Template talk:Cfd main page banner

Category

This should probably have a category or two, but offhand, I don't know what. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it's all that useful to make a category actually; I can't imagine anyone looking in Category:Pages with a related category for deletion or something. Radiant_>|< 08:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the cleanup needs some method of finding the articles to remove this template.

    --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What I meant was, are templates supposed to be categorized somehow? Maurreen (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. No, not really, since adding the template to a category will also add all articles containing the template to the same category. However, there's Wikipedia:Template messages, and it may be useful to list it there. Radiant_>|< 16:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, I forgot about how templates work. I'll add it to Wikipedia:Template messages. Maurreen (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've given this template the same layout as other talk page templates (WP:TS). Also, it now takes a parameter to indicate which category it actually is, e.g. {{cfd-article|Your category name here}}. Finally, I've made a shortcut, maybe {{cfda}} to redirect here. Feel free to change any or all of what I just said, it's just suggestions. Radiant_>|< 08:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good changes, thanks. Maurreen (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Template messages -- need help, please

I added this to Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance. But it now says there, "This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance," and I have no idea why. Maurreen (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I do :) read the source of the template, you'll see. The trick is simple - subst it into the maintenance page, and remove the talkpage bit. Radiant_>|< 22:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Two argument form

Wondering if its a good idea to have a two argument form of this template so merges and renamings could list the intended target? --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, although that will be apparent at the CfD page itself. However, need another argument for the date to direct them to the correct day page, and assist in finding these templates to cleanup afterward. There are currently hundreds (thousands?) from ancient debates.

--William Allen Simpson 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

After the rename, renamed this template and its category to match, as it seems to be put on Talk and other Categories more often than articles.

--William Allen Simpson 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation

It's now at Template:Cfdnotice/doc. +mwtoews 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Link in template?

Is there a way that this template can be used to link properly to a mass CfD? As it is now, if a CfD is part of a group, the "discussion" link will point to a section that probably doesn't exist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Second parameter. Also, when I redesigned the template using parser functions, it most definitely was not intended to be subst'd, so I have no idea what prompted such a silly mistake. Obviously, the documentation needs work!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd-notify which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cfx main page banner, which seems to be ticking most of the suggested boxes. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Template:Cfdnotice → ?
• Template:Cfrnotice → ?
• Template:Cfmnotice → ?

– Now that Template:Cfd-notify has been renamed Template:Cfd notice per the result of Template talk:Afd notice#Requested move 21 April 2020, the fact that these templates have such similar names (same name but without a space) can be seen as confusing/problematic. However, I'm not sure what to rename these templates given their purpose, which is to tag the articles that would normally be used in the respective {{Cat main}} template on each category (usually, the article is eponymous with the category.) Either way, after these templates are renamed, their leftover redirects should be retargeted to Template:Cfd notice for conformity (once their incoming links in documentation pages and instruction pages have been corrected, of course.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, Netoholic, Þjarkur, QEDK, Bsherr, Pppery, Amorymeltzer, and CapnZapp: Pinging participants in the previous discussion liked above. Also, pinging SMcCandlish, who has been involved in the creation of the latter two templates. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Good thinking. How about adding "-main" to all of them? --Bsherr (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Why? What is "main" about them, and why would we add a useless hyphen? Tracking template renames over several years, I see that we've actually been removing unnecessary hyphens from hundreds if not thousands of templates, let's not try to swim up the waterfall.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Their purpose is to be put on the main page (as in Template:Cat main) in relation to a category. I put the hyphen because, to me, some punctuation was warranted, but I do acknowledge perhaps it is better without it. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• These are all talk page banner templates. So, a naming pattern like "Cfx banner" should work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Template:Cfx notice banner. It is still necessary to qualify these as alternative notices and distinguish them clearly from Template:Cfd itself, which is also a banner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to include something in the title that differentiates that these notices relate to the main page of a category? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• These three are basically the same template. Suggest Template:CfD main article banner. It's cumbersome but descriptive and the current titles will remain as redirects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this in principle, assuming you propose the same for Cfr and Cfm. I'd also prefer lowercase d/r/m, but uppercase wouldn't be a dealbreaker (and one should redirect to the other). So, the three would be moved to Template:Cfd main article banner, Template:Cfr main article banner, and Template:Cfm main article banner (with the d/r/m perhaps being capitalized). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Template:CfD main article notice etc. That seems the clearest description of the templates' purpose. I'm not thrilled about "banner" because that term is normally used for permanent banners, rather than these temporary notices of discussions. But I'd accept @MSGJ's suggestion of Template:CfD main article banner etc as the least worst of the other options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  I support this. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  The page is not always an article. For example, it can be a Wikipedia or Help page. If you don't like plain "main", would you prefer "main page"? --Bsherr (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl and William Allen Simpson: Botched the alert. Sorry. --Bsherr (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Mdaniels5757: Sorry, you too. Gosh, must be tired. --Bsherr (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Bsherr, yes "main page" would be okayish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Support Template:XfD main article notice and Template:XfD user notify. I defer to BrownHairedGirl, who I'm surprised and pleased is still around after all these years! That AfD talk page decision was meager, and then applied across the board to everybody else. It probably should have been posted as RFC for better visibility. But sauce for the gander. Back in the day, the "notice" was on the Article page, and the "notify" was on a user Talk page. Easy to remember, alphabetized, documented in pairs. Making long complex names just means there will be lots of short redirects. But at least we should make them both consistent with each other.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Sentiment was leaning against moves in these two 2016 discussions. I'm not sure what's changed in four years other than the participants in the discussions. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support a move that makes the name less like Template:Cfd notice. The move should include after-move clean up and then redirecting these targets to Template:Cfd notice.--Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to Cfdnotice

Redirects to Cfdnotice

• Template:Cfd-article
  • at 04:58, 3 July 2006 William Allen Simpson moved page Template:Cfd-article to Template:Cfdnotice (match Tfdnotice, more intuitive name)
• Template:Cfd-notice
  • at 08:10, 2 December 2007 Black Falcon moved page Template:Cfd-notice to Template:Cfd-notify (per talk page discussion)
• Template:CFD-notice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish
• Template:CfD-notice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish
• Template:CfD notice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish
• Template:CFD notice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish
• Template:CfDnotice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish
• Template:CFDnotice created 30 January 2020 by SMcCandlish

— wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Links to Cfdnotice

What was the point of this 16 July 2006 edit by William Allen Simpson to make the link [[Template:Cfdnotice|.]] Who's gonna notice that a period (full stop) character is a link. Doesn't the comment <!-- Generated by Template:Cfdnotice --> cover that. Of course, if this is re-targeted after moving that means the old comments won't be pointing to the correct template any more.

Template:Deletion tools and Template:Wikipedia templates sidebar each include a link to {{cfdnotice}} which is responsible for it being linked from over 300 user pages.

It's linked from 180 talk pages.

It's also linked from 93 Wikipedia talk pagges, 83 user talk pages and 59 category talk pages so it's not just a "main article talk" notice. Linked from 809 pages in all. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Linking the dot was the kind of thing we used to do so the Talk pages showed up in What Links Here, as we only put the article/category page in the Xfd category. That was part of a (then new) parser functions edit. Also, I'd written the wiki PHP (the only PHP I've written in my life) for the date function that we then used for automating Cfd and Tfd 7 day rollovers. Before that, we rolled them every day by hand. As you note, much has changed in 14 years.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we didn't distinguish between category and template Talk pages. They are all "main" Talk, with the others as "user" Talk. I don't remember how the article/category/template Talk form was merged with the user Talk form. Once upon a time, we distinguished them, and they had slightly different text; the former to record the result, the latter to invite folks to comment.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, you'll notice the earlier talk here about subst'ing. Originally, they were not subst'd. We expected hundreds, not millions. So I'm not sure why there are 809 extant instances to worry about. Failure to subst?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.