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).[1] --Nemo 08:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we want an overall {{{status}}} parameter with values draft/active/archived, and then a {{#switch: {{{status}}} | draft = [[Category:Draft proposals]] | active = [[Category:Active proposals]] | archived = [[Category:Archived proposals]] | [[Category:Proposals]] }} 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 extrastatus 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#Cleanup. --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)