Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Template talk:Afd top

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lifebaka (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 2 December 2011 (→Linking to talk page: don't think that explanation works, but still happy to see the edit not happen; can't subst: that sort of parser; split out into own section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Parameter

I think we could add a parameter to this template. For example: 

{{subst:at}} '''Delete''' ~~~~

would be replaced with: 

{{subst:at|delete}} ~~~~

In my opinion, it looks nicer in the instructions as well as making it easier to enter. It is also more intuitive as the parameter is usually part of the sentence generated by the template, and there's usually no reason to have it split off. It's also substed anyway, and thus will have no long-term impact on the size of deletion pages. Comments? Sigma 7 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed the initial comment at the far top in 2005. Sorry about that - although the version that I wrote makes it an optional parameter. --Sigma 7 05:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tests on User:Sigma 7/Sandbox2 don't show any problems, and given the nature on how the parameter is implemented, I don't forsee any problems with the bots. Is there any objection before I commit the change? --Sigma 7 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter added

I have added an optional parameter, which should ease closing debates considerably. Note the "optional" part, meaning that the template can still be used in the old manner, and should not break bots. The way it works is simple:

Using any option, rationales can always be added after the template. More options could be added. — Edokter • Talk • 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost reverted this myself when it was added yesterday. Parameters added with no documentation explaining them are worse than useless - they are actively confusing and contribute to instruction creep. Now that you've added an explanation, we can at least begin to debate the merits of the change. (But until the documentation is added to the template page itself and not merely here, it's still a not fully functional process.) Rossami (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation can always be fixed. I first want to probe administators' input. There is a thread on AN/I guiding admins to this talk page. If it meets with approval, I'll add to the documentation. — Edokter • Talk • 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some instructions, as there were none - even to explain the basic function of the template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I moved it to Template:Afd top/doc to minimize the toll of editing the documentation, as the template seems highly transcluded throughout all the AfD archives. — Edokter • Talk • 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see y'all beat me to it! I reverted User:J-stan's update because it wasn't putting out clean code in the absence of a {{{1}}} variable, which I was worried might cause problems for the bots or existing scripts. (My explanation on his talk is here, his response on my talk is here.) I've since updated the template so that clean wikicode is output whether you specify a parameter value or not, so hopefully all should be well!
I've also gone ahead and let User:Oleg Alexandrov know about this discussion so he can make sure there are no problems with Mathbot. --jonny-mt 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just to clarify in case anyone is wondering, the addition of the blank "|" in the switch function is just to ensure that nothing, not even apostrophes, are output when someone opts not to fill in a value. --jonny-mt 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I put the extra space in {{{1| }}}. Now the free text option doesn't seem to work. — Edokter • Talk • 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, the goal was to eliminate errant wikimarkup--is it possible to just remove the bold formatting from around the {{{1}}} parameter and instruct users to fill it in as normal? After all, I can't imagine that someone using that option would necessarily want their entire statement bolded. --jonny-mt 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ment to put entire rationales in there, just non-standard results (ie. Speedy deleted). The default space seems to clear out any undefined garbage just fine. I'm not seeing any stray apostrophes in any of my tests. — Edokter • Talk • 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get stray apostrophes in the wikicode (see this test of this template version), but given that Oleg has mentioned that it's probably all right, I suppose we can live with it. My concern was just trying to keep it as clean as possible in case any automated processes or scripts got tripped up by the errant formatting. If they don't mind, then I don't mind. --jonny-mt 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it in one case; when an empty parameter is passed. Though logically, it should not happen (I don't know where the apostrophe comes from). But one should pass an empty parameter anyway. [thinking] Hold on a minute... it's because it passes six apostrophes. OK, that should be fixed now. — Edokter • Talk • 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the idea of accounting for no parameter is to make the changeover transparent for users who would still close discussions the old way, without using the parameters. I was worried that, on the off-chance that Mathbot tripped up on the apostrophes (incidentally, they're still there; that's simply due to the fact that that entire line is the default argument when one of the predefined items is not passed), WP:AFDO would suddenly start reporting massive backlogs as the bot failed to count closed discussions. But the operator says it's probably okay, so I think it's probably okay.
Although...I did come up with a fix :) --jonny-mt 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Actually, your fix makes no difference (see my test in your sandbox using your template. But as long as one doesn't pass an empty parameter, as opposed to no parameter, there shouldn't be a problem. A definitive fix would probable using #if: in the default parameter. — Edokter • Talk • 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now; I misunderstood what you meant when you said "empty parameter" then. In that case, I think we're safe--I can't imagine that anyone would pass an empty parameter, and we're covered in the event that they pass no parameter (which is what I was focusing on). So I'm satisfied.
And on that note, it's well past my bedtime. Thanks for taking the time to explain this! --jonny-mt 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break

You all need to keep working on this. The template is almost always used via substition but that's not been an absolute rule. Right now, the template brings in a lot of extraneous and confusing wikicode when not substituted. That needs to either be suppressed or the parameter needs to be backed out. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I see what you mean. — Edokter • Talk • 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should work either way now, even though there is some visible code in edit mode when substituted. That should't be a problem though. — Edokter • Talk • 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm getting worried now... how to make sure the code is not exposed (using subst:) while also making the parser works when the template is not substituted? — Edokter • Talk • 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the parameters break the various AFD closure scripts. --Coredesat 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we actually had it worked out so that it could be used either with the new parameters or in exactly the same manner as before, down to producing the exact same wikicode output (assuming that it was substituted per WP:DELPRO#AFD). Unless closure scripts were not substituting the template, then, they should have been okay with that solution. Since we've changed it to account for the instances when it is not substituted, however, they're probably choking on the parser code they're being passed.
Since it seems we need to do a little more troubleshooting, I'm going to go ahead and copy the existing version to User:Jonny-mt/At (a test version myself and Edokter have been working on) before reverting back to the pre-parameter version. My gut tells me there is a solution to all of this, but this will restore the status quo until we get this figured out. --jonny-mt 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. So who wants to go through and fix all these cases where this new template has vomited wikicode everywhere and stopped my bot from working. I'm not running it anymore until either you decide to stick with what works, or come up with a parameter version that actually does. the wub "?!" 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a crack at it later, although I think calling us "tards" in your edit summary is a bit harsh. The fact that this template was being edited was brought up on ANI, and if you look at the discussion above you'll note we spent hours trying to perfect it (and succeeding) so it specifically wouldn't vomit wiki-code. I'm sorry your bot choked on it, but we had no way of knowing that we should inform you (although I'm glad to see that you've since added a note about that to the page).
A new version is being tested at User:Jonny-mt/At--feel free to drop by and lend a hand! --jonny-mt 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the discussions your bot noted. Please let me know if I missed any. --jonny-mt 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight...

Before we do anything, it's time to have a fundamental discussion about who this template is designed for... instead of what. Thats right. I find it quite astonishing that some template cannot be improved for those who actually use it because it might break some script or bot. I for one am not willing to accept that.

So far, Jonny and I are more then willing to accomodate for scripts and bots, as far as coding permits it. However, let's not forget why this template is here in the first place: for the benefit of the closing admins. So when someone comes along yelling "fuck this shit", excuse me for being a bit annoyed.

What is your bot doing anyway? And what exactly needs "fixing"? Or anyone else's for that matter. It can't be the actual closing; only admins can do that. So it has to be collecting data afterwards. If those bots have to extract a result, there must be a better way of doing so instead of reading the raw output, and I'm sure it can be coded in trivially using a meta flag. Anything better then looking for raw output, because that seriously hampers this template's evolution. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

See {{mfd top}}. When you are viewing a closed MfD discussion page itself, it looks just like a closed AfD. However, when you view a closed MfD transcluded in the log, the includeonly kicks in and it collapses like a closed DRV. I think this would be a good idea for closed AfDs, since it would aid navigation by reducing the vertical length of an AfD log. How does this idea sound? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Shereth 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be BOLD about it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to work on it at User:King of Hearts/Sandbox/Afd top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I've tested it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox 123 and it works. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Actually seeing it in practice, I wonder if it's really quite done. It looks fine on the individual nomination pages, but on the log page it's coming across as being somewhat unfinished. When expanded, you get a box in a box in a box sort of look, rather than a seamless single box like at MfD. Also, we might want to rethink how the template is set up .. since the usual result is placed outside the template, you don't get the result showing in the collapsed version, either. Thoughts on how to address either/both of these concerns? Shereth 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the template itself, that is easy to do. However, it requires a {{{1}}} parameter, so we have to bug Mr.Z-man to modify his script. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "seamless single box," if you would look closely, it's the same at MfD. Both use {{collapse top}}, so any problems with it would arise from that template. So far, however, I do not see any problems with it. You might have perceived a difference because the AfD color is lighter, making the borders more visible. But yes, we do need to fix the result. Since that will radically change how people use the template (now a parameter will be included), everyone will need to be notified, and Mr.Z-man's script needs to be updated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It'd also mean modifying the behavior of AfD closers (like myself) who are very used to {{subst:Afd top}} result. I don't use scripts/tools and pretty much do it all by hand so I'd have to reprogram my brain as well. What about the formatting that I mentioned (the nested boxes)? I haven't really dug into the code to see what's causing it .. I probably should, instead of just whining about it .. Shereth 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, mostly nevermind. You answered me in the edit conflict. I wonder if there is a more elegant way to handle the nested boxes? Or would it just be more trouble than it is worth? Shereth 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now I realize the answer to my second question : the {{collapse top}} functionality would have to be added into {{Afd top}} itself, rather than calling it via a transcluded template. I don't think it'd be too hard but again I wonder, is it worth it? Shereth 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? {{collapse top}} is already in {{afd top}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the functionality itself .. basically code the formatting into {{afd top}} rather than transcluding it via {{collapse top}}, so that only a single <div> exists. Shereth 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{mfd top}} has been working perfectly fine without any complaints; I don't see why the nested boxes present a problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely asthetic, which is why I'm not too concerned about it. Just wondering whether it was woth the consideration. :) Shereth 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the makers of {{collapse top}} have considered it then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with this is that you can't navigate to a particular discussion by clicking its entry on the the log's table of contents if the discussion is collapsed. This needs to be fixed. Also, there needs to be an "expand all/collapse all" button on the log page if possible. All in all this is not a bad idea but these glitches need to be hashed out first. Until then, one can use Mr. Z man's hide closed AFD script. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would going to a section be necessary? Each AfD has its own subpage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience, most likely. Adding a line above everything else that reads something like <span id="{{SUBPAGENAME}}"> should work to address the section linking issue (though {{PAGENAME}} might need to be used instead, I don't recall). Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I used <span id="{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}"/>. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely redundant. A mechanism for collapsing closed discussions, for those looking at the per-day pages, has been here for years. It's the class="xfd-closed" style applied to the <div> surrounding all closed discussions. Please use it rather than reinventing this particular wheel by adding lots more HTML to the template that is redundant to a mechanism that already existed. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review notification in closing header

Could we not have the archive header show when a deletion review has been requested? Most participants in a recently closed discussion I'm sure would be most appreciative of such a heads-up. __meco (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 08:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSS class metadata

There is a report at the Village Pump that closed AfDs aren't visible in PDF versions of the pages. From my tests, it seems it's because the CSS class metadata is added by this template. What exactly is the purpose of this class here? The explanation at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes#Classes indicates, that it shouldn't have any effect on non-article pages, which is clearly not the case. User<Svick>.Talk(); 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better addressed to Help:Books/Feedback or something. The problem is that the class is apparently mishandled by the PDF generator. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is its purpose here? User<Svick>.Talk(); 22:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it's been around since the template was first created, and we have scripts that depend on its presence, and it's present in other xfd top templates as well. Plus removing this doesn't help existing pages at all since the template is substituted and not transcluded. It's much better to fix whatever that's causing the PDF generator to break rather than do a prospective-only hack that will introduce its own incompatibilities. T. Canens (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to talk page

The wording of this template, and more, is criticised at [1]. Can we apply some magic to make the words "the article's talk page" automatically linked to the relevant page, if not deleted? Or, failing that, add a hat-note link to the help page describing what a talk page is?

We should probably also add a switch so that a reference to "the article's talk page" does not appear, if the result was delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if such magic were feasible—this template is used without parameters, and the name of the afd subpage it's substed onto won't necessarily match the relevant article. Two other possibilities:
  • Replace it with a pointer to the closer's user talk page. It should be technically possible to get this into the template, but it runs the risk of pointing our hypothetical newbie at the talk page of a long-retired user.
  • Remove the suggestion to discuss on the article's talk page entirely. If someone tries that for a deleted article, it will almost always just get deleted WP:CSD#G8, and in any case, it'll be poorly-watched and nobody will have the opportunity to help him out. If, on the other hand, someone tries to make remarks for a kept article at Deletion Review (even the wrong place, inserted into the top of the instructions or whatever), someone will be able to set him straight.
Either way, while the recently-added link to Help:Using talk pages is clearly well-intentioned, I'm not sure whether giving this class of newbie a link to someplace other than where he can directly edit to get help is any better than just leaving it unlinked. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Expensive" parsers

Ed, re [2], why would "expensive" parser functions even matter in archives which pull so few views? Selery (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views are not the determining factor, re-caching is. Each time anything on, or related to, the archive page is changed, the page has to be rebuild which causes the 'expensive' hit. And if over time those parser functions build up in the archive, we have a problem. — Edokter (talk) — 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I don't believe the server would actively update the parser and rebuild the page except when someone requests the page, and I don't see us ever having enough users surfing old AfDs at once for it to be a real problem. Regardless, I don't believe that the edit was necessary and would rather not see it repeated, for the sake of keeping the template as simple as possible. And no, we can't simply subst: the parser to make life easier, because the existence of an article's talk page might change some time after an AfD is closed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Afd_top&oldid=463586939"