Template talk:XfD relist/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Creepy

Creepy! I wrote the exact same thing and put it in my own template, located here. That's scary! :( Mo0[talk] 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest using {{relist|~~~~}} or {{subst:relist|~~~~}}. r3m0t ^talk 22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I am the obligatory guy who doesn't like the recent changes. Do we really need to lose the color emphasis? I don't see the problem with the coloring being there. --W.marsh 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind some colour but I too found the red a bit over-emphatic. - brenneman^{L} 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new layout

I suggest this:

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

--Ezeu 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what else can I do but assume that "silence means consent". --Ezeu 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

#CC6600 and the line

I'm not too nuts about the color, #REDIRECT #CC6600, though. It looks kind of washed-out to me. A think a darker color, a dark red or blue or green or whatever. But anyway, can we not have a line above the text? It helps to separate the two sections of discussion, does it not? Herostratus 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Associate this template with a category?

Could this template, like stub templates, automatically list the AFD page in a category to be created, named Category:Relisted articles for deletion. The idea would be to focus attention on relisted AFDs as being more urgent than the other ones. Of course, there is no deadline, but it seems like a decent idea to this uninformed soul. Yechiel Man 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in that. No AFD is any more or less urgent than others. — CharlotteWebb 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just came here to ask about this. I would support adding a category. It would make it easier to find discussions that would most benefit from having another, neutral, voice. -- kenb215 talk 04:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Colors

I just reverted RHMED's change to a pinkish hue on the text. I'm not opposed to changing the color (I thought it was fine as it, but I'm not exactly in love with it), but I'm not sure about that particular choice. Can I suggest something more along the lines of Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. or Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.? I figure we should stay away from red and blue to avoid confusion--the pink color kind of makes it look like a clicked redlink. Incidentally, I sourced these colors from here. --jonny-m t 07:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The pinkish hue was Cerise, I think a change would be refreshing. The current chocolate colour is a bit dull and washed out looking. Have a look at the List of colors, there's got to be one better than the chocolate. RMHED (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the orange the best, but I don't like the pink. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Which shade of orange? I quite like the this one, it's called persimmon. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could go with an orange shade; the persimmon is nice, but there's also international orange or pumpkin. --jonny-m t 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

International Orange would be very appropriate I think. RMHED (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

International orange it is! Unless, of course, anyone has any objections. --jonny-m t 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the new orange ^_^ Wizardman 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No! The bikeshed must be bright purple with yellow polka dots! —harej (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

wish for header level

I think it would be nice if this template included a heading level so that further edits can be more easily added below the notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

17:27, 27 August 2009 MrKIA11 (talk | contribs) (685 bytes) (Undid revision 310338709 by SmokeyJoe (talk) - creates wierd blank headers on AfD page. reach consensus before changing template) (undo)

OK. It did look a bit weird, and I suppose you often do want to read others' comments while composing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Red text for "Relisted" link

I am not really content with this, largely because it looks like a red-link. I am assuming the intent is to make it stand out as a link, but isn't there a more visually appealing way of doing this? @harej 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin

I came across {{Lorem Ipsum list}} embedded in the template. I was quite puzzled by it as it was numerous lines of latin that didn't seem to be serving any particular function. I did a little search on what exactly it was and it appears to be some sort of joke:

It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using 'Content here, content here', making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for 'lorem ipsum' will uncover many web sites still in their infancy. Various versions have evolved over the years, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose (injected humour and the like).

Anyway, I checked the talk page and not a note of it here, so I thought I'd ask. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both occurrences were encased in <noinclude></noinclude> tags, so it didn't really need to get removed. I believe the only reason it was present at all was to show how the template would appear with text around it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've restored it. Mkdw ^talk 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorum ipsum —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I have often seen inexperienced editors restate their !votes below the line. Can we add something along the lines of "Opinions above this notice should not be restated, they are part of the full discussion" to guide them? It costs us nothing to do this apart from a small discussion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Optional comments

I have added a field for optional comments on relists. I envision this as being used for cases where some explanation may be necessary about why the discussion is being relisted. I see this as being more useful in FFD and such rather than AFD, as I've had to procedurally relist things on FFD many times in the past because it was de-tagged on the description page and what have you.

The only thing that I couldn't figure out is how to make the signature appear in different places depending on whether or not the comment is being used. I would think it would be best to have the signature appear next to the comment if the comment is used, but if not, the comment should appear where it always has. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Accidental use in articles

Is it worth adding a check for mainspace with an error message "Did you mean to use {{Reflist}}?". I've just fixed three articles using {{Relist}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Padding

@Technical 13, your edit removed the whitespace padding czar ⨹ 00:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduced point size

I've thought about this for awhile, so I have boldly resized the point size for the first sentence in the template to 96%. This will serve to reduce the visual impact of the relist template's layout on AfD pages and log pages, so it's still easily noticed, but not overbearing on those pages. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Of note is that when a relister adds a comment, it still appears in standard point size despite the reduction of the first sentence sizing (example link). This is beneficial to ensure that said comments stand out in the discussion, formatted in the same point size as other commentary in discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

New layout

I have made some changes to reduce the visual impact of the relist template on AfD pages and AfD log pages. The plan is to use a boxed format, to avoid the lines going all the way across the page as the previous version did and to encapsulate it on the page using a box with a light-colored border, again, avoiding the layout with lines. Another reason is to omit the darkened line that was created when the two lines overlapped each-other when two or more relists occurred next to one-another in the previous version. I would really like to try it out for awhile with this format, so reverting the recent change that added back the lines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Below is the version I created, which I prefer per the above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Below is the version that APerson created:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Below is the original version, which Steel1943 has reverted to:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Discussion

I support #1, the boxed version, per my rationale atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Northamerica1000: It doesn't seem like any consideration was given to the fact that this template is also used for WP:RFD. The new changes make it very difficult to notice and read the template there, which I find to be a problem. I've reverted the template back to your edit in February, given that I never noticed any issues with this template from then until the edits during the last 24 hours were done. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How does its use at RfD make it difficult to notice ? At the present RfD page (link) it stands right out using the box format; quite conspicuously noticeable in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The larger text stands out, allowing editors to choose whether or not to notice the discussion. On the RFD page, to me, it makes a difference. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support option 3. Northamerica1000, my opinion is based on this template's utilization on WP:RFD alone. I could honestly care less about its application on WP:AFD given that it's not a discussion forum I attend frequently. I'm thinking that the current version may just need to be copied over to a brand new template to be utilized for WP:RFD; as far as I know, there are no functions or bots that handle RFD that are triggered by anything in this template, and the template is just used for cosmetics only. (I wish Tizio could confirm this for me, but they haven't edited for a while.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943: I've never used a script to relist at RfD, but do so at AfD. Is the relisting process there typically done manually? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Yes, given that each nomination doesn't have a standalone page like WP:AFD (and WP:MFD) does, but rather "day pages" like all of the other deletion discussion forums. On RFD, the template, as far as I know, is purely cosmetic. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: In other words, the following text could be completely removed from the template if a new template specifically for RFD were created:

{{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifeq:{{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}|Articles for deletion|[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{safesubst:<noinclude />SUBPAGENAME}}]]{{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:{{{3|{{{2|0}}}}}}>2|[[Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times|{{{3|{{{2|0}}}}}} {{safesubst:<noinclude />SUBPAGENAME}}]]|}}|}}

...All of this code is specific to WP:AFD, and WP:RFD has no functionality built into this template that requires any code of the such. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943: It would be easy to simply create a new template for RfD pages, and per the AfD coding in the present version, it contributes nothing to RfD. People would have to be notified about it so they don't use this one. This is quite a decent compromise, imo. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Sure, as long as Template:Relist is updated to return an error referring the editor to utilize the new template whenever {{Relist}} is used in a subpage of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and I'm not sure how that is accomplished. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I wouldn't recommend this, as it would likely cause confusion. Also, doing so (if it is even possible) would likely be reliant upon changing the Wiki coding for RfD pages, which would have to gain a consensus and is more trouble than it's worth. It would be much easier to post a notice at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion instead. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Northamerica1000: What I am recommending is already done with a template used for WP:RMTR: {{RMassist}}. That template is set up to return an error if it is placed on any pager other than the target of WP:RMTR. That, and who knows: you or another editor may think of a change sometime in the near future that needs to be made to {{Relist}} that would actually break WP:RFD if it was placed there, making this change basically damage prevention. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, RfD is already familiar with templates exclusive for itself: see {{Rfd relisted}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support #3 (original, status quo). Not broken and the horizontal rule better separates the comments between relisting periods. Add a small margin beneath to suffice for the double-line issue. If I recall correctly, the template used to do that before it received a facelift on another occasion. Would like to see examples of the styles in the context of an AfD if I am to consider it further. – czar 05:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Since you further modified the text in previous versions after my modifications to read, "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.", I have restored this to the template. I feel that this is much less wordy and more to the point than the previous, "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.", while still conveying the exact same message. I also very, very slightly lightened the font color in the orange text, to avoid the ultra-bright orange color that was previously in place, which is just too garish and unnecessarily too bright. See below for the present version at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fine as long as no one edit wars over it. Also not sure why the AfD code is an issue for RfD if it never turns on, but I'll leave that for the RfD regulars to decide. – czar 12:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support option 3 with the new color (per Northamerica1000's rationale for changing the color) and the new margins. Relisting discussions is pretty important. The version above credited to me (i.e. option 2) was created as an attempt to make it a bit less obtrusive, but if there's no consensus for that, option 3 seems the best choice. APerson (talk!) 18:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Layout notes

Spacing

Notice how the darker gray line is formed when the lines in the present version overlap (example below). I find this layout to be "amateurish" in style, and it detracts from the appearance of both XfD discussion and XfD log pages, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, below is what it looks like when the templates follow one-another. Below is the shortened-line version. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Here is the box version when listed concurrently. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. ~~~~

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times - listed for deletion

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. Since this category is placed on pages as a result of using this template, you may be interested to participate in the discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Style

I find the top & bottom borders of "relisted" notices intrusive, and have modelled an alternative here (compare the following section, which is also relisted. What do folk think? User:Alakzi has also noted that the colour is not complaint with our own accessibility guidelines, nor international web accessibility standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never liked this template. It's so wordy and garish for such a trivial act. Awhile back I suggested reducing its size and prominence in AfD discussions - ultimately corralling all the relistings, delsort notices, etc. outside the flow of the main discussion thread into an "AfD History" infobox as currently used for prior nominations - but apparently never followed up about the idea. Anyway, what's wrong with:

Relisted by Example on 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

in some suitably accessibility-compliant but distinctive color? We don't need to tell people how relisting works in every single discussion; the people who don't know don't seem to be reading the instructions anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well - could it be that the intent is to actually draw people's attention to old discussions? Then perhaps it being obtrusive is a, uhh, feature. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Suppress category

Is it possible for this template to check for words like "Template:Afd top" and then to suppress the category if the page includes it? There's over 9000 pages at Category:Relisted AfD debates so it's losing its purpose of being a way to priority discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion Bug

For some reason, the relisted template failed to be properly transcluded to the main AFD page when it came to this AFD, though it was included on the individual page. I'm not sure of the cause of this, though putting some linebreaks in fixed it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)