Template talk:Redirect for discussion/Archive 1

Target Rfd subsection?
It would be helpful if "its entry on the Redirects for Deletion page" linked directly to the section in question, rather than the whole long RfD page, at the top. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Preload
Please change the "edit today's RFD" link from this:

to this:

Thanks. --- RockMFR 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks
sudo

Change the message's class attribute to, to hide the external link icon on what is actually an internal link. Thanks – Gurch 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

✅ Adambro 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the template
It says "DO NOT SUBST THIS" for what reason? So a default summary comes, which is NOT "content was: ...." that only comes then there is pure nonsense pages, or something like that. Not if there is a real discussion, normally it's just "Deleted per WP:RFD/Month X 20XX", I will tell you how this is a problem.

The template links to the current date, NOT the main redirect for deletion page, instead the log page of today. This is a problem because it can be misleading.

Can someone please fix it? TheBlazikenMaster 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Editprotected requests are for immediate changes that someone wants. I'm not sure how to solve your problem, but it seems discussion on this page, and perhaps on WP:RFD would be more appropriate before using an editprotected tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. I brought it to attention on the talk page there. TheBlazikenMaster 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you contacted Zondor? According to the logs, that is the template author. Perhaps Centrx &mdash; the editor who protected the template &mdash; could chime in as well... --Aarktica 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be the use? Neither of them are in any administrator category, so what could they do? TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. I was under the impression that special privileges were required to protect pages. --Aarktica 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe Centrx used to be an admin, but no longer is, could that be a possibility? Well, I will probably ask that person myself. TheBlazikenMaster 20:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the link doesn't work as currently specified. I have removed it until the issue is resolved as we shouldn't have broken links. Personally, as a closer, I prefer having the template not-subst'd as it easier to remove when closing keeps. However, that's minor and we should make it easier on editors. We can restore the link and start subst'ing the template if people find the link useful. Perhaps a template expert would have a alternative solution? -- JLaTondre 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The link isn't actually broken, it's misleading. Anyway thanks. It's better now. Well, this is better solution than what I had in mind, thanks. But good point, we should get an expert. How about link like this: click here ?TheBlazikenMaster 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this discussion is over a week old, but a few points for clarity: --MZMcBride 07:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Only admins can protect pages.
 * 2) User:Centrx is an admin.
 * 3) Admins are necessarily in a specific category or have a specific icon on their user pages. The only surefire way to know if a user is an admin is to take a trip to Special:Listusers/sysop.

Better aesthetic
I think it would be better if you put « » ﻿instead of « »--Iradigalesc 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this template say the opposite of AFD and CFD?
You cannot use those without getting message "YOU MUST STUB THIS", I don't get why this one is different. There is a false reason of why this one shouldn't be subst'd. On deletion log I have rarely seen "Content was:", most of the times I have seen "Deleted via RFD, see: Redirects for deletion/log/that particular day", so why does this say no subst?

It makes no sense at all. TheBlazikenMaster 23:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RFD for Deletion?
editprotected Shouldn't this template be changed from Deletion to Discussion, as the Wikipedia name also changed? This issue confuses users as to the nature of the discussion of the redirect, especially if some discussion are merely to reach consensus on re-targeting. - Mtmelendez (Talk 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. The category name remains Category:Redirects for deletion and something can't be "considered for discussion." --MZMcBride 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I beg to differ. Redirects are actually considered for discussion, as its name implies, since nominations are not always directly for deletion. Sometimes a redirect is nominated because consensus on an adequate retarget is necessary. Additionally, categories are considered for discussion, including user categories.


 * I only suggest changing the template's wording, not its links or the categories it affects. I just prefer consistency: if the Wikipedia project's name is For Discussion, then its main template which directs all users to it should also have that name. What do you think? - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes redirects change into a disambiguation pages. Don't forget that. TheBlazikenMaster 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. - Mtmelendez (Talk 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if the template is changed to say "This redirect page is being considered for discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy," it will violate both the rules of English grammar and it will not make any sense. It's referring to Wikipedia's deletion policy while simultaneously saying that the redirect is up for discussion; this can only serve to confuse a reader, especially a non-editor. --MZMcBride 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disabling the editprotected tag, since this change is clearly still under discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: I'm suggesting the following change to the template:

I admit that the change may be a bit bold when compared to the traditional templates for XFDs. But I think it presents a clearer picture to the reader, especially to newcomers, as to the nature of Redirects for discussion. Feel free to add or change its wording as you like, I'm just trying to throw an idea into this discussion. - Mtmelendez (Talk 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave a note on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion requesting comment, and if there's no objection, I'll make the change. However, it is "their" template, so they should have input into a large change like this one. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to this change. This format and wording is purposely consistent with the other templates in this series. The current text is simple and grammatically correct and conveys a meaning without being overbearing or confusing, plus to delete or not to delete is the most common outcome here. --After Midnight 0001 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. I just updated this template without realizing a comment had been left here. My apologies; I just thought that anyone would have left a comment on WT:RFD. Discussion should continue. Personally, I think the newer message is more accurate, and in my view, more accuracy is always better. Also, there seems to be a valid point that the page is no longer titled "Redirects for deletion" for presumably the same reasons that this template now lists: i.e., deletion is not the only outcome. I'd be happy to change the template back if consensus dictates that, but for right now, it should remain. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It happens. - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another suggestion: The use and purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community. The outcome of this discussion may result in its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The situations presented is that the Redirects for discussion is not exclusively used to Delete or Keep, but rather to sort out common problems with redirects (including retargets or disambiguation pages). - Mtmelendez (Talk 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Template documentation
Hi, I've started template documentation found at Template:Rfd/doc (see WP:DOC for details). Please update the template source to the following:

My only changes were to replace everything after. Thanks. + m t  18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No umbrella nomination parameter
Other XfD templates allow for umbrella nominations, this one might want to do the same. - LA (T) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got code? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got code. - LA (T) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reduced the protection as the template has less than 50 transclusions. Indefinite semi-protection is seems sufficient. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Update needed
Please do not subst this template. Using {&#123;rfd&#125;} rather than {&#123;subst:rfd&#125;} provides a convenient default reason summary for the deleting administrator, e.g.:
 * "Content was: "{&#123;rfd&#125;}#REDIRECT [&#91;Targetpage]]". |undefined

This contradicts recent discussions we had that the relevant deletion discussion must always be linked in the deletion summary. For rfds, the day log should be linked. So I intend to remove all this, that the template is substed or not isn't important. Cenarium Talk  22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the text, then replaced it with Please do not subst this template, it is needed for tracking purposes. since sometimes the transclusions of  are checked to track redirects whose discussion is closed, but still containing the template.  Cenarium  Talk  01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to template
Why is there a period (.) in the template that links to the template?


 * ...accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.''' Please share...

Brian Jason Drake 10:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, this link just clutters up the "What links here" page with links that are not marked as transclusions. I have removed it. Brian Jason Drake 07:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additional text
Proposed change: Add to the template. Pardon the orange color, that's a side-effect of this being on a talk page.
 * Please click on the link below to go to the page you are looking for.

Rationale: this edit removing rfd from a template under discussion because "When the discussion is resolved, we can take appropriate action. Meanwhile, no sense in confusing users," and subsequent edits to restore the template. I agree, the existing RFD template and the "1. REDIRECT blue-link destination here" text can be non-intuitive. The additional text helps users unfamiliar with how redirects work. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Announced on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think this would be beneficial. Why not? Good idea! --Taelus (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My only comment is that I would get rid of the "please" as unnecessary. We're not asking them to continue on, but it also makes it stand out more by starting with a different word than the line above it. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Amory's version. Good idea, David; this oversight needs correcting for sure. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend different wording than "the page you are looking for." Many times the redirect is up for deletion because the target is NOT the page people are looking for. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this one:


 * I thought about having it say "to go to an encyclopedia page" but this template appears in spaces other than article space. I also considered "to go to the page you may be looking for" but that seemed wishy-washy and awkward. Note that the first line in this version is also changed. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice! Although, as long as we are mincing words, I'd nix the final usage of "page" so it's not there three times. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 01:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I don't see any objection or a better proposal by 23:27 5 Dec I'll make this live. I like keeping the "pages" on the grounds that "destination page" and "discussion page" read like "compound nouns" that should not be abbreviated, but I'm open to more discussion on this.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think I can live... ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I like most of the changes you're proposing, I object to the changed wording of the first line. It sounds as though the destination page is also being discussed for deletion at RfD. I would rather retain the current wording of the first line. What's wrong with "use and purpose of this redirect"? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Objection taken into consideration. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Go here to see the change. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Author notification
Notifying interested editors of a RFD is not only a courtesy but widens input and is likely to lead to a better discussion. Sadly, such notification is made all to seldom. I suspect that one reason is that there is not a request, and a link to Template:RFDNote, when you place it as happens when you place Template:afd1. I suggest that it be added. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rfd2
Posting this here because I figured it might have a few more watchers, there's an issue over at Template:Rfd2 which meant that at the beginning of January, the stats link provided showed up as December 2011 (because the template used the previous month but the current year). I've not really got a clue what I'm doing and I did a particularly bad fix for the time being just to make it work (but doing it that way would mean this will need to be changed back on 1 February again and then on 1 January and 1 February ever year... - not ideal). If someone could fix it properly, that would be great! Mhiji 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RFD Note
The addition to the template would be much improved if it automatically inserted all the parameters as, for example, the Prod template does. Can this be added, please? Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Substitution
I'd like to suggest changing this template from transclude-only to subst-only. Nominating redirects for discussion by adding Rfd results in redirects cluttering Special:Shortpages. This is temporary, of course, but the fact that at any time there are dozens of redirects up for discussion results in Special:Shortpages being permanently cluttered with them.

Currently, the primary means of clearing the special page of nominated redirects is to substitute Long comment into each redirect, which is a time-consuming and temporary solution. On the other hand, requiring Rfd to be substed – or requesting a bot to do so – would not require substantially more effort from nominators or closers but would provide a permanent fix to the problem.

Thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No opposition from me, although substituting this template currently leaves a good mess. The way afd works around it (by substituting another template, Article for deletion/dated, and some commented instructions) seems ideal.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Clutter is less problematic in redirects than articles, which often are edited during AfDs, but even Cfd works the same way, through Cfd full – which, in turn, transcludes Cfd all. Of course, the Cfd must be more complex than AfD because it must accomodate options such as renaming or merging. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Barring any oposition, feel free to set it up yourself, otherwise I think I can get around to it this weekend.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A side note. I went through this once before with copyvio.  The Copyvio template itself is now mostly code for enforcing the substitution, and outputting a glaring red message if it is used without substing.  The old code was moved to Copyviocore, or some such similar name .  By the time the code for the shell is substed, we were at around 900 characters, which is far, far beyond the range of the Short Pages reports, the reason for all the long comments.  So no additional long commenting was needed in the shell.  There are one or two side-benefits to forcing substing.  Like you can generate a date stamp, that can be used by the inner template if you want.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would strongly point to copyvio as a starting point for constructing an RFD shell, as it does exactly as much as we would want here, and nothing more (Other than maybe the time stamping). - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have started an initial version of the new shell template at Rfd/Temp. Still needs work. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the main stuff ready to work, with one huge glaring exception. Rfd/Temp is the shell.  Rfd/core is the core, and is thus a duplicate of the current RFD template.  The main remaining problem is in the transfer of the GROUPHEADING parameter from the one to the other.  Rfd/core, in particular, does not appear to want to accept the code for claiming the named parameter.  As far as I can tell, I've structured the thing just like other templates, particularly copyviocore, load parameters.  I think I need someone a bit more versed in template coding to try to sort this out.
 * Once we have it working, and have no objections to go forward with it, it'll be a simple matter of moving all the templates into their new homes, and then substing all the current RFD instances. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I appear to have the parameters working, using the first unnamed parameter instead of a named parameter.  Something about decoding a named parameter within a wikilink was just not working.  Anyway, I think it's ready to go, but I'm not going to move it into place until a bit more time has passed to allow for comments on whether (or not) it *should* go into place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, very nice! A quick question, though: should the tag in Template:Rfd/Temp come before or after the 'End of RfD message' hidden comment? -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really sure. I started that one as a fork of the current state of copyvio, and that come directly from there.  I am far, far from an expert on templates. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more familiar with the CFD templates and, based on them, I made a few changes to Rfd/Temp and Rfd/core; I think that Rfd/Error won't be needed. One point to ponder is whether we would like the bolded 'this redirect's entry' link to point to " Redirects for discussion " or directly to the daily log page, though the transition to a subst-only template gives us the flexibility to decide that at a later time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Let's leave the error page in place for now, just in case.  I'll CSD:G7 it myself as part of step #6 below if it is still unused once we put all the new stuff into place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Implementation steps

 * *If* it is decided to go forward with the new shell/core form of this template, the steps to put it into place are:
 * History merge the current RFD template to the new core. The core is really an edit of the current template, but is (for the moment) a fork of it.
 * Move this talk page to be the talk page of the new core.
 * Move the new shell (currently Rfd/Temp) into place at rfd. This will briefly break every in-use instance of the RFD template, until they can all be substed.
 * Subst all the current uses of rfd.
 * Edit the various documentations to show that rfd now must be substed, instead of never being substed.
 * Clean up some of the redirects and other temporary files that I created while developing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No comments. Starting to move things into place.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Steps 1-4 are complete. Step 5 is underway, but from when I did this to copyvio a few years back, it's actually one of the trickier steps, as there are instructions all over the place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 6 is done. I've got the obvious instruction changes for step 5, but I'm sure I missed something.  So I'm declaring the move complete, but I'll keep looking around more casually for any other instruction pages that need to change.  I got the main WP:RFD page, the doc page for the template itself, and the listings at WP:SUBST. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle and other auto-editing tools

 * Twinkle is an issue, but I've asked for an update on it's talk page. Are there any other tools that can automagically add RFD templates? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle has been fixed, but the fix is untested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot exclusion
Is there a particular reason the substed output includes nobots? Or was it just copied from copyvio? Anomie⚔ 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it then. Anomie⚔ 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Substitute or not?
I just about understand what substitution is and that's where my template knowledge ends.

Template:RfD asks users to substitute, and so does Redirects_for_discussion. But the template itself asks users not to substitute it. If you try to use it without substituting, you get a glaring warning telling you to substitute! I can see that something is being changed in this template regarding whether it should be substituted so apologies if I'm stating the obvious. ~ Kimelea (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a month since the change discussed above. The instructions on the template still explicitly tell users NOT to substitute "as it is needed for tracking purposes" but the code in the template berates them when they comply.  I have no opinion on whether this should be substituted or not but we must have a consistent position. If someone does not fix this fairly quickly (and I don't know enough wiki-code to do it myself), then the only choice will be to revert to the older version.  Rossami (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I notified TexasAndroid (who did the changes) on his talk page. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  23:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I glanced at this last night, and it's a little more complicated than just changing the wording. rfd is now "must subst".  rfd/core is now "do not subst".  rfd, when properly substed, leaves behind a call to rfd/core.  And it is rfd/core, not rfd that has the text saying to not subst.  Which is technically correct.  rfd/core says not to subst, and rfd/core should not be substed.  To convert the wording there to says that it should be substed would be incorrect, as rfd/core would then say that it should be substed, which it should not be.
 * I'll remove the confusing wording altogether for now. There are good solid reasons why this conversion was needed.  The idea that someone might undo all the work that went into this, and recreate the problems that this was done to solve, just because they are a bit confused by the wording on the template, is a bit baffling.  One way or another, just fix the wording, which I will now do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback blacklist
Redirects are currently correctly excluded from the article feedback tool, but I've just noticed that redirects nominated at RfD are not currently excluded although they should. This can be achieved by adding the pages to category:Article Feedback Blacklist, and I'd add this myself but I don't know where in the template this should go (or whether it should be in the template:Rfd wrapper)?

As the template is substituted, the change wont be retrospective, and so I suggest getting a bot to add all pages in Category:Redirects for discussion to the blacklist category by adding the category link in the same place the template would have put it (to make things easier for the human closers). Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to daily log
Is there a specific reason that the "this redirect's entry" link goes to the main WP:Redirects for discussion instead of the relevant daily log? Compare to Delrevxfd, where the logic is incorporated into the instructions at WP:Deletion review/Discussions. I believe that it can be changed easily by inserting  into the link. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was about to make the change, I came across a relisted entry. Rfd relisted appears to be the standard relist template that provides a link to the new daily log. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * after previewing a few nominated redirects and following their links. The post-change links look fine also. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to template
There is currently a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 6 regarding some recent edits to this template that, in theory, should allow this template to avoid being transcluded on a transcluded redirect that is nominated for discussion. (I believe the functionality is supposed to be similar to how a small message appears on a transcluded template with a Template for discussion/dated tag, but I have yet to test it out.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a parameter in Module:RfD
Since my knowledge of Lua is rather low, I have a question for someone who may be able to assist with this: in Module:RfD, is it possible to replace/rename the "content" parameter with a "1" parameter to make the template that transcludes this module somewhat easier to use? And, if not, why not? (Anyone can feel free to answer this for me, but I'm now going to ping Jackmcbarn since they have been performing most of the edits on Module:RfD.) Steel1943  (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because parameter 1 is already used as the group nomination name. It would be possible to use parameter 2, but this would be a bad idea, since an equals sign in the content would then require using "2=" before it, which would be more confusing than "content=". However, if 156442, then it will be possible and okay to do what you're trying to do. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that may be a good idea. Honestly, I'd rather have to use "||" instead of "|content=". And since this template is substituted anyways, if in the future, 156442 is resolved, the module should be able to be updated rather quickly, if I am understanding this correctly. However, on a related note, if this can be done, it would probably make sense to leave syntax in the module to allow the editor to use parameter "2" or "content" to perform the current function of "content" (then give one of these two parameters priority over the other, of course ... with my vote going for "content".) Steel1943  (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that you'd have to use "||". The issue is that if a redirect contains an equals sign, and whoever's placing the RfD tag doesn't notice, it won't work at all, because instead of being parameter 2, everything before the = sign will be the parameter name. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I was being clear. What I was asking is, basically, can Module:RfD be edited to allow, for example, and  to provide the same result?  Steel1943  (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It can, and it will usually work, but it will seemingly-inexplicably break whenever someone uses the new method and the redirect content contains an equals sign. (Should the gerrit change I mentioned get merged, that problem will be gone and I'll happily set this up.) And if this is for ease of use, why not just tell people to use Twinkle? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the horrid "equal sign breaks stuff in templates" problem. Yep, makes sense to me now. By the way, your comment about Twinkle ... well, I'm glad that it helps other editors do helpful automated edits, but I'm one of those editors who will go out of their way to never use an automated tool to perform edits ... so that I know that every keystroke performed on a page was performed by me to ensure errors aren't caused by a tool. (I know this isn't a very popular stance, but it is mine, and thus the reason I was wondering if the "content" parameter could be simplified; but yeah, the "equals sign error" explains why it cannot ... unless it can still exist, but require that the editor type "|2=" instead of "||"; but that still leaves room for human error. At this point, I'm okay with leaving the module as is.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you by chance know if 156442 was implemented? I looked at it myself, but I'm not sure if the current status means that it has or has not. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will be at this point. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:RfD to fix possible RFDnote issue
I'm trying to resolve a recent issue I discovered after I listed a bunch of redirects for discussion that included HTML coding that, in theory, should have resulted in bolding on the title, but did not. For example, one of the redirects I nominated was El Castillo, but in the request/notification on the template on its page right now, the RFDnote asks the nominator to put the note on any involved editor's page, but has it listed as El Castillo; it actives the bolding code, and due to this, tells the involved editor the wrong title being nominated. This could most likely be resolved by putting some "  " tags somewhere in the module. (I'd do it myself as I am a template editor, but my knowledge of Lua is low, so I don't want to take any chances.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Since this is Lua, it was a call to mw.text.nowiki rather than &lt;nowiki>, but yes, that was basically the problem. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request to alter category tagged page is placed
Given issues that have arisen lately due to the WP:RFD backlog, as well as noticing instances when someone may accidentally remove a transcluded RFD page from the main page prior to either the tag being removed from the redirect and/or the discussion closed, I think that it may be wise to have Template:Rfd, when substituted, place the redirect in a category named Category:Redirects for discussion from MONTH YEAR rather than Category:Redirects for discussion, and have all former categories set up to be subcategories of the latter. I'm not sure of the intricacies behind how that happens automatically, but most cleanup templates have a way to essentially become subcategories automatically. (This may require more than just editing the module, but ... I'm sort of just throwing this idea in the air.) If the requested category change can be done, the new categories can assist administrators to locate discussions that may no longer appear on the main WP:RFD page due to the subpage's transclusion being removed prior to all discussions on the removed day being closed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The module can do that easily. We should probably get a bot set up to create the categories, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That seemed to be the missing piece of the puzzle. I wonder if AnomieBOT might be able/allowed to perform such a task, give that it's the bot that handles the cleanup category creations. (Pinging bot operator Anomie so they can see this post.) Steel1943  (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the parent category of the dated categories winds up as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month or Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month, and the dated category's content should be Monthly clean up category, then AnomieBOT will do it automatically. Otherwise it'd require a separate task. Anomie⚔ 12:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing this request for now as it seems there are interested and capable editors discussing the issue and how to implement it. One of these editors is well qualified to make the needed edits.  Please reopen if the discussion has consensus to implement but no-one is interested in making the needed changes that is capable.  Thank you! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the module be updated to perform this task? The other step, making Category:Redirects for discussion a subcategory of one of the above categories, seems simple enough. Steel1943  (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, before I do this, is there a reason that this is a problem with RfD, but not with AfD, TfD, etc.? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This could potentially be a problem that may need to be addressed in specifically WP:TFD and WP:CFD as well. Since in RFD, TFD, and CFD, nominations are placed on a "day page" that is transcluded on the main discussion page, if an editor removes the day's transclusion from the page prior to all discussions on that day being closed, the discussion could go unnoticed for months, if noticed ever. (I recall this happening once with a discussion in RFD; a discussion on a day was not closed until a couple months after the day's transclusion was removed from the main RFD page.) I figure that if these nominations are categorized by at least month (by day would be better, but I'm assuming that is asking for too much, and probably wouldn't be helpful due to how few entries those pages would have, if any), it could help administrators and "NAC"-ers alike locate discussions that may have fallen through the cracks. At the present time, since Rfd only puts the redirect in the generic Category:Redirects for discussion, the administrator/NAC-er is then tasked with the chore of trying to figure out which nominated redirects are old enough to close, and would not know which nominated redirects "fell through the cracks" at first glance by looking at the category. Steel1943  (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The module's fixed, and I did the bare-minimum work to get the category structure working. Can you put some sensible description on Category:All redirects for discussion and also clarify the current description on Category:Redirects for discussion? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. However, I noticed that you essentially moved what would previously be listed at Category:Redirects for discussion to Category:All redirects for discussion in the process. Per the header in Category:Redirects for discussion, this change may affect AAlertBot'a functionality. (I hope this change is okay.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a notification at WT:Article alerts about that change. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

RfD tag which leaves coding brackets inside the pages
I 've no idea if you are expert on this but I ll try a shot :) Do you know why AfD tag when substed looks nice in contrary to the awful RfD tag which leaves coding brackets inside the pages? Is there any way that we make RfD tag similar to Afd tag? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been, by . That takes it entirely outside my knowledge area. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just have to start from somewhere to understand why RfD tag adds coding tag inside pages which is unpleasant. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If either of 141048 or 141052 ever get accepted by the developers, I'll be able to make it look nice again. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * why not leave then in the previous state until it is fixed? This safesubst inside wikicode is really awful. Or even better, why not normalise Afd pages and Rfd pages? Everytime I have to close a discussion I have to recall the specific rules of AfDs, RfDs, TfDs, MfDs, etc. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by normalize them? The reason RfD is extra complicated is so that when redirects up for RfD are transcluded, they'll still work right. (Redrose64, if you'd rather we have this discussion elsewhere, say so and I'll move it.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what exactly is your problem with this template? An additional comment and a couple of braces under the redirect? I don't think the problem is worth DB space this discussion took. Note: it is done this way to make template redirects work even during RfD, which is a good reason to keep this "state" as opposed to previous "state". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A software change of mine was recently accepted, which will be live here on January 14th. Once it gets here, I'll be able to significantly simplify the appearance of the tag. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All new RfD nominations will now have a significantly simpler tag. (I can't retroactively fix old ones, but they'll all go away as they're closed.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think Bgwhite is already waging his tail from happiness. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to add option for manual parameters for month, day, and year
Unfortunately, my knowledge of Lua is nonexistent; otherwise, I'd boldly do this edit myself. I'm wanting to add the option to have manual parameters added that will allow the "CURRENTMONTH", "CURRENTDAY", and "CURRENTYEAR" parser functions to be bypassed in the event that the nominated redirect is to be placed on a day that is not the present day. This should only be an option as the "present day" assumption that this module executes should remain intact. Also, if possible, for the manual "month" parameter, I'd like the option for "1=January", "2=February", etc. to simplify manually changing the month, if possible (this isn't as necessary as adding the manual parameters in the first place, but this may assist less template-savvy editors.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected edit requests should only be opened when the edit to be made is clear. If you want help with the feature, ask at WT:Lua or somewhere like that. By the way, you can already sort of do this by just substing it with the current date and then changing it in the output (you can use applyPST.js if you want to be able to do that without having to save twice). Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's useless I tried to PROD it but it is 'fullly protected' we don't need it. I'm entitled to my opinion
I'm talking about Module:RfD which is unused and just gets in the way, quod erat demonstrandum because if I even try to talk to the auther of it I end up, through a redirect, to here. Which is not helpful.

No, no, this is no good. I see the good intention, but what the author has done is created a load of redirect links for that module which other editors have to unwind and discuss at WP:RFD, which we have always done. It's bizarelly linked on the talk page and even that is fully protected so I can't post a comment to the author even on the talk page! That's bizarre. An author who doesn't want any comments fully protects the talk page. Where ele could we do WP:BRD? Well, here. At the moment, this module is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't duplicate discussions unnecessarily. If you don't like it, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:RfD is more than enough. A brief pointer here would have been sufficient. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD is for articles only, not modules (whether redirected or not). -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me I could not even edit its talk page to try to talk to you about my concerns, where else am I going to take it? Thank you for unprotecting your talk page but this was fully protected the talk page so I had no way to comment back, I've done it at WT:PROD, I can't PROD it because it is fully protected, which is nonsense for a module that is unused and unnecessary. The way to list something at WP:RFD is to list it at WP:RFDm we don't need this and is getting in the way of searches. Si Trew (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The right talk page for Module:RfD would be Module talk:RfD would it not? But too nobody's surprise that redirects to here, which has nothing to do with the module. Instead you run me round the houses to find this useless module that nobody needs or wants at the wrong talk page. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:Rfd and Module:RfD are very closely related - each depends upon the other. Most modules are associated with a template, and it is common practice for them to share a talk page. This is almost always the talk page of the template, because the template is likely to be older than the module. So that is why Module talk:RfD redirects here. But as I noted earlier, PROD is not for modules. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Note to Subst is misleading
If I add this template without Subst, this line appears: This template must be substituted. Replace with.

However, the latter is not right, because the content has to be enclosed after.

Please can an experienced template editor make it display fuller instructions? – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the message is in Module:RfD, the line  appears towards the end. I don't know where the rest of it comes from.  - who wrote most of the module - should know. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this. It's actually an issue with Template:Error:must be substituted rather than an issue with the module. I already fixed it once, but undid the fix. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

rfd results in This template must be substituted. Replace with.
 * Undone. problem is, now if there is no parameter, then there are no closing braces which is asking for trouble.
 * , that said, you did not fix it, please do so now, I won't revert again. —  02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider the way it is now a proper fix, since it's correct whether or  was used. What exactly is wrong with it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's confusing and contradictory. It says "this template must be substituted", then it says replace the existing template with , except if that   isn't a template.  People will see that and end up replacing   with   hence the instructions are confusing and broken.  I tried to mock up what it should be in the sandbox, but apparently missed a piece someplace.  The instructions to subst the template need to have the template with open AND close brackets with or without any included parameters. —   00:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you don't follow the instructions, it won't work. But if you do follow the instructions, and replace only {{rfd with {{subst:rfd, rather than incorrectly replacing with {{subst:rfd, it will work fine. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it that you're not going to fix it then. If that is the case, I suggest that Template:Error:must be substituted not be used and instead just add {{Tl|RfD}} to the User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster category and not worry about broken instances. —   01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2016
Add to the top of the page as I am nominating this for merging with Template:rfd-t.

P p p  e r  y   (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 23:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Way back in July, I nominated this for merging with rfd-t. The discussion was closed as merge, but the merge hasn't been carried out. I just coded a proposed merged in Module:RfD/sandbox. Any comments? P p p er y 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know that template existed prior to today. Since its use seems to be very rare, I've made some adjustments to the code so that no changes are required in the common case when it's not used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that that change breaks consistency with tfd, where the default it to show the notice on transclusions. P p p er y 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is RfD, not TfD, and RfD has never done that by default before. (It's not that I'm opposed to it becoming the new default; I just think it needs its own discussion instead of being part of a merge.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please sync the sandbox of Module:RfD to merge in rfd-t. Consensus was achieved for this merge in a July TfM. Note that I copied content from rfd-t into the sandbox, and thus that attribution might need to be added into the edit summary. P p p er y 00:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Re-open if there are issues. — Andy W. ( talk ) 06:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 December 2016
Please add  to the   conditional, so that the notice does not pollute the output of substitution. P p p er y 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)