Template talk:RFC

From mediawiki.org
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Nemo bis in topic Decision


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

"Next step" field[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Hmm, perhaps. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Merge "status" and "state"[edit]

[Moved discussion to Talk:Requests for comment#Cleanup. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)]Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Now this was done with the "extrastatus" parameter, which adds to duplication. :( Should be merged. --Nemo 07:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]