Template talk:Udelh

This template is usually not placed in the right paragraph, but in the one before the one, that it's about. There should be a warning about this, or, if the headline should be included, the template has to be rewritten. The way it is handled now is definitely misleading, imho outright false. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: I changed the wording to "The undeletion discussion in the following section", thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But that's wrong. Then it as well stands in the section before the one it's about. Any template on such a page with lots of sections must stand ion the section it's about, not in some other section. If I edit the section before the one this is about, and this unrelated template is in ther, I will delete it, as it's useless clutter for that section I'm just in editing. I just did so accidentally, and even reprimanded an admin fir inserting this template in a definitely not closed section. Yes, for the nerds, that do nothing but edit on that page it's perhaps somehow custom, but it's definitely not correct to say something in a completely unrelated section. Any template about a distinct section of such a page must be in that section, nowhere else. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the undeletion page as well, the templates have to ne in the right section, not at some random place. And yes, it's about source code editing, i,.e. the normal way, I don't care about VE. I don't know how it would work with subst, bur that probably will alter little, as it will be still in the wrong section. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: This is how it's been done on COM:UDR for over 6 years. Pinging @Steinsplitter as operator of SteinsplitterBot, which archives that page.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This was my reaction to finding the denial of my undeletion in my section. In the section I created someone placed the template, that denied my wish. Of course I was upset. As it was in that section, it clearly belonged to that section, it definitely meant my wish was denied, what else? If this suboptimal setup was her for so long, I wonder why nobody else complained up to now. See here how it looks like in the normal wikitext editing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Edith says: If this template has to be in another section then the one its about, why is {{udelf}} not treated in the same way? Two similar templates, one in the correct section, one in some other section. It's not consistent, thus irritating. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: One could argue that it makes the archive look pretty, with the section headers inside the blue boxes.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just inserted <!-- The following template is not about this section but the one, that follows this one--> in front of the template in the sections, it's not about, to make this irritating discrepancy more clear for editors. Imho this should be the standard for using a template in a completely disconnected section. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 10:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: We'll see what SteinsplitterBot makes of your mess (including all the extra vertical whitespace) just after midnight UTC tonight. Good luck getting Admins to close requests like that consistently, or getting approval for a bot to make such changes.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Define mess, I think it was a mess before, with unrelated templates in some sections, and other nearly identical templates in the correct section. I just tried to make it a wee bit more obvious for the normal editors, I could not care less but about bots. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 16:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Now, with the latest archival], we are left with three sets of your HTML comments referring to sections that are gone. That is a mess.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a mess before I inserted this sentence, it was fine as long as it lasted, now the bot created another mess. That's what I'm always saying, that's what you are constantly ignoring. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I just cleaned after the mess, the bot created. I fpound quite often the two templates {{Udelh}} and {{Udelf}} directly after the text of the section with no line between, but a line between the wrong placed template ans the section it was supposed to be about. that's an extreme mess. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 07:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Which part of "Please do not make any edits to this archive" in the template do you not understand? Kindly cease and desist from making any edits to archived UDRs, or I will be forced to report your activities.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

WTF? I did not mess with any archive, I just repaired the normal page, where the archiver bot didn't do it's job properly, or better: Did the job as programmed, that recreated the mess that was created with this suboptimal template. I didn't bother to look in any archive, that's really not important in any possible way. And as a small aside: you don't have to ping me every time, I've got this here on my watchlist anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sänger (talk • contribs) 15. Nov. 2020, 11:37:25‎ (UTC)