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)reply
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)reply
(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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
I have no opinion and really don't care.
Legoktm (
talk) 07:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
@
CX Zoom: I refer you to my post of 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)reply
I updated the sandbox to use the OOUI/Codex icons, as well as tweaked the wording. If this looks good then maybe I will open an edit request to get the icons changed.
AwesomeAasim 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply