→Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2023: Responded to edit request Tag: editProtectedHelper |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 12 discussion(s) to Template talk:Rfc/Archive 1) (bot |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Formatting with multiple topics == |
|||
An rfc with ''style'' and ''soc'' topics lists the soc-topic on its own line at the bottom of the infobox without a bullet. An rfc with ''style'', ''soc'', ''econ'' topics places soc-topic at the end of the line of main text and econ-topic on its own line with a bullet. I didn't try it with other topics. It would be better if the formatting were more consistent and less surprising - just put all the extra topics at the bottom of the infobox ''with a bullet'' whatever topics they are. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 02:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: It's possible those are typos? Templates are hard. [[User talk:Harej|''hare'']] '''j''' 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I think it was just missing some '*'s from when new topics were included. I added them in and it seems to be behaving. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 18:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Closing RFC== |
|||
I have seen RFCs that were closed, and the whole thread was put in some kind of box with a notice at the top that the RFC was closed. However, I cannot recall the exact location of any of these at the moment. Is there a template that is used for this purpose? [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions]]. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 16:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, but that doesn't seem to be what I'm looking for. That page contains the statement "discussions are usually closed in situations where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive." I'm more interested in the case when an RFC was conducted, and possibly achieved consensus. But if it is just left for the default 30 day period to expire, the RFC bot will come along and remove the RFC tag. Then subsequent readers will have to read through the whole thing to discover the consensus, and will be unaware that the discussion was advertized through the RFC process, and thus carries more weight than an unadvertised discussion. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 16:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure]], {{tl|archivetop}}, {{tl|archivebottom}} are what your looking for I think. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 16:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, when I read the template documentation, it is apparent that the templates could be used for much more than closing discussions that are irrelevant or disruptive. I believe this page should be modified to more fully reflect the variety of outcomes. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've tweaked the language a bit over there, hopefully that makes it clearer. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== "Within 30 minutes" == |
|||
[[WP:RFC]] says, "It may take the bot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient." However, this template says, "Within 30 minutes, this page will be added..." In practice, the RFC that I posted several hours ago has not yet appeared. Perhaps the language on the template should be updated? --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Good point. I updated the template. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 01:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== rfctag == |
|||
The template contains {{tag|span|params=id="rfctag"|s}}. The use is not apparent and when the template is used multiple times on a page it results in duplicate ids. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 12:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It was added by {{user|Harej}} with {{diff|Template:Rfc|next|326261464|this edit}}. At that time, we didn't have the {{para|rfcid}} parameter, and therefore didn't have the unique anchor which it creates, so some means of linking directly to the start of the rfc was needed when the rfc was not immediately below a section heading. It was later amended with {{diff|Template:Rfc|prev|438802405|this edit}} to use an anchor generated from {{para|rfcid}} for preference, and again with {{diff|Template:Rfc|next|451962033|this edit}} by {{user|Hellknowz}} to use both. I don't know what Hellknowz means by AAB. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::AAB means [[WP:AALERTS]], I needed a way for the bot to link to the RfC that didn't involve complex parsing of the template. At the time I was using the tag and the change broke existing links. I haven't transitioned to the new id tag. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color:#B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 18:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Do not archive until == |
|||
Is it feasible to make the template {{tl|Do not archive until}} part of this template to ensure that bots do not archive RFCs before their 30 days are up? [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 20:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: Technically it is feasible, but I '''oppose''' it on the grounds that it would mean that things that were closed as [[WP:SNOW]] within a few hours or days of being opened would be forced to sit around for 30 days before being archived, and there is no need for that. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]}} <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></span> 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: Snow closers could simply delete the do not archive comment andor the rfc tag and the bot will archive it. The point is to make this a human's decision, not a bot's. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: One thing that will help make this happen is visible text on the screen saying "this discussion will not be archived until foo" so that closers know it is there and know to remove it. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 22:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not feasible, because archiving bots don't look inside templates - they examine the bare plain text on the page to find the latest timestamp within each thread. If a thread with an open RfC is being archived, that means that the archiving time threshold is less than the time that has elapsed since the last ''timestamped'' post to the thread. Since RfCs typically run for 30 days, and most talk pages with archiving have the threshold set to a period longer than that, this sort of situation won't occur very often. It's probably better to ask the maintainers of archiving bots to add an enhancement so that threads bearing a {{tlx|rfc}} will be excluded from the selection process. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{U|Redrose64|Red}}, they actually started there with [[User_talk:Legobot#Question about archived pages]]. The user seems to have a flawed perception that bot archived threads are automatically closed<ins> or that all discussions must be formally closed</ins>, which I have been unable to convince them otherwise. Perhaps you will have better luck with it than I did. :) — <span class="nowrap">{{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]}} <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></span> 22:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::An RfC is no longer treated as an RfC from the moment that the {{tlx|rfc}} template is removed. It may be manually removed, or removed by bot; AFAIK there is only one bot that does that, it is {{user|Legobot}}, and it does so if either of two circumstances are met: (i) more than thirty days have elapsed since the first timestamp after the {{tlx|rfc}} template; (ii) the RfC is on an archive page. An example of (ii) is {{diff|Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19|prev|637847608|this edit}}: the thread had been archived one minute earlier, even though the RfC had started 23:16, 15 November 2014 and so was not due to end until 23:16, 15 December 2014 - slightly over two days from now. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Technical13, clarification on my position. A discussion in an archive is de-facto closed, period. It's no longer on watchlists, it's no longer widely visible, so there is no practical difference between a closed discussion and an archived one. I've never seen an archived discussion get new comments, on any topic, ever. Therefore, when a bot archives a discussion is also closes it. This isn't a problem in most cases, but RFCs are intentionally there to give everyone a chance to comment, so most need the full 30 days. Yes, some are snow closes and can be archived quickly, so let the closer remove the DNAU note so it's a human decision. Also, discussions don't need to be closed and most aren't, and a lot of RFCs aren't, and that's fine, as long as RFCs get their 30 days. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Redrose, what about a wrapper template, where something like {{tls|rfc blah blah blah}} creates {{tlx|rfc}}{{tlxs|DNAU|35}} or similar? [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Formatting bug == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
I’ve just discovered that beginning the line after {{tl|rfc}} with a wikilink disrupts formatting of the wikitext on that line. For instance: |
|||
{{Mbox |
|||
|image=[[File:Dialog-information on.svg|40px]] |
|||
|type=notice |
|||
|text={{Userbox |
|||
| float = right |
|||
| id = [[File:Internet-group-chat.svg]] |
|||
| id-c = #d0d0d0 |
|||
| info = Please consider joining the [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service|feedback request service]]. |
|||
| info-c = #e0e0e0 |
|||
| nocat = |
|||
}}'''An editor has [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|requested comments]] from other editors for this discussion.''' {{#if: | This page has been | Within 24 hours, this page will be}} added to the following list{{#if:|s|}}: |
|||
* '''Not a real RFC''' |
|||
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. |
|||
}} |
|||
[[Wikilink]] and some text, <del>then some redacted text,</del> <ins>then some added text,</ins> then some more text, all entered on the same line. |
|||
This only appears to occur in the initial paragraph. A workaround is to stick a {{tag|p|o}} tag before the opening wikilink, but does anyone have any idea what causes this glitchy behavior? (Note: I’ve substed the RFC template in the hopes that it won’t be listed as an actual RFC.) —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Testing: [[Wikilink]] and some text, <del>then some redacted text,</del> <ins>then some added text,</ins> then some more text, all entered on the same line. - Ok, that's weird, this time it's all on the same line, just as you described. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 05:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Here is a minimal example: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
{| |
|||
|} |
|||
[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> |
|||
</pre> |
|||
:It renders on two lines: |
|||
{| |
|||
|} |
|||
[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> |
|||
:Removing any part will render [[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> on the same line. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 06:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:One line <code><small><nowiki><table><tr><td></td></tr></table>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del></nowiki></small></code> rendered inline: <table><tr><td></td></tr></table>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> Rendered as list item: |
|||
:<table><tr><td></td></tr></table>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> Rendered in column one (no indentation): |
|||
<table><tr><td></td></tr></table>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del> |
|||
:For comparison an empty wkitable ending with <code><small><nowiki>|}<span>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del></span></nowiki></small></code> rendered as in your examples (indentation before the wikitable): |
|||
:{| |
|||
|}<span>[[Wikilink]] <del>redacted</del></span> |
|||
:Obviously MediaWiki or tidy insist on putting the link into a paragraph, if it immediately follows the table outside of other block (div, list item, etc.) or inline (span, etc.) elements. Adding "something" between table and link—my {{tl|-}} idea + variants with empty br, div, hr, span, or nowiki closed before the link—do not help. This reminds me of nine years old pre-oddities, but I'm not checking which long forgotten WONTFIX this was in 2006.{{=)}} –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Since this issue apparently involves tables and not this template in particular, should the discussion be moved? Where? —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyone? —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 03:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm too lazy to find it on [[phabricator:]], but I'd bet that the general issue is a known minor bug in limbo between WONTFIX and NEEDSVOLUNTEER. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 17:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*This issue no longer exists. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 11:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Changes to categories? == |
|||
I changed the tag on my RfC to remove the category "policy" soon after it was indexed, as it turned out not to be appropriate. I also added another more appropriate category. Will the bot eventually update the listings to reflect this change? [[User:Artw|Artw]] ([[User talk:Artw|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: Looks like it updated, so that answers that question. [[User:Artw|Artw]] ([[User talk:Artw|talk]]) 23:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal for a new RFC template == |
|||
I was asked recently to comment on [[Talk:United States]] article. There are multiple RFC on this page and RFC questions are confusing. The article like this one (long and very popular) need a bit more policing. |
|||
My proposal is to update RFC template to: |
|||
* include section of the article it relates to {{tlx|rfc | topic | section}} |
|||
* specific question that could be easily answered with Oppose/Support |
|||
* create an rfc response template {{tlx|rfc response | oppose/support/neutral | reason}} |
|||
[[User:Gpeja|Gpeja]] ([[User talk:Gpeja|talk]]) 20:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*I had a look at that talk page and the problems they are far beyond what a template can fix. Also, I consistently object to ''support oppose'' options, since in many context it's not clear what those words mean (such as saying oppose in a deletion discussion which could mean oppose deleting or could mean oppose the article) [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 03:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] I agree with your assessment of [[United States]]. The articles like this are not rare, there will be always multiple disputes around them and hard to find all related information. It would help if an RFC could be connected to the article section it relates to. Maybe my suggestion is not the solution but it could help. I noticed it is hard to choose between support and oppose and added a neutral option too. These choices are important because of the final decision made based on these votes. I also believe the reason it is hard to vote is related to the way questions in RFC are formulated. [[User:Gpeja|Gpeja]] ([[User talk:Gpeja|talk]]) 16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2019 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Rfc|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please replace the template with the [[Special:Permalink/892325392|current]] sandbox version ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ComparePages&rev1=888313522&rev2=892325392 diff]). This would ensure that the text {{tq|When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.}} becomes {{...removed from the list<u>s</u>}} when there are multiple RfC lists. The result can be seen in the current /testcases. Thanks, --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 19:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 19:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|FlightTime}} wow that was really fast --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== This is not a real RfC, it is a test == |
|||
This is not a real RfC, it is a test. Some RfC listing pages have empty entries: a linked heading, but no statement or timestamp. These appear at the bottom of the pages concerned, just above the navbox. I'm trying to work out what is causing these mis-listings. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Let's see what happens to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates]] as a result. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:OK, {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|prev|892914697|just as I thought}}. Try it with colon? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Right, {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|prev|892921740|it's happy with a colon}}. Next, try semicolon as well. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 19:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Also {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|prev|892929030|fine}}; next is a numeric list. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Again {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|prev|892948639|fine}}; try the first one again. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmmm, that one was {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|next|892948639|OK too}}. Wonder why it failed first time? Next test: Unicode characters. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Those were {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates|prev|892996032|also OK}}. Other Unicode characters are found in the signature of [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]. Maybe it's those ( — ☏¢ 😼 ). --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::It's closing in. {{diff|Talk:Pacific War|893233854|893233129|This edit}} by {{user|Cinderella157}} has {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|prev|893235954|gone some way to fixing}} one of the incorrect entries - the one formerly at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography]] (it's not perfect, that extra timestamp has caused the inclusion of an unclosed {{tag|small|o}} tag and the continued omission of option 4 but we can consider those later). So there is something between that new timestamp and the one of 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC) that was {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|prev|892815151|causing the blank entry}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 11:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Another case. {{diff|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|next|894621001|This edit}} by {{user|Cunard}} has ''partially'' fixed another of the incorrect entries - the one formerly at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]]. Again, the timestamp dropped into the opening statement has cut off the latter part of the statement. For some reason there also seems to be an unbalanced {{tag|s|c}} tag. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Another: either {{diff|Talk:Anti-German sentiment|prev|894859201|this edit}} or {{diff|Talk:Anti-German sentiment|next|894859201|this one}} by {{user|Icewhiz}} fixed another of the incorrect entries. At this stage, we can't tell which edit was the successful one, because the second one was made two minutes before Legobot had a chance to detect the first. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I do RfCs pretty often, so I don't think it would have anything to do with Unicode characters in my sig, or this would have come up much sooner (and probably with someone else, since I'm hardly alone in have more than basic Latin 1 ASCII in my sig). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::With the latest of these {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines|prev|894507389|occurring within the last hour}}, I feel that I should list all the problem RfCs that are presently appearing in the RfC listings only as links without text or timestamp, and their categories. They are: |
|||
::*[[Talk:14th Dalai Lama#rfc_B805217]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|hist]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Calvin Cheng#rfc_C2438F1]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies|bio]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies|econ]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War#rfc_9BBD3C1]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|pol]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|hist]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|sci]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Dental dam#rfc_3301AF6]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|sci]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture|soc]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Dogsbite.org#rfc_6111838]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|sci]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|media]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Grand Mufti of India#rfc_E095F04]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies|bio]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:MS-13#rfc_D32E5CA]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|pol]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Republican Party (United States)#rfc_23F9B5E]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|pol]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Richat Structure#rfc_987A50E]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|hist]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Rigel#rfc_24FD083]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|sci]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Rigel#rfc_52C893C]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|sci]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:The Wall Street Journal#rfc_1D004EB]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|pol]] |
|||
::*[[Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#rfc_FD2EDD4]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|pol]] |
|||
::*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#rfc_1CB3562]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|media]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture|soc]] |
|||
::There ''must'' be a common factor that Legobot is choking on. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' the use of RfCs for testing purposes. <span style="font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode','Arial'; color:#3A5A9C;">—⁠[[User:KarasuGamma|<span style="color:#32127A;">烏⁠Γ</span>]] ''<sup>([[User talk:KarasuGamma|kaw]])</sup> '''''│''''' 08:22, 03 May 2019 (UTC)''</span> |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. Making the bots smarter will only further the eventual AI takeover. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 15:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Character limit ''seems'' to be the reason. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Rfc&diff=896296695&oldid=896253027] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_technical_issues_and_templates&diff=896303153&oldid=895587446] — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:We've had RfC statements that were far longer and yet went through fine ({{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|prev|886265800|example}}: 43,971 bytes). One of those listed above - [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#rfc_1CB3562]] - is very short (less than one line, including timestamp, in my browser) but has a null entry at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Is the timestamp with user link supposed to count as the cutoff point? Otherwise, the music one has 2 entire subsections. The campaign one is basically one sentence. Unless I'm missing something about what you're saying. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 07:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Any string that can be parsed as a timestamp and that is also in a format that could have been yielded by [[WP:5TILDES|five tildes]] is taken as the end of the statement. If it is part of a four-tilde signature, the signature preceding that (such as the user link) is just treated as normal linked text. Try putting all of [[Template:RFC list footer|these pages]] on your watchlist, and observe the various RfCs getting added and removed. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I fixed a number of them by copying the signature to an earlier point. Doing this I noticed that a number of the problem ones were started by [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] - so Snoogans, please observe [[WP:RFCBRIEF]] in future. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 13:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::The problem at [[Talk:Grand Mufti of India#Request for comment - Grand Mufti Controversy]] might be because {{user|SunniObserver786}} copied the first part of the rfc, ''including'' the {{para|rfcid}} parameter, to [[Talk:Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Request for comment - Grand Mufti Controversy]]. Such actions have confused Legobot in the past. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::The upper limit appears to be 2,068 bytes, including the newline that follows the {{tlx|rfc}} template. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 10:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's probably ~2048, because you are including timestamp length, but the code likely doesn't unless the coder took a deliberate step to add timestamp length. Without timestamp, it's 2044 characters. It seems more likely they got the difference between template and timestamp positions minus template length. I imagine a few bytes are lost in newline, length math, and/or some string storage or processing stuff. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 13:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The source is [https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/blob/master/rfcbot.php here], but I can't find where the length of the variable <code>$content</code> is set. Or the length of any other string, for that matter. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Gee, I didn't realize you had the source. I [http://sandbox.onlinephpfunctions.com/code/c8f9369b5abcac758d522a3c9761ffe7bd7b6339 tried to debug] the relevant part and the script fails (first) on this line: <code>preg_match_all("/\{{2}\s?Rfc(tag)?\s?[^}]*\}{2}(.|\n)*?([0-2]\d):([0-5]\d),\s(\d{1,2})\s(\w*)\s(\d{4})\s\(UTC\)/im", $description, $m);</code>. The <code>preg_match_all</code> RegEx fails with a [https://www.php.net/manual/en/pcre.constants.php PREG_JIT_STACKLIMIT_ERROR] (6) as of PHP 7. Basically (though not technically accurate), the input is too long (~6k on that website). Since PHP <s>sucks</s> lets the code run with bad values, the script keeps running. Either RegEx needs to be more efficient, [https://www.php.net/manual/en/pcre.configuration.php the PHP set to higher limit], or just not use RegEx. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 22:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reply to|Redrose64}} Just a note that Legobot managed to summon me to this RfC. I'm not sure if you had meant for that to happen. <span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#f3dddd;"> [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] </span><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500">{{small| If you reply here, please [[WP:ECHO|ping me]] by adding <nowiki>{{U|I dream of horses}}</nowiki> to your message }}</span> {{small|([[User talk:I dream of horses|talk to me]]) ([[Special:Contributions/I dream of horses|My edits]])}} @ 05:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{replyto|I dream of horses}} Well, it shows that [[WP:FRS]] is working for ''some'' people. It's not working for {{user|QEDK}}, for example, see [[User talk:Legobot#No longer receiving RFC notices]]. I know of no way of getting Legobot to list an RFC at [[WP:RFC/A|the usual places]] yet exclude it from FRS. Certainly [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary#Talk:Dental dam|this thread]] shows that the two venues are closely linked. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: <small>(Not summoned by FRS)</small> The resident SkyNet bot is not giving me notices yet (but fingers crossed!). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 13:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== This is also not a real RfC, but a second test == |
|||
{{tlx|rfc|tech|3=rfcid=80332A9}} |
|||
[[Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion]] has two RfCs, which leads me to guess that that might be an issue. Can the bot handle two RfCs on the same page? — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 10:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes it can, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] and the two at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]] (which at one point had ''four'' simultaneously). See also [[WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh right, I didn't expect bot instructions to be listed there so I didn't check. I'm also blind and didn't see RFA listed twice. Welp, so much for that guess. Feel free to remove this section so it doesn't interfere with your testing. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]] ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 11:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suspended it. There may be a need for two at once, I'm a bit short on ideas at the moment. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2019 == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Rfc|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please apply [[Special:Diff/905130896]] from the sandbox. For [[Template:Userbox]], parameter {{para|nocat|{{(((}}nocat{{!}}{{)))}}}} is not needed if there is no parameter {{para|usercategory}}. Also, re-format the code of {{t|Userbox}}. —[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 02:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 13:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{replyto|Andrybak}} (also {{u|DannyS712}}) Wait a bit... your diff above relates to [[Template:Rfc/sandbox]], and this is the talk page for that. So why are userboxes mentioned? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Redrose64}} [[Template:Rfc]] uses [[Template:Userbox]]. This edit request was to clean up code. See [[Special:Diff/905185830]]. —[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 18:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Add parameter == |
== Add parameter == |
||
Revision as of 06:06, 1 October 2023
Add parameter
How do we go about adding a parameter for site-wide discussions for sources? This is to widen participation in source deprecation discussions via WP:RSN. Ideally I'd like to add source as a parameter and have that advertised as for other sitewide items. Guy (help!) 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- By "parameter", do you mean a WP:RFCCAT category code? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64, I guess so. I am not up on the arcana here. Guy (help!) 00:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- If we add a new category code to WP:RFCCAT, we must ensure that Legobot (talk · contribs) has been set up to recognise the new proposed code, since the use of any unrecognised code will dump the RfC into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted, a page which should not contain any ongoing RfCs. To get the Legobot code amended, you need to convince the bot operator, Legoktm (talk · contribs), of the need for this. I doubt this will be carried out, since Legoktm is very busy and is unwilling to carry out any changes to the Legobot code, except for "Unbreak now!" bugs. This means that the list of category codes at WP:RFCCAT is pretty much fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64, I guess so. I am not up on the arcana here. Guy (help!) 00:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2020
Please adopt the sandbox version which makes this change adding a wikilink to the closing instructions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Shortcut
Could a shortcut parameter be please added for use for large site-wide RfCs that have a dedicated shortcut? I have provided the necessary code in the sandbox. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Whilst you have indeed sandboxed your proposal, you have not demonstrated it at the testcases page. However, it's a fair suggestion on the face of it, but Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit template-protected}}
template. Sorry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC) - (Speaking without my admin hat) I see two problems with this. First, the shortcut anchor will exist only for as long as the RfC remains open; when the
{{rfc}}
tag is removed the anchor will vanish as well. We have a number of closed RfCs which have shortcuts that are effectively permanent (see for example WP:ENDPORTALS, WP:MOSNUM/RFC, WP:UP/RFC2016) and these use a normal shortcut box without problem. Second, Legobot (talk · contribs) (which maintains the lists of open RfCs) is known to choke if it encounters parameters in the{{rfc}}
tag that it is not expecting, so please ensure that Legoktm (talk · contribs) is willing to amend the bot before implementing any additional parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) - Redrose's first point seems to be a major pitfall of this proposal. Shortcuts are probably better done separately using the shortcut template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 13 February 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: to be moved to Template:Request for comment. To be moved once necessary code change is done. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Rfc → Template:RfC – According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this is the correct capitalization. A redirect should be left, and the old title can be used as usual by bots, scripts, humans, etc. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. Wikipedia:Requests for comment also uses 'RfC'. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Correct capitalisation, a bit like AfD vs Afd. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative move to {{Wikipedia request for comment}}, and use the 3LAs as shortcuts instead; it will give the template a proper name -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- That won't work, unless you can persuade Legoktm (talk · contribs) to amend Legobot. This is because Legobot searches for two opening braces directly followed by the three letters "rfc", case-insensitive. Anything else, and the RfC will simplay be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like it should support {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}} then? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}}, title is repetitive and over-descriptive. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Pull requests welcome. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- So what would you say about my suggestion of {{Wikipedia request for comment}} ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like it should support {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}} then? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- That won't work, unless you can persuade Legoktm (talk · contribs) to amend Legobot. This is because Legobot searches for two opening braces directly followed by the three letters "rfc", case-insensitive. Anything else, and the RfC will simplay be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative: move to Template:Request for comment. Template:Afd was moved to Template:Article for deletion in 2010, and Template:Requested move appears to have always existed under this title. In either case, the templates' name typically are (and should be) the same as actual process name, with obvious shortcuts like Afd, Rm, Rfc, etc. existing for ease. In fact, I believe that we should also consider titling most of these processes such that the same title is used for the connected Wikipedia/Help/Template/Category namespaces. Again, obvious and appropriate shortcuts and redirects will continue to exist. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom: I refer you to my post of 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? I mean, he did invite pull requests right? ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. If you write the appropriate change to the bot's code and test it satisfactorily, Legoktm will incorporate it. Otherwise, it's no-go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support with no preference regarding Template:Request for comment. Sure. I can tweak the code and open a PR if consensus is determined that this is the preference. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. If you write the appropriate change to the bot's code and test it satisfactorily, Legoktm will incorporate it. Otherwise, it's no-go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? I mean, he did invite pull requests right? ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom: I refer you to my post of 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support full name "Request for comment", consistent with how Template:Article for deletion and Template:Requested move are titled. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support First choice: Template:Request for comment if coding can be updated, second choice as proposed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Note to closer
|
---|
Since this request hasn't been closed yet, I wish to ask the closer that if they close this discussion as consensus to move. They please don't move this right away but wait until the bot's code is changed accordingly. Those two actions will probably need to be coordinated for a flawless transition. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2023
Please sync with Template:rfc/sandbox per MOS:BLANKALT. I also removed redundant code preventing Template:Rfc itself from being categorized because the code in question is already in <includeonly>...</includeonly>
tags. Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 22:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)