Template talk:RFC

Categorization
When something is complete the page should be removed from Category:Proposals (A subcat "Archived proposals" as on Meta would be ok).[//www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment%2FReplacing_extension_distributor&diff=727478&oldid=644744] --Nemo 08:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we want an overall  parameter with values draft/active/archived, and then a   and colour scheme for the infoboxen, then? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so, though it'll likely get confused with the documentation and implementation statuses. Auto-categorization would allow us to dynamically generate the index at Requests for comment. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Next step" field
Could we add a "Next step" field to the RFC - to make it clearer what the next action needs to be for an RFC to continue? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very unclear that many Proposed requests for comment RFCs, which the RFC page lists as "Ready for discussion", have actually been discussed and are awaiting updates or have a only one or two loose ends. I added an  parameter to the template so you can indicate what's going on. N.B. the architecture committee is probably going to use a  Phabricator workboard to better track RFCs that they are reviewing. -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge "status" and "state"
[''Moved discussion to Talk:Requests for comment. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)'']

Decision
I think this should just be called "comment", as in the Meta-Wiki RfC template, so that it can be used to explain e.g. "stalled" status as well. --Nemo 09:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now this was done with the "extrastatus" parameter, which adds to duplication. :( Should be merged. --Nemo 07:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)