Template talk:RfD

Unnamed discussion

The first line of this notice is in the passive voice and is somewhat awkward. How about "A user has asked us to delete this article." – Minh Nguyễn (my talk, my work) 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New Style

You find that any way better? --weltforce™ 20:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I do, actually. The contrast is definitely better keeping in mind the blue link-on-blue background and accessibility. The red is also much more eye-catching and new users will more easily associate the box with deletion. Osiris (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I think the icon draws the eye away from the words. Perhaps a darker icon that matches the shade of the lefthand border wouldn't be so catching. Osiris (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree, why not we make an edit request? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't like this one at all, red is very negative and the icon isn't good at all. We use the grey background on the other one to be neutral in tone. The other is definitely my preference. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to another icon. Do you find orange better?

--weltforce™ 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason to change from a simple notice to a needlessly complicated one with icons and colors. What problem are you trying to solve by creating a new notice? If you are doing it just for looks then I suggest perhaps finding something that would be more helpful? -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doing it for the looks. All such templates like RfD and QD should have corporate design like other wikis. --weltforce™ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We aren't other wikis. One of the biggest mistakes people make that are new here is to try and change this wiki to look like the one they came from. Each wiki is separate and has its own ways of doing things. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help. If nobody wants the new design, I won't change it. --weltforce™ 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I quite like the second one. The current box with the coloured background is too dark for my taste. The icon on the left also brings some attention, which could probably be useful as the RfD page isn't much visited anyway. Let's see what others think about this. -Barras talk 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Either one is an improvement on the current in my opinion, if only with colour contrast/seeing-impaired users in mind. But even to a regular eye these are much more attention-grabbing. The bin icon is much better. I can get on board with the second one. Osiris (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This temp rocks.~Tailsman67~ 184.44.131.154 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the voting thing. We don't vote here as in numbers counting (what I know is happening on dewiki), we discuss things here and then make a decision after reviewing the comments. So I just went ahead and removed this stuff about "voting". -Barras talk 19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the new style, because (1) it looks better and (2) the picture lets the user to read the box. (3) It also fits better with other templates. --weltforce™ 21:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think will will get consensus here. If there's no strong oppose, I'm going to edit the template. --weltforce™ 16:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions here should be open for at least one week. As of right now, there seems to be an agreement to change the template as the sole oppose comes from Djsasso. However, be patient, please. -Barras talk 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I know the "one-week" rule from the endless deletion requests... --weltforce™ 19:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I often wondered why this template looked different to the others. Just not enough to do anything. My first preference would be no. 1 but no. 2 is okay too. Kennedy ^(talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed it now after 7 days of discussion to the orange one. --weltforce™ 16:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cache problem

Hello guys! Auntof6 and I founded a problem in this template. The template uses {{RfD/Created}} for displaying the message. But this shows up a problem:

• Because of the cache, browsers will display the correct text only after a long time or after a cache reload. Otherwise they will state A discussion page has not been created yet! Because of this, the page won't get deleted as no one knows it is up for deletion. Click here to create a discussion page!. This is because {{FULLPAGENAME}} concluded with 2 templates. My suggestion would be substituting {{RfD/Uncreated}} and {{RfD/Created}}. I hope I showed the problem up clearly. Thanks for your attention, --weltforce (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is normal and happens on all wikis. You just have to refresh the page cache. If you use the UTC clock gadget then all you have to do is click the time and it will purge the cache. Otherwise it will happen automatically as its turn comes up in the job queue which is usually no more than a couple hours at most and usually only a matter of a few minutes. -DJSasso (talk)
  • I know but new users may be confused... --weltforce (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • So what you do then is you make sure you do it when you add the tag. I know I do it everytime I add a Xfd tag. New users don't generally show up to Rfd an article. And if they are experienced enough to add the tag and start an Rfd in the first place then they probably wouldn't be confused. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. I was just curious because I'm currently porting twinklexfd.js into here. --weltforce (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of delete-reason element ID from template

{{editprotected}}

Putting up the template here so that it will hopefully attract more eyes - the current version of our RfD template has a HTML element with the delete-reason ID. The implications of such are that the sysop-specific JS code (enabled side-wide) will automatically populate the delete reason with the contents of the HTML element. This change was introduced to the RfD template by TBC in 2007, though I believe that the real implications of such a change were not known to him, since our local implementation of the automatic deletion reason was only rolled out in late-2013.

The point here is, for most RfD closures, the current practice is to not include any additional reason, but rather simply choose the relevant RfD deletion reason from the dropdown list. I propose the removal of <i id="delete-reason"> from the template as a QoL measure. This proposed change does not affect the visibility of user-specified RfD reasons in transcluded templates. Chenzw  Talk  16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think it's a good proposal. Operator873^talkconnect 03:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Logical.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Implemented. Chenzw  Talk  12:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)