Template talk:tobediscussed - Revision history

MichaelXX2: /* Talk to be deleted tags */ anchor the link to today's revision

2009-11-08T04:56:55Z

Talk to be deleted tags: anchor the link to today's revision

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:56, 8 November 2009
Line 90:		Line 90:
	== Talk to be deleted tags ==		== Talk to be deleted tags ==

-	Is there any reason why the Templates that are put on talk pages equal the same thing as {{t\|delete}} does? Should we change it? (A good example would be [[File Talk:otherdays.png]]). Thoughts? {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)	+	Is there any reason why the Templates that are put on talk pages equal the same thing as {{t\|delete}} does? Should we change it? (A good example would be {{pl\|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:otherdays.png&oldid=684668 File Talk:otherdays.png}}). Thoughts? {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MichaelXX2: /**/Talk to be deleted tags

2009-11-08T04:55:02Z

: Talk to be deleted tags

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 8 November 2009
Line 87:		Line 87:

	:So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)		:So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Talk to be deleted tags ==
		+
		+	Is there any reason why the Templates that are put on talk pages equal the same thing as {{t\|delete}} does? Should we change it? (A good example would be [[File Talk:otherdays.png]]). Thoughts? {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Trey56: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */ Tweaking a bit (emphasizing that redirection of discussions is often a good thing)

2008-06-08T05:47:28Z

Version for Merge Discussions?: Tweaking a bit (emphasizing that redirection of discussions is often a good thing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 8 June 2008
Line 84:		Line 84:
	\|}Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)		\|}Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

-	:Well, we used to have separate templates for merge discussions, deletion discussions, etc., but we switched to the current, single template because it's often the case that a discussion originally proposing one fate turns into a discussion about an entirely different fate (e.g., perhaps somebody proposes that two articles be merged, and the course of the discussion leads in the direction of outright deleting one of them).	+	:Well, we used to have separate templates for merge discussions, deletion discussions, etc., but we switched to the current, single template because it's often the case that a discussion originally proposing one fate turns into a discussion about an entirely different fate (e.g., perhaps somebody proposes that two articles be merged, and the course of the discussion leads in the direction of outright deleting one of them). This isn't a bad thing; often the best course of action is only discovered by a discussion in which several options are proposed.

	:So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)		:So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Trey56: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */ reply

2008-06-08T05:42:20Z

Version for Merge Discussions?: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:42, 8 June 2008
Line 83:		Line 83:
	\| It has been suggested that the content of this page be merged with ''2nd article''. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be '''moved''', please comment on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}\|talk page]].		\| It has been suggested that the content of this page be merged with ''2nd article''. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be '''moved''', please comment on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}\|talk page]].
	\|}Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)		\|}Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Well, we used to have separate templates for merge discussions, deletion discussions, etc., but we switched to the current, single template because it's often the case that a discussion originally proposing one fate turns into a discussion about an entirely different fate (e.g., perhaps somebody proposes that two articles be merged, and the course of the discussion leads in the direction of outright deleting one of them).
		+
		+	:So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bad Guy: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */ more specific description

2008-06-08T04:20:55Z

Version for Merge Discussions?: more specific description

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:20, 8 June 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== Version for Merge Discussions? ==		== Version for Merge Discussions? ==

-	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. On the ~~computer~~, it would appear as something like this:	+	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. In the actual article, it would appear as something like this:
	{\|align="center" style="border: 1px solid #5993E5; background: #e1ebf5; text-align:center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 1em; padding: 0.2em; margin-top:5px;"		{\|align="center" style="border: 1px solid #5993E5; background: #e1ebf5; text-align:center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 1em; padding: 0.2em; margin-top:5px;"
	\|-		\|-

Bad Bad Guy: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */ visual sample

2008-06-08T04:20:13Z

Version for Merge Discussions?: visual sample

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:20, 8 June 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== Version for Merge Discussions? ==		== Version for Merge Discussions? ==

-	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)	+	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. On the computer, it would appear as something like this:
		+	{\|align="center" style="border: 1px solid #5993E5; background: #e1ebf5; text-align:center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 1em; padding: 0.2em; margin-top:5px;"
		+	\|-
		+	\| rowspan="2" style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" \| [[Image:Strong Mad Processing icon.png]]
		+	\| It has been suggested that the content of this page be merged with ''2nd article''. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be '''moved''', please comment on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}\|talk page]].
		+	\|}Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bad Guy: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */ I should take a slice of all the "show preview" advice I give so free...

2008-06-08T04:05:31Z

Version for Merge Discussions?: I should take a slice of all the "show preview" advice I give so free...

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 8 June 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== Version for Merge Discussions? ==		== Version for Merge Discussions? ==

-	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used, I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)	+	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bad Guy: /* Version for Merge Discussions? */

2008-06-08T04:04:53Z

Version for Merge Discussions?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 8 June 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== Version for Merge Discussions? ==		== Version for Merge Discussions? ==

-	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[~~Food~~ Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used, I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)	+	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Foods Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used, I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bad Guy: /**/Version for Merge Discussions?

2008-06-08T04:04:29Z

: Version for Merge Discussions?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 8 June 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:

	Good call, Phlip. The rest of the problems seem overly picky; it shouldn't particularly matter if the ID "cleanup-rewrite" is already defined.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)		Good call, Phlip. The rest of the problems seem overly picky; it shouldn't particularly matter if the ID "cleanup-rewrite" is already defined.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Version for Merge Discussions? ==
		+
		+	To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge [[General and Fraulein Pom Pom]] and [[Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family]] turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge [[Disconnected Telephones]] and [[Food Used as Phones]] received no response because {{t\|mergefrom}} templates were used, I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, <nowiki>{{tobediscussed\|merge=2nd article}}</nowiki>. Is this variation necessary? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ten Ten at 13:40, 24 May 2007

2007-05-24T13:40:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 24 May 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:

	There are issues with the HTML validity of this template. I don't know if anyone is capable of fixing this problem, but there are numerous, and they relate to this template. The HTML Validator claims that there are unordered list (</ul>) tags inside the talk portion of the template. If this can't be fixed, then oh well. Just thought I'd point it out.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 13:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)		There are issues with the HTML validity of this template. I don't know if anyone is capable of fixing this problem, but there are numerous, and they relate to this template. The HTML Validator claims that there are unordered list (</ul>) tags inside the talk portion of the template. If this can't be fixed, then oh well. Just thought I'd point it out.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 13:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	Good call, Phlip. The rest of the problems seem overly picky; it shouldn't particularly matter if the ID "cleanup-rewrite" is already defined.{{User:Ten Ten/sig}} 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)