Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 15

Discussion to add instructions to use "noinclude" tags for highly-visible templates

Hello everyone,

If you haven't heard about me by now, I'm the editor who placed a {{Tfm}} notice on {{Rellink}}, a template with a huge amount of transclusions. You may have seen the small notice for the Tfm discussion on almost every article on Wikipedia for about half an hour until <noinclude> tags were placed around the notification template. Yay, go me; I am awesome. However, here's the thing: I was following the instructions on this page to post the notice on {{Rellink}}. So yes, the small notices you have probably seen everywhere, they were there per the directions on this page.

Now, here's my point: I propose that an adjustment be made to the instructions to specifically tell the nominator to place "<noinclude> tags around the {{Tfd}} or {{Tfm}} template in the event of nominating certain highly-visible templates. At the present time, the only instructions that nominators are given reads like this:

For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.

I have an idea of a certain wording that should probably be added to the instructions to prevent the great "{{Rellink}} calamity of April 2014" from happening again. Here's an example of wording that could be added to the instructions:

For any high-risk templates with template or permanent protection that are not intended to be used on talk pages, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent the small discussion notice from appearing on the transclusions of the template.

...That's an example of what could be added to the instructions. Any thoughts? Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been suggested before, several times; and always rejected. Here's the crux: people who are interested in a given template do not like to be kept in the dark that it is up for TFD. When the TFD closes as delete, the bot going around removing/substing/replacing the template is often the first that they heard about it, and they (justifiably) kick up a stink that the template is gone without their opinion being heard. Unfortunately, not enough people participate in TFD: a lot of TFDs get relisted due to lack of participation; and after two or three weeks, get closed with perhaps too few !votes - see for example Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 7 where of the 13 entries, only four were new - nine are relistings (one being a second relist), and only about half have had more than two participants, nominator included. The TFD message is one of the methods to inform people of the discussion (others include {{subst:tfdnotice}}, which is underutilised; and Article Alerts, which many people are not aware of. Alternative means exist to keep the TFD message visible, but make it less in-your-face: for example, judicious use of the |type= parameter will reduce the size of the displayed message, but still provide the necessary information and link to the discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I basically understand. That, and I just realized that my exclusive example is not really going to be opposed anyways. This discussion can be closed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've undone Steel1943's close of this discussion, as I don't think this issue is so clear-cut. Of course we need to make users of the template aware of the TfD discussion; I don't dispute that at all. I do think, however, that we need to bear in mind how a given TfD tag will affect our readers.

For example, if a widely-used maintenance banner is nominated for deletion, the TfD notice will only appear once, at the top of the page, and some readers may (perhaps) be interested in the discussion as it may affect other articles they are interested in. In Steel1943's example, though, the TfD notice would often appear many times on a page, and if the change was made it wouldn't affect readers or most editors, so it is probable that only technical editors would have an interest in the discussion.

If we showed the TfD tag in the latter case, I can easily imagine us receiving many emails through OTRS saying the tag is "broken" or similar, and I am not sure that we would be notifying any interested editors that we couldn't do with talk page messages or notes on WP:VPT. I think that at some point we have to balance the benefit of notifying editors against the inconvenience the tags cause to readers. Might it not be wise to add wording to the TfD instructions that editors should use common sense in such situations? I don't think it would be possible to come up with specific criteria, but it might at least be worth encouraging nominators to think about these issues when they nominate widely-used templates. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another thought - I remember it being proposed on VPT a while back that there should be a CSS class that hides content for anonymous users. Might that be a good compromise option to add to the TfD templates in cases like this, if the capability was made available? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was started on VPT, but was moved to WP:VPP where it snow closed within the day. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I, personally, think the notice should be wrapped in noinclude tags in very rare cases. the {{rellink}} is a good example of when it is useful to do so, but that's because it's a meta-template used within other templates. it was confusing since it wasn't obvious to novice editors how the articles in question were using {{rellink}} (e.g., through {{main}}). I can also see wrapping it in noinclude tags if the discussion has been open for a long time (e.g., over a week), and it hasn't been closed due to general backlog. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is it possible to "noinclude" only if clicked through from the Main Page? So that those who arrive at the article through regular means (WP or Google search, watchlist, link) still see the message. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be possible to do a logged on /not logged on switch, so that only registered users would see it, though it might need a bugzilla report to request the necessary code to be made accessible to templates (the code to distinguish the two exists - it was used during the VE rollout, and also by page protection) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Closure decisions

I'm increasingly concerned that many TfD/TfM dsicussions ae being closed based on the number of "votes", rather than an anlysis of the merits of the points raised (and as as secondary issue, that many people "vote", but do not then linger to discuss any points arising). How might we address this, to the benefit of the project? I'm aware that the workload is high and we rely on a small number of volunteers to carry out this unrewarding task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This, I regret to say, is a WP wide phenomenon.

• I have seen AfDs where part way through the discussion all the delete points have been addressed, still closed as "delete per consensus".
• Also I have seen people voting for deletion of redirects on the basis that it "increases my workload".

I am inclined to think that more time needs to be spent on closure. The way to achieve this is through training and increasing the resource available to close - which really means more admins.

I believe we have got into a vicious circle where admins are making bad decisions, so we are tightening the "requirements" for admins, resulting in less admins, more time pressure, more bad decisions.

It may be partly the perception of "workload" too. No one has a workload, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY (unless you are in an arb case )>

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

A separate issue is that templates are way more complicated since sometimes the discussion turns on a particular use or parameter of the template and it's almost easier to delete the whole thing than come up with revisions that way. -- 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Notices for templates in the holding cell

I think we should insert some of template:being deleted into the templates themselves. For an article or category that has been voted delete (or merge really), it's clear to people who view the article or category that's what happening. However, for a template, the only visability comes if someone goes to the documentation of the template itself. For example, Template:Infobox NFL coach has been set for merger since October 2012 with no indication that's it's being removed (since it's being updated). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to a key templates for discussion template

Template talk:Template for discussion#User-unfriendly Wiki abbreviations appearing in articles. Thank you, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

LUA modules

I think that TfD should be expanded to cover deletion/mergers/discussions/renames of [[module:]] namespace -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Modules seem similar to templates in their use, and in the content often being opaque to non-programmers. I would add that translations of templates to modules should also discussed at TfD in addition to the template's talk page. In general, I support this, but would like to see more comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• @65: This might not be a good time to start an RfC without any prior discussion because another IP recently started 15 similar RfCs, which have been reverted (see WP:ANI#Numerous (mostly unnecessary) RFC's opened by IP). Regarding the issue: the general principle is that we don't look for a solution unless a problem is first identified. Has there been any trouble with modules that needs resolution? I see that WP:MFD includes "Module:" in its scope. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't see how those RfCs are similar to this, as this is a proposal to change the the purview of this deletion process, and necessarily will require an RfC to implement. The RfCs you point out are about changing article content, which can be handled through WP:BOLD editing. Changing the policy backing this deletion process isn't a BOLD process. As modules are used as the back end to templates, and as replacements for template coding, they would seem to be logically suited for TfD, and not MfD. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not now. There have only been 4 modules ever MfD'd, and none of those were "real" nominations (they were all G7/G8 speedy requests). If we ever get modules start to be discussed for deletion, then we can think about this, but there's no reason to now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Why wait? Powers ^T 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are almost always disregarded.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support concept as a seemingly-non-controversial idea that if it WP:QUACKs like a template, it should be deleted like one. However, given the fact that it's obviously at least slightly controversial and the apparent lack of need, I'm okay with keeping things the way they are. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note This user is probably neutral.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that "we don't look for a solution unless a problem is first identified". We don't make pre-emptive measures generally. Besides, there are so few deletions that necessitated MfDs that I don't think we even need a RfC on it. If you insist, I'd say that in a Template for discussion, talking about a module would be rather irrelevant (or ridiculous). I don't see any problem with the current system.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)