Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 23

Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude>

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the instructions for listing a template for discussion be changed to allow noincluding the TfD tag in more cases? Pppery (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: noincluding here refers to preventing the notice advertising the discussion from being displayed alongside the template on pages where it is transcluded (the notice still appears on the template's page). The proposal recommends noincluding in cases where doing otherwise is likely to cause disruption. Uanfala (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In the listing instructions there's the following sentence on the use of <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags:

• For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.

However, prior to a bold edit from 2011, which was explained on the talk page but which didn't receive any feedback, the relevant bit used to read:

• If placed directly into the nominated template, consider using <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc.

I'm proposing to incorporate the two versions into:

• Consider adding Add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if the template is designed to be substituted, or if the notice is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc.

This is intended to address concerns raised during discussions from April 2014, December 2014 and January 2015, as well as this recent TfD. Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I find no objections to this. Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the instructions does not mean that it hasn't been done dozens of times in recent history for inline templates being nominated. That seems to be a ridiculously huge argument about a trivial policy, and so it should be added (if only to stop the bickering). Primefac (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I also have no objections to such a proposal, but If this is accepted (which I now oppose), I think the proper procedure is |type=disabled, rather than <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Pppery (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Pppery, why would that be? The end result is the same, and <noinclude>...</noinclude> is widely-known (while "disabled" may not be). Genuinely curious, mind you. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: To me, <noinclude>...</noinclude> seems like a technical hack that is only necessary for substituted templates and it's use elsewhere makes the tfd/tfm templates not self-conatined. Pppery (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Primefac and Pppery, I'm wondering if |type = disabled wouldn't be better as it's much less fiddly to write than a pair of tags. However, I don't know if changes won't need to be made to Twinkle and other automated tools (which I presume must already have some option to add <noinclude> tags). Also, from what I see there appears to be a little technical difference: <noinclude> prevents transclusion entirely, whereas using |type = disabled appears to make the template notice transclude as an empty string. Couldn't that have unintended consequences down the line? Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support change. If common sense needs to be written down to avoid this in future, then I guess it needs to be written down. --Begoon ^talk 18:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Support per my comments on the TFD. If the template is a big freestanding template like a navbox the notification is fine, but if it is one designed to be placed in the body of text like {{Angle bracket}} it can quickly ruin articles. Pinguinn 🐧 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Placing <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the tfd notice is essential for a template which has the slightest chance of being substituted. Altering this to "Consider adding <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice" makes it seem optional. Encouraging the use of <noinclude>...</noinclude> around tfd notices on non-substituted templates goes against several previous discussions here and elsewhere; TfD has few enough participants as it is, hiding the notices will be counterproductive. We would be more likely to get complaints along the lines of "Hey! I often used that template - why was it deleted without telling us?" --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. I've now changed the wording above to reflect your concern about substitution. As for the proposal going against previous discussions, would you be able to provide links to some of them? On a side note, the proposed new wording makes it clear that the <noinclude> tags are to be employed only to prevent disruption on widely used templates, but I'm starting to wonder if TfD notices on any transcluded pages are reaching their intended audience. They're meant for editors who have previously used the template, right? But adding the notice isn't going to show up as an edit on any of the articles that the template is transcluded on, and it won't get to the watchlists of people who've edited these articles. Instead, it will reach the people who happen at the time to be reading the articles. What are the chances that this group would include the editor who placed the template there sometime in the past? Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  Mostly they were on TfD discussion pages, or on the talk pages for the templates that were at TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I'm not sure I got what you said with that, would you be able to clarify? What does they refer to? Is that the notices? Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  "They" are the links requested in the sentence "As for the proposal going against previous discussions, would you be able to provide links to some of them?"; but of course you are aware of several others, having linked to them in your introductory comment, paragraph beginning "This is intended to address concerns". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't know what statement is the best, but please don't make the Tfm and similar templates visible in the articles where the nominated templates are included!!! Now, the Template:CatalogueofLife species has a Tfm template, and this is visible in every page where the template is used, like Ligdia adustata. Remember that Wikipedia is read by a lot of people that doesn't know anything about its mechanisms, and if Wikipedia is clear, easy to read and effective, they may love it and decide to contribute. The Tfm template visible is every article is a fist in an eye even for me, and I'm a quite experienced Wikipedia editor, I think for a simple reader it would be very unpleasant. Fornaeffe (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this discussion be a formal WP:RFC? Pppery (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  Only if we can't come to a reasonable decision in a reasonable amount of time. If everyone agrees, why start an RFC? Primefac (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Primefac: Well, someone disagrees. Pppery (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  Their concerns were valid, and I see that they've mostly been addressed. They haven't replied to the new wording so it might be acceptable to them. For the record, I agree that noinclude should be used only if it is disruptive, such as for {{braket}}. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  No, Primefac, only one of Redrose64's two concerns were addressed. Uanfala's changes to the wording did nothing to address his second concern - that very few people participate in TfDs and hiding the notice is thus counterproductive. By the way, could you please stop changing stars to colons when replying to me. Pppery (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  Few people participate in TFD even with huge notices plastered all over, so I don't think any change is going to affect that. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Redrose64's second argument. This proposed change is opening loopholes that allow the entire point of the {{tfm/dated}} (and {{Template for discussion/dated}}) templates to be circumvented. The fact that <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing is even in the instructions at all is a technical hack that is required for substed templates and should be dropped (see my counter-proposal below), not expanded to allow use in other cases. Pppery (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  Your counter-proposal simplifies one aspect of current practice (which is great) but it doesn't at all address the main issue at hand, and that is preventing further pointless large-scale disruptions. As for my proposal allowing for the circumvention of the entire point of {{tfm/dated}}, could you explain how this is going to happen? The template notice will still be visible on the template page, as well as on the transcluded pages if it doesn't cause disruption. Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  That was intentional. I was not trying to address the main issue in that proposal. To respond to your arguments about large-scale disruption, The entire point of the tfm notice is to display on articles. <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing it makes it not display on articles. Therefore, <noinclude>...</noinclude>ing circumvents the entire point of the templates. Some people, such as Fornaeffe (as shown above), and Mykhal (as shown on my talk page) dislike the display of TfM notices on articles and could thus use this proposed wording as a loophole to allow them to be noincluded. Pppery (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. But the tfm notice appears both on the template and on the pages it's transcluded on. Besides, the proposal for noincluding is only for cases of likely disruption, and most TfDs won't be eligible. On a side note, I'm finding your reasoning a bit odd: should we really allow the encyclopedia to get trashed in the name of preserving one aspect of a single template's function. Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  So, Pppery, from this discussion:

  I see the {{tfm/dated}} template has been made smaller, but that doesn't significantly improve things. A sample disruption in a ref in List of Sweet Blue Flowers chapters: "[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See TfM›]]⟨NOISE⟩青い花[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Angle bracket|‹See TfM›]]⟨メディア工房⟩" (in Japanese). Fuji TV. Retrieved July 13, 2009. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) — Eru·tuon 17:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  Do you believe that disruption like that to articles is acceptable because of a back-room discussion about maybe merging a template? Disruption that is far more likely to affect ordinary readers than anyone likely to comment on the merger. Read the comments from Bishonen, Jonesey95, Mr. Granger, Erutuon and others in that discussion to understand the scale of disruption to reader facing content this caused. --Begoon ^talk 16:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  You have presented a very real issue, Begoon and Erutuon, which is that the tfm/tfd notice wikilinks don't work in external link titles. The proper way to fix that, however, is to add a CSS class to the output produced by {{tfm/dated}} and {{template for discussion/dated}} templates and then add a .whatever {display:none;} to MediaWiki:Common.css, rather than suppress the output of the entire TfD template just for the sake of one miniscule exception. Pppery (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  This technical hack looks like a good idea generally but that's a solution to the wrong problem. The real issue isn't that the tfm template breaks links, but that, if it's used on inline templates that are used many times in an article, it makes marmalade out of the text.
  Now, if we are so desperate to advertise tfd discussions on all transcluded pages, then the proper solution would be to have all such notices appear once in an article, probably as a single maintenance template notice at the top. Uanfala (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  And this is the place where we're just going to disagree. The tfm template was malfunctioning in the case of appearing in link titles, which lead to my proposed fix above. This "real issue" is not a bug. The tfm template is working as intended. It should be showing up on articles. It is. Pppery (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  To summarize my position here, noincluding should never be necessary or even allowed. Each issue that requires it should be fixed case-by-case, not with a blanket hiding of the notice. My counter-proposal below fixes one issue, and my previous comment above fixes another. These should be adopted, rather than all-out hiding the notice. Pppery (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  If the broken link is the only issue you see in that example then I despair. That's just one reference, from one article. The transclusion of the notice for {{Angle bracket}} mashed the text of many articles horribly, because it is used inline, for formatting. This is unacceptable for a maintenance notice. The encyclopedia is written for readers, and should never be broken like this to ineffectually "advertise" some technical back-room discussion. --Begoon ^talk 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion made into RfC. Pppery (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  I've added a bit of context and clarification above. Let me know if you think this isn't neutral. Uanfala (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: I don't see any neutrality issues with your clarification, but the last sentence is completely redundant to the wording of your original proposal. Pppery (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  Well, this is the crux of the whole discussion, otherwise having just noincluding the TfD tag in more cases is too broad and vague, I think. I wouldn't object to rewriting it in a way that reduces redundancy, but I think we should keep it specific. Unless this is meant as a discussion of the scope of noincluding generally? But that would be an RfC of its own. Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I am glad that this discussion is happening. TfD templates cause major disruption where nominated templates exist in article prose and references, causing mangled prose for readers and red error messages in citations. Those outcomes are undesirable for the vast majority of Wikipedia users, i.e. our readers. If anything can be done to suppress those disruptive warnings, that would be great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, it would not be great. Hiding these disruptive warnings would be circumventing the entire point of the tfd/tfm notice. Pppery (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • if you want to inform more users, transclusion of templates to notify them is not the solution. we need something else to inform them and we have notifications at top of pages to reuse (possibly with some extension of the system). verdy_p (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." These notices interfere with that overriding vision. Let's find a way to achieve the goal of making a decision about templates without interfering with our more important goals. The reader comes first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: If the only disruption that these notifications caused were to mangle article text, that would be bad enough. But some templates are used inside other templates. The TfD notice for {{CURRENTSECOND}}, for example, did not show up on pages where {{User:Dbachmann/moon1}} was used: it simply broke the functionality and left both readers and editors with no idea of what was causing the problem. Unless the nominator is prepared to check every transclusion of the nominated template, it is unacceptable to munge the output of a template in a vain attempt to draw more participants into a TfD debate. And with the advent of Lua modules within templates, which differentiate between no parameter passed and an empty string, you can't assume that setting a notice to an empty string will have no consequences if the nominated template's output is passed to a Lua module within another template. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've compiled an automatically-updated list of all templates that do not appear to be substituted where the tfd/tfm tags are missing or noincluded in my userspace. Pppery 23:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Redrose64's second point. Display of the tfd message should happen in every case where it technically can, this proposal would encourage deletions happening under the radar (intentionally or otherwise) which is the the exact opposite of what should be happening. Thryduulf (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) [moved here from section below Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)]

  Thryduulf - you've often seemed sensible to me, but I confess that I am utterly confused by this kind of thinking. Glance up at the example in the green talkquote above. That's one reference in one article. Now extend that to multiple references in many, many articles. And that's just one tfd notice. Read the linked discussions, like this one, for much more disruption. Do you seriously maintain that making mincemeat of our articles like this is an acceptable way to "publicise" a backroom discussion about a template? The audience for the message should be the editors who use these templates, not the people who have come to read an article, and instead are presented with something that looks like we threw a word-processor in a blender, and have no idea why. And even if it was the right audience, why in sanity's name would replacing many inline occurrences in the same article like this, horribly mashing the text, instead of one simple, neat note somewhere be anything like a good idea? If you do think that's acceptable then I really don't know what else to say to you. -- Begoon 09:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Begoon: "Horribly mashing the text" is something that is entirely an artefact of the inflexible current nature of the presentation of the notice, and is completely independent of whether there should be a notice at all, which is the only issue we should be discussing here as presentation is secondary. As to that issue, yes, there really must be a notice to people reading a page about any discussion that may result in templates used on that article being deleted or significantly altered in terms of structure or functionality. Template renamings and mergers that do not affect the content, functionality or structure of the template are less important but as long as TfD is constructed as a single venue that handles all template discussions then all discussions need to be presented with equal weight. Why? Because consensus can never be achieved without people being aware of the discussions - only a very small proportion of people who use templates regularly view the template page or it's talk page - especially if they are familiar with the template syntax, etc (and these are very people who are most knowledgeable about how the templates are used in the real world). If you can think of a way to display the message only to editors (whether logged in or not, and whether currently editing or reading the page) and hide it from readers, then please propose it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  One thing that comes close is making the notice display only in page preview. Any thoughts? Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: That seems like it might mislead editors into thinking they've added the tfd notice when they hadn't, and also misses people who don't use the "Show Preview" button before saving. Additionally, this fails the "Whether reading or editing" part of the post you are replying to.Pppery 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Isn't this post in the wrong section? (this section was talking about a counter-proposal I made, rather than the original proposal which started this section). Or are you opposing the proposals made by verdy_p, which I tried to give their own header, but was reverted. Pppery 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Pppery: it was in the wrong section, but I've now moved it to what I hope is the correct position - opposing the initial proposal. I do not have an opinion at present on your proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Note that you did not sucessfully ping either me or Begoon with that edit as pings only work if you do nothing but add content. Pppery 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: With respect, I don't need to propose an alternative, since the instructions already cover excluding the notice in one disruptive case: substed templates, and this discussion merely seeks to extend that to the other obviously disruptive inclusions. "Presentation" of internal housekeeping messages is not "secondary" when the concern is widespread damage to articles, adversely hindering our primary objective of serving the reader. When such messages destroy content in this way they are disruptive and unacceptable. Those who feel such messages are essential must find an acceptable method - the onus is not on those who refuse to accept disruption as a "compromise". It strikes me that those opposing here seem to be those who frequent tfd discussions, concerned with low participation. Well, that participation is low without this proposal's acceptance, so what we are doing obviously is not working. Those technically minded people who have this concern would seem the best people to invent a "better way", but one rough idea is to use a bot/script and the "what links here" functionality to place single, non-disruptive, unobtrusive page notices, rather than corrupting actual article text, which is the issue. That may or may not be practical, and there may be better approaches - notifying users who have added the template would obviously be the ideal solution, but I don't know how or if that could be achieved - maybe someone else does. In the meantime though, while this problematic method still exists, extending damage control is imperative. Tldr; Find a better way to "advertise" technical discussions, yes, but do not use lack of such a method as an excuse to continue defacing actual article content - that is unacceptably skewing priorities. -- Begoon 01:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal - make technical changes to the templates and drop the noincluding entirely

It is technically possible to implement the tfd/tfm template system so that they don't need to be noincluded when the template they are used on is substituted. I am making a counter-proposal to wrap the output of {{subst:tfm}} and {{subst:tfd}} in {{{{{|safesubst:}}}ifsubst||...}} and drop the clause about noincluding these templates entirely. Pppery (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that works, how does that address the issue raised in this section, which was avoiding disruption to articles by addition of notices to transcluded inline templates, as in the linked cases? It seems like a solution to a different problem, not an alternative. --Begoon ^talk 15:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Begoon, It was really more of a counter-proposal that an alternative. Pppery (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. In that case I think it would be a fine thing to do, if feasible - but separate to the discussion above about using <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags or possibly |type=disabled for potentially disruptive inline notice transclusions. Thanks for clarifying. --Begoon ^talk 15:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And one of the point frequently forgotten when adding noinclude sections at start of inline templates is tha too many users add a newline after it (thinking it is more readable for code editors, but forgetting that the extra neline after the noinclude will be part of the transclusion. The inline template will no longer be inline, paragraphs, lists, indented texts, tables will be broken.

It is just simpler, for ALL templates that just generate a single inline small string to keep this string at top, without cluttering it, the Tfd banner will still be proeminently visible just below it (but still before its documentation bewlo). And nothing will break existing pages or other templates (often complex) using these inline helper templates. Date-formatting templates are known to be used exactly like existing magic keywords in #if/#switch tests, or when passing parameters to modules, or generating page names or category names: they are inline and must remain inline on all transclusion. And a single noinclude section at end for notice banners and the doc is enough, we don't need more to obscure the transcluded code somewhere in the middle. This is the simplest solution (this does not prohibit linking the new Tfd discussion in relevant project pages. This is also the most efficient solution for the server (with minimum impact on server performance when those inline helper templates are used on thousands of pages edited by many people, often via other templates such as infoboxes, that many people used without even realizing that there was indirect transclusions of these inline helpers). Posting those banners at many random places, sometimes multiple times on the same target page is counter productive and it clutters many pages that are needlessly broken. A Tfd is just a background technical discussion that many people aren't interested in (and certainly not the millions/billions readers of Wikipedia finding those banners polluting many pages, including quality pages that were patiently reviewed). verdy_p (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I second the proposal for placing the notice immediately above the template documentation. Uanfala (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No. All of you seem to be going out of your way to make tfd notices even less prominent. Deletion discussions are important and there notices should not be hidden from their prominent spot at the top of the page. Also, Verdy p, you should not be moving the notice to the middle before it is decided that that is the place the notice belongs. Pppery (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

They remain at top, just below a single line of basic text and before the doc, there's no attempt at all to hide them. But putting it before just obscures the code (the Tfd tempalte is even much longer than the transcluded code we need to look for in the middle of a complex line. Keep things simple. There's absolutely no need to make the code more complex to read for code editors AND also more complex to parse by the server. The implied benefit is completely void. merging that in a single final noinclude section is enough (and inside it you can still use any nelines you need to keep the code clear. the doc page about the tfd template ius also unnecessariuly compelxc and contracdicts itself, trying to solve problems with even more obscure solutions and forgotten cases (it is the perfect example of things not to do on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and that disturbs many users firghtened by the complexity and then stop contributing due to too much obscured rules that no reasonable editor can understand, with too many tricky technical details). THis sort of things has transformed Wikepedia in a space for a few geeks designing and deciding everything themselves and constantly reverting the simplest and most efficient solutions (like what you did, including with technical errors breaking many pages!). My corrections were accurate and kept the tfd notice still visible at top (just one small line below for the expected rendered text used also as a selftest for previews by code editors before saving). And this is especially important in those templates whose doc page do not even display any example of rendering as they are supposed to be used "as is" without any complication and without any unneeded obscure parameters or syntax (notably for users of the visual editor). "Keep things simple" is a general goal everywhere on Wikipedia (and also wanted on all Wikimedia projects and the Foundation that attempts to attract more visitors, more editors and more reviewers), but you seem to forget it (and the Tfd doc page also forgets thios goal completely with many compelx additions (that were introduced but not really maintained for the long term and often not discussed, added by a few geeks regularly changing their own mind). verdy_p (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still not at the top, just near the top. There is a big difference. I even came up with a solution to your issue of the actual template code being hidden in one long line - put the tfd template on it's own line, but move the closing noinclude tag to be on the same line as the actual template code. Yet you continued to revert me. Pppery (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And please stop moving my responses constantly on this page, out of existing threads, you disrupt talks to relevant persons and talking it out personally for yourself. I'm not just talking to you. My reasons are extrmeely reasonnable and follow the best general guidelines for keeping Wikimedia accessible for more people. And admit that your insistance is a perfecet non-sense because you cannot even make correct edits and have multiple times made errors when trying to place the Tfd template at top (because the transcluded code was obscured, you misplaced some braces, forgot newlines... Keep things simple and everyone will be happier (including the Foundation that really has a general policy to open all Wikimedia projects to more peoples, not just a few geeks like you that are needlessly complexifying things). The doc page is NOT a policy it shows the most common use cases and its content has almost never been reviewed like the transcluded code (doc pages are notoriously known to lack quality maintenance: most details are in fact found in their talk pages or in other places where these templates are used or discussed (but even if there are discussions, there's no real vote, this is just a temporary agreement between a single pair of users focused on a specific case and not on stability, evolutivity, tracability, maintainability, readability, accessibility and many other geenral goals). We cannot always reach all goals, but here the solution (a single noinclude section at end after all the trancluded content) is simple and has no impact on users. We had this kind of discussion when doc subpages were introduced (to conflicts between the transcluded template and because there was a need to maintain the doc separately from the cod: many users cannot work on the code, but many can participat to enhance the docs, add or improve test cases, or maintain their categorization when widely used templates are blocked...

You've repeatedly broken widely-used templates with initial incorrect insertion of the Tfd or your unjustified reverts or your needless complexifications. verdy_p (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And you've repeatedly made edits contrary to the instructions for listing a template at tfd. Pppery 23:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I've followed the guidelines (that are not policies and just list some cases and proposes solutions). The general principle of Wikiemdia is to keep things simple for everyone, as much as possible. The Tfd banner should just be at the top, but plaing it onle line below is not adding any problem of visibility anf follows the gerneal principles for this banner). In fact the person posting the Tfd did not ask to anyone and I don't see why his posting is really so important that it requires such application of the principles in a way that just makes things more complicate (and you know that this is complicate, because you've repeatedly made severe errors while trying to apply them, breaking all the many pages using these basic templates). I have not seen any compeling reasons to make such Tfd benner so complicate (with additional tricky parameters) and why it needs to obscure/hide so much their code. Placing the Tfd banner should be done where it causes no harms; and there's definitely no reason here to not merge it within the same existing noinclude section. This is absolutely not needed to include those complications, this serves absolutely noone (viewers or template, editors of templates, .viewer or editors of these templates in other articles. The current usage of these tempaltes should first be analyzed before modifying them, even if it's to post some Tfd banner (which is NOT the result of any approved decision, and as what appears below, will finally be finally rejected, meaning that the Tfd banner should be also easy to remove. In all cases keep things simple is a general policy (unlike the very tricky guidelines exposed in the Tfd doc page from which we just have to understand the principles).

Ideally we should not even have to modify any template to post an alert that may interest other people: in fact MediaWiki associated to each template (like any other pages) a talk page, and also has a doc subpage: why not posting that there? And why not also posting such discussion with link in some relevant pages ? The problem is that these date tempaltes are used in so many contexts that it is impossible to isolate a single project page or talk page except this one. But we cannot post such notification on all the many pages using these templates more or less directly. A Tfd banner is just a proposal, it has not been accepted by any form of consensus, so to insert a Tfd in some template it should have a impact reduced to the strict minimum needed. For me it it highly enouh to insert it in the very top of the noinclude section and to make things as simple as possible there should be only one noinclude section (except small parts for conditional parameters controled by the main template code, where there's sometimes specific values inserted when viewing the tempalte page itself). This is also for the same reasons that doc subpages were introduced and that it was also decided to place it at end afte the main code, or why categorization should also be performed in the doc subpage to keep the main trancluded part of the template as clean as possible (this also has a beneficial effect on performance on the server, and avoids invalidating many prerendered pages in the wiki cache).

In my opinon this Tfd should not even be part of the main template,: a Tfd is just indicating the start of a discussion and it should be posted on the associated Template talk page, I see absoluitely no compelling reson why some posting a Tfd banner should make it a very top priority for everyone viewing the template page. It is too dangerous to place it there (and it was demontrated by your repeated' failed attempts to place it and reapeated breakages of the many pages using them). You absolutely want to apply what is not a policy, using a complex syntax that even you are not understanding correctly (that's why you made errors each time). This is enough to indicate that the guidleines in Tfd doc pages are certainly not good enough, and unnecessarily complex for everyone. You've been reverted in your repeated attempts by several persons and you've first abused the possibility (you are breaking a strong policy by doing it) while also ignoring this discussion to force your opinion (but doing it several times incorrectly). I signaled your errors in these templates in my first correct edit and also on this talk page. But you continue to ignore them and force your position after that (and the conclusion will likely be that the Tfd will be even rejected, so your "work" was really not needed at all and in fact undesired, we know that you are now abising this wiki and ignore all strong policies and cannot make any difference between an policy and weak/complex guidelines that we should just apply after some thoughts). verdy_p (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep falsely claiming I have made errors that I have not. Please give me an example of such an error. Originally I was introducing stray newlines, but I have fixed that issue in my most recent reverts. Pppery 19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"several persons"? I only count two, you and Uanfala. You are certainly the only one presenting these "simplicity" arguments. Pppery 19:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The current system was already discussed multiple times in 2004 and 2005. Pppery 19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

in 2005 ? 11 years ago, almost all of the changes in this doc have been been mafe long after and the doc has become a mess. Nothing was really discussed. What was may be decision in that time did not take any account of the many complications that have occured since this time, and the simplicy for all is still a general goal highly promoted by the Foundation. You are the only one to revert this (abusiuvely), and the only one that made repeated severe errors (that I had signaled here since the begining before fixing them (and before you broke them again !). You've done that without discussing that before. Really this is in fact a bad behavior, given that here there's visibly a strong opposition for the proposal that you made. Even when the doc was made to suggest the use of noinclude, it did not specify that this Tfd hadreally a so top priotiry that it had not just to be at top (what is still in what I made), and some thoughts should have been done to minimize the impact (you want to ignore this despite you were yourself confused by the syntax; it was not just the fact that your readdded newlines, but you broke the syntax of the template itself, broken ppairs of braces, broke pages using the templates, simply because you were also confused by the very tricky syntax that you attempt to force and by the fact that the real transcluded code became almost invisible: it was defginitely not even simple for you.) Once again the doc page is just containing guidelines, doc pages have never been policies and almost nothing on this doc page was in fact voted. Templates proposed for deletion must be taken with much more care than articles proposed for deletion with a similar template (whose doc page was in fact mostly the same before it was hacked multiple times in 11 years, taking into account some cases, but all this was done by separate individuals at various times). The talks in 2004 or 2005 was never done with the current doc page that you apply blindly without the necessary thinking about the impact, readability, maintainability. Once again Keep things simple is a much more important policy highly promoted since long and reaffirmed every year for many projects in Wikimedia (the second important goal decided collectively with a big participation has been accessibility). What you want is to keep Wikiepdia inacessbile to most editors, and you're definitely wrong. verdy_p (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You must be exaggerating, verdy_p. What proposal I made? My counter-proposal about dropping the noincluding for substituted templates? No one (other than possibly you) opposed that (Admittedly, no one else supported it). This RfC? That wasn't proposed by me, I just added the rfc tag and other such maintenance. The only error you have "signaled" is the extra newlines issue which I am not introducing in my latest reverts. The fact that I made errors here is irrelevant. I was not, as you keep claiming, "confused by the syntax", I just accidentally deleted a curly bracket instead of a newline once. I was not confused by any sort of "tricky syntax". And I am certainly not trying to make Wikipedia inaccessible. I'm simply following the instructions I've linked ten times, which say that non-substituted templates up for deletion should not have their tfd tags noincluded and that tfd tags should be located at the very top. Until some discussion (like this one could) closes showing consensus to change that, I will keep following it. Repeatedly reverting me is not the proper way to suggest do so. Pppery 18:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This post has been un-archived. This note is being added only to postpone automatic re-archival. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.