Template talk:Old TfD

Design principles

 * (This was thoroughly discussed at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion at the time.)

When I designed this template, I examined all the wildly variant previous examples. Since TfD now uses daily page listings similar to CfD, and many of the folks working on TfD are also familiar with CfD, I choose the name to be similar to cfdend and the functionality to be identical.

Most importantly, I rejected the endless thrashing of oldafd and oldafdfull. There is not only no desire to be similar, but the names (and parameters) are significantly different and readily apparent.

Like cfdend, this template automatically bolds the result parameter, and defaults to Keep.

Like cfdend, this template does not have a votepage parameter, as there are no per template vote pages. The daily discussion page is automatically generated from the date.

Like cfdend, the namespace ("Template") is automatically added, unless there is an umbrella section name added as the first positional parameter. That parameter is always used verbatim.

Like cfdend, this template is not intended to be subst'd.

Therefore, any changes to parameters must result in a wholely renamed template. This was based on bad experience with a redirect of tfd-keep to tfd-kept, and bad experience with subst'd oldtfd. They had different parameters, breaking all the pages, and requiring a months long cleanup process.

Please note that has been rejected and deleted.

For posterity,
 * --William Allen Simpson 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion vs. Deletion
Since the logs are being moved from "Templates for deletion" to "Templates for discussion", I added an "ifexist" statement to check to see if it's an old or new log page. This should work for both. Plastikspork (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Change  to , please. --Bsherr (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dates
The documentation of this template says to use the yyyy-M-dd format, as do the discussion pages. The discussion pages use the same format. There is a problem though when the date is in the beginning of the month. The discussion pages use yyyy-M-d without a zero. E.g. Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011 October 7, not Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_07. Likewise results in a redlink, while  works. How should we be about this? Adapt the documentation, adapt the template, or perhaps do nothing?

Debresser (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the documentation. Basically, it will work with any format understood by date, but YYYY M DD is not one of them. However, "YYYY-MM-DD" does work, along with about fifty other formats.  Your example is just not one of them for some reason, and the only reason why the second one works is that upon failure, it just returns the input.  Sounds like something that could be added to the MediWikia software.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  16:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be discouraging use of leading zeros in day numbers (except ISO style) so I'm not too worried about this. (Some people believe that "official" writing should use leading zeros, and numbers should be repeated in digits - the aetiology is clear, but the resulting prose isn't.) It could be fixed, though if we wanted to, I'm just not sure it's worth it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I changed the docs to use the eighth of the month instead of "today". That makes the lack of leading 0 explict (albeit implicitly explicit). Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

ambiguity over date parameter
This template currently produces wording like
 * This template was considered for deletion on 2010 April 29‎. The result of the discussion was "Keep".

I think phrasing "considered for deletion on" is poor. It sounds like the consideration only happened on one day. In reality (and judging by the template name) it's just the day the discussion ended. I intend to reword the template to read
 * This template was considered for deletion. The result of the discussion ending on 2010 April 29‎ was "Keep".

or something similar. Also the documentation should make it more clear that the data parameter is for the end of the discussion. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
Template:Tfd end → Template:Old TfD – The current name is somewhat odd since the definition of "end" is a bit ambiguous. I am suggesting the name Old TfD due to similar naming conventions with Old AfD, Old RfD, and Old MfD. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 23:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Steel1943  (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved as requested. Dekimasu よ! 23:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Add a parameter to account for shared talk pages?
Recently, cite press release was nominated to be merged with cite news. Incidentally, both of these templates have a shared talk page. I added this template to that page, but the wording is confusing in this situation. By default, it refers to "This [template/category]", based on the assumption that this template would only be placed on the associated singular talk page of the page in question.

I realize this is an extreme edge case, but perhaps either this template (or more appropriately a new version of Old AfD multi that applies to templates, since these shared talk pages will likely result in multiple xfd discussions/debates ) can be changed to support changing the wording "This template" into an optional parameter that would explicitly specify the name of the template that was discussed.

I.e., it would optionally say "[Name of template]" based on a new, optional parameter instead of "This template". E.g., "Template:Cite press release was considered for..." instead of "This template was considered for..." at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Does this sound like something that would be useful and worth the effort? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and manually created a tmbox with the updated wording on the shared talk page. You can see the various versions I created in this diff. Those examples:

Old TfD: Old AfD multi v1: Old AfD multi v2: Tmbox v1: Tmbox v2:
 * I imagine it would be preferable to handle this in a new version of Old TfD or Old AfD multi rather than manually creating it with tmbox, right? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 16:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 May 2020
WP:TfD is also used for modules. Example: Module talk:String. Please apply Special:Diff/957438398/957439159 to change wording to say "This module" when in "Module talk" namespace. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And thank you for creating the testcases page, too. --Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
The former template which is now a redirect Template:Tfdend took the first unnamed parameter as the section heading. When it passes this to Old TfD, it is also used as the nominated page name, e.g..

I suggest that Tfdend should be edited to pass parameter "1" with the parameter name "discuss". I'd do it myself but I don't know how. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Tfdend is a semi-protected page, meaning this edit request will sit in the semi-protected edit request backlog rather than the templated-protected backlog even if you use . I'm closing this simply because you can technically edit it yourself as it's a semi-protected article – I don't know what the correct channels are to get changed what you want to get changed, but a semi-protected edit request to that redirect wouldn't be it. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Alignment
Can we change the alignment of the text to LEFT for consistency with other talk page templates? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)