{{{2}}}|:* '''Propose {{{type|deleting}}}''' {{lc|{{{2}}}}}}}<br /> and removing the options of number parameters for other entries. An alternative would be making it more similar to {{rfd2}}, by adding the option to omit the nominator's rationale and header so that multiple {{cfd2}} templates can be stacked atop each other; this approach fits better with {{cfm2}} and {{cfr2}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. If you are unable to edit the sandbox page, or if editing templates is unfamiliar to you, ping me here, and I will take another look. Is there a discussion somewhere that shows that this idea is supported by more than one person? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove leading colons

The leading colons (i.e. indents) break the Reply tool, and don't seem to have a particular purpose. Would there be any objection to their removal? I have TE rights so I can carry this out myself, I'm just checking for objections. User:GKFX^talk 21:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX Go ahead. Those leading colons are anyway in violation of MOS:INDENTMIX. – SD0001 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. User:GKFX^talk 21:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@GKFX: I would much prefer to reinstate the colon before "Nominator's rationale". At present the rationale is out-dented and aligned with the heading, which I find messy and confusing. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 31: the some group nominations where the nominator has apparently manually inserted a colon are clearer to scan than the nominations without the indent. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Which group nominations specifically? There are a couple where the entire nomination is indented with a “:” before both the rationale and each bullet, which is not how indents are supposed to be used on talk pages; the first post should be unindented. They look fine, but would look roughly the same if you removed all the colons. There’s also one (French troubadours) where there is an odd mix of one bullet, then all the entries with just a colon indent and no bullets, then the rationale with no indent. I agree that one looks odd but it’s not really this template’s fault; each entry in the list should have a bullet not a colon and then it would look fine. User:GKFX^talk 22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the nominations of Psychiatric_instruments and Defunct LGBT night clubs are laid out much more helpfully for scanning the page. I think those are the ones you were referring to as "not supposed to be", but I find those better than e.g. Enigmatic taxa, although all I was asking for was to indent the rationale in that one. As a CFD regular I do find the old format much better, e.g.[1]. Moreover I am not convinced that it was a breach of WP:INDENTMIX. – Fayenatic London 22:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The use of colons for indentation, regardless of indentmix, should be avoided per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Indentation. That said, the replacement is trivial if an indentation is preferred; either a template like {{block indent}} or handcoding it to <div style="margin-left: Nem">. Izno (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I tested the use of {{block indent}} at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_31#Category:Resovia_Rzeszów_coaches and have now implemented it in Cfd2 and six sibling templates, including those for stub templates {{Sfd-t2}} & {{Sfr-t2}} (which were overlooked in the previous changes). – Fayenatic London 11:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That just looks awkward since the nomination statement is now more indented than responses, which it wasn't before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's indented further than necessary. I didn't understand what was meant by margin: Nem, but have now tried <div style="margin-left: 1.6em"> at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_31#Category:Baronies_in_Fingal, and I think it looks right. May I copy this into the seven nomination templates? – Fayenatic London 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I am still not certain why you want the first post of these discussions to be indented. Every other talk page uses the convention that the first post has no indent, and I don’t understand why XfDs should deviate from that convention. User:GKFX^talk 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

CFD logs are not regular talk pages. Granted, WP:AFD logs are quite readable without indenting the rationales. But there are various differences which make them easier to scan: (1) coloured headings, (2) shorter rationales, (3) generally more responses. Indenting helps someone scanning CFD logs for discussions that are ready to be closed, or overdue for some other follow-up.

IMHO, WP:RFD logs could also benefit from indenting. Pinging User:Explicit, user:Thryduulf, user:Aervanath for comments. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the indentation of RfD as it is, but that's not a massively strong opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no specific objection to the div indentation you used there, although I still am unconvinced its better than the status quo before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not mind reverting to that, as it was much more concise. It's a matter of judgment as to whether this accessibility problem, having one non-standard colon at the start of every CFD discussion, is significant in practice.– Fayenatic London 08:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Currently Twinkle indents too much though, see today's CFD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted all seven templates to the status quo ante, i.e. with the colons that were removed in 2021. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So, what is the solution? Are we just going to ignore the fact that this breaks the option to use the Reply tool now? Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Gonnym, apparently. User:Qwerfjkl, this is the source of your problem. It doesn't just break the reply tool, it also breaks Bawl. A BCL (Bawl Comment Link) could be added to every CfD which would make Bawl work. But honestly, we should just take a hard look at that indentation for nominators.. and kill it with fire. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Gonnym, when using Bawl you can try User:Alexis Jazz/Bawl/Modules#Unfuck CfD indentation. It's unfortunate it has to be like this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't think I have Bawl installed. Either way, I'm fine with my comments breaking the indent list until this gets changed. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The first parameter for {{block indent}} should be named, like {{block indent|1=* '''Propose. While that seems to possibly break the bullet point, it's much better than breaking completely. If a bullet point is needed (is it?), maybe use •. (&bullet;). — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fayenatic london, I see this is a recent change. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we please not do a litany of hacks upon hacks and just go back to the original version either before Fayenatic london's edits or before GKFX's edits? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: the error was related to the color code in your signature, see tests in my sandbox.[2] Despite Pppery's request above, I have followed his fix by adding a nowiki code in the 7 templates. (Not that I understand either what was wrong with the span code in your sig, or how the nowiki code solves it.) – Fayenatic London 12:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So, why have you ignored me? It's clear that this discussion is not coming to any consensus and normally a lack of consensus results in a return to the status quo before the contested changes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me. I didn't want any more nominators being confused by a red block error message that was not their fault.

As for reverting to the status quo ante, we are told it was illegal; and there is still the possibility of a new consensus.– Fayenatic London 17:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, that comment was written in an angrier tone than it should have been. I don't see where the status quo is illegal. If you are referring to Izno's comment, then I agree it's not ideal to use : for indentation, but think trying to suppress that usage on a discussion page in which many comments will themselves be indented that way is putting the cart before the horse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If you write {{template|<span style="CSS">X</span> then the template receives an argument called <span style with a value of "CSS">X</span>, and no first parameter, so it won't work. User:GKFX^talk 17:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have closed this as the main discussion is above and there are already TEs aware. User:GKFX^talk 17:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

Add {{FCL|type=section|alt=none}} per User talk:Alexis Jazz/Factotum#BCL and some potentially bad news, so Factotum will work on CfD. This should also be done to the various other templates for creating CfD nominations. Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl I don't really userstand the problem this is solving. Can you explain if this benefits anyone other than the ~15 users using the userscript. I fail to see why a "reply tool" needs a blank span on a cfd template, but leaving that aside the idea of adding this doesn't seem beneficial since this is adding userscript components to a commonly used template and userscript should realistically be able to operate on their own to reduce maintenance for people who don't understand each specific script. Terasail^[✉️] 13:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Terasail, to compensate for CfD's strange formatting; @Alexis Jazz can probably explain it better. I don't see any harm it does; it probably won't affect most users. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I am declining for now. This does not seem like a change that will improve the Cfd2 template. The {{FCL}} template would need to be template protected since it could influence this template and it seems that the complications that can arise from adding this template outweigh the benefits to the number of users using the userscript. Also adding blank spans to each nomination on the cfd page could have unintended consequences. Terasail^[✉️] 16:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Terasail,
The {{FCL}} template would need to be template protected
Wouldn't bother me. Probably a good idea if it gets deployed on Wikipedia Signpost anyway.
the complications that can arise from adding this template
Like..?
the benefits to the number of users using the userscript
In part a chicken and egg problem.
Also adding blank spans to each nomination on the cfd page could have unintended consequences.
Not likely.
userscript should realistically be able to operate on their own to reduce maintenance for people who don't understand each specific script.
FCL is best described like mw:Extension:InputBox 2.0. Factotum doesn't include much project-specific logic.
Cfd2 is broken because nobody wants to fix #Remove leading colons. Factotum's behavior can be customized per-page using FCL so it can work properly in weirdly structured discussions like votes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it so much as a chicken and egg situation since the tool is a reply tool and not specifically a CSD tool of any kind. I am not convinced that this can't be fixed in the code rather than this template (Although I haven't looked at the userscript). The whole idea of adding userscript specific parts to templates isn't something I can easily get behind but I will reopen the request incase others have perspective I don't. Terasail^[✉️] 23:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as noted above the primary desired benefit is only to someone's personal userscript, so it doesn't appear to be a net-benefit to everyone else using this template, and adds technical debt to it. What now? Assume you are now at step 3 of WP:BRD and establish a consensus for the change if desired. As this is a widely used template, including by many other tools, ensure that such a discussion is well advertised and hopefully well attended. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux, would it help if Factotum became a gadget and users who don't have the gadget enabled get a &withgadget=Factotum link? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If usage becomes quite popular it could become a gadget - however that doesn't mean that everything else needs to adjust to support a gadget. For example, Twinkle is a gadget that integrates with tons of templates but I don't see us squeezing in special twinkle-specific subtemplates in to many other templates just to benefit Twinkle. To propose a new gadget, see Wikipedia:Gadget#Proposals. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)