Template talk:Add category

makeprotected •–• 07:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel we should be able to simplify all this. Perhaps by having a single template that takes a parameter saying what action is being requested; one could then have all these specialized templates as optional alternative ways to call the central one.  If one were going to do that, though, one would have to decide how to handle the parameter that specifies the kind of request.  After all, tasks had an interface kind of like that and only an expert could know what the major names were for the different parameter values.  A parser of some kind might help, to add a bit of flexibility in the parameter value, but then there are problems with how to see that the parser interprets it correctly, what to do when the parser doesn't know what to make of it (or gets it wrong), and how to customize it going forward.  More thought seems indicated; perhaps there's a way we can .  --Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do that. That is one of the most confusing things to deal with. Remembering those keywords is not easy. Till date, I have never managed to use it successfully, (add delete to that category, too) In this case, one wants to add a category, it is add category, make protected, makeprotected is the template. I read your other comment on other talk page, probably your talk page, about complexity, and how templates changed and tasks came to existence. However, all the templates I have created will deal with archived/protected pages. So, we are making it quite clear what is to be done. Like if there is an editprotected, now we know what type of edit is requested. If an admin is in a mood to delete some unused fair use files -- they can see the list with one click. If one is in a mood to remove categories, that can be done with one click too. 150.129.88.45 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting the sort of confusing "keyword" interface you're talking about. I mentioned above, particularly, that it is something to avoid.  However, the names of the templates are in effect "keywords" themselves, subject to the same sorts of problems with remembering them.  This approach doesn't actually solve the problem, just shifts it from one namespace to another.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But separates what exactly is to be done. 150.129.88.45 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

❌ I don't see this meeting WN:PP. In fact, it looks like there's some debate whether to keep this template at all. --SVTCobra 20:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)