Template talk:Cfd notice

Rename suggestion

Good idea to have a template, but shouldn't it have a name that isn't so close to {{cfdnotice}} when the intended use is different? How about {{cfdcreator}}?? Bencherlite^Talk 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Other options include {{cfdw}} (redirects to a deprecated template tagged for deletion), {{cfdnote}}, {{cfd-note}}, and {{cfd-notify}}. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No real preference, just thought that having only a "-" difference might get confusing. Will quite happily leave up to creator and godparent to decide if/what new name needed. You should have notified Cgingold with {{godparent}} ("It has been suggested that a template of which you are the godparent should be renamed. You are welcome to join in the discussion") Bencherlite^Talk 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear -- I'm afraid this "godparent" thing is starting to get out of hand! :) As to the choice of name, I'm thinking we might want to go with "cfd-notify", which would leave open the possibility of creating a nearly identical template (perhaps "cfd-notify-other") that could be used for notifying other parties. Cgingold 07:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You think this is bad? Just wait until it hits puberty! :P "Cfd-notify" it is, then! I'll move the page and update it as needed. Incidentally, should {{Cfd-notice}} remain a redirect to {{Cfd-notify}}, or should it be retargeted to {{Cfdnotice}}? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely redirect to {{Cfdnotice}}, since it's an obvious variant that someone could type by mistake. Cheers, Cgingold 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

fix no-SUBST subheading issue?

Hi -- This template automatically adds a subheading which is very nice. BUT when you go to edit the message, for whatever reason, it links back to the template unless it was properly SUBSTed. So we need to have one of those nifty little SUBST warnings when someone tries to include the template without SUBSTing. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. I ended up accidentally editing the template when I meant to correct an error I made in adding the template to a user page. I caught my mistake right away, but it was a little bit surprising and caught me off guard. Snocrates 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is not producing links

The notice is supposed to produce links to the discussion. However it is printing out [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{{2}}}#Category:{{{1}}}|the category's entry]] text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 23:48, March 8, 2008 (UTC)

Did you remember to specify the date of the nomination? Both the category name (without the "Category:" prefix) and the date (in YEAR MONTH DAY) format are required parameters. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I was following the {{subst:cfd-notify|category name|date=yyyy Month d}} stated in WP:CFD. My {{subst:cfd-notify|Angry Video Game Nerd|date=2008 March 8}} with the "date=" left in must have triggered the incorrect text. Sorry. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, actually. I've corrected the formerly erroneous instructions. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New instructions for identifying the creator

I tend to get a lot of these on my talk page, because I "created" the category only based upon a CFD rename. I wonder if we should put something in the instructions that if it's clear that the category is the result of a CFD rename, then there is no reason to notify the creator, as that's just the person who was carrying out the CFD decision. It might be a better idea to find out what the old category name was and notify that creator, but probably not, as the creator of that may not have been aware of the CFD and will have no idea why they are being notified for something they didn't create. Actually, I don't have a good idea who to notify. Any suggestions? --Kbdank71 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the following to the "Usage" section:

Please check to see whether the category was created as a result of a "rename" result at a CFD; if it was, then there may be no need to notify the creator, as that is often just the editor who carried out the CFD decision.

–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand usage

This needs to be expanded to be used for everyone involved in substantial use of a category, or at least appropriate wikiprojects and workgroups. Without getting involved for the moment of how widely it should be necessary to inform people, the minimum text to use this template would be to change created " to "created, or otherwise interested" . Or of course we can write a new template. DGG (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to add a parameter that would optionally replace "which you created" with a more appropriate notice (e.g. "wikiproject=yes" to insert the text "which is under the purview of this WikiProject"). Is this close to what you had in mind? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned with "appropriate wikiprojects" and "or otherwise interested". Since there is no requirement for notifying wikiprojects to begin with, nor is there any way to determine which wikiproject(s) are appropriate (the vast majority of categories do not have those fancy templates informing the world which project is interested in it), projects should absolutely not rely on notification such as this. As usual, watchlist the category and there won't be any problems. As for "or otherwise interested", how do you determine that? All you can go by is "who edited the category itself", which is usually a small list of people. Most people who are "interested" in a category will not have edited it. --Kbdank71 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's usually fairly obvious which is the wikiproject involved. There is currently no requirement, and though I think there should be, that's not what I'm asking. That's a more general question, and will be brought up elsewhere following a current deletion review on a category. Perhaps projects should indeed begin to watch their pertinent categories. While there is currently no requirement, there is certainly no prohibition. It would not amount to canvassing, because there's almost always no way to predict what people would say. I intend to notify when I see something worth notifying. Black Falcon's suggestion would be a start. DGG (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done The template now supports an optional parameter, "wikiproject=yes", which replaces the default wording of "which you created" with "which is under the purview of this WikiProject". I have updated the documentation page to reflect this new parameter, but I am not sure which of these versions (1 versus 2) is better. The first version is rather cluttered and the second duplicates a significant amount of instructions. Any alternative suggestions are welcome.

I agree with Kbdank71 that "projects should absolutely not rely on notification such as this", so perhaps it would be appropriate to indicate that: (1) notification is optional; and (2) WikiProjects generally should not be notified about non-controversial nominations. For example, there is no need to notify either WikiProject Architecture or WikiProject California if Category:Buildings and structures in Bakersfield is nominated to be renamed to Category:Buildings and structures in Bakersfield, California. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the two versions. I like the second. It may be wordier, for lack of a better word, but the instructions seem to be clearer. If we want people to use this, the instructions need to be clear. And yes, it needs to say in big bold words, "Use of this is not mandatory. Existence of this template does not mean a) it will be used, b) your wikiproject will get notified" or some such. Otherwise people will complain that we put this together and didn't use it.

I like the phrase I intend to notify when I see something worth notifying. That is key (also reiterated by BF). Because this is a double-edged sword; projects complain now that they aren't notified, but if we notify them on everything, I guarantee they'll complain because they're getting too many notifications. Unfortunately, that then leaves it up to the person doing the notifying what is "worth notifying". There are a few renames that I would have thought were completely non-controversial, but a certain project went ballistic because we didn't notify them of the 1 category that applied to them (out of a many category umbrella nom).

Granted, I still believe the onus should be on whoever is interested in a category to be the one to do the work (aka watchlist it). This isn't any different than if I were interested in an article or category that I refused to watchlist and I whined because nobody came to me and told me about a pending change. Wikipedia gives everyone the tools, take responsibility and use them. sorry for going down that road again, but I happen to feel strongly about it --Kbdank71 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat different from articles in that one can be interested in a category (eg by placing articles in it) without watching it (as very few people ever edit a particular category). Or one might be watching article XXX but not category:XXX; here one could put a 'cfd notify' note on the article XXX. Perhaps Twinkle can be trained to do this if catmore is used. (Not Australia by any chance?) Occuli (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

{{cfdnotice}} is a notification template designed for placement on article talk pages, and its documentation does (thankfully) call for it to be used only on the "main article's talk page". I really don't know much about Twinkle's capabilities, but it's probably possible from what I've seen. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and concur that it needs to be stressed in the documentation (some may ignore it, but at least it will be there for everyone to see...). How about something like:

Use of this template is not mandatory since the onus is on those interested in a category to watchlist it, and its existence does not imply that it will or should be used in all cases. In particular, WikiProjects generally do not need to be notified of routine, uncomplicated, or uncontroversial discussions for one or a few categories. Also, please check to see whether the category was created as a result of a "rename" result at a previous CFD. If so, there may be no need to notify the editor listed as the creator, as that is usually merely the admin/editor who implemented that earlier CFD decision.

This wording discourages notifying WikiProjects except when many of "their" categories are nominated (e.g. a whole category tree) or when a particular category discussion is especially complex or controversial. It also includes the principle that "the onus is on those..."; while I do not think that the principle is explicitly mentioned in any guideline or policy, it is clearly implied by the repeated failure of proposals to mandate notification for deletion discussions. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"I" icon

Does the "i" icon improve the notice or message in any way? Although it adds a graphic element to the message, talk pages nowadays often are littered with icons and it seems doubtful to me that the icon actually attracts attention. Any thoughts on removing it and leaving a plain-text notification? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I have removed the icon. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of objections is probably related to the fact that this template has fewer than 30 people watching it. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Delection not dishonest euphemism "discussion"

The template should specify "deletion", not lie be less precise with "discussion" (which is a worse fit for most discussions of categories, imho, 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)). I don't see the template here: How does one correct the falsehood euphemism?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The template used to mention deletion until this edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a very helpful response! If, after reviewing this talk page, I don't see a cogent counter-argument, I'll revert that edit. With the help of a lactase-supplment, I am trying to suck more milk of human kindness,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Although "discussion" is more general (and, by extension, less specific), it is not a lie or a falsehood to describe a nomination for deletion as a nomination for "discussion"; after all, a discussion proposing deletion is still a discussion.

The reason I changed "deletion, merging or renaming" to "discussion" was to account for other possible reasons for nominating a category. When a category is listed at WP:CFD, it can be proposed for deletion, merging, renaming, splitting, conversion to a list or article or just for plain discussion about its scope or location within a category tree. Also, the eventual outcome of a CFD is not bound by the scope of the original nomination—e.g. a category nominated for renaming can, after discussion, be deleted.

I believe your suggestion (on my talk page) to add a parameter allowing alternative text would be a relatively simple fix to implement, so I will start working on that. I'll post again soon. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BF for the great offer of help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done, and you're most welcome. I added the parameter "action", such that specifying action=text will display "text" instead of "discussion", and updated the template's documentation. So, for example, specifying action=deletion will replace "nominated for discussion" with "nominated for deletion".

It is an optional parameter, of course, so there is no guarantee that it will be used; then again, the use of this notification template itself is entirely optional, and I believe that the existence of the parameter will gradually encourage its use. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very helpful improvement. I'm sorry for expressing inexplicable levels of irritation yesterday. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have been of help. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion, merging or renaming

This edit replaced the text "nominated for discussion" with "nominated for deletion, merging or renaming". The reason offered in the edit summary was that "it's extremely important for people to be told in specific, concrete terms that the category they created is facing deletion, etc. - and not a mere 'discussion'. I think, for three reasons, that the previous wording should be restored:

1. There are other specific options besides deletion, merging and renaming, such as splitting or conversion into a list.
2. A category can be nominated merely for discussion about its scope or organization (in the case of a category tree), without any goal of seeing the category deleted, merged or renamed.
3. The (optional) "action" parameter allows nominators to specify, if they think it is needed, the specific action that is proposed.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2016

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: Superseded by the below requested move involving changing the names of multiple other templates (non-admin closure) Pppery (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Template:Cfd-notify → Template:CfDNotice
• Template:Cfdnotice → ?

– For other XfD types, the *Notice or *Note templates are supposed to be placed on the talk pages of the creator (or any interested WikiProjects). The fact that CfD uses that name for a template placed on the article talk page is confusing Pppery (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current Template:Cfdnotice surely looks like a "notice" (see Template:Notice, Template:Editnotice, Template:Afd notice, etc). (Though you might be pointing out that Template:Afd-notice is inconsistent despite not mentioning it directly here?)
  If there's naming inconsistency with other templates, perhaps they're worth a separate discussion. Though I'd also like to add that many of these templates have been around for a while and folks are already familiar with their names and redirects. If you really want to push for consistency across all XfX processes, I suggest making a large list of templates used in all of them, note the discrepancies, and make an RfC with much greater visibility on template name changes (but honestly you probably have better things to do (so do I and everyone anyway)). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: I was actually trying for consistency with Template:Tfdnotice. Pppery (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Pppery: Hmm I see. Ideally, things like Template:Afd notice and Template:Afd-notice are more distinguished in name and tfdnotice/tfmnotice are made consistent with a broader "talk notification" template scheme, but I sincerely think it's not worth the confusion. The processes are not exactly broken in my opinion. I can't stop you from nominating more moves, but I personally wouldn't make any unless the picture across XfX is absolutely clear. Don't know what else to say — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 21 August 2016

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

---

– There is a huge amount of inconsistency between these deletion discussion talk-page notice templates. Pppery (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible options are:

1: *-notify (system used by Cfd)

• Template:Tfdnotice → Template:tfd-notify
• Template:tfmnotice → Template:tfm-notify
• Template:RFDNote → Template:rfd-notify
• Template:Afd-notice → Template:afd-notify
• Template:Fdw → Template:ffd-notify
• Template:MFDWarning → Template:mfd-notify

2: *Warning (system used by Mfd)

• Template:Cfd-notify → Template:CFDWarning
• Template:Tfdnotice → Template:TFDWarning
• Template:tfmnotice → Template:TFMWarning
• Template:RFDNote → Template:RFDWarning
• Template:Afd-notice → Template:AFDWarning
• Template:Fdw → Template:FFDWarning

3: *Note (system used by Rfd)

• Template:Cfd-notify → Template:CFDNote
• Template:Tfdnotice → Template:TFDNote
• Template:tfmnotice → Template:TFMNote
• Template:MFDWarning → Template:MFDNote
• Template:Afd-notice → Template:AFDNote
• Template:Fdw → Template:FFDNote

4: *notice (system used by Tfd and Afd)

• Template:Cfd-notify → Template:CFDnotice
• Template:Cfdnotice → ?
• Template:MFDWarning → Template:MFDnotice
• Template:Afd-notice → Template:AFDnotice
• Template:Afd notice → ?
• Template:RFDNote → Template:RFDnotice
• Template:Fdw → Template:FFDnotice

I am fine with any of these options, with any differences to capitalization or spacing. Pppery (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Andy M. Wang as participant in the previous discussion. Pppery (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose all This is just change for the sake of change. These are the templates used by many scripts and bots, you have not demonstrated that there is anything wrong with them as they presently stand. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose moves with the RM process like I already suggested above. FYI, "notice" sounds like notices placed on the top of pages, and "warning" sounds too much like "user warning" (i.e. uw-*) You surely have better things to do than call out inconsistencies. The project has them everywhere. And also I didn't actually expect this second request here. Suggest someone procedurally close this — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• oppose No valid reason given, no argument for any one of the above options or even an indication which is preferred, and the disruption and work generated would be far far more than a normal page move.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @JohnBlackburne: Why will the disruption caused be moving these template be far greater than a normal page move? Pppery (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, JohnBlackburne, why is it necessary for me to state my preference in this requested move. I am arguing for consistency, and don't really care about their names, as long as they are the same as eachother. Pppery (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If a page is moved then nothing else needs doing normally. The redirect left behind still works, and may be preferable depending on the context. But if only one of these is moved it will mean updating gadgets editors use to post them, updating scripts that track or maintain them, and editors who use them manually getting used to the new name. As for stating your preference a RM works best if there are only two options. If there are multiple options the problem is, even if more editors !vote "Support", there often needs to be a second poll to gauge which of the options is best. If the second poll is inconclusive so no consensus can be established nothing gets changed, and there have been two polls for no purpose. So it’s best to make a single proposal, of what you think would be preferable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support any (except the warning ones) as inconsistency in the names of such templates negatively affects learnability. Now, I'm not a regular user of any of them, so I don't know if there aren't good reasons they have the names that they do. As for the disruption caused by renaming them, can someone clarify? As far as I can see, nothing should change if we keep, as we normally do, the old titles as redirects. If the requested moves don't pass, I'd support at least creating redirects at the proposed titles. Uanfala (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Uanfala: Some of my proposed titles (mostly tne *notice variety) conflict with or are very close to names of other templates. What should be done then if this move fails. Pppery (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. These particular page moves should not be made for reasons given above (especially those regarding scripts and bots), plus because of how easy it is to make redirects for consistency. If there is a preferred consistency, but one finds that some of the redirects cannot be created because they are already occupied, then all one has to do is find a different consistency for which there are no pages that occupy the chosen redirect titles. It is easier and far cheaper to create redirected consistent titles than it is to rename several bot- and script-affected pages.  Rules of enpagement Paine  16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Just create redirects for any that you (or anyone else) wants to use. There is no benefit to moving the templates and lots of hassle for script maintainers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Put action in section title

What would folks think about adjusting the section title to take the action parameter? So it would say "Category:Category has been nominated for renaming"? I've made the simple change in the sandbox but wanted some other input from folks who use it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; it's already a switch in the body of the text, might as well match it. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone and done it — in hindsight, simple enough a change and probably didn't merit this here. I want to add this to Twinkle so it should be more useful in general. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Stub parameter to support stub template nominations

Noted in (somewhat) more detail at WT:CFD but I added a |stub=yes parameter that changes some of the messages and links so this can be used for stub template nominations. Looked fine testing in the sandbox but would welcome improvements. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd notice which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to merge and more generic wording

Hello,

There is a discussion open about changes made necessary by the merge of the several CfD notification templates. Your input is welcome! Place Clichy (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)