Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21
June 23 >

June 22

[edit]

Template:Edit semi-protected

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Not merged. Clear consensus to keep {{Request edit}} (largely procedural point as this was withdrawn following the start of the discussion, however appears to have been commented on since the withdrawal).
For the rest of the templates, there is no consensus to merge, taking into account the technical restrictions pointed out by SilverLocust/Anomie and a few conditional !votes based on the behaviour being kept (which doesn't appear to have a solution). The consensus for this discussion has not been helped by the fact there are several !supports being cast referencing a vote making an !oppose point, which makes it more difficult to assign weight to the outcome they are desiring. If an alternative template is made, and it works as per the current one, I can see the consensus being different. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Edit semi-protected with Template:Request edit.

As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an {{FPER}} placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a {{TPER}}. Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named {{request edit}} as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck {{request edit}} since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good luck finding "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". The nomination is flawed in that it overlooks that the different templates have different behavior if the autodetection fails (and also if |force= is used?). Opinions seem largely split between those who seem unaware of that and so support merging, and those who are aware of it and want to keep that behavior. Anomie⚔ 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, @ToadetteEdit, a relist was not appropriate in this situation. What should have happened is a request probably WT:TFD to close the discussion, since several of the regular closers have participated already. Izno (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, none of the editors who support the merge have adequately addressed the problems identified by myself, Anomie and SilverLocust. Moreover, the simplification in the process that they wish to achieve could also be done by following SilverLocust's idea of creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected. By making that sixth template and updating the procedures at WP:MAKINGEREQ to use it we would get the best of both worlds. The editors wouldn't need to use a different template depending on the protection level, but at the same time they would be able to use the old templates with |force=yes to force another level when appropriate. Nickps (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose this is somewhat directed at Anomie, Nickps, and SilverLocust, and maybe pppery, but if this discussion is closed with no major changes taking place, and this RFD indicated that the generic-name redirects should be kept as-is, is everyone really saying that we should have inappropriately-named redirects pointing to templates that can detect the protection of a page, but because we don't want to change those wrappers we're just going to keep everything completely as-is? Primefac (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following your logic there. I'm not seeing anything inappropriate about redirecting {{edit protected}} -> {{edit fully-protected}} given that the target works for both kinds of protection. And, looking back at the May discussion I could be convinced to retarget any redirects that don't specifically talk about protection to the disambiguation page {{request edit}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) My initial concern was that we have a bunch of generically-named redirects (e.g. Template:Edit protected) that are pointing at {{Edit fully-protected}}. Those in favour of keeping the redirects as-is said that since FPER auto-detected the protection level anyway, it made no sense to retarget. However, when I came here to suggest getting rid of the distinction since the templates can all auto-detect anyway (i.e. just have one "edit request" template), those same people say that the auto-detection is insufficient and thus we have to keep all of the SPER/TPER/FPER/etc separate. I honestly haven't evaluated the whole discussion here to actually see what way the wind is blowing, but I just wanted to check with those opposed that I am reading their concerns properly. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) IMO the main problem with your RFD was that you're trying to turn functional (if imperfect) redirects into redirects to a disambiguation page that doesn't function properly as a template. Turn {{Request edit}} into a template that actually requests an edit and I don't think anyone would object to changing the redirects. Nor do I see anyone here objecting to that idea of making {{Request edit}} function to request an edit; the objections are all about breaking the fallback behavior if the auto-detection fails (and the |force= parameter) for all the other templates. Anomie⚔ 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, and also the reason why I withdrew in favour of coming here. I suppose the main reason I never thought about using {{request edit}} in that way is because it used to be used for COI or pblocked requests (which are not covered under the SPER/FPER/etc scheme) and needed that disambiguation, but if folks think that having {{request edit|protection type}} is a useful way to take care of these redirects, I'm all for it. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it's been over two weeks since the last comment here, now. Looks like there is overall a consensus in favour of the merge. Are we gonna close this? — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An uninvolved editor will assess the consensus and make a decision. If you wish to speed up the process, feel free to post it at WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When this is closed, can someone ping me, so that I can check that my script User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool is up to date with the changes decided here. I haven't read through this discussion or what the changes are that have been proposed but I do intend to keep my script up to date with any changes that come from this. Terasail[✉️] 17:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, while the vote count seems in favor of merging, I stand by my earlier statement that the nomination was flawed and most of the supporters were unaware of the differences in behavior that cannot be preserved in any reasonable "merge". Anomie⚔ 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
@Primefac: as nominator - I forgot I no longer have TE/haven't requested it back, so will need the nomination templates removed. @Terasail: - as per above discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snipertron12 Project

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox links only to a user page. DB1729talk 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because I haven't started the project and it isn't in full swing. Snipertron12 Talk 09:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sri Ramakrishna Group

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no links. DB1729talk 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Swearengens

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One useful blue link in the body. Two of the three redirect to the subject. DB1729talk 13:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Silverwing

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22&oldid=1234460124"