Template talk:Rfu

Subst

Why not just make the tag automatically go to the template? Why force the user to add the subst? To drive home the point that it's substitutable? Just make if rfu. It's simpler. Quadzilla99 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request: Template:Pp-template

{{editprotected}} Replace <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly> with <noinclude>{{Pp-template}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly> Thanks, Iamunknown 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iamunknown 22:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use tag change

Why was the tag changed to use the new template:di-replaceable fair use instead of the previous template:Replaceable fair use? nadav (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was changed in a process to get some order in the mess, i.e. no one really knew what templatesd existed, and the templates sometimes was not fully correct. And in order to prevent clashing usage, the new templates where created on the side. _→AzaToth 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've since figured this out. From what I've seen, I support the changes. nadav (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But Template:Di-replaceable_fair_use has a two day time limit whereas Template:Replaceable_fair_use has a seven day limit (as does the "I7" criterion at WP:CSD). What gives? 24.155.247.191 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, nevermind. 24.155.247.191 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with template

After tagging Image:dm0.jpg with this tag, I noticed that it tagged it as an "old image" when it was actually uploaded after July 2006. Is there a way to check for or to fix this? I am not particularly proficient with template syntax. Perhaps a bot could be written to see if the image is in fact "old", and fix the tag if not, or an alternate template could be created for use with images uploaded after the cutoff? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fur

Since I keep coming to this page when looking for the "Fur" Fair Use templates, I went ahead and added a disambig note at the top, to Category:Non-free use rationale templates. --Elonka 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Code Update

{{editprotected}}

Could a templatey administrator change this

<noinclude>{{redirect|Template:Fur|Fair use templates|:Category:Non-free use rationale templates}}{{Pp-template}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>empty template|<strong class="error">You forgot to subst this template. Replace {{rfu}} with {{subst:rfu}}</strong>}}{</includeonly><noinclude>{</noinclude>{<noinclude>[[Template:</noinclude>di-replaceable fair use<noinclude>|di-replaceable fair use]]</noinclude>|old image=no|date={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}}}<noinclude>[[Category:File deletion template shortcuts]]</noinclude>

to this

<noinclude>{{redirect|Template:Fur|Fair use templates|:Category:Non-free use rationale templates}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{{{{|safesubst:}}}substchecktop|Rfu|subst={{{subst|}}}}}</includeonly>{{<noinclude>tlp|</noinclude>di-replaceable fair use|<noinclude>2=</noinclude>old image=no|<noinclude>3=</noinclude>date={{{{{|safesubst:}}}Date}}}}<includeonly>{{{{{|safesubst:}}}substcheckbottom|subst={{{subst|}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

at Template:Rfu? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 12° 16' 15" NET 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done at present. Has this been tested in a sandbox? Also, what does the change do? If it merely simplifies the code, my inclination is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A copy of this code can now be found in the sandbox and its effects can be seen at testcases. The template updates include the following changes:

1. Updating the substitution check code to a more efficient version.
2. Updating the date parameters to use existing date templates rather than variables, simplifying the code.
3. Optimising the demo display on the Template:Rfu page to use Template:Tlp, simplifying the code.
4. Removing the redundant page protection template, which is already included as part of the documentation.
5. Moving categories to the documentation subpage.

Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 344° 17' 15" NET 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User warning

What template should I use to warn a user if I had his file tagged with this template? X.One ^SOS 13:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} Angr (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2014

The template states that the template always needs to be substitued. It also gives an example at the top. The example is not substituted. Please add "subst:" to the example at the top of the template page. Taketa (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Taketa: Not done: {{edit protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. In any case, the two examples state (i) "use {{subst:Rfu}}" and (ii) "place {{subst:Rfu}} on the relevant page". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{Di-replaceable fair use}} has an undocumented parameter where you can specify a reason to why a file is thought to be replaceable. Since users are advised to use this template when tagging files, this template should give the option to specify this parameter. Wikicode for adding this parameter is available in {{rfu/sandbox}}, and Finnusertop confirmed that this code works. I can update the documentation when the parameter has been added to the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and uncontroversial to me. I've changed the sandbox version to reflect how I think the change should be implemented (simpler and cleaner and more inline with how one expects it to work). I quickly tested, and it appears fine.

I am however not keen on the idea of editing this template right now; I'm not even going to mark this request as answered; My judgement is currently impaired. I'll be back. fredgandt 15:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Some differences between your code and my code:

• If the reason includes an = sign, then my code accepts the reason as a reason while your code changes the reason into a non-existing parameter.
• If you use {{subst:rfu/sandbox}} without parameters, then you get two pipes (||) next to each other with your code but not with my code.
• With my code, it was possible to see that a reason parameter exists by simply looking at the {{rfu/sandbox}} template. This is missing from your code.
• My code allowed you to access the reason through a |reason= parameter while your code requires using a less intuitive |1= parameter.

Your code looks buggier than my code. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The method of adding a reason to {{Di-replaceable fair use}} is to add it as an optional unnamed 1st parameter; I am simply suggesting that be the way it is optionally added when using this template. And on the matter of how it looks in the documentation - that's what the documentation is for; how a template functions, its robustness and usability, maintainability and simplicity are far more important than how a frankly bizarre and ugly kludge looks when reading the template page. And equals signs are a pain in the posterior - I agree, but unnamed params are commonly used without any major problems that can't be solved by proper documentation and use (i.e. {{=}} or {{=}}) fredgandt 18:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone uses {{subst:rfu/sandbox|1=some reason which includes a = sign}}, then the person expects parameter 1 to be accepted as a reason by the {{di-replaceable fair use}} template. The user doesn't expect that it is required to type {{subst:rfu/sandbox|1=1=some reason which includes a = sign}}, so your modification to the sandbox is causing confusion to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Even though the sandbox is currently not as I left it, it still works (post transclusion) as I intended. Preview {{subst:rfu/sandbox|This {{=}} my reason}} somewhere, to see the wonderful magic. This is common and well documented practice. Anyhoo, consensus needed, and clearly we disagree, so I'll not be making the change (I'd consider that inappropriate at this juncture). Leaving the request unanswered so another template editor may swing by. fredgandt 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two commonly used ways to escape = signs: by including the number of the parameter (|1=This = the reason) or by using {{=}} (|This {{=}} the reason). Users expect both methods to work. With my code, both methods work, but one of the methods breaks with your code. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:File deletion template notice. fredgandt 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you're now able to make the change yourself, it's just the documentation linked above to consider. Be aware that {{subst:rfu/sandbox|reason=This = my reason}} doesn't work (unsurprisingly) and must be fixed by using {{subst:rfu/sandbox|reason=This {{=}} my reason}} which should be clearly documented.

On a personal note: I must admit to not first realising that your code allowed my method too, and if I had realised, this would have been a much shorter conversation . On consideration, I returned to suggest a compromise which already existed, and thus set about organising the documentation in advance of making the requested change. fredgandt 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note: I discovered that {{dfu}} calls the parameter |concern=.... It could be confusing if the templates use different parameter names, so maybe it's better to use concern here too. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about that whilst walking mah dawg, and although I prefer reason, we can't change the concern and I agree that they should match. That in mind, I reckon that Rfu should accept reason, and Dfu should carry on accepting concern but also reason - and be documented with reason (lol). That way, new users will see documentation for reason here and there, whilst old users can carry on using concern without concern (lol). fredgandt 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If one template accepts both reason and concern, then so should the other. I've added this to {{rfu/sandbox}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Related pages (so far)

Template:Rfu and Template:Rfu/sandbox - to include optional param - to the sandbox

Template:Dfu and Template:Dfu/sandbox - to expand optional param - to the sandbox

Template:Or-fu-re - needs documentation for mandatory param - to the documentation sandbox

Template:File deletion template notice and Template:File deletion template notice/sandbox and discussion on Template talk:File deletion template notice - to document all changes - to the sandbox as far as covering the above

 fredgandt 23:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Some concerns:

1. I have made edits to the documentation sandbox (see the documentation talk page).
2. {{subst:rfu/sandbox}} includes a pipe for the reason parameter even if no reason is specified, and {{subst:dfu}} (and its sandbox) include |concern= even if no concern is specified. This looks ugly. I think that the templates only should include a pipe and parameter name if the parameter is used. Unfortunately, the wikicode for this becomes a bit long: {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{1|{{{reason|{{{concern|}}}}}}}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}}} (expands to a single | if the template is substituted and the parameter is used). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rfu and Dfu sandboxes look good to go. An expressed but empty param isn't a problem, and in many ways is arguably (although I really don't want to argue) better as it indicates the possibility. If we won't agree, then do it your way; as long as the templates function correctly and easily, I'm far more concerned by the documentation and have expressed my concern about it on it's talk page.

Home stretch \o/ fredgandt 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a point: if users look at the wikicode of the substituted template, they may find out that there is a reason parameter. Can help users a bit with the {{subst:dfu}} template, but won't help users with the {{subst:rfu}} template since the substituted template's parameter is unnamed. The wikicode of the "rfu" template becomes a lot more complex if we want to remove the extra pipe, and maybe it's not worth it for a minor æsthetical difference.

I have tested {{subst:rfu/sandbox}} and {{subst:dfu/sandbox}}, and both seem to work. They seem to produce expected output both with and without a reason. The reason parameter can be referred to as "reason", "concern" or as an unnamed "1" parameter, and = signs only need to be escaped if the unnamed parameter is used. Unless you find anything which doesn't work correctly, I suggest that we copy over the current sandboxes to the main templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep and yep to the doc talk too (saves an edit). fredgandt 04:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

I've done the work, but noticed that Rfu isn't passing its params to "for administrators" in {{deletable file}} used by the Di-* templates. For comparison see the results of Rfu and Dfu side by side, both using a reason. You think we need to fix this? fredgandt 12:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the templates with extra parameters ({{di-replaceable fair use}}, {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, {{di-orphaned fair use}} and {{di-no permission}}) pass any information to the administrators. I'm not sure if they should. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Preview: {{subst:Rfu|reason=Foo bar baz}} and {{subst:Dfu|reason=Foo bar baz}} and see the Administrators > Usage section in the output. fredgandt 16:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I wrote: those four templates leave out the values of the extra parameters in the "for administrators" parameter. I don't know to what extent the admins use the template links. I suspect that many admins use Twinkle, and some admins might use MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than guessing, perhaps asking one like the friendly @Mr. Stradivarius: (who's also a code whizz) will save some head scratching? fredgandt 21:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never done any file deletion work, so I might not be much help here. For non-file speedy deletions I do tend to use the links on the template, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So where one of these shows the params as used, and the other doesn't fully, should we make sure both do, or is it only the link that matters? fredgandt 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Log/delete/Explicit and Special:Log/delete/Diannaa, I see that most deletion log messages for these speedies mention Twinkle, so I'd presume that few people if anyone use the deletion links in the template and that it is not useful to spend time on modifying the template deletion links. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)