Template talk:Cfd2

message: This template isn't making the little bullet before the Delete, reason. ~~~~ part (like  does, for instance). Picky, I know, but it's bugging me. 8). Recury 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing bullet 

message: I recently added a link here which, indeed, is a duplicate. That wasn't really the aim though, the idea was to have the template contain a :Category:Name so that this could easily be copy/pasted into the CFD/W page when closing nominations. The CFR2 tag has one like that, and it's pretty useful. I was wondering if people had suggestions on how to put that here. >Radiant< 07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: And the  template doesn't.  The problem is that we want to be able to use What links here to find discussions.  Otherwise we're just lost in the fog.  -- Prove It (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should always contain a link to the category somewhere. 

message: On the template where it has :Category:, before this it should have Proposed deletion. Simply south (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , CfD is also used for renames, merges, etc. Other similar templates do not use this wording. —Random832 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word(s) 

message: Can i direct people to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose proposal 

message: 
Please create a doc subpage, move the categories, and add the documentation template.  Thanks.  --Thetrick (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Change that to remove the categories and add the documentation template.  Thanks.  --Thetrick (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 19:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create documentation 

message: Please remove the colon after "Propose deleting". This would standardise this template with other CFD templates, which lack such a colon. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Propose deleting" 

message: I think this template should natively support bulk nominations, like the otherwise similar .  and  would likely be affected as well. This simply entails adding more optional numbered parameters similar to the first, e.g.  and removing the options of number parameters for other entries. An alternative would be making it more similar to , by adding the option to omit the nominator's rationale and header so that multiple  templates can be stacked atop each other; this approach fits better with  and . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. If you are unable to edit the sandbox page, or if editing templates is unfamiliar to you, ping me here, and I will take another look. Is there a discussion somewhere that shows that this idea is supported by more than one person? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend to bulk nominations 

message: Add 
per User talk:Alexis Jazz/Factotum#BCL and some potentially bad news, so Factotum will work on CfD. This should also be done to the various other templates for creating CfD nominations. Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Qwerfjkl I don't really userstand the problem this is solving. Can you explain if this benefits anyone other than the ~15 users using the userscript. I fail to see why a "reply tool" needs a blank span on a cfd template, but leaving that aside the idea of adding this doesn't seem beneficial since this is adding userscript components to a commonly used template and userscript should realistically be able to operate on their own to reduce maintenance for people who don't understand each specific script. Terasail[✉️] 13:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Terasail, to compensate for CfD's strange formatting; @Alexis Jazz can probably explain it better. I don't see any harm it does; it probably won't affect most users. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Not done: I am declining for now. This does not seem like a change that will improve the Cfd2 template. The  template would need to be template protected since it could influence this template and it seems that the complications that can arise from adding this template outweigh the benefits to the number of users using the userscript. Also adding blank spans to each nomination on the cfd page could have unintended consequences. Terasail[✉️] 16:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Terasail,Wouldn't bother me. Probably a good idea if it gets deployed on Wikipedia Signpost anyway.Like..?In part a chicken and egg problem.Not likely.FCL is best described like :mw:Extension:InputBox 2.0. Factotum doesn't include much project-specific logic.Cfd2 is broken because nobody wants to fix #Remove leading colons. Factotum's behavior can be customized per-page using FCL so it can work properly in weirdly structured discussions like votes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see it so much as a chicken and egg situation since the tool is a reply tool and not specifically a CSD tool of any kind. I am not convinced that this can't be fixed in the code rather than this template (Although I haven't looked at the userscript). The whole idea of adding userscript specific parts to templates isn't something I can easily get behind but I will reopen the request incase others have perspective I don't. Terasail[✉️] 23:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: as noted above the primary desired benefit is only to someone's personal userscript, so it doesn't appear to be a net-benefit to everyone else using this template, and adds technical debt to it. What now? Assume you are now at step 3 of WP:BRD and establish a consensus for the change if desired. As this is a widely used template, including by many other tools, ensure that such a discussion is well advertised and hopefully well attended. — xaosflux Talk 10:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Xaosflux, would it help if Factotum became a gadget and users who don't have the gadget enabled get a &withgadget=Factotum link? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If usage becomes quite popular it could become a gadget - however that doesn't mean that everything else needs to adjust to support a gadget. For example, Twinkle is a gadget that integrates with tons of templates but I don't see us squeezing in special twinkle-specific subtemplates in to many other templates just to benefit Twinkle. To propose a new gadget, see Wikipedia:Gadget#Proposals. — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 September 2022