Template talk:Deletion sorting

Add topic
Active discussions

Important notesEdit

This template should be used only with Subst:, as in

{{subst:delsort|Argentina}}

which gives

Otherwise uses of this template could become targets of vandalism and/or vote-rigging.

Proposed layout changeEdit

The current layout renders deletion sorting notes similarly to the XfD !votes, which makes the page harder to understand semantically, visually and using a screen reader. I propose an alternative layout with greater separation from the !votes, using a colon to generate an indented list item without a bullet, and eliminating the text "Note: " before the note. This concept is context and language-independent. As the current layout does not appear to have been debated in the past, if there are no objections over the next seven days may I assume that this proposal is acceptable? A mock-up is shown below. - Pointillist (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)  

  • I fully support the change from bullet to indented list. I'm neutral about the removal of the "Note:" wording. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Are you OK if "Note:" ceases to be bold? - Pointillist (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The updated layout is below. - Pointillist (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)  

Discussion notificationEdit

Greetings. A discussion related to this template has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion sorting idea. Your thoughts are most welcome, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove "sig" parameterEdit

The user placing this template doesn't participate in discussion; still his/her signature makes false impression of participation and confuses bots. I propose to replace {{{2}}} in the template with {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>plain now}} to include only time of action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See the diff for implementation detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's clear that the signature is part of the delsort tagging, instead of creating a "false impression". Furthermore removing it would be a violation of the signture guideline, as the signature is required: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed" - emphasis in the original. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a post. It's a template. Nobody signs {{spa}} or "this is not a poll" (don't remember the name) when places them in deletion discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed layout change 2Edit

Hi,
as mentioned above, the current layout as well gets a little mixed up in the !Votes. I think we should add lines to avoid that. I have come up with this source code. Its just a sample, we can change the colour combination. Kindly let me know what you think.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Source code:
:{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{{{|safesubst:}}}issubst}}<noinclude>yes</noinclude>|yes |<small class="delsort-notice"><div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #0000FF; border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF; padding: 0px 25px;"> Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/{{{1<noinclude>|Lists</noinclude>}}}|list of {{{1<noinclude>|Lists</noinclude>}}}-related deletion discussions]]. {{{2|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}}</small></div> |{{error |message=This template must be [[Wikipedia:Substitution|substituted]]. }} }}<noinclude>
usernamekiran(talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose 1) There is no mix up as far as I can see: there has never been any confusion that I'm aware of between an intentionally unobtrusive tag and a !vote 2) the editor imposed this change without consensus 3) he then appeared on my user talk page claiming that I did the change to the code that he very clearly did. This is disruptive editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposer apparently is addressing a discussion that was held six years ago and that reached a satisfactory conclusion back then. I am not aware of any more-recent concerns. Also, won't the proposed change create confusion with the borders already being used for re-listings? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, we'd have "discussion" pages that are cross-hatched with an absurd amount of horizontal lines, imo. And this editor's lines are even thicker. A deletion sorting tag is in smaller script because it's supposed to be minor, easily skipped over by the eye. This has the opposite effect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I've also rolled back my recent Afd sorting edits where these lines appear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looking at the use cases, I don't believe delsort notices need any more prominence. In fact, they could be even less obtrusive than currently. I wouldn't even be opposed to not including them inline, though I understand there are discussion timeline issues with that. They can easily be 3+ at a time and the extra borders aren't necessary. I don't think there have been any serious complaints about readability due to these. There are tons of other templates, like canvassing, new user or SPA notices, along with new users formatting everything differently or bolding non-!votes and repeat ones. With many editors often holding extended discussion, this template is one of the least of the readability problems. The closing editors, who are really the ones who need to read it all, are likely very used to these and will have no trouble parsing it. Furthermore, this uses a custom "xfd_relist" style, so a user script could easily make them go away or be less prominent for those who wish. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)