This template is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles
This template isn't making the little bullet before the Delete, reason. ~~~~ part (like ((cfm2)) does, for instance). Picky, I know, but it's bugging me. 8). Recury15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition
I recently added a link here which, indeed, is a duplicate. That wasn't really the aim though, the idea was to have the template contain a [[:Category:Name]] so that this could easily be copy/pasted into the CFD/W page when closing nominations. The CFR2 tag has one like that, and it's pretty useful. I was wondering if people had suggestions on how to put that here. >Radiant<07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should always contain a link to the category somewhere.
And the ((lc1)) template doesn't. The problem is that we want to be able to use What links here to find discussions. Otherwise we're just lost in the fog. -- Prove It(talk)13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to full has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think this template should natively support bulk nominations, like the otherwise similar ((tfd2)). ((Cfm2)) and ((Cfr2)) would likely be affected as well. This simply entails adding more optional numbered parameters similar to the first, e.g. ((#if:(({2))}|:* '''Propose (({type|deleting))}''' ((lc|(({2))))))}<br /> and removing the options of number parameters for other entries. An alternative would be making it more similar to ((rfd2)), by adding the option to omit the nominator's rationale and header so that multiple ((cfd2)) templates can be stacked atop each other; this approach fits better with ((cfm2)) and ((cfr2)). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. If you are unable to edit the sandbox page, or if editing templates is unfamiliar to you, ping me here, and I will take another look. Is there a discussion somewhere that shows that this idea is supported by more than one person? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove leading colons
The leading colons (i.e. indents) break the Reply tool, and don't seem to have a particular purpose. Would there be any objection to their removal? I have TE rights so I can carry this out myself, I'm just checking for objections. User:GKFXtalk21:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GKFX: I would much prefer to reinstate the colon before "Nominator's rationale". At present the rationale is out-dented and aligned with the heading, which I find messy and confusing. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 31: thesome group nominations where the nominator has apparently manually inserted a colon are clearer to scan than the nominations without the indent. – FayenaticLondon22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which group nominations specifically? There are a couple where the entire nomination is indented with a “:” before both the rationale and each bullet, which is not how indents are supposed to be used on talk pages; the first post should be unindented. They look fine, but would look roughly the same if you removed all the colons. There’s also one (French troubadours) where there is an odd mix of one bullet, then all the entries with just a colon indent and no bullets, then the rationale with no indent. I agree that one looks odd but it’s not really this template’s fault; each entry in the list should have a bullet not a colon and then it would look fine. User:GKFXtalk22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the nominations of Psychiatric_instruments and Defunct LGBT night clubs are laid out much more helpfully for scanning the page. I think those are the ones you were referring to as "not supposed to be", but I find those better than e.g. Enigmatic taxa, although all I was asking for was to indent the rationale in that one. As a CFD regular I do find the old format much better, e.g.[1]. Moreover I am not convinced that it was a breach of WP:INDENTMIX. – FayenaticLondon22:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not certain why you want the first post of these discussions to be indented. Every other talk page uses the convention that the first post has no indent, and I don’t understand why XfDs should deviate from that convention. User:GKFXtalk17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CFD logs are not regular talk pages. Granted, WP:AFD logs are quite readable without indenting the rationales. But there are various differences which make them easier to scan: (1) coloured headings, (2) shorter rationales, (3) generally more responses. Indenting helps someone scanning CFD logs for discussions that are ready to be closed, or overdue for some other follow-up.
I would not mind reverting to that, as it was much more concise. It's a matter of judgment as to whether this accessibility problem, having one non-standard colon at the start of every CFD discussion, is significant in practice.– FayenaticLondon08:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, apparently. User:Qwerfjkl, this is the source of your problem. It doesn't just break the reply tool, it also breaks Bawl. A BCL (Bawl Comment Link) could be added to every CfD which would make Bawl work. But honestly, we should just take a hard look at that indentation for nominators.. and kill it with fire. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first parameter for ((block indent)) should be named, like ((block indent|1=* '''Propose. While that seems to possibly break the bullet point, it's much better than breaking completely. If a bullet point is needed (is it?), maybe use •. (•). — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: the error was related to the color code in your signature, see tests in my sandbox.[2] Despite Pppery's request above, I have followed his fix by adding a nowiki code in the 7 templates. (Not that I understand either what was wrong with the span code in your sig, or how the nowiki code solves it.) – FayenaticLondon12:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, why have you ignored me? It's clear that this discussion is not coming to any consensus and normally a lack of consensus results in a return to the status quo before the contested changes. * Pppery *it has begun...17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. I didn't want any more nominators being confused by a red block error message that was not their fault.
Apologies, that comment was written in an angrier tone than it should have been. I don't see where the status quo is illegal. If you are referring to Izno's comment, then I agree it's not ideal to use : for indentation, but think trying to suppress that usage on a discussion page in which many comments will themselves be indented that way is putting the cart before the horse. * Pppery *it has begun...20:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you write ((template|<span style="CSS">X</span> then the template receives an argument called <span style with a value of "CSS">X</span>, and no first parameter, so it won't work. User:GKFXtalk17:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]