Template talk:Template for discussion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template for discussion template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Bolding tweak
[edit]I propose changing the bolding on this template so that only the "its entry" is bolded, as that's really the main link people are going to want to use. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but just this one? I often have to read the notice twice to remember where to click to find the discussion, because of "bolding blindness", if that is a thing. It seems like this one should be consistent with {{Article for deletion}}, {{Catfd}}, {{Cfd}}, etc. Viewed as a system, the naming and formatting of these templates is kind of a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, good point. I'll go ahead and make the change here in the spirit of marginal improvement, but for anyone who wants to take this on as a larger project, standardizing all these notices is a task awaiting. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Please document: what with protected templates?
[edit]Please add to /documantation: how to handle with protected templates. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done, though I do note that you could have done that yourself (the /doc is not protected). Primefac (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- thx. The XfD docs & manuals are complicated, I often miss steps I need. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:VPT § Infobox deletion discussion notice
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT § Infobox deletion discussion notice. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 10:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Type = doc page
[edit]I think it would be helpful to have a new param value |type=template doc page, so that the message could start out with "This template doc page" when nominating Template doc pages. Or maybe just |type=doc page, and then it could be used for Module doc as well. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why? I know there are certain editors that are convinced that every unused /doc needs to be sent to TFD, but really it could just be redirected or (gasp) ignored and left alone. There is zero reason to modify the template just to add an extra word to indicate that the /doc itself is being nominated. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity. The reason is because if one sees "This template is being nominated for deletion" it could very easily be interpreted as being the template that is nominated (that's what it says; why wouldn't it mean that?). To prevent confusion, and maybe alarm in readers viewing that statement, it should say that only the doc page is being nominated for deletion. Redirecting it is still a possibility, and WP:TFD stands for "Templates for discussion", and the one-sentence lead at that page says that it is about discussing "deletion or merging", and either one may involve creation of a redirect, so that is the proper page to discuss it. (Then again, why keep a page around and provide a redirect from it for a dead doc page with no inlinks to it other than Tfd itself?) To prevent alarm or misunderstanding on the part of users seeing a big, red-bordered box at the top of their favorite template doc page saying, This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy it would be wise, in my opinion, to add the two extra words. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Documentation pages should not be deleted if they are being actively transcluded onto a template, and if they are, the TFD nomination should be put in noinclude tags or use the parameter that disables display. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I am talkig about orphan doc pages transcluded nowhwere, other than Tfd itself. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Documentation pages should not be deleted if they are being actively transcluded onto a template, and if they are, the TFD nomination should be put in noinclude tags or use the parameter that disables display. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity. The reason is because if one sees "This template is being nominated for deletion" it could very easily be interpreted as being the template that is nominated (that's what it says; why wouldn't it mean that?). To prevent confusion, and maybe alarm in readers viewing that statement, it should say that only the doc page is being nominated for deletion. Redirecting it is still a possibility, and WP:TFD stands for "Templates for discussion", and the one-sentence lead at that page says that it is about discussing "deletion or merging", and either one may involve creation of a redirect, so that is the proper page to discuss it. (Then again, why keep a page around and provide a redirect from it for a dead doc page with no inlinks to it other than Tfd itself?) To prevent alarm or misunderstanding on the part of users seeing a big, red-bordered box at the top of their favorite template doc page saying, This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy it would be wise, in my opinion, to add the two extra words. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Hide subsequent inline instances
[edit]At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Weird problem with STN Template, the problem of {{Tfd}} and {{Tfm}} templates showing up right next to each other came up. While there's no easy way to make sure that the Tfm/Tfd template shows up only once per page, we could add .tfd ~ .tfd { display: none; } to Template:Template for discussion/styles.css, which would make it so that if multiple Tfd/Tfm templates are present in a single parent element (paragraph, table cell, list item, etc.), only the first one will show up. This would largely mitigate the problem seen with templates like {{STN}} in that linked discussion.
The only downside is that if there are different templates in the same parent that are nominated for deletion/merging, only the first will show the message. However, if the alternative is to hide the Tfd/Tfm notice altogether, I think that this solution would be preferable.
I've implemented this change in Template:Template for discussion/sandbox/styles.css, which is used by {{Template for discussion/sandbox}} and {{Tfm/sandbox}}, if you want to try it out. ay objectons to adding this to the live templates? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with changes. Editors only need to be notified once. Some editors only see one notification via talkpage {{Tfd_notice}} if this month they're reading articles about other topics. Most other notices occur once at the head of the article. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- What if the
same parent
is the topmostmw-parser-output? Adding* >might prevent this for navboxen and sidebars, which are unnested and singletons:* > .tfd ~ .tfd { display: none; }This leaves inline templates, oh well I guess. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- What if the
Template-protected edit request on 11 December 2024 tinier tiny-type notification via inline tag style
[edit] | It is requested that edits be made to the following template-protected templates:
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edits immediately.
Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |
Readers currently find it unusual to see intrusive full-height inline links:
"The service operates in conjunction with the Sunrise Seto service to ‹See TfM›Takamatsu between Tokyo and ‹See TfM›Okayama. The combined 14-car train departs from Tokyo, and stops at ‹See TfM›Yokohama, ‹See TfM›Atami, ‹See TfM›Numazu, ‹See TfM›Fuji, ‹See TfM›Shizuoka, ‹See TfM›Hamamatsu (final evening stop), ‹See TfM›Himeji (first morning stop), and arrives at ‹See TfM›Okayama, where the train splits."
How is that "minimal"?
— User:Isaac Rabinovitch 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The advantage of a superscript is that readers are already accustomed to skipping over blue superscript references and inline cleanup tags.
| − | + | |tinier = <templatestyles src="Template:Template for discussion/sandbox/styles.css" /><sup class="noprint Inline-Template tfd tfd-dated tfd-tinier" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[{{{link|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#{{{page|}}}}}}|TfD]]</i>]</sup> |
| − | + |
|tinier = <templatestyles src="Template:Template for discussion/sandbox/styles.css" /><sup class="noprint Inline-Template tfd tfd-dated tfd-tinier" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[{{{link}}}|TfM]]</i>]</sup> |
Old version with wrong metatemplate
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alternatives are {{r/superscript}}, templatestyles, and perhaps |
172.97.141.219 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I refactored your changes so that they don't use {{fix}} (since TfD is not cleanup), do use the
tfdclass (to enable hiding subsequent ones per the section above), and moved them to a newtinierkeyword, keeping the existingtinyas is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for fixing my code!
- Old <angle bracket idea>Also, the alternative I wrote in the meantime for visual distinctiveness in response to "Tfm is not cleanup" is using <> instead of []: The service operates in conjunction with the Sunrise Seto service to ‹TfM›Takamatsu between Tokyo and ‹TfM›Okayama. The combined 14-car train departs from Tokyo, and stops at ‹TfM›Yokohama, ‹TfM›Atami, ‹TfM›Numazu, ‹TfM›Fuji, ‹TfM›Shizuoka, ‹TfM›Hamamatsu (final evening stop), ‹TfM›Himeji (first morning stop), and arrives at ‹TfM›Okayama, where the train splits.
- 172.97.141.219 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- My expertise on Wikipedia template development is nil, but my complaint seems to be motivating this change, so let me add my perspective.
- For an ordinary user, ‹TfM› is every bit as confusing and distracting as ‹See TfM›. It's an unfamiliar annotation, and if they click on it, they land into a change discussion that pure gibberish to most them. Every one of them thinks "why the actual fuck do I need to see this"?
- I hope I'm not coming off as somebody who's mad at template developers. You folks do work that's absolutely essential to those of us who just edit content. But you're a relatively small community, and I don't understand why you can't find a way to notify each other of template change discussions without munging content read by millions of Wikipedia readers.
- — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, nevermind the <angle bracket> idea. Most readers might only know [].
a way to notify each other of template change discussions
Another new default-visible and IP-inclusive idea: We can use {{topicon}}, which teleports the notice to the top rightwithout munging content
. Unfortunately that would involve more work and article-detrimental TfDs are rare, and the related attempt at Template talk:Requested move notice#Proposed revision to make this notice less disruptive fell through. Another idea moves everything to the end matter, by usingdisplay:none|group=ed<ref>, which is deduplicated. 172.97.141.219 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for listening to my concerns. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)