Template talk:DYK conditions

June 29, 2019 Edit Request
Please remove the following line:  It only appears when a nomination is transcluded on an article talk page and this is causing problems for the bot which transcludes nominations onto talk pages. See Talk:Mount Oku rat for an example of the problem. An alternative would be to change the line so that it produces a level 3 header, but that introduces unnecessary and redundant hierarchy so removal is prefered. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that this is often transcluded manually, and even automatically by User:SD0001/DYK-helper, rather than removal, WugBot was changed to no longer add its own level 2 header. The note it added about transclusion has been added here instead. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox sync request, July 2022
Hello. Can we please sync Template:DYK conditions/sandbox (Special:Permalink/1099622243) with Template:DYK conditions? It includes a change that will put pages in the template namespace in Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * While that would work it would just make that category huge. These DYK pages are located already in sub-categories of Category:Passed DYK nominations. Wouldn't adding that category to Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates work? Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates currently contains about 3,380 pages. I'm not sure what your concern is with adding a few thousand more pages that are similarly transclusionless.
 * The categorization edit would not work due to how MediaWiki tracks categories and pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @MZMcBride why would it not work? Instead of checking 1 category, just check 2 categories. This edit made Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates immposible to see if there are invalid pages in it. Fixing one issue by creating another issue isn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Gonnym. As I've said before, you're welcome&mdash;and strongly encouraged, even&mdash;to create your own database reports. I created Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates to track templates that are intentionally lacking transclusions. This tracking category is then used with a database report that I wrote and maintain. It's pretty strange to have you telling me nearly 14 years later that this tracking category is now not meeting your needs. Make and use your own tracking categories or database reports as you see fit. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is a collobrated effort, it would seem more than likely and valid that something created 14 years might not meet the current needs. Your above comment is sending very WP:OWN vibes. Additionaly, until a few weeks ago these pages weren't in the category and yet the database report worked. You just changed it for no real reason. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gonnym: checking two categories (or more) makes the resulting SQL queries harder, I don't really understand the objection to marking these pages as transclusionless, that's the whole point of the category. Legoktm (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some pages get added to the category which shouldn't. Having a category with 100k pages in it makes it to ever find these pages. On the other hand, having groups of pages in sub-categories (like these) makes the parent category smaller and overall makes it easier to identify and fix any issues. Since the category is used only by the unused template report, and I'm one of 3 editors that actually use the report, I know what I'm talking about (note that until a few months ago no one even cared about the report). Regarding the SQL query, I'd like for you to explain specifically what you mean by "harder". The report worked up until a month ago without any issue so obviously, it can work. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 01:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 16:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Thanks for the note, P.I. Ellsworth. That's a pretty unbecoming edit from Gonnym, I hope he'll reconsider. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the category after the above conversation before the line drawn, before the ensuing dialog. I had thought your rebuttal sufficient to justify the addition. Gonnym reverted one minute after their contribution at 14:18 on 10 August 2022 (UTC) above. Since as a TE it is within their purview to edit this template, and since I am just a neutral observer, their revert may be subject to any form of dispute resolution from "third opinion" and forward. Seems doubtful that they will reconsider, so it appears that the ball's in your court. I don't really have the knowledge to give a meaningful opinion; however, I'm sure there are others who do.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. This can be reverted if it causes harm or after DYKs are finally moved out of template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see now that I responded to an old version of this talk page when I implemented this edit, which may be controversial. Thanks to for restoring text that I inadvertently deleted. I have reverted my edit pending consensus here. It has been obvious for years that DYKs should not live in template space, and there has been a discussion resulting in a decision to move them; we are just waiting for some brave soul(s) to take on the move project, which is not trivial. Ideally,  can restore the unused template report to a working state, leaving this request moot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)