The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

Operator: Bsherr (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:50, Monday, October 29, 2018 (UTC)

Function overview: Ad hoc template orphaning and transclusion replacement, including pursuant to WP:TFD.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AutoWikiBrowser

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time runs as needed by particular task

Estimated number of pages affected: Usually between 100 and 1000 pages.

Namespace(s): All

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: This is a reapproaval after the bot was deflagged for inactivity only. Following its original approval, there were no runs needed. First task is replacing Template:User x/doc with Template:User x in pages having that as the first parameter in Template:Documentation, the purpose of which is to merge redundant pages Template:User x/doc with Template:User x and allow Template:User x a normal documentation page.

• Hi Bsherr. This seems fine, but I'm a bit confused: since the bot is for dealing with TFD-related issues, where is the discussion to merge Template:User x and Template:User x/doc? — Earwig ^talk 02:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi The Earwig. Ordinarily, yes, implementation of TfD results. This particular unusual situation seemed to present an exception. It's not unusual that templates are functionally divided between a base page and subpages. When functions are moved between the base page and subpages, it's not usually by a TfD unless the subpage is being proposed for deletion. Here, there is clear accidental forking between the two pages. The subpage is being retained for the purpose of being the documentation subpage, and retaining the page history is desirable. Given that, with a bit of IAR in mind, I didn't think it needed. If BAG thinks it's still important to put it through TfD, happy to do it. Or, alternatively, if BAG wants to stipulate that any future runs not pursuant to TfD be approved here, happy to accept that too. Bsherr (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that's reasonable. I agree you don't need a full TfD for this fairly low-risk change. I did notice a recent discussion about the situation, so unless you've already done so, I think it would be a good idea to let Trappist and Hyacinth know of your proposal to make sure we're all in agreement. Once that's settled, I'm comfortable with a (speedy) approval for that replacement and future TfD-consensus-derived replacements (as in your prior approval), with the condition that runs not arising from TfD consensus require explicit future BRFAs, as you suggested. — Earwig ^talk 05:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice sleuthing. I'll leave a note and drop a link to this page. --Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I can strike this from my to-do list. But, as I suggested at that other conversation, I would choose different template names. I believe that templates, as much as possible, should be named to reflect the work that they are actually doing. The names of {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} are mighty vague about what it is that they actually do or what their names mean. I proposed in that other conversation that the single documentation template should be called {{user x doc}} which name sort of describes what it is that the template does. It then gets its own documentation page, Template:user x doc/doc. These two pages can be created and tested without disrupting the existing template structures. When tests with templates that use {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} show that the new template and its documentation works as expected, then all instances of {{user x}} and {{user x/doc}} can be replaced with {{user x doc}}.

What I think might be a better long-term solution would be to create a single parameterized template, perhaps {{user lang box}}, then we have no need to create and maintain a mess of however many individual templates we have now. Were we starting afresh today, this is likely how we would handle this task: use language codes from Module:Lang or Module:ISO 639 name, create another module that keeps a large data table of all of the appropriate non-English text that is rendered when the user box is rendered. This solution is really beyond the scope of this brfa, but it is offered as a suggestion for later consideration.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Why not boldly move the template now? Then when I run the bot, I can use the new name. --Bsherr (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barring that, I'd plan to proceed, as I wouldn't want to leave this fork outstanding for long. We should certainly continue this on the template talk page. May I have approval? Bsherr (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This was approved previously, and was only removed due to inactivity. Seems like it's still pretty uncontroversial.  Approved. SQL^{Query me!} 09:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.