Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] This template is obtrusive
There is no need for this template to contain any text in order to perform its function, and the text that it contains makes the per-day pages a lot longer and cluttered with extraneous junk that is completely unnecessary. I've therefore removed the text from this template, leaving just the categories. Uncle G 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- This template needs to be fixed somehow; it screws up the page breaks, using too much of one, I think. Ryūlóng 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bot
This template should be removed by bot automatically, not something closers of AfDs are required to do. Closing AfDs is backlogged enough... there's no need to add more tedius steps (and inevitable "you forgot to do x" nags) for closers. A bot can easilly remove this from closed AfDs. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strangely enough, I'd already put in the bot proposal when I saw this... --ais523 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Capitalisation in parameter
Could {{{1}}} please be changed to {{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}? I'm requesting this change because occasionally users use lowercase when categorizing an AfD, and it would be nice if the template worked in this case too. --ais523 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed change
{{editprotected}}
I propose the template be changed to the code at User:Amarkov/REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD, which will work with the change to the afd2 template I'm also proposing to automatically remove the categories. I brought it up at WT:AFD, and there seemed to be no problems. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- An example of this working is at User:Amarkov /testingtweak. -Amarkov blahedits 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done. J Di talk 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The recent change seems to break something, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sienna_Falls. Sandstein 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted the change, as it introduced a "Expression error: Unrecognised word "expression"" in some AfD pages (don't know if all). Kusma (討論) 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested edit
This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. --W.marsh 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit to reduce uncategorized debates
{{editprotected}}
In order to reduce the incidence of uncategorized debates, I propose a change to the template. The alternate can be viewed at User:Dgies/AFDTemplate. The gist ot it is that if the category key is missing or invalid, it will produce the message:
- Note: This debate has not yet been categorized. Please select an appropriate debate category and update the code letter in the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template.
Do others agree with this change? —dgiestc 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The template used to mark the categorisation of all AfDs, but the text was removed. This seems interesting as a possible compromise. --ais523 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The proposed template looks good, although I'm wondering if we can condense the two #switch statements into one. This would mean repeating
[[Category:AfD debates
, but it depends on what everyone else wants to do. GracenotesT § 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Done Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please remove the from the lastest addition, as it is causing extra space to appear on pages using the template. --- RockMFR 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please remove the whole "please select an appropriate debate category" message. This is instruction creep. Creating AfDs is bad enough without having to think of a category. I am perfectly happy for someone to follow me around categorising the AfDs I create but I am not going to do it myself. -- RHaworth 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Please select" is a suggestion, not a mandatory step. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will also note the the population of Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted) is way down. —dgiestc 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Please select" is a suggestion, not a mandatory step. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to object to this change; I think we should go back to the way it was before. My reasoning: AfD categorization was done based on a community feeling that it wouldn't get in the way and we might as well, NOT based on the idea that it was actually important to categorize AfD debates. The current version makes it feel like this is an additional required step in making an AfD, and it shouldn't be. Mangojuicetalk 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requests for technical template stuff
Couldn't some of this be automatic? E.g. the nom mentions WP:BIO, it gets sorted as a biographical AfD. If it mentions WP:ORG, organizational AfD. It would occasionally be wrong, but usually wouldn't, and would save a lot of time in total. Also, if the template could just automatically not include itself in the category after 5 days (when the AfD closes), we could finally can the very obnoxious name for this template, and save closers time/nagging. --W.marsh 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- While a lot of it is obvious, the template itself couldn't do that. We would need a bot. Also, date-based categorization would not be good because it can't tell if a debate is still open but overdue. Even if we wanted date-based categorization, it would probably require the sort of string processing provided by StringFunctions, which are not installed on Wikipedia, I assume for performance reasons. —dgiestc 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed none of this would be possible using templates alone; a bot would be needed. The time-based thing could certainly be done by a bot, but I don't think categorizing could – or at least, it wouldn't make sense to do so; far better to have every user take a moment to categorize their nomination than to have a bot do some and not others and end up with miscategorizations and the like. If a user cares enough about the fate of a non-speedyable, non-proddable article to try and get it deleted, they should be able to take a few seconds to decide what kind of article it is. I think the name of the template is obnoxious too, but while delegating the task of removing it to a bot would remove the need to instruct people to remove it, it would probably just get renamed to "Template:DO NOT REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE UNTIL THE AfD IS CLOSED" to stop people removing it early – Qxz 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- After 6 days, few afds are open... there's no way to have the template check to see if the "afd closed" templates are present? or to have the two templates work together? Templates should be as automated as possible... if there's any human action required for what could be an automated task with no quality lost, we need to work harder on the template so people can do human tasks rather than robotic ones. Saying "Well it's only a few seconds of robotic work" is not helpful... this stuff tends to pile up if left unchecked. --W.marsh 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no way to make this template check for the presence of a different template in some page both are transcluded onto. The only solution I can see would be to merge this template and the {{afd top}} template into a single one but that would be a bit of work and require reeducating everyone performing AfD closures. —dgiestc 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's Bot523 (tasks • edits • actions log • block log) , which I'm running every Monday at the moment. (By the way, time-based decategorisation is a bad idea; User:ais523/UnclosedAfDs is a list of AfDs that were categorised using this template but not closed for over a week; many are relisted debates, and some are malformed (decatting the relisted debates would reduce the number of people who would come across them, and decatting the malformed debates would make them hard to locate).) --ais523 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no way to make this template check for the presence of a different template in some page both are transcluded onto. The only solution I can see would be to merge this template and the {{afd top}} template into a single one but that would be a bit of work and require reeducating everyone performing AfD closures. —dgiestc 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)