Template talk:Rfd2

message:  currently produces:
====Foo====
* → :Bar  (links · history · stats)</span>     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:#Foo closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:#Foo closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Foo|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:#Foo closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 
Reasons.Whereas  currently produces the proposed:
====Foo====

Reasons.which is functiionally identical. Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Changes applied affecting the issues raised since the discussion started.
*I have moved  to  for continuity since it's a sub template, and created  as a redirect to it for a user friendly raw appearence.
*I've implemented the use of  instead of  to store the submission date/time argument, again, for a more user friendly raw appearence. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Change log

message: Since there's been no discussion or further input for 10 days, I think we can consider wrapping this up. Clearly there is majority support for the change, but there is a technical concern that should be addressed:
* Older transclusions should not be affected by future changes to the template.
** I suggest simply adding to the instructions for closing submissions, that the editor should also substitute instances of , should suffice. If it is considered too much to ask (sarcasm), we can always contract a bot to do it.
The only other oppositions raised have been countered. However, there has not been any explicit agreement between the parties involved. So a final decision will require a review of the discussion, considering what seems most reasonable baring all that's been said in mind.
*
* It is my personal opinion that the arguments against are without merit, and I continue to consider the proposed changes as potentially beneficial. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * Interesting that you have completely neglected the fact that it is this proposal that was "countered" by a simple procedure that negates the need for this change, and I might add that nobody has actually disagreed that the proposal to copy and paste new code over the old code, which means that the old code does not need to be altered, merely deleted and pasted over, meets the needs of the editor who first saw it to be a herculean task... only you.  Only you continue as if there is still a need for this proposal to go through, and there is no need for it.  Minor changes you want to make as discussed in the next section aside, the function of this template should not be tampered with, and you should know better than to ignore the obvious truth of this!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  12:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrapping up

message: I've been trying to write some RfD scripts today and found that this template create two instances of . I don't think this is appropriate? HTML 4.01 and HTML 5 both says this is officially wrong (but obviously doesn't break things until a user tries to write a script to parse them). Deryck C. 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The s will be removed shortly, but as a contentious RfC (above) is ongoing that involves those edits (which may be made in one of two proposed ways), I'd ask that you please wait for the outcome; it'll be only a matter of days. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the set in the section header can be removed with no issues, so done. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

text: There's nothing to worry about from my end. What a fascinating discussion above though, I'm disappointed that I missed it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't missed it; if you have anything to add, please do. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: span id again

message: Per a request at WT:RFD, can this template be modified to include a link to the redirect's talk page?
 the template is protected so I can't do it, and I'm not sure I could see my way through the template code anyway. Where do you think a talk link would be most useful? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd do it if I knew how to, but the code seems too complex for me, and I'm too afraid to try and figure it out. I think it should be added somewhere in the "(links · history · stats)" area, but I don't care what order it's in. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ping  as he's done some work on this template in the past. -- Tavix (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a talk link to . For an example, see the test cases. Does that look ok? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beat me to it. Looks perfect to me. I'd say sync it. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it looks fine to me as well. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a talk link to the redirect talk page

message: Currently, the closure links don't display when viewing the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page, as they depend on the FULLPAGENAME magic word.
This is no longer necessary due to a new lua module that returns the page it is used on, even when transcluded. I have coded a proposed update in the sandbox that allows the closure links to work when transcluded, and does not need updating after a relist. Thoughts about this change?
Pinging , who introduced the "@subpage" link feature a while ago. Pppery 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure @subpage not needed

message: This template creates new subsubsections (====) instead of sections (==). On a page with multiple Rfd entries, they kind of run together. I tried replacing ==== with == on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2 to see. Maybe I shouldn't have. (See if it gets put back?) Then I realized that the ==== weren't a tradition, they were the doing of {subst:rfd2|...}, so every new page and every new entry will have ==== unless someone adjusts this template. What is the norm? (On talk pages, it's new sections.) - A876 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To make the section hierarchy right on the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page.  ery (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Why subsubsections?

message: Please wrap the delete link in , because it produces an error for non-admins.  ery (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:    ery (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2018 

message: As I mentioned in the edit summary of the undo I performed which resulted in reverting WP:LINT errors that were present in the template, I am starting this discussion to resolve this. For some reason, this series of edits on Template:Rfd2 caused formatting issues with the way the phrase "(@subpage)" appears on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (This text will only appear on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and not the daily subpage since on the daily subpage, the text is replaced with closure links.) Around the transclusion of the December 11, 2018 subpage on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, I noticed that something was odd/different about the formatting of the "(@subpage)" text; for some reason, the text went from appearing as (@subpage) to appearing as '(@subpage)'. So, I looked at Template:Rfd2 and noticed that Jonesey95 had performed tre aforementioned series of edits to fix lint coding issues. So, I tested transcluding  after undoing the edits, and the issue with (@subpage) was reverted and appeared as (@subpage). Then, I restored the edits to fix the lint coding errors, and once again, (@subpage) appeared as '(@subpage)'. I looked the template and the edits, and cannot figure out where the two additional commas are appearing in the code, causing the italics to turn into bolding and adding an additional comma to both sides. So ... is there any way to fix the lint errors without breaking the code itself? Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Once this discussion is resolved, I will fix all of the problems that I caused with formatting over the last four days or so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: That’s the only issue I saw. I would have fixed it myself if I could have figured what was causing it, but I couldn’t figure it out. Hope this works since I know fixing the linter errors is an ongoing task project-wide. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this template is a complex little hairball. I believe that I have fixed it in the sandbox, and I have substed the sandbox version onto today's log page. Do the log page entry and the full RFD page entry look right to you? My fake nomination is called "foo". Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see, the substitution that you created has the (@subpage) text appear as (@subpage) on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and I do not see any additional formatting issues on either the aforementioned page or the subpage. If that version also fixes the linter issues, I’d say it’s ready to go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks again for your patience. Reverting was the right thing to do, since my intention was to preserve the formatting while fixing the Linter errors, and I clearly failed to do so. I will tidy up the four or five days of pages that I broke. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that was it? I suspected that the problematic commas were elsewhere. Dang, mind blown. Thanks for the fix! Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that I had moved a misnested  (italic formatting, two of ') so that it ended up right next to the italic formatting for "@subpage". That resulted in four ' in a row, which renders as bold (three ') plus an extra '. Sneaky, and it happens only on the main page, not on the daily log page or in the sandboxes where I was doing all of my testing. Extra sneaky. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linter error fixes and (@subpage) 

message: The above edit-requested change resulted in the template starting to produce Linter errors. I attempted to fix the problems on December 11, and the Linter errors went away in subsequent days' log pages, but my changes have been reverted with an explanation that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was broken in how it renders the "@subpage" text. 
I see that the entries prior to my edits show "[ Closure: (@subpage) ] and the entries after my edits show "[ Closure: '(@subpage)' ]". If that is the only problem, I believe that inserting a self-closed nowiki tag after "Closure: " may fix the code that existed pre-revert. I have put that code in the sandbox and will test it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s the only issue I saw. I would have fixed it myself if I could have figured what was causing it, but I couldn’t figure it out. Hope this works since I know fixing the linter errors is an ongoing task project-wide. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this template is a complex little hairball. I believe that I have fixed it in the sandbox, and I have substed the sandbox version onto today's log page. Do the log page entry and the full RFD page entry look right to you? My fake nomination is called "foo". Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see, the substitution that you created has the (@subpage) text appear as (@subpage) on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and I do not see any additional formatting issues on either the aforementioned page or the subpage. If that version also fixes the linter issues, I’d say it’s ready to go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks again for your patience. Reverting was the right thing to do, since my intention was to preserve the formatting while fixing the Linter errors, and I clearly failed to do so. I will tidy up the four or five days of pages that I broke. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that was it? I suspected that the problematic commas were elsewhere. Dang, mind blown. Thanks for the fix! Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that I had moved a misnested  (italic formatting, two of ') so that it ended up right next to the italic formatting for "@subpage". That resulted in four ' in a row, which renders as bold (three ') plus an extra '. Sneaky, and it happens only on the main page, not on the daily log page or in the sandboxes where I was doing all of my testing. Extra sneaky. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing [[Special:LintErrors|Linter]] errors 

message: Is there any reason to keep this template protected? It was indefinitely protected in 2014 as "highly visible", but that doesn't seem relevant now: the template is not used directly, but it gets substituted in new RfD nominations, of which there aren't usually more than a dozen or so a day. If someone cocks up something with the template, this will only affect any new rfd nominations made until the edit is reverted, and reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia won't be affected at all. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at the code for this monster? I am an experienced template editor, and I want to run away screaming. See above for an example of a tiny change that bollixed up everything, after which I had to go through multiple pages of RFDs and clean up after myself. I recommend keeping protection in place; there is no need for inexperienced editors to make changes to this template, and the sandbox and testcases pages are always available to people looking to improve things. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. But if it weren't protected, I think I might have been tempted to insert a couple if html-commented out newlines to make it a bit more readable. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make your changes in the sandbox. I'm all for making it more readable. It's a hairball. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Please copy the contents of the sandbox, which adds an option to close a RFD as "dab", to the main template page. JsfasdF252 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point. The template text is exactly the same, it just changes the edit summary (and a 'dab' close is technically a keep I'd think, although I'm not active at RfD). I think this should go for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 

message: Resolved
Colons in redirect names screw with the pageviews link in RfD nominations (example diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This was down to a recent change to , and it appears to have already been fixed: see Template_talk:Page-multi#Broken. – Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug report 

message: Redirects beginning and ending with an equals sign are handled improperly by this template. I got:
=====U=====
* → :Ustaše  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ] 
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit.
Even with the template , the template is generated without the auxiliary links about the redirect:
====U====
* → :Ustaše       [ Closure:  ] 
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit.
What was expected is:
====U====
* → :Ustaše  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ] 
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Further tests revealed that all titles with two or more equals signs cause this problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equals sign in titles 

message: * → :Ustaše  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ] 
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, adipscing integer et elit.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Further tests revealed that all titles with two or more equals signs cause this problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: {{=}}U{{=}}

message: * → :Mathematical fallacy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 1=2

message: Handle equals sign in parameters. Fix Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Title beginning and ending with an equals sign. Patch provided in the sandbox. Xiplus (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for catching this; it was something I'd overlooked when switching from  to the custom .  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2022 

message: So, as I've mentioned in WT:DELPRO#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues, now that I and some others are transcluding RfDs in the deletion sorting pages, the closure links still appear and are broken in those pages. So, I'm asking that the hardcoded check that is currently used that hides the links if the page name is exactly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion be changed so the links don't appear when the RfDs are transcluded anywhere outside RfD either. Alternatively, 's proposal in #Closure @subpage not needed would also solve the problem but I'm not sure if the module they're referring to exists anywhere. Nickps (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted that module because the exact same code already existed independently as Module:TEMPLATENAME. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks. I have now provided code in the sandbox that uses that module. Nickps (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed @subpage from the sandbox. However, if that is considered too much of a change, please consider only applying the  instead of denying the whole thing. Nickps (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good idea. If I am not mistaken, it has been proposed here since 2017 without objection, and the 2015 change to introduce "@subpage" was not the result of any discussion, but rather done because the links weren't working and the solution of using  wasn't obvious. (That module isn't particularly easy to find, as I can attest from having inartfully reproduced it in a sandbox a few weeks ago.) SilverLocust 💬 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah! I did the exact same thing in 2017, and IIRC only discovered that module when in mid 2018 I did a review of all pages in the module namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: . SilverLocust 💬 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Well ... it's been a fun 7 years, folks. We got this now. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Related note, hope Jackmcbarn's doing all right. That editor ... created some real technical gems that it seems are still hiding in places on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2024