Template talk:Template for discussion/Archive 1

Use in template vs. in template talk
Please note that the TFD template should only ever be added to the Talk page of the deletion candidates. This will prevent the template itself from being disrupted, and prevent the articles from being listed in Category:Templates for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree: disrupting the template is a good thing. Using your proposed method, if someone lists a template for deletion, chances are that no one (aside from TFD regulars) will see it! The templates themselves (and their talk pages) are very rarely watched. It's vital that TFD get outside input from those actually using the template.


 * As for the articles themselves being listed in the category, that's an incredibly minor annoyance. The benefits are outweighed by the costs in this situation. Besides, if it truly annoys you, remove the and put it on all the template talk pages, or make a second (redundant) template for that purpose.


 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion, where this exact same issue has been brought up before. &bull; Benc &bull; 06:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Anybody with Template:Tfd on their watch list will see a changed to Template talk:Tfd.  The worst part of it is that, when this template gets added to the template to be deletion, the message and Category:Templates for deletion gets added to all those articles.  Worse yet, even after the template is removed, the article remains in the category until its next normal edit (a quirk of the software, but it makes sense).  Switching to use the talk page is a fair better use of these messages (I wish all the ?fd notices did that) and allows us to make the deletion notice more visible, rather than the silly one-liner it used to be.  Using the argument of making a second template is not very reasonable.  We only need one template for this, and it should be added to the Talk page.  -- Netoholic @ 07:48, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)


 * Good point about the category being stuck on the article itself, and I agree that having two templates would be rather counter-productive. However, I still maintain that the category issues are more of an annoyance than a critical flaw. If anything, it's a MediaWiki software issue. Perhaps a clever feature request would help, something like HiddenCategory:PageName, which would add the page to the category but not list it on the page itself.


 * I digress. This boils down to a cost/benefits tradeoff, and I still think that the best solution is to maintain the status quo. &bull; Benc &bull; 09:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Benc's position. People who see the template need to know whether it's up for deletion, so they will know about voting for or against it.  Placing it in the talk effectively hides it from the masses. -- Stevietheman 13:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer, and was thoroughly confused by the use of this template from another template (Template:Notable), which was in turn used in an article I was looking at. Very disorienting! Here I'm looking at what I think is an article, and it's talking about "this template". Huh?

So I worked my way through the layers to this, where the root problem seems to lie. I see both sides of argument above. But to do nothing is to ignore the confusion being spread on hundreds of article pages (100+ using Template:Notable). The contexts that Tfd appears in have to be considered. So I'm going to change the phrasing of Tfd from This template to The template generating the text below. While this may not be optimal, it seems a whole lot better than the current phrasing. --R. S. Shaw 20:52, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
 * That's a good clarification. Thank you. &bull; Benc &bull; 21:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support Netoholic's original suggestion. Otherwise it is too confusing and messy. --Henrygb 22:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If the is added to the template itself, then there should be another, equivalent tag for inline templates; it should be shorter and inline. Perhaps the following is good, to be put after the content of the template (example for Template:FRANCE):

&lt;small>&lt;nowiki> [ &lt;/nowiki> this template for deletion &lt;nowiki> ] &lt;/nowiki>&lt;/small>
 * I.e.,
 * [ this template for deletion ]
 * &mdash;msh210 23:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone who knows what the resolution of this discussion is should add the appropriate instruction to . (SEWilco 17:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Category
It might not be a good idea to have a category here, because any pages linking to that template will be placed in that category. Same with &ldquo;What links here&rdquo;. There's no really reliable way to list all the templates on Tfd except for relying on people to list them on TfD. Not really the best way to do things. &mdash; El Chico!  Talk 12:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In fact, I noticed that all the InuYasha character pages have already been added to this category as a result of the fact that Template:InuyashaCharacter is listed for deletion. I think we need to get rid of the category. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 19:17, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Better late than never, I removed the category. More articles, etc. end up in it than templates anyway. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I've modified the wording slightly. Previously it was worded that the template is listed for deletion - sounded like the comment made on an article was thereby suspect. In fact whjen a template is listed for deletion this is not a comment on its content being incorrect, it's merely a comment that it isn't suitable to have the comment as a template. The fixed wording makes clear that the text is generated by a template, and it is the template alone which is proposed (not "listed") to be deleted now. It also highlights like VfD that one can vote on this at the page, and avoids the cumbersome "see that page for..." by moving the link. FT2 05:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slight modification
I've made a slight modification on the box, which helps directing to the section on the corresponding template at Templates for deletion. Just add (as oppose to ) to the top of the templates for deletion will do. (left by User:202.61.114.10


 * This modification is unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Insertion of tag
This template has been nominated for deletion on Templates for deletion. In accordance with the process described on that page, this template has been tagged. Please do not remove the tag from the body of the template. Thank you. &mdash; Xiongtalk 17:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Self-referential &#123;&#123;tfd&#125;&#125;
okay, my tiredness has kicked in and the sugar high from that coffee crisp has gotten to me...Template:TFD is now [|a template for deletion], so I put on top of Template:TFD :) get it? Good.  It is proper procedure, eh? -Frazzydee|&#9997; 03:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was the best choice, especially since Xiong actually did that when he listed tfd for deletion. I hope this doesn't get him worked up again. Rhobite 03:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, perhaps, for all concerned, the TfD process has been altered to limit debate to a mere 5 days -- just in time for {tfd} to be spared another round of reverts. (Of course, the vandalized process has also been used to claim that templates never leave jail unless there is clear consensus to keep -- but I shall not stoop to that blunt instrument.)


 * I note two salient lessons to be got from this experience:


 * 1. "Your" template, no matter who you are, is always more important than the TfD process. Your pet has good and sufficient reason to be shy of the {tfd} tag, and you will revert again and again to keep it off. Tagging templates on their bodies does cause peculiar effects -- although my fears of provoking a tropical storm off the Florida Gulf Coast proved unfounded. Tagging Template:Tfd with the tag, {tfd} -- strictly per process, old or new -- merely invited the engine to insert a single duplicate, and reproduce the tag code on top. I mock the fears of those who cried that this made the template "unusable", or made similar apocalyptic statements -- but despite my tone, I quite agree. IT IS JUST PLAIN STOOPID TO TAG, INFLEXIBLY, EVERY NOMINATED TEMPLATE ON ITS BODY. It damages its presentation and anticipates the outcome of the TfD process.


 * 2. Some users will stop at nothing to protect their pets. Current process -- process old and new -- however wrongheaded, clearly demands this foolish tagging, and my effort to alter the process guidelines was bluntly reverted. Nobody tried to soften that language, to permit anyone to make an exception, not for {tfd}, not for anything. Yet user after user boldly ignored process and did as they liked. Therefore, I conclude process means less than nothing around here.


 * &mdash; Xiong[[Image:Xiong2char.png]]talk 22:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

TFD'd
This template was (ironically) listed for deletion at WP:TFD. The decision was to keep this template. Please see the Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/April 2005 for more information. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 00:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm ashamed that we let such an obviously disruptive action go on as long as it did. -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Smaller is better
Is there a consensus on how should be used? Its a disruption in any case in its current form. -SV|t 02:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't make much sense as what you're changing it to. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your brevity is nice, but its nonresponsive. The template is too big, IMHO and I am changing it from an oversize (like so many templates are) to something compact and usable in things like Template:News-trade, where as it is currently is only an eyesore. Now, you can disagree, but I dont see how that somehow is supposed to overrule my changes, which are made in good faith. -SV|t 02:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your edits show differently on your own browser, but to me you a changing a wide template with one line of text to an equally wide template with three lines of text – note the equally wide bit. You're actually therefore making it larger. violet/riga (t) 06:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've fixed that (somewhat) by adding a width tag to news-trade. --SPUI (talk) 06:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A waste of time to fix {tfd} until the battle is won over its destructive use. Your heart's in the right place, but your shoulder is to the wrong wheel. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 06:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the responses: Violet - cross browser isnt the issue, and if it was, thats was not SPUIs explanation for reverting my edits. SPUI - Fixing each individual template so it can accomodate a tertiary tag isnt the way to go. Making a small template that can fit is the way to go. Xiong - appreciated, and understood. I dont disagree that there should be a tfd category, or even a (small) template, so what remains is simply making it work correctly without being a nuisance, or being used as a nuisance, like many seem to be. (For TFD, just a category should suffice, but it would be appropriate to have a small banner tag as well.) Too many templates are overbearingly large anyway, and Ive started makine smaller versions like pnpov-d, current-short, cleanup-short. etc. -SV|t 20:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree to some extent - we need to make it clear what's going on though. I propose an extra argument for the anchor on the TFD page, so people will be taken directly to the correct discussion; if this is done less explanation should be needed. --SPUI (talk) 21:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's silly to reduce this template to only three words. SV - if you revert this template again without making your case on this page first, I'll file an RFC myself. You've become increasingly disruptive in the template space. Please stop. -- Netoholic @ 02:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * Then I will revert it immediately. If by "increasingly disruptive" you mean 'being too bold,' and 'doing things which I deem to be unpopular,' then I agree. -SV|t 05:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Being bold is what we tell newbies. It is specifically not "being bold" to perpetuate an edit war.  Your first edit was bold, but unwelcome... future reverts which invoke WP:BB are inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 06:11, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

either/or?
Must this be an either one or the other situation? Is there a chance that this group of editors could come up with a golden mean between the too short and too colorful version by Stevertigo, and the too large and wordy version that it had replaced? Especially if this template is to continue to be placed on the template page instead of on the template's talk page, this template should be shrunk in both size and verbiage. The minimalist version by Stevertigo went too far in the opposite direction with a version that only made sense to veteran Wikipedia editors. I do think, however, that there has to be a better solution than the too verbose version that it replaced.

I also think that a survey should be created to consider the issue of whether this particular template should go on the template page, or its talk page, to see what the current consensus is. Blank Verse  &empty;  07:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. However it seems the majority supports the old version. At any rate we need some explanation on there, otherwise n00bs won't know what to do with it. Radiant_* 09:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about adding a parameter for the actual template, so it can jump to the correct section on TFD? That might make it clearer what's going on for the semi-noobs. --SPUI (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Radiant_* 09:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Excellent points, BV, SPUI, et all. I also just noticed that Netholic and I (from his older comments) agree on the disruptiveness of the larger version. I have been making and using smaller and much briefer verisions of existing templates anyway - replacing them where I come across them. Things like template:pnpov-d and template:protecteds do the job but stay out of the way - giving a standard choice between a larger version and a smaller one should be useful - perhaps even showing a more tactful use of these based on their who the likely audience will be - newbies or oldbies etc. Hard to say, but a simple choice would be good. Will post BV suggestion at WP:TS-SV|t 18:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

DON'T go making alternate versions of templates. Demonstrate them on the existing template's talk page, get agreement, then implement. Your strategy only distracts because it causes extra work when we have to TFD them. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

 The text or formatting below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for comments and voting. Well that fails it. Anyone know why? --SPUI (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it with an external link, and added the parameter to templates still in use. If we keep this, the TFD instructions should b chnaged to include this as a step. --SPUI (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you fixed it. At least it doesn't work with my browser (Mozilla Firefox). My personal opinion is that the link is unnecessary anyway and only makes a wordy template even longer. I would like to hear everyone's opinion of the wording of my last edit (see diff). Blank Verse   &empty;  11:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 The template below has been proposed for deletion. Please see Templates for deletion for comments and voting.


 * It only works if whoever adds the tfd tag includes the parameter, with the same capitalization as on the TFD page. --SPUI (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There was no need to revert the template. Not only does hardly anyone ever use the parameter (or is even aware of it), but you could also have implemented the 'correct' link in the new template design. -- Ec5618 00:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A choice of sizes
Please see Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation for discussion regarding Template standardisation/Sizes proposal. -SV|t 05:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's Talk
Could we have a little less edit warring on this very heavily-used template? I confess I've been bad and I still think the whole thing should go, but the reality is that it is widely used and highly visible.

Let's show some professionalism, or if you'd rather, some community spirit, and work out our various versions, present them here, and discuss them as a group before trying to force each one in for its 2 hours of fame. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 11:01, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

it's entry link
Why doesn't it work as expected, Frazzydee? --MarSch 15:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay SPUI, it works only on the template page itself. --MarSch 11:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
I noticed this is a bit of a consistent pattern. People, if you do things as big as rewriting how this template is supposed to work, at least, please do put an edit summary. That would be nice indeed. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Explain me how changing an external link into an equivalent internal one changes the way the template works. - Sikon 00:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus?
I have changed the template to indicate that consensus is desired, not a vote. See WP:WWIN - this is not a democracy. --Mm35173 03:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Another change
What about changing /wiki/:Templates_for_deletion#Template: to /wiki/:Templates_for_deletion#Template: ? &mdash; Instantnood 14:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because then every template tagged with tfd would go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Tfd. There's no way to make a template or variable (i.e., PAGENAME) to get substed in when a template that it's in (i.e., Template:tfd) is placed onto another page, whether or not that template is substed. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.. that's a problem. Is there anyway that we can keep subst: in the Tfd template, and make it works when only the Tfd template is applied? &mdash; Instantnood 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I changed the link to just plain Templates_for_deletion (works when you use it with a parameter), instead of all that, stuff, as a bonus it no longer breaks if you leave a space in the template name. --Sherool 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've tried earlier with all kinds of tricks with and stuff, it just does't work, you have to leave the variable in there (wich IMHO is no big deal).

moved from main page
Please reference to this template like this: &#123;{tfd|Toiletpaper}} or &#123;{tfd|City_of_Guam}}. Mind capitalisation, and do not prefix with "Template:". This allows for the link to direct directly to the correct section of the TFD page.

This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content. This template is not useful for Subst.

Related templates
 * tfd2, second step by Subst
 * tfdnotice, third step by Subst

Minor change
Please change the template to &lsaquo; The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. &rsaquo; i.e., add ucfirst so it always link to correct template entry on the tfd. → Aza Toth 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
There was a requested move from Template:Tfd/Temp to here - please see Template_talk:Tfd/Temp and comment WhiteNight T 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question:
So, suppose someone wanted to nominate this for a TfD, what template would they have to use for that? (=--205.188.116.7 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They could use this one, as it would not have been deleted yet. :) --Abu Badali 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to have sort key added
Please add the sort key to the template. So:

should be changed to

– Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 07:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

&#123;{PAGENAME}} default parameter
Please stop defaulting the parameter to &#123;{PAGENAME}}. This results in markup that is correctly only when looking at the actual template page - it's translated to the name of the page the template is displayed on, not that of the template itself. Since the whole purpose of the tfd template is to link from pages where the template is transcluded to tfd, this is never useful. In fact, it's actively harmful, in that it prevents taggers from noticing that the tfd link is incorrect. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For an experiment with this see, this should work only for simple PAGENAMEE cases. --&#160;Omniplex 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This should really be fixed! --Swift 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed - see my post below. If people used the correct transclusion method, i.e.   , then it would be fine, but it is not made clear that one must do that, so either the template needs fixing, or its correct usage enforced/explained. — Superbfc 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, note that the text describing the suggested use of the template "Maintenance use only: Place or  ....", which is included on a page when this template is used, is also misleading. --Big_iron (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Usage section
Please unprotect this page, I want to make it easier to understand. Browsing around I notice a lot of people actually forget to include the second parameter which links to the vote. --Col. Hauler 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See above for the usage,  had no effect, there's no such category. --&#160;Omniplex 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

TFD text showing up on every page that uses target template
Is it the goal to have TFD warnings showing up on every page that the template is used on? I was really confused by the text on Image:617patroclus.jpg until I found that it was from Template:Image information. -Harmil 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone care to respond? Is this intentional? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is intentional so that everyone is alerted that the template is up for deletion. – sgeureka t•c 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be well intended, but there should be a mechanism to prevent unnecessary disruption in case of whimsical deletion proposals, like Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30. In fact, WP:TFD says: "If placed directly into the nominated template, use ... around the TFD notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template." I think this sentence should be quoted in Template:Tfd/doc. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say the more people see the deletion proposal, the faster the keep votes pile on, and the faster the TfD gets closed under the snowball clause. If you don't find that argument very convincing, you can implement your suggestion in the doc (I don't think it would hurt either way). – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo?
Just noticed that the word "discrete" in the template should actually be "discreet". The two oft-confused words have very different meanings (see Wiktionary), almost to the point of being antonyms. --Stratadrake 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * discreet vs discrete &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Dragons flight 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
To change ' See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ' to ' See Templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ' Passer-by 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Other proposal
This template is too discreet for a deletion proposal template. It could use a small red icon to be more easly noticed. It works! --Abu Badali 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Something conspicious, specialised, with TFD text on it, and perhaps which redirects directly from the Image to the TFD page itself. [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|24px]]. Or at least keep the formatting within the template to be deleted. -Ste|vertigo 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Bug
I've noticed that some people are using without any |template name component which is bringing up the wrong link the template or page in which it is transcluded. I have fixed the for  but I think the template page of  needs that crucial point explained on the main template itself, i.e. in the   section. — Superbfc 13:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation
Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Tfd/doc subpage, as recommended in Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:  &lsaquo; The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. &rsaquo;

Thanks. +mwtoews 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Luna Santin 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Use correct nomination structure
editprotected

Could we change to  ? The headers at WP:TFD for single template nominations are always in the format "Template:Foo", rather than "Foo". Grace notes T § 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One would need to replace See templates for deletion to help with  See templates for deletion to help .  Such a change is not necessarily backwards compatible, because people are used to typing the name of the template in a batch set of templates, not the namespace and template name.  Thus I propose this:
 * be changed to this:
 * That way one can create a nomination that does not include the prefix Template: if he or she adds it as the parameter  and anyone can continue to use the template as previously by typing either   or  .  --Iamunknown 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not done for Gracenote's request; as Iamunknown has mentioned, the Template: prefix is already in the template, and the change required would break the use of TfD for all nominations (not just mass nominations; the parameter is required, because otherwise the template on which this is transcluded breaks in transclusion). --ais523 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done for Iamunknown's request; I implemented AzaToth's request from 2005 (which apparently had gone unanswered) at the same time. (Could you update the documentation for the change?) --ais523 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I edited the template documentation and, in hopes that the text is clear and appropriate, requested comments at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion.  --Iamunknown 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Egad, I posted that a month ago. Who knows what I was thinking then...   Grace notes T § 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I edited the template documentation and, in hopes that the text is clear and appropriate, requested comments at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion.  --Iamunknown 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Egad, I posted that a month ago. Who knows what I was thinking then...   Grace notes T § 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request to change the target of the "template" link and to display the template name
editprotected
 * 1) Link "template" to Template namespace instead of Template messages, because the latter does not even tell you what a template is. The point of this link should be to inform readers who mistake tfd for afd. This can help prevent misunderstandings in deletion debates. Alternatively, link Help:Template. –Pomte 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The phrase "The template below" is ambiguous if a bunch of boxes are stacked, or if the box is aligned off to the side. Give the template name in the notice, to help readers better interpret exactly which template has been proposed for deletion. This can be one way to mention it:   –Pomte 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) * Point two could be easily accomplished by changing the code  to  .  (The link, of course, can be changed to either; I would prefer Help:Template.)  This format would work even if an editor uses the second parameter to create a mass nomination.  --Iamunknown 00:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ** I think a better way is  This shows the bracketed name only if the first parameter is given. If the first parameter isn't given, then the template name is unknown, and it would be worse to make like the name of the transcluding article is the template name. For the link, I prefer Template namespace because it seems like a more helpful introduction whereas the meta page is really long and technical. Someone clicking the link probably just wants a really concise idea of what exactly a template is. –Pomte 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *** Good point about the link. I don't think, however, think that the ParserFunction is necessary.  By using , even if the first parameter is not given, the page name of the template will be given by default.  --Iamunknown 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * done. CMummert · talk 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * gives the name of the transcluding article, which is totally misleading, hence my proposal to use the ParserFunction. Also, the current version doesn't link the template - linking is useful for seeing the template in question for people to identify which one it is. Also, linking "Template:" may be a little excessive, causing the line to wrap on smaller screens. –Pomte 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what's going on.  should definitely not be used, and since we cannot substitute the page name of the template (unless we totally redesign the template and the TfD culture), we should use the ParserFunction.  So   should be replaced with  .  What do you suggest to do about font size?  --Iamunknown 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've [ updated] the documentation to use to make nominating easier, and to further prevent the  issue from occuring. I think the font size is as small as it should be. In the second sentence "See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do." we can cut the unprofessional sounding " on what to do" bit. –Pomte 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the redaction. So how about changing:
 *  The template below (Template:) has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. 
 * to
 *  The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. 
 * Look good (despite being hideous :-P)? --Iamunknown 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
 * The trailing space after  doesn't show up.  The easiest way to fix this is to put the space after   instead of before.  It's okay to have double spaces and that's how we're supposed to end sentences anyway.  Here is the code after changing the one space:
 *  The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. 
 * Making an edit request now. –Pomte 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems
I nomianted two templates for deletion and put them under the header "US transportation." However, the TFD link points to Template:US transportation. Can someone change it so that I can remove "Template:"? hbdragon88 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Replace the  code with  .  --Iamunknown 04:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Damn.  Serves me right for not reading the documentation...thanks though, unknown. hbdragon88

Suggested wording change for this and related templates
editprotected Please change the notice text from "proposed for deletion" to "nominated for deletion" or "is being considered for deletion" to follow the convention of other such templates and avoid confusion with WP:PROD. This request applies to Template:Tfd, Template:Tfd-inline and Template:Catfd. heqs ·:. 08:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified all 3 templates. The /doc files are not protected.  I'll leave it to you to modify those please. --After Midnight 0001 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and thanks. heqs ·:. 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The New Style for Messages and Deleting Templates
You know how we're migrating to the new ambox templates for messages? Personally, I think that you should get rid of the line in the template for TFD, and make it so that it says that "This template has been nominated for deletion" or something like that instead so we can slit it into the template box itself ViperSnake151 13:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be discussion before any changes are requested. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Niggly technical issue when this template is included in a template used in another template (does your head hurt yet?)
Okay, I just stumbled across this weird issue, which takes a bit of explaining. Let's say there's a template tagged for deletion with this TFD template. (say, cleanupreason) If that template is then included in another template (say, Infobox movie certificates) then the transcluded notice that the FIRST template (cleanupreason) is being considered for deletion will instead link to a discussion for the SECOND template, (Infobox movie certificates) giving the impression that the SECOND template is up for deletion.

Yeah, I know, that's a headache. It's also probably going to be a headache to sort out, but someone needs to. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's already been sorted, I think; when doing this, it's necessary to give the name of the first template as parameter 1 to the tfd template itself to prevent problems with links. --ais523 09:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie, seems to work. Perhaps I should add a note about the possible issue to the documentation. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 10:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Text Size
The text is small and sneaky.. if someone wasn't looking for it, they'd miss it and therefore miss the opportunity to way in on discussion of the TfD. AfD isn't like that, why is TfD? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * - There's a very good reason that the text is small: It otherwise disrupts the layout of every page upon which the template to be deleted is placed. Making the text big would make this template more annoying than it need be. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Making the text a normal 10px size wouldn't disrupt anything... --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  13:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Link directly to log page?
Why not have the "templates for deletion" link go to the day's log page? TfD has long ago migrated to a daily log system and having to load other days' discussions just to place the listing on today's log is unnecessary trouble. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible width problem?
Is it Tfd which is forcing the infobox on Methane to be so wide? (SEWilco (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Log page link broken
I used the "edit the TfD log" link to create a log page and my entry ended up getting lost because it created it at the wrong title ("February 03" instead of "February 3"). Could someone fix this? Thanks. Dcoetzee 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sync with sandbox
editprotected Requesting re-sync with the sandbox to allow passthrough of the "small" parameter; this allows the notice to float to the right, which is useful when TfDing infobox or sidebar-style templates. No other code changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this really something we want? If I look at an example at Template:Tfd/testcases it doesn't seem like we ever want to hide the TfD banners at the right. If anything I'd say that we want the small "The template below is being considered for deletion" notices in main space float right, so that they are on top oof the infobox in question. -- Amalthea 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I rather think it considerably improves the layout, especially if the nominated template in question is midway down an article and not at the top. What inspired this was external media, where the nom has gone so far as to use tfd-inline (which appears at some random point on the page) in an attempt to stop unduly disrupting the flow of transcluded articles. That said, the layout when made small could be improved, but this is a quickie to add a minor improvement - it can be worked on more later once people know it exists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, but then you don't want to float the TfD box to the right, but the notification. The notification in the sandbox isn't affected by the small parameter. You want

&lsaquo; The template below is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. &rsaquo;


 * Right? -- Amalthea 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaaaah. Yes. That's just what I'm looking for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

tfd2 hint
I've added a auto-generated hint for filling out tfd2; it includes the template name, and a sample reason. afd does something similar. If I broke anything, let me know. Superm401 - Talk 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Please replace  

''Please consider notifying the [ author(s)] by placing ~ on their talk page(s).  by ''

''Please consider notifying the [ author(s)] by placing ~ on their talk page(s). '' . This will make it better, simpler, clearer, more consistent, and analogous with Tfd. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, you're all over my watchlist these days. Yes check.svg Done & Cheers, Amalthea  14:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Must be you like templates. Did you see Template talk:Tlsp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have *all* templates watchlisted just yet, and have gotten out of the habit of patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, so no. :) Amalthea  14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have another copy&paste mistake here: Tfm instead of Tfd. So sorry. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Amalthea  16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This thing is so evil
On pages which actually use templates which are proposed for deletion, this can add a lot of unnecessary text. I suggest an alternative version which represents the notice as a tiny icon, maybe a 16x16 flashing exclamation point with a tooltip containing the text that the template is proposed for deletion. --Dwedit (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For most block-level templates (navigation boxes, infoboxes, etc.) this is not typically a problem. There is an alternative version, Tfd-inline for use with inline templates, and it has a "tiny" option that is pretty compact. If someone uses this template when they ought to use the inline version, that could be ugly, and in such cases the notice should be updated to use the more appropriate version. --RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other possibility, which is usually recommended, is to add the template inside  tags. In that case the Tfd template will not be copied onto pages that use the tagged template. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would only recommend that in extreme cases. We should be publicizing the discussions as much as possible. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:03, 1 February 2010 (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 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection level
The talk page implies that the template is WP:REDLOCKed, but in fact the template is WP:SILVERLOCKed. Which is correct? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The protection level for the template is currently semi-protected (sliver). The talk page template is worded as if it were for full protection, but I don't know of a version of the talk page template with semi-protection language. --RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tfd template bug
There is a bug causing the Tfd notification on transcluded templates to expand to a very long width. That is probably the case when the inline template is not used at the bottom of the article, but somewhere besides text. RedRose indicated this is the code responsible for the displaying of the message:



I believe that the border-bottom causes all the damage. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to change the template with this one:


 * Now the problem is it may not be very discreet. Also, it doesn't mess with the formatting when it is not used at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't look good when it is at the bottom. At the bottom this would look better:

--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking the discussion to Village_pump_(technical). --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging Tfd-inline with Tfd
It would be great if we could add an "inline" option to this template, and merge tfd-inline here. We could keep tfd-inline as a short-cut, but have it just call this one with the inline option. Also, as JokerXtreme pointed out, we should some sort of an option to make it work better with infoboxes, or other right-floating boxes, with the width appropriately adjusted and correctly floating with the box. Should I should try to mock up something in the sandbox? Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it wasn't possible to get the template width. Sure go ahead. Use the pages in my user page. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The width adjustment might need to be a manual setting, but even having the option would be an improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would think it could be a manual setting. Just like inline, someone would have to determine the best choice of options for minimal disruption of the transcluding articles. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all for eliminating redundant templates. If we do come up with a merge of Tfd-inline, we should make sure the folks who handle WP:Twinkle know about it before it is finalized, because one of the options when nominating templates with Twinkle is to choose inline vs. regular. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, which is why I was suggesting leaving it as a short-cut for now. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you're not currently using it, so I'll have a try at it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I got something :)

Check Template:Tfd/sandbox, Template:Campaignbox_War_on_Terror/sandbox and User:JokerXtreme/test-WoT for more details.

The box thingy needs tweaking and we need a width option I guess. --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're going in the right direction. Some suggestions: If inline is going to be set using a 'type' field, then the "tiny" option should probably be set the same way, rather than by using a separate 'tiny' field. And the "box" type should probably be the default, rather than requiring the parameter to be set to get it. That way, users to just put in will get the same result they get now. --RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So, have a type tinyinline? I think the default is the one being used for templates that are at the bottom. I'm having some trouble with the width variable. --JokerXtreme (talk)

Not sure which case prints two messages. Any ideas? --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's tinyinline, not sure why, yet. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, thought so. ifeq is crappy. It seems to check if an expression is part of the other expression, not if it is identical. At least, that's what I understood. --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also created these: Template:Shban/sandbox

User:JokerXtreme/test-Washington_State_Route_525 to test the box type. It still takes a whole line, while here: User:JokerXtreme/test-WoT, it looks ok. Anyway I'm out for sleep. Feel free to change whatever. Later... --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I can't get the default version to work. I think I'm doing everything by the book. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, default fixed too. I had to use the explicit "#default". The implicit seems to be broken. I notified the guys at mediawiki. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's complete now :) fully functional. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I transfered the sandbox template to the real one. It may need a few tweaks, but I think it's mostly complete. Documentation left to go and maybe some notification in the template about the different types and width options. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had finished the Tfd template, but new problems sprang up, mostly with the box type. Like here: National_Football_League. If the width is not high enough, the notification shows up next to the template, not above it. I updated the tfd doc too anyway. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think what you're doing will work. It's designed to translate width to px. But I don't think that's the problem anyway. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it wasn't using the "infobox" class, so I just stuck in a br-tag, which appears to fix the problem. In any event, minor problems like this can be handled on a case-by-case basis, the main point is that we now have something that is a bit more robust. Thanks for the hard work! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The point was to help us from stop using hacks :P But, anyway I am done for now, I don't know about you. So, what are the next steps? Deprecate tdf-inline and inform Twinkle? There also are some other weird tfd templates. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are trying to avoid hacks. Luckily, sidebar templates not using the infobox class are becoming increasingly rare.  I had thought about just fixing the template itself to use infobox, but decided it was better to just add the br-tag.  Although, if that template is kept, I will certainly consider fixing it. We can turn tfd-inline into small template that just calls this one and ask the TW people to start using this template with "type=inline".  In fact, they could add "box" as well. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. Yeah they should add box too, its quite often. Maybe rename box to sidebar? Sounds better. Not sure about how that inline thing substitution works. Can you do that? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about these:
 * Tfm - the parallel template for merging
 * Tfd - basic template
 * Tfd-inline - inline usage
 * Tfd2 - second step in a TFD process
 * Tfdnotice - TFD info on related pages
 * Tfdnotice2 - TFD info on related pages with a level two header
 * Are they useful anymore? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those templates are for related but different purposes, so they are definitely still useful. Only Tfd-inline is redundant, and the discussion above was to keep it as a shortcut to this template, especially since some automated tools use it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then. Can any of you change it to a shortcut? I'm not sure how. Then we need to notify the twinkle project. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it appears the shortcut now works. I will notify the Twinkle folks, and post a message at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppressing multiple transclusions
When used with inline templates that are used a large number of times in an article— such as r —the TfD template becomes very intrusive. Is it possible to detect the first transclusion of the template and suppress further transclusions on a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2010
 * Hm, I'm not aware of any way to do that. Maybe someone else here does. On the other hand, those notifications are not there to stay long and they should draw people's attention to the discussion, where the problem can be solved. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. That would seem hard to do in the current framework.  It could be possible to float the TFD notice to the title section, near the lock on pages with pp.  We could have that as an option? The other method is to just stick it inside a <noinclude ></noinclude> and publicize the discussion using a different method. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I included an option to disable transcluding btw. I'm gonna add it to the doc. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Permalink to template discussion
Would anyone mind if I added a date parameter to the TfD call, ? Won't affect current usage, but if the date parameter is supplied, the link will go directly to the daily subpage instead of the main page, meaning that links to archived discussions (found in the page histories, usually) will actually still find their target. The default usage on the doc page will be extended to:

Amalthea 12:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't. By the way, are you working on parameter support on twinkle? --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only concern I can think of is that discussions relisted to a different subpage would require an update to the date on the nominated page, which is something that doesn't have to be done now. Shouldn't be a big deal, but it would probably be good to put in a note about that when the parameter is added. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any relisting tools for TfD, or is that done manually here? Amalthea  09:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally do it manually. It could certainly be scripted, but I have had problems with other related scripts for closing TFDs, so haven't really investigated it any further. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past it has been a two-edit activity (remove from one page, add to other page with a relist template at the bottom), so I've never even looked for a script for it. However, adding a step of editing the date on the nominated template(s) could make a scripting tool more helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the big box version
Is that absolutely necessary? I think having it appear one way on the template and another way on pages which use the template is only going to confuse people. I know panicked when I saw the big box after putting tfd on a template, because I was expecting the one-line version. ―AoV² 10:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The original version is the big one, which is preferable on the template itself, since it is more noticable. In articles that transclude the template, the inline version is sufficient. Since the latest updates something has changed, and the Template:Tfd page itself doesn't show the big version any more. I'll ask somebody to fix this. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's better to have the big box version or not, but the reason that it doesn't show on the Template:Tfd page itself, is to avoid the problem where the big box was duplicated in all the examples where it is used in the document section. There was no other way to fix this, as discussed above. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Unfortunate, as this section proves. Thanks for your answer. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the only problem, the template had a "trancsclusion demo" parameter for a while. I've just changed the doc page to use that, so it's now showing the full box again here. Amalthea  20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. This should at least solve the issue AoV² encountered. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"type=tiny" sometimes adds newline
The option "|type=tiny" seems to sometimes add a newline after the text "<See Tfd>". At the moment, you can see this here. As this option is for inline templates, this makes a mess. Strangely, it does not occur here, even though this is in the same article. Could somebody confirm they see what I see, and that it is not something peculiar to my browser. HairyWombat (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * in H2G2, the template at TfD, looks good now. Amalthea  17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It never occured to me the problem could be there. I still don't understand why it happened someplaces and not others, but I can live with that. HairyWombat (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem was that the H2G2 template was used in a list, and lists are more sensitive to linebreaks than normal test. Amalthea  18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Id?
When transcluded onto an article, this template has. That means that if there are multiple instances of it, invalid HTML is generated. Is the  useful for something or should it be removed? Svick (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change
There's a discussion regarding this template at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion. Mhiji (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TfD 2nd nomination
The TfD listing instructions says: "If the template has been nominated before, use " ", " ", etc." I did. See this. However, where it says "Please discuss this matter at this template's entry at templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." on template page, I was unable to figure out how to get the "this template's entry" portion to link to the TfD listing (due to it being named "(2nd nomination)" as per the TfD listing instructions. Please revise this template to allow linking to TfDs that include " ", " ", etc. in their name. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All seems to work fine. Could you please point out the problem more specifically? Debresser (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For some reason, all is working find. The template page link is to "#Template:Infobox pseudoscience" and the TfD page list is "Template:Infobox pseudoscience (2nd nomination)". Yet, the template page link somehow finds the listing without the (2nd nomination) as part of the # string. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

link to "correct page"
Can we change the template (and twinkle) so that the template links to e.g. Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 26 if it gets the input of the date ? The WP:TFD page is rather long and I hate to search for the date if I want to read/vote in the discussions and thus wanting a "similar" system to the afd system (linking to the concrete nomination and not to the transcluded section at WP:TFD). <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion vs. deletion
I can't edit this template, but I think there's a problem with it, because when it appears in articles that include a template listed at Templates for discussion, it says that the template is being considered for deletion. Several times I have noticed this message, and usually the template (often an infobox) is being considered for merging, improving parameters, or splitting into more specific templates. I think that Tfd should instead say that a template is being considered for discussion, so as not to mislead anyone. Jsayre64  (talk)  16:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This template is for deletion. Tfm is for merge discussions. It may happen that a deletion discussion, once started, evolves into a discussion about how to improve the template. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed change. I suspect we get drive-by keep !votes because people imagine that the template will be deleted from articles with no replacement, and no consideration of alternative actions. emphasising discussion will encourage them to read it, rather than simply !vote. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

subst:PAGENAME redundancy
We shouldn't have to paste ; simply typing  should suffice, and the template should handle the rest. Can someone make the necessary changes, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is necessary actually to have the name of the template in the Tfd call. This can be achieved via the current method, or by substituting a wrapper template, which is what I have proposed below. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New version which links directly to daily nomination page
At the request of User:Jc37 (see discussion) I have coded on the /sandbox a new version of this template which will link to the daily nomination page (e.g. Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 1) instead of the parent page Templates for discussion. In order to do this, it is necessary to substitute the template; the template will then take care of the rest. You can try it by adding {{subst:tfd/sandbox}} on a template (and then reverting yourself). &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there any concerns about implementing this new version?
 * 2) Are there any tools or bots that might be affected by this change?
 * I'll echo his questions, and also note that I obviously support this. It's been common practice at CfD for a long time, and makes navigation to a discussion easier for newbies, etc. - jc37 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deployed the new version so I guess we will find out soon enough if this causes any problems. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Tfm will also need a similar update. - jc37 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for a note, I requested the same here a few months ago (two sections above). <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod. I've been asking for this for years. I finally decided to try to do it myself, but in the end, it was becoming apparent that I needed to call in a a professional : ) - jc37 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There are fewer than 100 templates up for deletion right now, so I think we can handle it. I can go through with AWB perhaps. The problem is that I am not clever enough to make it work with both the new and old versions simultaneously. So I need to: My choice for the new name would be Template for discussion to match Article for deletion. Is everyone is okay with that? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a good idea to me. Can be added into the new version? It was missing from the old one, even though documentation on the template page and at WP:TFD said to subst it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the new version will be subst only, but I've had to revert for now because the current uses of this template (which are not substituted) would be broken by the new code. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need to find a bot owner? Or do you already have this in process? - jc37 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fayenatic london: the, and , said to subst the , not the whole template. If the whole template was subst'd, it made a mess  which was not a nice cleanup job if the TfD didn't close as "delete". -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) create the new version at a new location;
 * 2) go through all the current uses and replace with the new version;
 * 3) then we can redirect the old template to the new one.


 * There is usually a "spelled out" page and an "abbreviated" one. And typically one redirects to the other (though which is which is not consistent). (Long way of saying: Sounds good to me : ) - jc37 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait! Template for discussion. - jc37 19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes of course! Amended &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And here we are ... I fixed up all the current uses and we should be all ready to go with the new version. I see it has already been used incorrectly, so I am now off to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle to ask if appropriate changes can be made there &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted
Guess I reverted this "improvement". Discussions get moved from day page to day page, it just seems silly to have to update links to a moving discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So because you think it's silly to update a link for relisting a discussion, we should make it more difficult for people to go to the discussions? Good luck arguing that as appropriate. - jc37 08:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean more difficult for people to go to the discussions? My link works. I am trying to prevent situations like this, where is appeared a template was tagged for discussion, but the discussion was never started. 117Avenue (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look further up this page - and in the archives - you will see that there has been concern about the sheer amount of TfD discussions overwhelming the main page, to such an extent that it sometimes fails to transclude all the daily pages. When this happens, using an anchor link to  might not work, but using an anchor link to   will - unless it gets relisted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless it gets relisted. Which makes the link go to the wrong place. 117Avenue (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the job of a relister is to make sure that there is a link to the new discussion. I personally do this by leaving a placeholder header and hatnote at the site of the discussion and add a hatnote at the top of the discussion at the relisted location. We also adjust the XfD template.
 * This has been done this way at CfD (and elsewhere) literally for years.
 * What's the issue? That you feel that it's too much work to fix a link when you're relisting a discussion? then maybe leave the relisting to someone else? - jc37 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This version hasn't been live for a month yet, and at least once already the tag was removed, because someone thought there was no discussion. My edit fixed this problem. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Placement of template:Tfm/dated.
Tfm/dated it it the intention of people who use this template to place it in such a position that its output appears in article space? -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Otherwise, how will people see that a template is up for merge? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will come back to the issue of appropriateness after resolving a technical issue. Is there any way to force an article pages to update the display of a template without editing the to remove the banners Tfm/dated display from view once Tfm/dated has been removed at the end of a discussion? -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PURGE usually works for me. On the rare occasions that it doesn't, I often find that it's because my browser has cached an old version of the page, so I WP:BYPASS. If that also fails, WP:NULLEDIT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User-unfriendly Wiki abbreviations appearing in articles
Distinguish is currently nominated for deletion. To see how it looks on an article, follow this link: Pleonasm. At the time of this writing it says "Not to be confused with Neoplasm. ‹See Tfd› ". This is unacceptable since our new users don't know what "TfD" means, and even for experienced users it doesn't clearly communicate that the template is nominated for deletion. This needs to be reworded - perhaps "This template's deletion discussion"? Another option is to simply eliminate the tiny option. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Ok, let's discuss this uncontroversial minuscule edit to something that never received consensus in the first place (yes, I checked the talk archives). Ego White Tray (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This was clearly a controversial change, and so should be reverted. But where was it made? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I at least fixed the "Tfd" error to "TfD". I support there being a tiny option like this, it just needs to link to the TfD (preferably to the actual TfD of that template), and it could be more descriptive while still being very conscise, e.g. ‹Template under discussion›.  Either that, or we need to revisit entirely the idea of having TfD notices show up in mainspace at all, ever.  Even the output of the current inline is, frankly, a reader-hateful thing, and a great example of Wikipedian can't-see-forest-for-trees behavior, catering to editor rather than reader interests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The "dated" subtemplate does not unindent when it appears multiple times in an article
This one is hard to explain but easy to see. Look at the documentation for Countdown-ymd at the current moment, while the template is being discussed. You will see multiple instances of the /dated subtemplate of this TfD template. Each one causes a permanent one-level indentation of the text following it, at least in my browser. Assuming that you can see it too, and that it's a problem with the template rather than with the formatting of the documentation, can you fix it? I suspect that it has something to do with a CSS style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a general problem when indention (whether with colons, asterisks or hashes) is applied to most box-type templates, including any -type templates; uses  when displayed in template namespace. Besides the indent becoming "permanent", an -type box becomes smaller, with some of its contents being ejected out the top (in this case, the horizontal rule and the three items "Maintenance use only:", "1. Edit the TfD log ..." and "2. Please consider notifying ..."). I did a write-up somewhere (which I can't find), but it's pretty much the same problem as Village pump (technical)/Archive 131, and strongly related to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 231. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Less boldface
Hi.

In my previous edit, I changed the template's formatting: Instead of a predominately bold text, we now have boldface applied to important areas.

Before:

In this version, the majority of the text, including three links are written in boldface. However, two of the links (Template and deletion policy) are pages that most Wikipedians visit only once or twice. The third, "this template's entry" is one that is often clicked.

After:

In this version, only two portions are in boldface: "being discussed for deletion", which tells people what's going on, and "this template's entry", which allows them to quickly find the link that they most likely want to click.

I didn't change the sibling templates yet. I thought receiving feedback first is logical. It is a template after all; bold edits should be kept within a reasonable range.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The inline and tiny options stopped working
Both of them are producing full-size banners. If this is due to a namespace test, please fix it. It should be done with includeonly and noinclude, not by namespace, so that template documentation doesn't get hosed beyond comprehensibility and so that TfD'd inline templates don't mess up talk page discussions, etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the template page itself, the banner is supposed to be full size. Please give examples of pages outside of template space where the inline and tiny options are not producing reduced-size banners. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't test it elsewhere. There needs to be a way to keep it from showing up huge in template documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Still unresolved. The inline and tiny version needs to work where ever they are used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2015
If this template is placed below rather than above the main template content, pages on which the nominated template is transcluded should say "The template above" rather than "The template below".

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . How is this exactly a request?
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The text is "This template is being discussed for deletion", so not "The template above" nor "The template below". I am setting the request as answered. If I misunderstood, please use . Debresser (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The text depends on the "type" parameter. It is "This template..." on template pages, but the default text on non-template pages (the "#default" case in Template:Template for discussion/dated) is "The template below...". <span title="User:SiBr₄">SiBr4 (<span title="User talk:SiBr₄">talk ) 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tested this, and you are correct. This template is usually placed above the template that is being nominated, which is good. This has been the intuitive good decision of all editors so far, to the best of my knowledge. I'll add a few words to the documentation, to make that part of the instruction. Debresser (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorization problem
Template developers, please take note of this discussion. Specifically: how can we stop this from happening? Eman 235 / talk 03:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

editintro parameter refers to editnotice that doesn't exist
When help isn't turned off for this template, there is a link to edit the TfD log to create the corresponding discussion entry. However, I noticed that the editintro parameter in that link does not refer to an actual editnotice that exists; it refers to Templates for discussion/editnotice, which is a red link. Is there a different editnotice somewhere else that should be linked? Or should this one be created?

Right now, there isn't much help if you want to add a log entry without using a semiautomated tool like Twinkle. Correction: There is a comment at the top of each log saying what to do, but that might not be immediately obvious to a new user. Logan Talk Contributions 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The editintro link hasn't been changed since the creation of Template for discussion/dated in 2012; the editnotice itself never existed. My guess is that had intended to create the editnotice after creating the template but didn't.  Note that all subpages of Templates for discussion use a "real" editnotice Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, which is currently empty except for a top-right link "Closing instructions". <span title="User:SiBr₄">SiBr4  (<span title="User talk:SiBr₄">talk ) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not guilty! I copied this from Template:Tfd in 2012. The non-existent editnotice was added by a joker called in 2010 and has been there ever since. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)