User:Doncram/Propose standardizing "reason=", "1=", "rationale=" arguments in templates

[When ready, this RFC to be posted somewhere generic [where???] and is to be posted by placement of. It is then supposed to display in the "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" section of all the currently ongoing RFCs at Requests for comment/All. ]

Propose standardizing "reason=", "1=", "rationale=" usage in templates

It's aggravating to me, an editor who only occasionally uses various templates which call for an action, such as AFC Comment, db-author, Db-g7, that to use them I have to remember which way each requires for the basic purpose of displaying a "reason" for the action. And also that the invocation of some of these templates can only be invoked by use of template titles that are unnatural, difficult-to-guess, hard-to-remember, and insensitive-to-small-sensible-variations.

Further, just now trying to use db-author (wikilinked to Db-g7, i find that even following the explicit documentation for this template on how to display a reason (which is to use "|rationale="), that the reason does not display!
 * Specifically, at Greenwood Lodge, what displays at this moment for me is:

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion and/or blanked the page in good faith. See CSD G7. If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. This page was last edited by Doncram (contribs | logs) at 19:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC) (16 seconds ago)
 * This happens when I followed instructions to use "|Rationale=" argument, i.e. what I entered was:
 * Similarly the reason does not display (the exact same result above displays) if I use db-author, the more naturally titled template which redirects behind the scenes to Db-g7.
 * And there is again no difference if I omit the "Rationale=", i.e. enter:

Why an RfC? Because this is a proposal across multiple templates, where the point is to simplify usage by occasional users through standardization on most common English language wording. And because at least one individual proposal at a Template Talk page for one of these was already dismissed. Of course the frequent users of a given template do not see usefulness for themselves of standardization, and they said basically "it's not a problem" and "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But simplifying and standardizing is a basic kind of administration action we should take to reduce, albeit slightly, the difficulties of newer or differently-focused Wikipedia editors in joining in the administrative processes served by these templates.


 * That past failed proposal was at Template talk:Db-meta, the consolidated Talk page for all the "Db-" templates, and it is archived at Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_5. Comments there included:
 * Okay...
 * But concern about aliasing...
 * And it was ended by closure "not done".
 * This was followed by revised(?) proposal at Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_5, which was dismissed seemingly because someone noticed a weird technicality accidentally encountered (that entering exactly the text string " would cause the code to fail, due to the text string "reason" being a variable name within the code, or something like that), and the discussion went off-track without addressing the request.  Perhaps I might have rankled editors there, inducing them to be more defensive, by terming the existing situation "madness".
 * This was followed by revised(?) proposal at Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_5, which was dismissed seemingly because someone noticed a weird technicality accidentally encountered (that entering exactly the text string " would cause the code to fail, due to the text string "reason" being a variable name within the code, or something like that), and the discussion went off-track without addressing the request.  Perhaps I might have rankled editors there, inducing them to be more defensive, by terming the existing situation "madness".


 * The proposals and discussions did not even fix an outright error identified (that sometimes readers get a message to use but when they do enter , they get an error message.  Go ahead, try copying that to a page.  Specifically users are sometimes advised "Replace this tag with  ." as covered in Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_5.).

About the DB series of templates, the editors who use them most probably know what all the speedy deletion codes 1 to 14 mean. But I don't want to look up what number applies. An editor should be able to slap down or  which conveys all that's needed for an administrator to process it.

On the claim here that difficult-to-remember template titles are used, could those be addressed by simply setting up Template redirects? I think that should work. But in fact when such alternative Template titles are set up as redirects, I believe those get deleted, too.

Let's see if there are objections to setting up such template redirects here in this RfC. And/or let's experiment by trying, during the development of this RfC, to create some (which I rather think will disputed and deleted). Testing on variations in capitalizations within Template:AfC comment:
 * AFC COMMENT (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * AFC Comment (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * AFC comment (as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC), a bluelink)
 * AfC COMMENT (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * AfC Comment (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * AfC comment (as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC), a bluelink)
 * afc COMMENT (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * afc Comment (was a redlink as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)) Now a bluelink, as of 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC).  This one sort of previously existed, actually as "Temaplate:Afc Comment", but was deleted with "21:12, 8 July 2013 GorillaWarfare talk contribs deleted page Template:Afc Comment (G2: Test page)"
 * afc comment (as of 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC), a bluelink)

And try invoking AfC comment various ways:

And for an AfC template more naturally including a "reason":