![]() | Redirect Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Rfd2m on 2015 January 2. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
|
|
{{ subst:Rfd2}} requires substitution to freeze time-sensitive data, among other things. The resulting substituted code motivated a refactor. The sandbox result appears visually identical, equivalent in functionality, with possible minor improvements. Folks who !voted oppose were concerned about breaking current bots parsing daily logs, and that {{ Rfd2/links}}, if unsubstituted, changes "would be reflected in the transclusions", which is undesirable.
There is a majority support (4 clear support votes and 3 clear opposes by my count), but to me, this does not suggest a clear consensus, or much of a rough consensus.
I'm closing this RfC as no clear consensus for a change right now. The benefits of the change would have been a much "more user-friendly output" that eased navigation through the discussions. Folks remained unconvinced for the change. There's general agreement that old XfD discussions should not be affected by template changes, and substitutions are the most reliable, consistent, and practical solution. The technical reasons against the change: given that RfD has run smoothly with current procedures/instructions, it is difficult to enforce {{ subst:Rfd2/links}} at the end of closes, even with updated instructions. In the discussion, it is unclear if any bot is able/willing to handle substitution of archived discussions, and a more thorough discussion of instruction changes also did not happen.
If I may inject my own thoughts, the syntax simplification, which I believe is quite well-done, is absolutely worth the change if technical problems are worked out. It is worth it to hold onto this sandbox revision for later discussion. I recommend looking into WP:BOTREQ and asking if anyone is willing to do conditional time-sensitive substitutions for the subtemplate. I may also suggest making the unsubstituted {{ Rfd2/links}} spit out a red error after 7 days that the template needs substitution. For now, RfD appears to be able to continue running without the change. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 02:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Per Oiyarbepsy's request to simplify the raw wikitext result of substituting rfd2, I worked to build {{ rfd2 links}} and have implemented its use in {{ rfd2/sandbox}}.
When substituted, this sandboxed version of {{
rfd2}} leaves {{rfd2 links}}
unsubstituted in place of what is usually a large and complex mess of wikitext markup for various links.
{{rfd2}}
.There is a concern that whilst {{rfd2 links}}
is transcluded in use, any changes to the template would be reflected in the transclusions, which at any time may be many. It is thus proposed that if this method is employed, {{rfd2 links}}
should be template-protected from the start, and possibly automatically substituted by bot once it's archived.
Anomie who operates
AnomieBOT (which is currently utilised for auto substitutions) may like to advise?
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=Foo|target=Bar|text=Reasons.}}
currently produces:
====<span id="Foo">Foo</span>==== *<span id="Foo">{{no redirect|1 = Foo }}</span> → [[:Bar]] <span> <span class="plainlinks lx">([[Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo|links]] '''·''' [//en.wikipedia.org/?title=Foo&action=history history] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-11&end=2016-05-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats])</span></span></span> <small>[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|''(@subpage)''|<span class="plainlinks">''[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]''</span>}} ]</small> Reasons.Whereas
{{subst:rfd2/sandbox|redirect=Foo|target=Bar|text=Reasons.}}
currently produces the proposed:
====Foo==== {{rfd links|Foo|Bar|2016-05-11}} Reasons.which is functiionally identical.
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Changes applied affecting the issues raised since the discussion started.
{{#time:Y-m-d}}
instead of {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
to store the submission date/time argument, again, for a more user friendly raw appearence.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
11:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Also, I don't think we need the <span>...</span>
tags in the heading, as headings are automatically anchored to their names. This seems to be a remnant from the time that the heading looked like [[:{{{redirect}}}]] → [[:{{{target}}}]]
, as the anchors didn't work properly with headings like that. I don't think that the <br>
is necessary either - the two newlines should be enough separation between the links and the reason. But those are minor details - overall this move is a big plus. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
09:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
<span>
in the heading holds the id of the first {{{redirect}}}
, where the actual heading was changed by the use of |header=
- which may be important.|anchor=
(undocumented) which sets yet another <span>
id! I started to tidy all that up before I realised what
Oiyarbepsy was really driving at.<br>
is a replacement for a used to keep the (parser dependent) newline formatting from collapsing. There were loads of which I got rid of (in the sandbox) almost immediately (so overused!).
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
12:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
<br>
tag. Feel free to play around with it and/or revert it as you see fit. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{rfd2/sandbox}}
(as is) to
User:Fred Gandt/test "test" test and it's just about fine with a little wiggle room. I searched the previous month of real listings and ~24 was the highest number I saw for a day. {{rfd2 links}}
is now ready for substing, and as a side effect, so now is {{
no redirect}}.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
{{rfd2 links}}
in only closed submissions? Bots must be parsing the page to target the transclusions, so establishing if they're in open or closed submissions shouldn't be too difficult, right? And, can we change |text=
to |reason=
with a fallback to {{{text}}}
? I know
I can, but upon your toes I'd be 'shammed to tread.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)multi
and header
parameters function differently in the sandbox than they currently do in the parent template.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{rfd2 links}}
, and thus "erroneous fixes" will be less likely. It may also be advisable to name the arguments.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{subst:rfd2|redirect=Redirect|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=Redirect|target=TargetArticle}} {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=Redirects|target=TargetArticle}}
<s>(old timestamp)</s>
) followed by 5 tildes). The only thing that has to be done with the raw code of the initial nomination is to paste over it. Maybe it's me, but I still don't see a problem, and even if there were a problem, this is one of the simpler raw codes I've seen (on my edit screen it's only ten lines of code in largest print, nine lines of code at medium sized print). With all due respect, even if you've been doing this by altering the raw code, how can it possibly be such a "herculean task"?
Stick to sources!
Paine
18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
*<span id="Foo">{{no redirect|1 = Foo }}</span> → [[:Bar]] <span> <span class="plainlinks lx">([[Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo|links]] '''·''' [//en.wikipedia.org/?title=Foo&action=history history] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-11&end=2016-05-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats])</span></span></span> <small>[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|''(@subpage)''|<span class="plainlinks">''[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]''</span>}} ]</small>
copy/paste/modify technique should always work without having to visit the stinking template documentation page to figure out how it was done in the first place.I gave you that technique in my previous response to you. As I said below, don't take my word for it, because S H O C K !!! I have been known to be wrong. Just test it in your sandbox as I instructed above. When I tested it in my sandbox I found it to be just about the same ease to add multis whether the {{ Rfd2}} template were substituted or transcluded. There is no technical restriction against transcluding this template as there is in the case of {{ Rfd}}. All of those
{{{|safesubst:}}}
code entries help with that. We may also note that this template is already template-protected. So the only reason to substitute this template is because that's what the instructions tell us. Then maybe it's the instructions that we should be discussing instead?
Stick to sources!
Paine
21:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Evidence of a real problem is provided by the request to change the behaviour, and the proposed changes are significant.
This is not a bunch of fluff or my opinion, it's a proposed change with a request for comment.
Without reasoned objection to the proposed implementation, rather than opposition to proposing a change to the implementation,...
...this will be boldly done (once the one (so far) technical concern is addressed); this is not a vote.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Since there's been no discussion or further input for 10 days, I think we can consider wrapping this up. Clearly there is majority support for the change, but there is a technical concern that should be addressed:
The only other oppositions raised have been countered. However, there has not been any explicit agreement between the parties involved. So a final decision will require a review of the discussion, considering what seems most reasonable baring all that's been said in mind.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
03:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)user:Paine Ellsworth has suggest a couple of times above that the real answer my be to just transclude Rfd2 instead of substituting it. Perhaps that makes sense. In my view, though, the heading and the reason should not be within a template, which makes user:Fred Gandt's proposed change the best answer - substitute the heading and reason, and transclude everything else. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
|multi=
param, it's simplest to also subst the |reason=
.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
03:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)I've been trying to write some RfD scripts today and found that this template create two instances of <span id="Redirect name">. I don't think this is appropriate? HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 both says this is officially wrong [1] (but obviously doesn't break things until a user tries to write a script to parse them). Der yck C. 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
<span>
s will be removed shortly, but as a contentious RfC (above) is ongoing that involves those edits (which may be made in one of two proposed ways), I'd ask that you please wait for the outcome; it'll be only a matter of days.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
05:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Per a request at WT:RFD, can this template be modified to include a link to the redirect's talk page?
@ Tavix: the template is protected so I can't do it, and I'm not sure I could see my way through the template code anyway. Where do you think a talk link would be most useful? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the closure links don't display when viewing the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page, as they depend on the FULLPAGENAME magic word.
This is no longer necessary due to a new lua module that returns the page it is used on, even when transcluded. I have coded a proposed update in the sandbox that allows the closure links to work when transcluded, and does not need updating after a relist. Thoughts about this change?
Pinging Steel1943, who introduced the "@subpage" link feature a while ago. Ppp ery 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This template creates new subsubsections (====) instead of sections (==). On a page with multiple Rfd entries, they kind of run together. I tried replacing ==== with == on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2 to see. Maybe I shouldn't have. (See if it gets put back?) Then I realized that the ==== weren't a tradition, they were the doing of {subst:rfd2|...}, so every new page and every new entry will have ==== unless someone adjusts this template. What is the norm? (On talk pages, it's new sections.) - A876 ( talk) 23:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In other words, they have to be subsubsections because the log pages are designed to be transcluded onto another page (the <noinclude> tags hint this), within an existing section on that page.
Okay, my change broke something, so it promptly got undone (with an incomplete statement of what it broke, and preachy advice).
I did not know (should I have known?) that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion transcludes Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2 (and 8 other sub-pages) (at present - the lineup changes) under its final section, namely ==Current list==. The transcluded sub-pages contain ===Date=== (with a self-link) and then multiple ====Items====, making a workable hierarchy in both places, while keeping detailed history confined to each log sub-page.
These pages add up to an interesting "application" built on multiple-page "programming" that runs on a server designed for hosting wiki content. I wonder how it is all supposed to stay together without way finders. I tried adding one - let's see where that gets. Update: though it broke nothing, it got reverted with a crabby "Please do not adjust the standard page formatting without consensus" - as if there were some other place to seek consensus on "standard page formatting" of a multi-page application. I didn't think lack of pre-consensus was grounds for reversion - though others chant "BRD" as if revert simply-because-it's-a-change (or simply-because-you're-not-me) is a given. There's theory ("anyone can edit"), and then there's practice ("please never edit"). Anyway, here's the idea in case anyone is interested.
Lastly, as great as this bulletproof user-friendly scheme is, other departments naturally use different schemes:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wrap the delete link in <span class="sysop-show">...</span>
, because it produces an error for non-admins.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the edit summary of the undo I performed which resulted in reverting WP:LINT errors that were present in the template, I am starting this discussion to resolve this. For some reason, this series of edits on Template:Rfd2 caused formatting issues with the way the phrase "(@subpage)" appears on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (This text will only appear on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and not the daily subpage since on the daily subpage, the text is replaced with closure links.) Around the transclusion of the December 11, 2018 subpage on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, I noticed that something was odd/different about the formatting of the "(@subpage)" text; for some reason, the text went from appearing as (@subpage) to appearing as '(@subpage)'. So, I looked at Template:Rfd2 and noticed that Jonesey95 had performed tre aforementioned series of edits to fix lint coding issues. So, I tested transcluding {{ Rfd2}} after undoing the edits, and the issue with (@subpage) was reverted and appeared as (@subpage). Then, I restored the edits to fix the lint coding errors, and once again, (@subpage) appeared as '(@subpage)'. I looked the template and the edits, and cannot figure out where the two additional commas are appearing in the code, causing the italics to turn into bolding and adding an additional comma to both sides. So ... is there any way to fix the lint errors without breaking the code itself? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The above edit-requested change resulted in the template starting to produce Linter errors. I attempted to fix the problems on December 11, and the Linter errors went away in subsequent days' log pages, but my changes have been reverted with an explanation that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was broken in how it renders the "@subpage" text.
I see that the entries prior to my edits show "[ Closure: (@subpage) ] and the entries after my edits show "[ Closure: '(@subpage)' ]". If that is the only problem, I believe that inserting a self-closed nowiki tag after "Closure: ''" may fix the code that existed pre-revert. I have put that code in the sandbox and will test it. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this template protected? It was indefinitely protected in 2014 as "highly visible", but that doesn't seem relevant now: the template is not used directly, but it gets substituted in new RfD nominations, of which there aren't usually more than a dozen or so a day. If someone cocks up something with the template, this will only affect any new rfd nominations made until the edit is reverted, and reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia won't be affected at all. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy the contents of the sandbox, which adds an option to close a RFD as "dab", to the main template page. JsfasdF252 ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
00:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Hello. It seems to me that the links (talk · links · history · stats) should be positioned after the first link (redirect) and not the second (target). This is because they relate to the redirect and currently it seems like they relate to the target. It seems striking when the talk page link next to a well visited target page is red.
Example:
It would make more sense to have this as:
Comments?
-- TadejM my talk 13:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Colons in redirect names screw with the pageviews link in RfD nominations ( example diff). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirects beginning and ending with an equals sign are handled improperly by this template. I got:
Plain = sign
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
Even with the template {{ =}}, the template is generated without the auxiliary links about the redirect:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
What was expected is:
Expected output
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, one equals sign causes the same problem, except when a page begins with 1=
, in which case this happens:
Hypothetical example beginning with
1= |
---|
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Handle equals sign in parameters. Fix Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Title beginning and ending with an equals sign. Patch provided in the sandbox. Xiplus ( talk) 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So, as I've mentioned in WT:DELPRO#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues, now that I and some others are transcluding RfDs in the deletion sorting pages, the closure links still appear and are broken in those pages. So, I'm asking that the hardcoded check that is currently used that hides the links if the page name is exactly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion be changed so the links don't appear when the RfDs are transcluded anywhere outside RfD either. Alternatively, Pppery's proposal in #Closure @subpage not needed would also solve the problem but I'm not sure if the module they're referring to exists anywhere. Nickps ( talk) 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}
wasn't obvious. (That module isn't particularly easy to find, as I can attest from having inartfully reproduced it in a sandbox a few weeks ago.)
SilverLocust
💬
03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Redirect Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Rfd2m on 2015 January 2. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
|
|
{{ subst:Rfd2}} requires substitution to freeze time-sensitive data, among other things. The resulting substituted code motivated a refactor. The sandbox result appears visually identical, equivalent in functionality, with possible minor improvements. Folks who !voted oppose were concerned about breaking current bots parsing daily logs, and that {{ Rfd2/links}}, if unsubstituted, changes "would be reflected in the transclusions", which is undesirable.
There is a majority support (4 clear support votes and 3 clear opposes by my count), but to me, this does not suggest a clear consensus, or much of a rough consensus.
I'm closing this RfC as no clear consensus for a change right now. The benefits of the change would have been a much "more user-friendly output" that eased navigation through the discussions. Folks remained unconvinced for the change. There's general agreement that old XfD discussions should not be affected by template changes, and substitutions are the most reliable, consistent, and practical solution. The technical reasons against the change: given that RfD has run smoothly with current procedures/instructions, it is difficult to enforce {{ subst:Rfd2/links}} at the end of closes, even with updated instructions. In the discussion, it is unclear if any bot is able/willing to handle substitution of archived discussions, and a more thorough discussion of instruction changes also did not happen.
If I may inject my own thoughts, the syntax simplification, which I believe is quite well-done, is absolutely worth the change if technical problems are worked out. It is worth it to hold onto this sandbox revision for later discussion. I recommend looking into WP:BOTREQ and asking if anyone is willing to do conditional time-sensitive substitutions for the subtemplate. I may also suggest making the unsubstituted {{ Rfd2/links}} spit out a red error after 7 days that the template needs substitution. For now, RfD appears to be able to continue running without the change. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 02:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Per Oiyarbepsy's request to simplify the raw wikitext result of substituting rfd2, I worked to build {{ rfd2 links}} and have implemented its use in {{ rfd2/sandbox}}.
When substituted, this sandboxed version of {{
rfd2}} leaves {{rfd2 links}}
unsubstituted in place of what is usually a large and complex mess of wikitext markup for various links.
{{rfd2}}
.There is a concern that whilst {{rfd2 links}}
is transcluded in use, any changes to the template would be reflected in the transclusions, which at any time may be many. It is thus proposed that if this method is employed, {{rfd2 links}}
should be template-protected from the start, and possibly automatically substituted by bot once it's archived.
Anomie who operates
AnomieBOT (which is currently utilised for auto substitutions) may like to advise?
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=Foo|target=Bar|text=Reasons.}}
currently produces:
====<span id="Foo">Foo</span>==== *<span id="Foo">{{no redirect|1 = Foo }}</span> → [[:Bar]] <span> <span class="plainlinks lx">([[Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo|links]] '''·''' [//en.wikipedia.org/?title=Foo&action=history history] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-11&end=2016-05-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats])</span></span></span> <small>[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|''(@subpage)''|<span class="plainlinks">''[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]''</span>}} ]</small> Reasons.Whereas
{{subst:rfd2/sandbox|redirect=Foo|target=Bar|text=Reasons.}}
currently produces the proposed:
====Foo==== {{rfd links|Foo|Bar|2016-05-11}} Reasons.which is functiionally identical.
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Changes applied affecting the issues raised since the discussion started.
{{#time:Y-m-d}}
instead of {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
to store the submission date/time argument, again, for a more user friendly raw appearence.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
11:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt (
talk|
contribs)
10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Also, I don't think we need the <span>...</span>
tags in the heading, as headings are automatically anchored to their names. This seems to be a remnant from the time that the heading looked like [[:{{{redirect}}}]] → [[:{{{target}}}]]
, as the anchors didn't work properly with headings like that. I don't think that the <br>
is necessary either - the two newlines should be enough separation between the links and the reason. But those are minor details - overall this move is a big plus. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
09:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
<span>
in the heading holds the id of the first {{{redirect}}}
, where the actual heading was changed by the use of |header=
- which may be important.|anchor=
(undocumented) which sets yet another <span>
id! I started to tidy all that up before I realised what
Oiyarbepsy was really driving at.<br>
is a replacement for a used to keep the (parser dependent) newline formatting from collapsing. There were loads of which I got rid of (in the sandbox) almost immediately (so overused!).
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
12:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
<br>
tag. Feel free to play around with it and/or revert it as you see fit. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{rfd2/sandbox}}
(as is) to
User:Fred Gandt/test "test" test and it's just about fine with a little wiggle room. I searched the previous month of real listings and ~24 was the highest number I saw for a day. {{rfd2 links}}
is now ready for substing, and as a side effect, so now is {{
no redirect}}.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
{{rfd2 links}}
in only closed submissions? Bots must be parsing the page to target the transclusions, so establishing if they're in open or closed submissions shouldn't be too difficult, right? And, can we change |text=
to |reason=
with a fallback to {{{text}}}
? I know
I can, but upon your toes I'd be 'shammed to tread.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)multi
and header
parameters function differently in the sandbox than they currently do in the parent template.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{rfd2 links}}
, and thus "erroneous fixes" will be less likely. It may also be advisable to name the arguments.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC){{subst:rfd2|redirect=Redirect|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=Redirect|target=TargetArticle}} {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=Redirects|target=TargetArticle}}
<s>(old timestamp)</s>
) followed by 5 tildes). The only thing that has to be done with the raw code of the initial nomination is to paste over it. Maybe it's me, but I still don't see a problem, and even if there were a problem, this is one of the simpler raw codes I've seen (on my edit screen it's only ten lines of code in largest print, nine lines of code at medium sized print). With all due respect, even if you've been doing this by altering the raw code, how can it possibly be such a "herculean task"?
Stick to sources!
Paine
18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
*<span id="Foo">{{no redirect|1 = Foo }}</span> → [[:Bar]] <span> <span class="plainlinks lx">([[Special:WhatLinksHere/Foo|links]] '''·''' [//en.wikipedia.org/?title=Foo&action=history history] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-04-11&end=2016-05-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Foo stats])</span></span></span> <small>[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|''(@subpage)''|<span class="plainlinks">''[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Foo]] closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]''</span>}} ]</small>
copy/paste/modify technique should always work without having to visit the stinking template documentation page to figure out how it was done in the first place.I gave you that technique in my previous response to you. As I said below, don't take my word for it, because S H O C K !!! I have been known to be wrong. Just test it in your sandbox as I instructed above. When I tested it in my sandbox I found it to be just about the same ease to add multis whether the {{ Rfd2}} template were substituted or transcluded. There is no technical restriction against transcluding this template as there is in the case of {{ Rfd}}. All of those
{{{|safesubst:}}}
code entries help with that. We may also note that this template is already template-protected. So the only reason to substitute this template is because that's what the instructions tell us. Then maybe it's the instructions that we should be discussing instead?
Stick to sources!
Paine
21:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
16:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Evidence of a real problem is provided by the request to change the behaviour, and the proposed changes are significant.
This is not a bunch of fluff or my opinion, it's a proposed change with a request for comment.
Without reasoned objection to the proposed implementation, rather than opposition to proposing a change to the implementation,...
...this will be boldly done (once the one (so far) technical concern is addressed); this is not a vote.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
23:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Since there's been no discussion or further input for 10 days, I think we can consider wrapping this up. Clearly there is majority support for the change, but there is a technical concern that should be addressed:
The only other oppositions raised have been countered. However, there has not been any explicit agreement between the parties involved. So a final decision will require a review of the discussion, considering what seems most reasonable baring all that's been said in mind.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
03:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)user:Paine Ellsworth has suggest a couple of times above that the real answer my be to just transclude Rfd2 instead of substituting it. Perhaps that makes sense. In my view, though, the heading and the reason should not be within a template, which makes user:Fred Gandt's proposed change the best answer - substitute the heading and reason, and transclude everything else. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
|multi=
param, it's simplest to also subst the |reason=
.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
03:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)I've been trying to write some RfD scripts today and found that this template create two instances of <span id="Redirect name">. I don't think this is appropriate? HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 both says this is officially wrong [1] (but obviously doesn't break things until a user tries to write a script to parse them). Der yck C. 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
<span>
s will be removed shortly, but as a contentious RfC (above) is ongoing that involves those edits (which may be made in one of two proposed ways), I'd ask that you please wait for the outcome; it'll be only a matter of days.
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
05:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
20:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Per a request at WT:RFD, can this template be modified to include a link to the redirect's talk page?
@ Tavix: the template is protected so I can't do it, and I'm not sure I could see my way through the template code anyway. Where do you think a talk link would be most useful? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the closure links don't display when viewing the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page, as they depend on the FULLPAGENAME magic word.
This is no longer necessary due to a new lua module that returns the page it is used on, even when transcluded. I have coded a proposed update in the sandbox that allows the closure links to work when transcluded, and does not need updating after a relist. Thoughts about this change?
Pinging Steel1943, who introduced the "@subpage" link feature a while ago. Ppp ery 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This template creates new subsubsections (====) instead of sections (==). On a page with multiple Rfd entries, they kind of run together. I tried replacing ==== with == on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2 to see. Maybe I shouldn't have. (See if it gets put back?) Then I realized that the ==== weren't a tradition, they were the doing of {subst:rfd2|...}, so every new page and every new entry will have ==== unless someone adjusts this template. What is the norm? (On talk pages, it's new sections.) - A876 ( talk) 23:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In other words, they have to be subsubsections because the log pages are designed to be transcluded onto another page (the <noinclude> tags hint this), within an existing section on that page.
Okay, my change broke something, so it promptly got undone (with an incomplete statement of what it broke, and preachy advice).
I did not know (should I have known?) that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion transcludes Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2 (and 8 other sub-pages) (at present - the lineup changes) under its final section, namely ==Current list==. The transcluded sub-pages contain ===Date=== (with a self-link) and then multiple ====Items====, making a workable hierarchy in both places, while keeping detailed history confined to each log sub-page.
These pages add up to an interesting "application" built on multiple-page "programming" that runs on a server designed for hosting wiki content. I wonder how it is all supposed to stay together without way finders. I tried adding one - let's see where that gets. Update: though it broke nothing, it got reverted with a crabby "Please do not adjust the standard page formatting without consensus" - as if there were some other place to seek consensus on "standard page formatting" of a multi-page application. I didn't think lack of pre-consensus was grounds for reversion - though others chant "BRD" as if revert simply-because-it's-a-change (or simply-because-you're-not-me) is a given. There's theory ("anyone can edit"), and then there's practice ("please never edit"). Anyway, here's the idea in case anyone is interested.
Lastly, as great as this bulletproof user-friendly scheme is, other departments naturally use different schemes:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wrap the delete link in <span class="sysop-show">...</span>
, because it produces an error for non-admins.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the edit summary of the undo I performed which resulted in reverting WP:LINT errors that were present in the template, I am starting this discussion to resolve this. For some reason, this series of edits on Template:Rfd2 caused formatting issues with the way the phrase "(@subpage)" appears on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (This text will only appear on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and not the daily subpage since on the daily subpage, the text is replaced with closure links.) Around the transclusion of the December 11, 2018 subpage on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, I noticed that something was odd/different about the formatting of the "(@subpage)" text; for some reason, the text went from appearing as (@subpage) to appearing as '(@subpage)'. So, I looked at Template:Rfd2 and noticed that Jonesey95 had performed tre aforementioned series of edits to fix lint coding issues. So, I tested transcluding {{ Rfd2}} after undoing the edits, and the issue with (@subpage) was reverted and appeared as (@subpage). Then, I restored the edits to fix the lint coding errors, and once again, (@subpage) appeared as '(@subpage)'. I looked the template and the edits, and cannot figure out where the two additional commas are appearing in the code, causing the italics to turn into bolding and adding an additional comma to both sides. So ... is there any way to fix the lint errors without breaking the code itself? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The above edit-requested change resulted in the template starting to produce Linter errors. I attempted to fix the problems on December 11, and the Linter errors went away in subsequent days' log pages, but my changes have been reverted with an explanation that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was broken in how it renders the "@subpage" text.
I see that the entries prior to my edits show "[ Closure: (@subpage) ] and the entries after my edits show "[ Closure: '(@subpage)' ]". If that is the only problem, I believe that inserting a self-closed nowiki tag after "Closure: ''" may fix the code that existed pre-revert. I have put that code in the sandbox and will test it. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this template protected? It was indefinitely protected in 2014 as "highly visible", but that doesn't seem relevant now: the template is not used directly, but it gets substituted in new RfD nominations, of which there aren't usually more than a dozen or so a day. If someone cocks up something with the template, this will only affect any new rfd nominations made until the edit is reverted, and reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia won't be affected at all. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy the contents of the sandbox, which adds an option to close a RFD as "dab", to the main template page. JsfasdF252 ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
00:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Hello. It seems to me that the links (talk · links · history · stats) should be positioned after the first link (redirect) and not the second (target). This is because they relate to the redirect and currently it seems like they relate to the target. It seems striking when the talk page link next to a well visited target page is red.
Example:
It would make more sense to have this as:
Comments?
-- TadejM my talk 13:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Colons in redirect names screw with the pageviews link in RfD nominations ( example diff). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirects beginning and ending with an equals sign are handled improperly by this template. I got:
Plain = sign
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
Even with the template {{ =}}, the template is generated without the auxiliary links about the redirect:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
What was expected is:
Expected output
|
---|
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit. |
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, one equals sign causes the same problem, except when a page begins with 1=
, in which case this happens:
Hypothetical example beginning with
1= |
---|
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Handle equals sign in parameters. Fix Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Title beginning and ending with an equals sign. Patch provided in the sandbox. Xiplus ( talk) 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So, as I've mentioned in WT:DELPRO#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues, now that I and some others are transcluding RfDs in the deletion sorting pages, the closure links still appear and are broken in those pages. So, I'm asking that the hardcoded check that is currently used that hides the links if the page name is exactly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion be changed so the links don't appear when the RfDs are transcluded anywhere outside RfD either. Alternatively, Pppery's proposal in #Closure @subpage not needed would also solve the problem but I'm not sure if the module they're referring to exists anywhere. Nickps ( talk) 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}
wasn't obvious. (That module isn't particularly easy to find, as I can attest from having inartfully reproduced it in a sandbox a few weeks ago.)
SilverLocust
💬
03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)