Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PC-XT (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 18 February 2015 (→Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs: fix link to only show the part I was viewing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner

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

Archives

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

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

Process formalisation (RFC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the light of the above discussion, I'd like to propose a few RfC's for consideration, one for completeness of proposals, one for merges, and one for orphaning. Below is the first one of them

Completeness of merge discussions (1)

Should the following be added to the TfD policy?

To facilitate discussion and enacting an outcome, TfD merge discussions should have at least a rough outline how a merge should take place. The nomination should at least include which parameters would be mapped to the merge target(s), and for which parameters no suitable mapping has been found yet.

• Support, proposed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support if a wrapper would suffice as demonstration of parameter mapping. (If the template is already a wrapper, or one is in the sandbox, the nom can simply mention this. Mapping would only be needed for parameters the wrapper doesn't support or any additional changes proposed.) —PC-XT+ 23:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  A wrapper would be a very clear outline of a merge, easily satisfying my phrasing of "at least a rough outline" above. Feel free to hack at it if you think it could be clearer without adding too much clutter. If it already is a wrapper, would you still consider that a merge proposal? I would say that's a deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  I don't really think it needs changing. I mostly wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading it. A simple wrapper only requires subst-delete, but if it includes complex parserfunctions or awkward hacks to make it work, a rewrite or merge may be better. —PC-XT+ 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural: can someone add signings? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure what you mean by adding signings, but feel free to make any procedural edit you think is useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Holding cell base data

To facilitate the handling of the large list of items in the holding cell, I would like to propose a semi-automated process that checks the number of transclusions, and if something is a redirect and adds an element transclusions: n or transclusions: n - redirect to "pagename" if it is a redirect. Before I start coding and ask BAG if that's ok, I'd like to know if there are any objections or suggestions here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request immediate TfD closure

I would like to request the immediate closure of Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division by an administrator active in TfD closings. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the similar past on WP:AN, the above, which non-neutrally attempts to lead the closing adnmin to a specific conslusion, is breach of WP:CANVASS. Further. TfD is not a vote. The closing admin should weigh the arguements, not count the commenters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, there is no breach of WP:CANVASS here. What is stated above is a factual recitation of the history of this process in which you (1) have nominated the template for deletion on November 29, (2) renominated it for merge on December 8, (3) took it to DRV on January 8 to re-open a messy non-administrative close, and (4) the merge nomination was re-listed on January 22. As I stated above, the present merge TfD nomination has now been open for a total of 32 days (25 + 7), and has attracted 21 participants. As for your false allegations of "canvassing," those have been refuted in the TfD itself, but I do note for the record your active lobbying campaign to get previous discussion participants to change their !votes (see here). Perhaps not exactly "canvassing," but it would seem you have little lobbying campaign of your own underway, eh? BTW, if you're going to make false accusations of canvassing, I suggest you take them to WP:ANI, rather than . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The above reply to Andy Mabbett was cut and pasted from my response on WP:AN, where Andy continues his campaign.

Andy, administrators are well aware that XfDs are not a vote, and most of regular XfD closers do not require your counsel in that regard. What we see here is a TfD nominator consumed with "winning" instead of having a good-faith discussion, and that is unfortunate for all concerned. Pointing out that the TfD has been open in one form or another for 30+ days with 20+ participants indicates that it is ripe for closing by an administrator. Perhaps this and similarly exaggerated claims of wrongdoing by good-faith editors who oppose your TfD proposals should be added as links to this Arbcom discussion, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates and Categories

There is a problem and I'm not sure there is an easy solution but I thought I'd ask editors skilled in templates to wade in to the waters and see what you think. I work a lot with categories and one thing that happens frequently is that a user adds an article or Misplaced Pages template to their sandbox or a user page. Many templates automatically assign categories to the page on which they are used so if you go to a category page, you'll find not only relevant categories and articles but also user pages listed. When I've tried to remove the categories from the user page, I often find that they are the result of the user using a template and the only way to remove the categories is to delete the template from their page. I'm reluctant to do this unless the account has been inactive for a long time because these templates are frequently ones involved with Misplaced Pages policies and formats. Any suggestions? Are their any guiding principles about including categories on templates? Liz 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Depending on the template, I may remove it, or link it with {{tl}}, or even hide it with html comments and a note that it was adding article categories. A few templates have a switch that turns off categories. Sometimes, the template can be replaced with a better one that doesn't need to add categories. With simple templates, it may even work to substitute and remove the category from the resulting code. Other times, I don't know what to do, and leave it for someone else to clean up. :S —PC-XT+ 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC) 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Templates can also be improved to not categorize user pages, or to only categorize articles. —PC-XT+ 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to make the addition of a category, by a template, dependent on the namespace in which the instance is being used. See Help:Category#Categories and templates for guidance, or let me know if there is a particular example causing problems, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Category suppression. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Updating nomination statements?

Need some advice please - is it OK to update the own nomination statement, if it was confusing or misleading? (or does it break a bot in the background?) See Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_5#Windows-related_article_content_moved_to_template - what I meant to request was to move back the content to article namespace before deleting those templates, but that probably didn't come across as intended. Or is the statement clear enough? GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as you leave the templates alone, you can edit your proposal more or less according to talk page guidelines. On Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Template:USA-MA, I even changed from a deletion proposal to a merge proposal before anyone commented. It is good to mark the change, using <s>...</s> or <del>...</del><ins>...</ins> and sign or add ~~~~~ to stamp when the changes were made. —PC-XT+ 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have sent a clarification message to one of the commenting editors and will leave the initial nomination statement alone for now, unless a change becomes absolutely necessary. But it's good to know, that it's possible in general. GermanJoe (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How to work off the backlog

Given that we have a huge backlog (150 templates, reaching as far as back as 2012) and desperately need people to close, it would be good if we had instructions for people who want to help out. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions says "list the template under the appropriate section of Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell", but that only defers the solution; we need good information on how to actually work off the backlog. In particular, I'd like to see instructions on:

1. How to subst + delete efficiently. It's easy to subst a few links, but when we have templates that have been transcluded 350 times (according to Jarry1250's tool) or even in 85,000 articles (according to Number 57 at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_19#Template:Infobox_university_chancellor), it takes days to do it manually. Even with WP:AWB it would take hours. How do people do this? Do they use a bot?
2. How to merge. Of course, there is no cookbook recipe for that, but there must be a lot of experience that others could learn from. Merging is, at least for me, much harder than writing something new. My hunch is that others feel the same, since the majority of our backlog is waiting to be merged, while new templates are created every minute.

I became aware of this backlog thanks to User:Steel1943's post at WP:ANRFC , and since they also is the only one who posted any closing action there, I wanted to ask them for advice, but they is unfortunately on sick leave. — Sebastian 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs

A question has been raised in a pending TfD merge discussion regarding the use of the Twinkle auto-editor for formatting TfD discussions. I am curious how many other regular TfD participants use Twinkle to nominate templates for discussion, and would like to hear feedback from other regular TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, and try to correct for its problems as I am aware of them. Sometimes I forget one of them, and others correct me:

1. It has no option to add |sidebar=.
2. It adds extra whitespace to the transclusions, which can be serious enough to break transclusions of previously working templates. Delete !votes have been based on such breakage, without knowing it was caused by Twinkle. (Sometimes manual tagging has the same problem, but not consistently, as with Twinkle.)
3. It does not notify the creators of both templates in a merge discussion.
4. It does not notify WikiProjects, though I'm not sure that is its responsibility. (It would be convenient, though.)

We could evaluate the usage by counting the Twinkle edits listed in log page histories and comparing with the total number of discussions started... PC-XT (talk) 10:02, February 18, 2015 Signature added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response, PC. I don't use Twinkle and was unaware of this issue until recently. Is there some way to track TfD nominators who are using Twinkle (and other auto-editors)? In order to ensure proper notice of TfD/TfMs is being provided to template creators, it would seem that we have some work to do. I would also propose that we revise the TfD and TfM instructions to clarify this -- some editors apparently dispute whether it is required to notify the creators of both templates in a proposed TfD merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry I messed up the formatting, above. Manual nominations can also have problems, but Twinkle's problems are more consistent. Notifying editors seems to be a bit of a gray area for even manual nominations. Twinkle, and most other tools, usually identify themselves in the edit summary when adding a nomination to the log, but that can be turned off. (You can check a user's twinkleoptions.js to see if that is the case, but they still may not necessarily use it for nominations. I don't always use Twinkle, myself.) The log page's history is the best way to check that I know, as Twinkle gives a fairly consistent edit summary, even if its identification is changed: "Adding Template:Example. " followed by the identification. I don't know as much about other tools used in nominations, but they generally identify themselves. —PC-XT+ 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For example, today's log so far has a manual entry that was fixed by a bot, and two Twinkle nominations. Maybe a bot could check the nominations for some of these Twinkle corrections and flag them if not fix them? Manual nominations could be checked, as well. —PC-XT+ 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox medical condition/ Infobox disease

I merged {{Infobox medical condition}} into {{Infobox disease}}, both listed in the holding cell, in accordance with the TfD outcome, but was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: The only article still using the redirected name is pregnancy, which wouldn't be considered a disease. According to Template talk:Infobox medical condition, the problem was that the parameters merged should apparently not be in either infobox. The matter looks resolved? —PC-XT+ 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)