Template talk:Cfr-speedy

Format of text to be pasted into WP:CFD/S
Debresser and I have reverted each other a few times on a minor point of the formatting of the the text which the template generates to be be pasted into WP:CFD/S, and it seems best to take this to the talk page.

The difference between the two versions can be seen here. There are two points to it:


 * 1) Debresser removed the emdash which separates the proposed renaming from the rationale.  I prefer retaining the emdash, because it:
 * 2) * provides a clear separator to makes the entries easier to read, and
 * 3) *makes the job easier when transferring entries from WP:CFD/S to WP:CFD/W. The rationale needs to be stripped off and the presence of the emdash means that when transferring a big block of rename, a simple regex can be used strip the rationale. When transferring dozens of entries, this saves time and improves accuracy
 * 4) The second point is more minor. Debresser prefers "Reason for rename", but I prefer "reason-for-rename". That's simply for convenience: on some (tho not all browsers), a double-click of the mouse on the hyphenated version will select all three words will make select them, reducing the number of keystrokes needed. I can't see that it has any adverse effect, and if it helps some editors without hindering others, why not do it?

Debresser's argument is that '"the idea is to have the CFD templates look alike. Not making them different with trivial "improvements"'.

However, this template is used differently to the other CFD templates, such as cfd, cfm and cfr. I don't see a problem with some minor differences which reflect the fact that cfr-speedy generates list entries rather than discussion sections, and I can see no risk of confusing editors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is a correct summary of our disagreement. I'd like only to point to Template:Cfd top, where the words "Result and reasoning." are also written in normal English, including a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence and a period at the end, and no dashes. Dashes, in general, are ugly and should only be used when English grammar calls for it. Emdashes are even uglier, and in this case there is simply no need for it. Why replace the intuitive separator, which is the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence, by some ugly diacritic?
 * In addition, a minor point, I'd like to point out that invoking WP:BRD, BrownHairedGirl forgot to recognise that her bold edit has been reverted, and that she should therefore refrain from reinstating it until she has gathered consensus. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However I'd be willing to concede the emdash, if BrownHairedGirl would concede the "Result and reasoning." Debresser (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Debresser, the emdash had been there for ages, until it was removed by you in this edit, so per BRD it should be reinstated pending a consensus.
 * As above, there is a functional reason for the dash, and the objection seems to be purely aesthetic. Cfd top has a different purpose, in a difft context, so has different functional requirements; in particular it doesn't need to be parsed by a bot which performs the requested action. It's important to note here that a full stop is a bad idea, because the bots object if the text in WP:CFD/W ends with a full stop, so   runs the risk that the full stop gets copied over to WP:CFD/W.
 * Anyway, as above the "Reason for rename" vs. "reason-for-rename" isn't as important to me as restoring the emdash, so it seems we got a compromise as suggested. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Debresser (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I hope that this edit reflects what we agreed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion. Personally, I would love it if we could keep "reason-for-rename" hyphenated. It's a small issue, but on balance It's a bit of a pain to have to highlight this small groups of three words—double clicking on it to highlight it would be much easier. I don't have a strong opinion about the dash issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Background color
As this template is not a deletion one, I propose to change its bacground color to orange somehow. Current red is pointlessly way too flashy and is easily to be confused with deletion templates. I was just freaked out at firs that this cat is going to be deleted.--Kozuch (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally changed to type "move".--Kozuch (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming or merging
This template is used for both renaming and merging. I made it say "merging" if the target exists. However, if the target is a redirect, it should say "renaming" after all. Is it possible (and worth the effort) to test for this? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible to test for the redirect case (using Module:Page), which I have, although the template syntax is a bit of a mess. P p p  e r  y   (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that is currently seen to be working at Category:Vice-Presidents of Kenya, thank you. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are a few uncommon redirects to Category redirect(such as catredirect that cannot be caught by my regex and thus will falsely appear as merge requests. P p p  e r  y   (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Pppery. It catches the automatic one that is left by moving a category page (e.g. when inexperienced users do so without discussion). – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait - category redirects are automatically produced when one moves a category? I thought moving pages usually produced hard redirects, which I didn't think to test for because hard redirects aren't used in category space. P p p  e r  y   (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, see e.g. the un-hyphenated . – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Using PAGENAME within this template
I tried to nominate a batch of categories from "…forces" to "…force" using force but the result was just "to some other name". Apparently, the safesubst in effect removes the parameter if it's not ordinary text.

Is there a way round this, please? – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that no one has seen this until now, but the reason that this didn't work is that you have to subst everything, and  would have worked (this has nothing to do with this template, but is fundamental to how the parser works). * Pppery * it has begun...  22:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)