Template talk:Cfd

Opening comment[edit]

Content of the cfd template is presently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases --Francis Schonken 11:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or at least it was, half a year ago :) R adiant _>|< 12:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

2007 January 1[edit]

See: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Time_to_complete_the_grand_renaming.3F. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved documentation[edit]

Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Cfd/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:

<!--BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE-->
<!-- Please do not remove or change this [[Template:Cfd]] message until the survey and discussion at [[WP:CfD]] is closed -->
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}| |{{error:not substituted|cfd}}<div style="display:none;">}}<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="cfd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFCE6; border: 1px solid #aaa; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
'''This category is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Category deletion policy|Categories for Discussion policies]][[Template:Cfd|.]]''' {{#if:{{{1|}}}|This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories.}} This does '''''not''''' mean that any of the '''articles''' in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.<br/>
Please share your thoughts on the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}#Category:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}|this category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for Discussion]] page.
Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.<br/>
''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit&section=2}} add entry]  '''{{subst:cfd2|{{PAGENAME}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{!}}{{{1}}}}}|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}'''''
</div>
<includeonly>
[[Category:Categories for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</includeonly>
[[Category:CfD {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}}]]
<!-- End of CfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
<!--END CFD TEMPLATE--><noinclude>
{{protected template}}
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

There is also some comments in this source code that may not be relevant anymore (I don't know first hand) so it could be removed. Thanks. +mwtoews 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That version doesn't work...try it. —Mets501 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --CBD 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Delete to the copy-and-paste text[edit]

The text given to copy-and-paste is different to the text given on the instruction page. Specifically, it misses out Delete - the result is you may end up not specifying what kind of change you wish to make on the log page (although it should be obvious from the context). greenrd 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy link[edit]

The link to the policy can be updated to Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies for simplicity and to avoid unnecessary redirects. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (bypassing the redirect and correcting the capitalisation in the link's display text). --ais523 17:52, 29 June 2007 (U T C)

Piped link, grammar[edit]

[[Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies]] → [[Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies|categories for discussion policy]]
Melsaran (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to [[Wikipedia:Category deletion policy|category deletion policy]] to avoid the redirect. Thanks, matt br 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor modification[edit]

The categories for renaming and the category for deletion are grouped together. When going through the list to vote, it it sometimes confusing which process is taking place for each nomination. I noticed that the nominations for renaming have a line that states just that: Propose renaming. I think we should added (in the corresponding place) a line that says "Propose deleting" on the deletion template. I would have gone on and done it, but I'm not an admin.--Esprit15d 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose proposal[edit]

Can i direct people to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to add notification template to banner text[edit]

I copied the text below from Template:AfDM (sub-template for Template:AfD). I would like something of this kind added to the template so that editors and appropriate WikiProjects or other applicable forums may be notified of CFD's:

Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Cfd}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

__meco (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would not work because {{adw}} will create links to AfD automatically, which is inappropriate here as the correct venue is WP:CFD. Those links will not work as I tried to show by below example:

example start

AfD nomination of Category:This is a category[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Category:This is a category, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:This is a category. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? So Why 11:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

example end

As you can see, it does not address the needs of CfD which does not have separate sub-articles for each nomination but uses dated pages. Also, {{adw}} adds the signature automatically, so the ~~~~ are not needed.

You need to create a new template, possibly {{cdw}}, which allows the one adding to add the date and automatically links to the section of the category on the CfD-article for this date. Once you have done so, please request the edit again. Regards So Why 11:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably use {{cfdnotice}} or {{Cfd-notify}} ? __meco (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please redirect this template to {{cfd1}}, which is set-up for the new process. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CSD. See also WT:CFD. - jc37 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the edit-protected request for speedy deletion as it seems beyond its scope, and there is a distinct lack of consensus. The template is still widely linked from policy pages for example. Please get some consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove need for subst[edit]

I propose that we change the format of the template to obviate the need for substitution, which is a nasty and inefficient way of ensuring that the by-day log link remains constant. The simplest way is simply to change the link to [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#{{{1}}}]], which is the method used by {{tfd}}. Comments? Happy‑melon 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible, and essentially does the same thing, sounds good to me. (That and it makes it simpler in use by the uninitiated, and those of us who forget from time to time : ) - jc37 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If feasible, I would prefer if, in some way, the "permalink" (with CfD date) could be read off from the template, say as a parameter, in a machine-readable fashion. (Currently that's not the case.) Links to "All current discussions" will of course become stale over time, which is not a problem for the template as such, but not favorable if one wants to save a link to the discussion, which e.g. this bot would like to do. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easiest to check the revision in which the template was added? It's unlikely to be very far back in the history, and certainly no more than seven days :D. Passing the date as a parameter is possible, of course, but is extra work and a change to the syntax that everyone who uses the template will have to get used to... Happy‑melon 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility (though I'd rather use the timestamp of the category entry than browse the past revisions). But in any case, it's not too stable. If the tag is removed by accident or vandalism, and then re-added, the link will be wrong. Keeping track of the link works for AfD and MfD, why not for CfD? --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a stable link within the wikitext on the page is preferable and more stable. What about requiring the timestamp to be passed as a parameter then? We have two options: one, simply edit {{cfd}} to display an error message if no parameter is given. Second, move the code to actually display the message to another template and convert {{cfd}} into a wrapper template that, when substituted, adds a properly-formatted template call to the main template. The downside of that is that we have to move the main code to a less informative title. I'm in favour of the former as it's cleaner and easier to make into a XfD-wide standard. If we perpetuate the substitution method, CfD, MfD and AfD remain using a different process to TfD, IfD, RfD, SfD, PROD and CSD. Shall I construct an example? Happy‑melon 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the two alternatives you mention amount to the user typing, either: {{cfd|{{CURRENTYEAR}}{{CURRENTMONTH}}{{CURRENTDAY}}}} or similar, or: {{subst:cfd}} (which would substitute to {{CfDM}} or similar, with parameters). The second option seems simpler to me, but that's more a question of usability. On the technical side, I would be fine with either of the two. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would use {{cfd|~~~~~}} and let the template do the work of extracting the year, month and day. Using five tildes to insert a timestamp is something that users are already familiar with, so it shouldn't be too much of a change. Happy‑melon 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, that's fine for me as well. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have coded up an example at Template:Cfd/sandbox. Any comments would be appreciated; try playing around in Special:ExpandTemplates with various combinations of parameters and substitution, and tell me what you think. Happy‑melon 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution, seems OK for me; though I didn't do extensive tests. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the change. It is broken. I suggest that this be tested before it is implemented and maybe announced at WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken how? Please be more specific; we can't fix it if we don't know how it is broken. Happy‑melon 08:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with this, and I wish I had seen it sooner. First, linking to CFD/AllCurrentDiscussions doesn't work, because frequently there are discussions that go longer than five days, and the links won't work. Second, if you are going to require a timestamp to be added (and an error given if it is not), there is no difference in the amount of work than requiring it to be subst'ed. Finally, if you are going to use the CFD template as a wrapper, it needs to be subst'ed anyway, so why go through the extra steps of the wrapper? That said, I'm in favor of making this easier to use, but not with the current problems. --Kbdank71 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not one of "more work"; as you correctly note any method of getting this template to display correctly on pages at all times requires a roughly constant amount of 'work'. It's the other advantages of substitution, most prominently the ability to use Special:WhatLinksHere, that mean substitution should be avoided except where it is necessary. There shouldn't be links to /AllCurrentDiscussions in a properly formatted template. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about "wrappers", I don't believe the final proposal involved a 'wrapper' such as is used at, say, AfD ({{afd}} and {{AfDM}}). Happy‑melon 08:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion[edit]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code Update[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could a templatey administrator replace all cases of
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>
with
{{{|safesubst:}}}
and remove
{{Pp-template|small=yes}}
at Template:Cfd? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 20° 51' 45" NET 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the first. Can you explain why we should remove the {{Pp-template}}? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant to the template documentation, which already includes the template. Having it there is pointless. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 231° 48' 30" NET 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

How do I use this template? I just want to put a tag on a category that I think is pointless. I don't how to use templates. Is there a simple list I can add a link to? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not empty the category"[edit]

I feel like that message in the template is very one-sided. It allows people to mass-add pages to a category while it's at CfD, but not to mass-delete them. This doesn't seem right. Either the "don't empty the category" language needs to be dropped, or there needs to be language in this template discouraging mass-adding to a category in the midst of a CfD. p b p 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW Not moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Needless brevity. All of these are contested technical requests.Pppery (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose these are long-established names, and the first four are used as {{subst:cfd}} etc. so renaming is pointless. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I think you mean the last four, not the first four. Pppery (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean the first four. It's {{subst:cfd}}, {{subst:cfr}}, {{subst:cfm}}, {{subst:cfs}} - I should know, I've sent enough cats to WP:CFD in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. In any case, why does rthe fact that a template is being substituted argue against renaming it? Pppery (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because only the code will remain after the substitution, not the name. As I replied to you on WP:TFD as well. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... which is why I am also proposing moving the transcended templates too (the last four). Pppery (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I have a question. In recent weeks, I've come across you on several pages like this, asking for changes to established practices (in some cases making those changes yourself without discussing first). Looking at your contributions, I see that you registered in April, but within weeks you were making large changes to various non-article pages (some of which were templates), and now you are asking for changes to the discussion process for reasons that are not really apparent to the rest of us. My question is this: did you ever edit Wikipedia before April 2016, under any other name? If so, what was that name? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is my first account. I edited under an IP address before, making mostly minor changes. 19:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)
Oppose - we want deletion tag names to be brief, to make users be less likely to make mistakes. I see no reason to expand them, and I sose a reason not to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No benefits to the change, and borderline disruptive proposal. — JFG ^talk 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per Redrose64 --Begoon ^talk 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing members during a CfD discussion[edit]

Continuing from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_account_adding_contentious_cats 05:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The template say: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".

But what if there is some compelling urgent reason to do so, to remove one of more of the membership. The categorisation produces a BLP-violating bottom notice on an article, for example.

I suggest altering the that text to including a hyperlinked note to another page that reads: "If category members absolutely must be removed from the category, record their removals at the top of the CfD discussion. Knowledge of the membership at the time of nomination may be crucial for information of later participants to the discussion" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that.

Is there anything other than BLP which might justify such removals? Otherwise I'd make the exception more specific such as, "If category members absolutely must be removed from the category under WP:BLP, ..." Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This suggested change is reasonable. I don't think being specific about the location of the note is necessary. --Izno (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with these thoughts. However, I would rather incorporate it in the main text, possibly in small font, but not hyperlinked to another page. And it should also be added to the text at WP:CFD. By the way, another reason for immediately removing articles from categories, as mentioned at WP:CFD, is because of vandalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a reasonable proposal, but I agree with Marcocapelle that the additional language should be incorporated in the notice itself. I think the language also needs to be updated to apply to depopulation that does not leave the category empty—e.g. if I remove 90% of a category's membership, I have depopulated it but not emptied it. Therefore, I suggest something along the lines of: Please do not depopulate the category (except to reverse vandalism or remove contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced) or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these responses. Izno, some specific edit to a protected template will be needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other situations where removing an entry from the category is appropriate. The statement is designed to tell users not to start getting ready to delete the category, or create situations which would make deletion more likely, before the discussion is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate Type parameter[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Reinstate_Type_parameter_in_CFD. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proper category handling when relisting discussions[edit]

Hi, I've made some changes to {{Cfd/sandbox}}, {{Cfd full/sandbox}} and Module:Cfd/sandbox to make sure the monthly maintenance categories (such as Category:Categories for discussion from December 2019) stay the same after relisting by introducing new parameters |startmonth= and |startyear=. The templates can be used exactly as normally and the changes has been tested at Category:X3. For more information see Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser#Bug_with_relisting_CfD_discussions_involving_monthly_maintenance_category which prompted these changes and if no one objects I will sync these changes in a few days. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done now implemented for the {{cfd}}, {{cfm}}, {{cfs}}, {{cfl}} and {{cfr}} template families please tell me if I missed any. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Template:Cfs to Module:Cfd[edit]

Hi, the {{cfs}} family of templates currently use {{cfd full}} instead of Module:Cfd like all the others. Is there a reason for this or was it just missed when doing the conversion? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trialpears, how do you feel about doing the same for {{cfc}}? I can probably pull it off but lua isn't my speciality. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amorymeltzer, sure. Will do shortly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The module has dropped a line-break somehow[edit]

The output is now crammed together, e.g.: Add entry: {{subst:cfr2|Cfr||header=Template:Cfr|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}Administrators: Click here to rename.. There actually appears to be soft line-breaking in this output, but it is not rendering with a visual line-break before "Administrators" in the browser. I could probably go fix this (probably with <p>...</p> instead of <br /> markup), but I don't mess with Lua much, and it's easy to break stuff if you're not steeped in Module behavior. I tend to constrain my TE gnoming to wiki-template code. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]