Template talk:Cfd

message: Content of the cfd template is presently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases --Francis Schonken 11:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: :See: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Time_to_complete_the_grand_renaming.3F. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 January 1 

message: Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Cfd/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:


{{#ifeq:|{{subst:NAMESPACE}}| |}}
This category is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies.  This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}#Category:|this category's entry]] on the Categories for Discussion page.
Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
[ add entry]  




[[Category:CfD {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}]]






There is also some comments in this source code that may not be relevant anymore (I don't know first hand) so it could be removed. Thanks. +mwtoews 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That version doesn't work...try it. —Mets501 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --CBD 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved documentation

message: The text given to copy-and-paste is different to the text given on the instruction page. Specifically, it misses out Delete - the result is you may end up not specifying what kind of change you wish to make on the log page (although it should be obvious from the context). greenrd 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Delete to the copy-and-paste text

message: The link to the policy can be updated to :Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies for simplicity and to avoid unnecessary redirects. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (bypassing the redirect and correcting the capitalisation in the link's display text). --ais523 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy link 

message: 
Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies → categories for discussion policyMelsaran (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to category deletion policy to avoid the redirect. Thanks, mattbr 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piped link, grammar 

message: The categories for renaming and the category for deletion are grouped together.  When going through the list to vote, it it sometimes confusing which process is taking place for each nomination.  I noticed that the nominations for renaming have a line that states just that: Propose renaming.  I think we should added (in the corresponding place) a line that says "Propose deleting" on the deletion template.  I would have gone on and done it, but I'm not an admin.--Esprit15d 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor modification

message: Can i direct people to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose proposal 

message: Please redirect this template to , which is set-up for the new process. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose CSD. See also WT:CFD. - jc37 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the edit-protected request for speedy deletion as it seems beyond its scope, and there is a distinct lack of consensus. The template is still widely linked from policy pages for example. Please get some consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: I propose that we change the format of the template to obviate the need for substitution, which is a nasty and inefficient way of ensuring that the by-day log link remains constant.  The simplest way is simply to change the link to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#, which is the method used by .  Comments? Happy‑melon 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's possible, and essentially does the same thing, sounds good to me. (That and it makes it simpler in use by the uninitiated, and those of us who forget from time to time : ) - jc37 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: If feasible, I would prefer if, in some way, the "permalink" (with CfD date) could be read off from the template, say as a parameter, in a machine-readable fashion. (Currently that's not the case.) Links to "All current discussions" will of course become stale over time, which is not a problem for the template as such, but not favorable if one wants to save a link to the discussion, which e.g. this bot would like to do. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be easiest to check the revision in which the template was added? It's unlikely to be very far back in the history, and certainly no more than seven days . Passing the date as a parameter is possible, of course, but is extra work and a change to the syntax that everyone who uses the template will have to get used to... Happy‑melon 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a possibility (though I'd rather use the timestamp of the category entry than browse the past revisions). But in any case, it's not too stable. If the tag is removed by accident or vandalism, and then re-added, the link will be wrong. Keeping track of the link works for AfD and MfD, why not for CfD? --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that having a stable link within the wikitext on the page is preferable and more stable.  What about requiring the timestamp to be passed as a parameter then? We have two options: one, simply edit  to display an error message if no parameter is given.  Second, move the code to actually display the message to another template and convert  into a wrapper template that, when substituted, adds a properly-formatted template call to the main template.  The downside of that is that we have to move the main code to a less informative title.  I'm in favour of the former as it's cleaner and easier to make into a XfD-wide standard.  If we perpetuate the substitution method, CfD, MfD and AfD remain using a different process to TfD, IfD, RfD, SfD, PROD and CSD.  Shall I construct an example? Happy‑melon 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose that the two alternatives you mention amount to the user typing, either:  or similar, or:  (which would substitute to  or similar, with parameters). The second option seems simpler to me, but that's more a question of usability. On the technical side, I would be fine with either of the two. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use  and let the template do the work of extracting the year, month and day. Using five tildes to insert a timestamp is something that users are already familiar with, so it shouldn't be too much of a change.  Happy‑melon 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why, yes, that's fine for me as well. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have coded up an example at Template:Cfd/sandbox.  Any comments would be appreciated; try playing around in Special:ExpandTemplates with various combinations of parameters and substitution, and tell me what you think.  Happy‑melon 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good solution, seems OK for me; though I didn't do extensive tests. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Broken how? Please be more specific; we can't fix it if we don't know how it is broken. Happy‑melon 08:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The issue is not one of "more work"; as you correctly note any method of getting this template to display correctly on pages at all times requires a roughly constant amount of 'work'.  It's the other advantages of substitution, most prominently the ability to use Special:WhatLinksHere, that mean substitution should be avoided except where it is necessary.  There shouldn't be links to /AllCurrentDiscussions in a properly formatted template. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about "wrappers", I don't believe the final proposal involved a 'wrapper' such as is used at, say, AfD ( and ). Happy‑melon 08:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove need for subst 

message: Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion 

message: Could a templatey administrator replace all cases of
subst:
with
safesubst:
and remove

at Template:Cfd? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 20° 51' 45" NET 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the first. Can you explain why we should remove the ? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's redundant to the template documentation, which already includes the template. Having it there is pointless. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 231° 48' 30" NET 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code Update 

message: How do I use this template? I just want to put a tag on a category that I think is pointless. I don't how to use templates. Is there a simple list I can add a link to? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I feel like that message in the template is very one-sided.  It allows people to mass-add pages to a category while it's at CfD, but not to mass-delete them.  This doesn't seem right.  Either the "don't empty the category" language needs to be dropped, or there needs to be language in this template discouraging mass-adding to a category in the midst of a CfD. pbp 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Please do not empty the category" 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Reinstate_Type_parameter_in_CFD. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstate Type parameter 

message: Hi, I've made some changes to ,  and Module:Cfd/sandbox to make sure the monthly maintenance categories (such as  :Category:Categories for discussion from December 2019) stay the same after relisting by introducing new parameters  and . The templates can be used exactly as normally and the changes has been tested at :Category:X3. For more information see Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser#Bug_with_relisting_CfD_discussions_involving_monthly_maintenance_category which prompted these changes and if no one objects I will sync these changes in a few days. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: now implemented for the , , ,   and  template families please tell me if I missed any. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper category handling when relisting discussions 

message: Hi, the  family of templates currently use  instead of Module:Cfd like all the others. Is there a reason for this or was it just missed when doing the conversion? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , how do you feel about doing the same for ?  I can probably pull it off but lua isn't my speciality. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , sure. Will do shortly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert [[Template:Cfs]] to [[Module:Cfd]] 

message: The output is now crammed together, e.g.: . There actually appears to be soft line-breaking in this output, but it is not rendering with a visual line-break before "Administrators" in the browser.  I could probably go fix this (probably with  instead of  markup), but I don't mess with Lua much, and it's easy to break stuff if you're not steeped in Module behavior.  I tend to constrain my TE gnoming to wiki-template code. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The module has dropped a line-break somehow