Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Proposed expansion of WP:CSD#T2

An expansion of the criteria for speedy deleting templates to include "blatent violations of policy" is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (specifically this section). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or, more specifically, an attempt to write down the fact that we already speedy delete such templates. >Radiant< 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-expand include size

The page has exceeded the maximum post-expand include size. Does this happen often? --- RockMFR 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's from me. Sorry. There are 434 "List of people" templates up for deletion. --MZMcBride 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need to list all TfDs directly from this page?

I propose this page be made more like the AfD page and only list links to each day's TfD discussions to avoid this page being so long. --Android Mouse 02:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not normally bad enough to need that; we've just had a couple of unusually busy days here recently. Personally, I prefer the format of having all of the nominations on one page; it makes it a lot easier to scan through the templates currently up for deletion. Mike Peel 07:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I had thought it was like this most of the time. --Android Mouse 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FC Inter

Template:FC Inter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matthew_hk tc 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:FC Inter is quite a simple template; consisiting only of the badge and a link.

I was wandering maybe someone who knows the wiki stuff, would like to make a template that will expand the Tempalte:FC Inter. Thsi should consist of similar tempaltes of different teams but all in one tempalte.

Like the one { {fb| } } : similar to it.

JEPAAB 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. I need an advice regarding this political template

This user believes in the separatist Abkhazian government.

It has been developed in the userspace and is obviously POV currently used only by one user. It is clearly a deletion candidate, but I'm not sure whether it can be classified as a template. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's in userspace, take it to WP:MFD if you want deletion, not here; that's where deletions of userspace items (even userfied templates) are handled. --ais523 10:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, userboxes in any namespace go to MfD instead of this page (see "What not to propose for deletion here"). Jafeluv (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rogue template on Burj Al Arab

The article Burj Al Arab seems to have a rogue TFD tag at the top. There is no such thing as Template:Burj Al Arab and i was wondering if anyone here knows what is going on? Thanks. Woodym555 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is Template:Infobox Hotel that is up for deletion. I've moved the TfD tag to make it clearer. Mike Peel 05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Template merge request

How do I request a merge of templates? I would like to see {{oldvfdfull}} {{oldafdfull}} {{oldcfdfull}} {{olddelrev}} {{cfd result}} all be merged into a single template, as they cover very similar ground. Their differences could be worked out by setting various parameters and then the templates could be converted by a bot. However, I have no idea how to do any of this, and I'd like to put in a request to those who do. — Jack · talk · 03:48, Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Incidentally... there is a template, {{tfd-merge}}, that is meant for proposing merges on TFD, but it is not used. (In fact, a proposal to change "template for deletion" to "templates for discussion" had failed.) Merging proposals are currently done using {{merge}} and similar templates. To build the template in the first place, you may want to go to WP:REQT, the requested template page. Responders there might be able to help you out. I should note, however, that the individual templates might be too complex to merge nicely (especialy {{oldcfdfull}}); it might be best to keep them separate. Gracenotes^T § 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

I've suggested we should convert most of the maintenance templates to use a "whatlinkshere" based mechanism rather than categories to keep track of articles needing maintenance, and have implemented an example using template:copyedit/test. If you have an interest in this, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Date header in TfD log pages

It seems that a few editors (including myself) have more or less spontaneously decided to adapt TfD's nifty date navigation system (the date succession boxes at the top of the log pages) for RfD, which uses a similar log structure - see User_talk:Gavia_immer#Date_box_on_RfD_archive_pages. There's one minor problem, though - we haven't been able to determine where the table code originated, which would be nice information to have for both GFDL and bug-checking purposes. Does anybody here know the name of the template (if it is a template) or the originator of the table code (if it's just being passed around)? Any info is appreciated; please post it in the linked section of my talk page. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Template request

I added a new template, Template:ITF and I was told a similar template exists, Template:ITF male profile. Could someone kindly delete it or redirect it. Thanks much - 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can also tag it with {{db-author}}. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Conversation changed to MfD

The conversation about High userbox is now here. Best regards Rhanyeia 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"What links here" emptying

What is the standard process of de-transcluding templates (that are to be replaced or deleted) on talk pages and user pages? Is it ok to subst: a template on someone else's user page? Or is it better just to let them fix it? Rocket000 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Substing a template which is then deleted would in effect be a copyvio would it not? A minor one, but a copyvio nonetheless. --kingboyk (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tfdnotice usage documentation conflicts

Conflicting documentation

This page WP:TFD#How to use this page Part III and {{tfdnotice/doc}} both direct using {{tfdnotice}} with example:

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}}

which conflicts with WP:SUB#Deletion-related:

Most templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted (it just makes more work to delete them).

• {{tfd2}} {{tfdnotice}} {{catfd}}

Analysis

I've been experimenting with {{tfdnotice/sandbox}} attempting to add missing parameter behavior {{tfdnotice/testcases}} similar to {{cite web}} when parameters url or title are missing.

1. WP:SUB#Templates that should not be substituted states:

Technically, templates shall not be substituted that

(a) contain calls to ParserFunctions (#if, #switch, etc.) and

(b) template calls that do leave some parameters to their defaults by not specifying them

because those constructs are not replaced in the generated wiki-code (Substing of case (a) leaves the #if or #switch constructs verbatim at the subst location and (b) leaves constructs like "{{{1|default value}}}").

   where Part (a) above severely restricts options to improve {{tfdnotice}} behavior.

2. I concur with WP:SUB#Deletion-related which makes clear substitution creates more work when deleting.

3. I've not discovered any benefit to recommend using substitution.

4. Failing to substitute templates which create section headers triggers an error when attempting to edit the created section. The created section edit link opens the template for editing instead of the created section within the page invoking the template.

Recommendation

I recommend the following:

A. Revise WP:TFD#How to use this page Part III to remove "subst:" directions.

B. Revise {{tfdnotice/doc}} to remove "subst:" directions.

C. Revise WP:SUB#Deletion-related to read:

Most templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted (it just makes more work to delete them).

• {{tfd2}} {{tfdnotice}} {{catfd}}

. . .

Exceptions: The following templates must be substituted in order to work correctly:

. . .

• {{tfd2}} {{tfdnotice}}

Discussion

Thank you in advance for participating. May I assume 7 days is sufficient to determine consensus given templates are considered sensitive? – Conrad T. Pino 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable. It's frustrating that these kind of talk pages receive little traffic.... --MZMcBride 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Recommendation edits A & B (above) are done. – Conrad T. Pino 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted – Conrad T. Pino 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Recommendation edits C (above) are done. – Conrad T. Pino 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nasty side effect when editing Tfdnotice in user talk page

Clicking the edit link on user talk page takes you into editing the {{Tfdnotice}} template. Definately not useful behavior. I'm reverting these changes immediately and fixing all uses I can locate. – Conrad T. Pino 07:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Conrad T. Pino 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Being deleted

I've created {{Being deleted}} for templates that hang around for a while after the discussion has been closed as "Delete", e.g. if the template's heavily used or if the user that closes the debate isn't an admin. Just thought I should let y'all know. Mike Peel 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot DST issue

User:Zorglbot is not keeping correct daylight saving time. Please review the Revision history of Templates for deletion and you'll see it's run time changed by one hour this week. I reported the issue to the bot owner User:Schutz with suggested resolutions. – Conrad T. Pino 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TFD wording change

I've noticed that "What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)" includes: "The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks)". How does this jive with Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates? If there's not a difference, then I'd suggest removing #3 and putting a note above directing users who wish to nominate a deprecated template to the correct link. SkierRMH 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Template process vandalism

I assume this has happened before, but I don't know the proceedures. A TfD in October 31 was removed November 4. I just noticed it today and re-added it. As I participated, I really shouldn't close it as delete, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of policy or guideline

This page says "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." If a template is part of the functioning of a policy or guideline and the template is listed for deletion, what should happen then? An early close of the TFD? --Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The template in question is Template:Current fiction, which is undergoing deletion. The wording indicates that such a template must basically be the function of a policy or guideline -- hence, "part of" does not seem to mean a template can't be contested if it's mentioned in one of multiple passages in an actively edited guideline (Wikipedia:Spoiler, in this case). Template regarding WP:V and WP:NOR clearly represent their respective policies, but here, Template:Current fiction is not representative of the style guideline as a whole. Of course, that's my biased perception, having nominated the template for deletion, but I'm interested to hear an independent voice weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates in project space

"Templates that reside in userspace or other non-article namespaces should instead be nominated on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but please note that Wikipedia is lenient about userspace."

The current system doesn't work. If a page is a template, it's a template wherever it resides.

• If I nominate a project space template at MFD, the MFD notice then gets transcluded wherever the template is used. Of course, I know that I can place it in noinclude tags, but that's an unneccessary extra hurdle and not everybody will know they can do this.
• Conversely, anybody who uses the template or sees it transcluded will not know about the deletion debate.
• TfD is where template experts hang out, not MfD.
• Attempting to use the {{TFD}} template on a project space page doesn't work (because template: is hard coded into to), and it doesn't appear to be easily hacked around.

(The template which alerted me to these problems is Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Page wikified which this time I will send to MfD. Of course, to make a further mockery of the system, I could just have moved it into template namespace first...! --kingboyk (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Interesting points; furthermore, most templates are in "non-article namespaces" - they reside in the WP:Template namespace, so according to this, TfD doesn't have jurisdiction over any templates, they should all go to WP:MFD. Yes, the section goes on to say: "Templates that reside in mainspace should go on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion." But isn't that silly? If an editor finds any template in the mainspace shouldn't he or she immediately move it an appropriate "non-article namespace"? I think the idea is to keep jurisdiction over userspace, project space, and portal space with MFD, but that's not what this says. If the idea is instead to address where the template is used then say so - but then a lot of templates are in talk namespace which isn't the mainspace either. I think the terminology needs to be consistent with WP:Namespace first, then the lines need to be clearly lain out - and you're right there needs to be some logic to it as well.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the emphasis shouldn't be so much on namespace, but on function. {{tfd}} can certainly be changed to behave differently depending on the namespace of the page on which it is transcluded; we can also make an MfD-inline tag like {{tfd-inline}}. So the issue is whether userboxes, WikiProject banners etc. should be discussed at TfD or MfD. I would prefer MfD because that's where people generally argue about WikiProjects and the encyclopedic nature of social networking type things. This allows TfD to be mainly about templates used in the article and article talk spaces, which are what template regulars focus on. –Pomte 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see where you are coming from but again it starts to loop around on itself no matter how you try to get your hands on it: WikiProject Banners are by far the most common template in article talkspace, and many of the templates in the mainspace itself are infoboxes created and maintained by WikiProjects for users - the best way to deal with them is to go to the proponent project. My point above though was not that jurisdiction over namespaces should drive this, but that currently that's how all the XfD's seem to define their jurisdiction but they don't all use consistent terms and TfD just has it all wrong with statements that would appear to give them no jurisdiction at all. The confusion is real as shown by this nomination for deletion of a non-userfied userbox (i.e. one still residing in template space) - which only goes to prove your point as well - the namespace shouldn't be the driver, a userbox is a userbox no matter where it is (and of course as kingboyk pointed out, any other result could allow someone to forum shop by moving the template to the namespace of the desired XfD).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about for starters claiming jurisdiction on all templates by "function" not "namespace" per Pomte? Tweaks in jurisdiction could follow if that doesn't work... --kingboyk (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (just trying to move discussion towards a conclusion... :))

Is this what you mean?

Regardless of namespace, all pages that were designed as templates (i.e. they are meant to be transcluded or substituted) should be discussed here, not at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Yes, something like that would be fine imho. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

or more along the lines of

List userboxes at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

–Pomte 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Pomte and Kingboyk... The notion of deciding if something is a template based on its intended use (intended to be transcluded) rather than the namespace it resides in seems eminently sensible to me, and fits with our descriptivist (vs. prescriptivist) overall approach to policy and process. Describe what we do, not what we should do. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• If it's unclear, I agree, function over namespace. All templates, regardless of where they are located or used should be here, with the exception of the userboxes (not sure why, but it's tradition and right now it's a mess) and stub-types. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • By the way, I notice the language was changed to reflect my earlier concerns that we were not clear about what namespaces we dealt with, is it just my imagination or did the moment the language changed, a bunch of template space userboxes were nominated? Userboxes really need to stay at MfD because that's where they've been and MfD is dealing with a big mess over the entire policy for them right now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

I like all the changes to the procedures at the top of the page. I've added a line to the "What not to nominate" section about userboxes going to MfD regardless of namespace. If the rest of you were actually advocating that TfD should take over userboxes because they are a template, then go ahead and revert, but that would be a significant change to the way things are usually done. MfD has a big RFC going on over userboxes and a lot of userbox issues involve POV pushing problems, etc..--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• As userboxes continue to be nominated at both TFD and MFD and my changes at MFD instructions were reverted and apparently no-one has noticed them here, there apparently is not consensus on this point yet; however, it needs to be resolved. Discussing userboxes at two different venues simply because of what namespace they are in doesn't seem to make much sense. Especially as pointed out above they can be moved very easily and WP:UBM suggests they should be, particularly when WP:NPOV is the problem.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• An excellent point, I very much agree. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

new user forgot password

Hi, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, but it's because I'm a new editor and forgot my password. What am I to do? 75.8.214.142 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Logging in. If you set an email address for your account then you can mail a new password. Otherwise you can create a new account and link the old and new user pages to eachother, explaining the situation. A better place to request help another time is Wikipedia:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deprecation vs deletion

This was originally a post to a CSD discussion, but once I got into my reply I realized that it should also be posted here.

Personally, I'd much rather we stop deleting deprecated templates and just start redirecting them, or placing a deprecation notice on them. It seems rather rare to me when we actually need to delete a template, and it makes things a lot more difficult for anyone working with an older version of an article. Often times I look for old templates because I remember seeing an idea there, and often finding the template has not only been deleted, but finding it very hard to find the template that replaced it (which might not even be related to why I was looking for it in the first place). Unless there's an issue with people trying to reinstate a template, or if there's really no value to keeping it (something made recently that hasn't had a chance to be used), or is some kind of violation (attacks, bad "stuff", etc), I'd strongly encourage people to not delete a template. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is what I've been doing. –Pomte 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• N.B. - Main discussion is at WT:CSD--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'd encourage CSD deleters to try to redir. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why...

...does TfD last for 7 days, whereas everything else (AfD, IfD, MfD, CfD) lasts for 5? Can't all XfD debates just expire after the same time? I was under the wrong impression that they did. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy states that deletion discussion should "last at least five days", in theory then the TfD process is more in keeping with policy than other processes such as AfD which states "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days". Maybe the template discussions last longer because less people work on templates and have them watchlisted so it gives users more time to notice and contribute to the debate. Guest9999 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that 7-8 days is more appropriate, since some people (ie, normal people :) may only check Wikipedia once a week, because they have lives :) or jobs :). I brought this point up at other XfD before, and everyone else said that if they looked at XfD they would see it, because people check everyday... 70.55.88.176 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on speedy deletion criterion T3

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#T3 opposition –Pomte 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Injunction

Several nominations were closed due to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction; however, nothing in the injunction restricts the deletion of templates, only the deletion and undeletion of articles and removal and application of notability templates. So why are we halting the process?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The existence of these templates depends on the existence of those articles. Common sense applies here. –Pomte 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they are just a component of the articles, nothing in the injunction says the articles can't be edited - including removing the templates from them (if they are even in any right now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why delete?

I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use? If it's a vanity, userbox, etc. template I also understand. In my opinion many other things should be first in line for deletion before informational templates. First to go would be nonsense sub-userpages, images used solely on userpages, etc. I don't think unused free images are deleted, are they? Free templates should be given the same treatment. This is pure bureaucracy just for the heck of it. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples of things you feel were unnecessarily deleted? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Should {{Remove Vandalism}} be put up for deletion or do some see a purpose in this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should. Though it could have some utility in principle if a) used on a talk page and b) severely revised to point out the potential for subtle vandalism that the person using the template is not able to adequately evaluate due to, for instance, lacking domain knowledge, it would be better to just delete it and start over. Also, though this is not a killer right off the block, it was created by an account that is now blocked indefinitely due to 'abusive editing', which does bring into question the motivation for its initial creation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it to whoever wants to delete it then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF JS BS?

Okay, I'm really curious what JavaScript funkystuff is going on with subpages of this page. Every time I try to cmd-click ("right-click" for you MS Windows folks) on topical links in daily subpages of this page, so I can select "Open link in new window" or "Open link in new tab" on something I want to look at, I am instead shunted into actually editing what I just clicked on. This happens to me nowhere else on WP (so far), and nowhere else on the entire Internet, just subpages of this one, so something is clearly awry here. I use SeaMonkey 1.1.8 (i.e. Mozilla, same engine as FireFox) on Mac OS X 10.4.11. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Format of the page

Looks like User:Vegaswikian tried to change the format of the page so that it looks like {{Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/{{ #time: Y F j | -1 days }}}}. The problem is that I think the bot is getting confused by that. And I think the reason is that the bot is still using the old format. Because of this, the old pages aren't being added once 7 days has passed. Obviously, this needs to be fixed. For now, I put the page back on the old format. Otherwise, we've had 2 straight days where March 30th (which isn't completed yet) isn't being added to the page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm guilty. I made the change after some of the new days were not being added. I have no problem with going back to the old way of doing business. But it would be best in the long run to not depend on the bot adding new days. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean this as a bad thing. :) Change is good. And yes, depending on a bot is not the best solution. So if we can get this to work either without the bot or getting the bot to work, great. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates containing unsourced information that is likely to be contested

There are several templates containing unsourced information that is likely to be contested. An example of such a template is the currently nominate Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe, but also the Template:Emotion (classification of emotions is disputed in literature, and several words are added in this template that are not mainstream scientifically accepted as emotions) is another. How to deal with this? Is this a reason for deletion. I think it should be as it opens a backdoor for avoiding core guidlines WP:V and WP:OR. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Levels of consensus

Here, as at AFD, the assumption is in favour of keeping the template; it's expected that a clear consensus (generally indicated by something like a 2/3rds majority, I think? - taking into account strength of arguments, of course) should be achieved before an article should be deleted, otherwise it should be kept. I agree with that for articles; but does the same logic apply to templates? Or should templates be viewed like article content, where (although of course it is not a vote) the situation is closer to one in which if the majority of editors believe something should not be there, it gets removed?

I've been pondering this after noticing the TFD for Infobox Pseudoscience, though my point is more general. In that case, most of the editors expressing opinions (15 keep, 25 delete) felt that Wikipedia would be better without this box; but because the same logic as AFD is applied, that's counted as a 'no consensus' and the content stays despite the majority. Isn't it more logical to view templates as article content, meaning that without consensus in their favour (or at least in cases of clear, if not overwhelming, majorities against), they should go? TSP (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Format

What is the reason that TfDs do not work the same as AfDs, with each having its own subpage? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Automotive templates: Template:Auto hp and others.

I am angry...I am EXCEEDINGLY angry.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles group spent a lot of effort considering how to handle unit conversions and ways to standardize our use of units - we discussed, achieved consensus, wrote guideline papers for automotive article authors and placed those templates into literally HUNDREDS of articles. Now - without ANY notification to our talk page, or on the talk pages of the hundreds of affected articles - just three people decide to remove them and set about destroying hundreds of hours of work on the part of dozens of people.

This is completely unacceptable behavior - this is Wikipedia decisionmaking at it's very worst...this is borderline vandalism. What makes you people think you know better than the people who write and maintain the hundreds of automotive articles you are (as we speak) in the process of wrecking?

The reasons for these articles not using the 'convert' template are many - and exceedingly carefully considered. Most importantly - they do not ONLY convert one unit into another - they embody the preferred choice of units for automotive articles. The "convert" template allows one to convert miles per hour into lightyears per teaspoon - but there is absolutely no constraint to enforce our desire to express miles per UK and US gallon as well as kilometers per liter...to take but one example. This is a non-trivial matter since one major reason for employing these templates was to standardize on the homogeneous use of units across all automotive articles. Many US authors are (for example) completely unaware that gallons come in two sizes. Others are not aware that lengths of cars are expressed in inches and not feet and inches. These templates do FAR more than simply automate unit conversions.

But that's not the point...the point is that we deserved at LEAST a note onto our talk page so that members of our group could make their views known in the discussion. Personally, I don't believe an ad hoc group such as yours has any jurisdiction over well established WikiProject teams of subject matter experts. I absolutely guarantee that if that basic level of politeness had been attempted that this decision would have gone the other way in a heartbeat. The very fact that these templates are used in literally hundreds of articles - many of which are FA's and GA's should have been a red flag to the misguided few who took this high-handed decision without appropriate consultation.

The results of this exceedingly poor decision needs to be reversed immediately - and the systematic robot-assisted destruction of our hard work needs to be stopped and then put right by those who did this.

If any discussion is still needed then let us have the parties who went to the trouble to consider the reasons for these templates in the first place have proper input on the matter...but first let's put things back how they belong.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - two weeks have elapsed - and despite direct requests to all of the people involved, not one of them has had the courage to respond or discuss the matter. Consequently, I feel no compunction in taking this to a higher level and getting this ridiculous decision reversed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I myself hadn't heard a thing about this. The thing is Steve, WP:DRV is designed for stuff such as this. You mention higher levels but I can tell you right now that usually doesn't get people anywhere if you don't start at WP:DRV or RfC or something like that first. Otherwise the higher levels you mention will probably direct you to DRV or WP:AN or whatever. Maybe you've already posted to one of the places I mentioned. But those are the places to start if you feel like an injustice has been done. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to resort to that - a few unthinking people made a stupid decision without spending ANY effort to consult with the entire team of people who achieved consensus and then spent a significant amount of time putting these templates together and carefully inserting them into literally hundreds of articles. The individuals who wrecked all of those articles should either admit it - and fix it - or defend their decision to countermand an established consensus with just three votes! WikiProject Automobiles didn't ask to have our templates reviewed - someone took it upon themselves to do this - and the victims shouldn't have to go to the trouble of cleaning up the resulting ungodly mess. The mess is bot-driven and thus exceedingly difficult for regular editors to undo - and HUNDREDS of articles have been affected putting the possibility of hand-editing them out of reasonable reach. A decision in WP:DRV isn't going to help. I need the people who wrecked several hundred articles to take it upon themselves to fix the bloody things...and to take a hell of a lot more care over these snap decisions in the future. This is institutional vandalism - and it's got to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:1632 series boilerplate templates

Can someone look at Category:1632 series boilerplate templates ? I'm not sure if these things are kosher, it sure as hell makes editing harder. There's also a template that exists only to be transcluded in "noinclude" sections that looks like it's a WikiProject information list. I think much of this is a WikiProject's pages masquerading as templates. (without an actual wikiproject) 70.51.9.170 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot is malfunctioning

I already let the creator of the bot know. I just now created the page for the 10th and archived May 2nd. However, it wasn't caught for 6 + hours. Could you guys watch out for it? Once 7 pm US Central time hits, the last days page has to be moved under the "last 7 days section" and the oldest in the last 7 days section has to go to the old discussion area so the discussions can be closed. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember when adding the new day, you have to add the ===Date=== header. Also, you have to remove the bottom day from current discussions and move it to old discussions. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Shueisha

Why are we going to delete the Shueisha template? I put hours of work into it, and it's notable in every way. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto kW template

Could an admin please delete this. It has been in the "to delete" section for quite awhile now.--Rockfang (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot isn't working again

When manually archiving pages, please remember to move the page at the bottom to the old discussions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Football navboxes

Following the decision to keep these templates in May, I drew up some inclusion criteria for navboxes on footballer biographies in order to clarify what should and should not be included on player/manager biographies. I am hoping that some of the people that !voted to keep these templates, or anyone else who cares to comment could add their support/opposition here. Regards EP 09:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 00:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates moves, orphaning, and speedying

Currently there seems to be doing a lot of renaming of templates going on, followed by orphaning, and nominating them for speedy deletion as "unused". See my comment at WT:RFD#Move, orphan, and db, and for preference centralise any discussion on that matter over there.

Incidentally, wouldn't it be more logical for renaming of templates, and deletion of their redirects, to be handled over at WP:TFD? (Compare for example, how WP:SFD is scoped.) Alai (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Marking for deprecation

(from here)

What's the procedure for deprecating a template rather than deleting it? I've worked through articlespace and replaced {{video}}, {{multi-video start}} and other video templates with their equivalent image tags without much fuss, and would like to ensure they don't come back, but they still see heavy use in other namespace. Does this need to go through TfD? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Autosigning template:Tfd top

I gather that the general practice right now is to use {{Tfd top}} in the following manner: {{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''}} Reason. ~~~~ So the only thing inside the template was the result. I propose that Tfd top could automatically sign it for us, in which case we could write: {{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''. Reason.}} with both the result AND the reason inside the template, and then the template could just add the signature for us after the reason. What do you guys think? I'm a big fan of auto-signing, because I always forget to do it if I'm just posting a template.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just on an aside, the template is added like this: {{subst:Tfd top}} '''result''' [reason]. There's nothing in the template apart from the closing code. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But the template can take the result as a parameter, as I typed above. I think it would be a little more convenient all around, but obviously as I'm not an admin I won't be doing as many debate closures as the rest of you, so I will bow to older, more experienced hands at this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise it could do that. Well, as I mentioned before, I don't mind either way. :) Four tildes is cheap and doesn't make the job any more difficult. But then it wouldn't matter if it was all done by one template. The thing I'm worried about is consistency. When I first started out at TfD, I followed the admin instructions above. The methods seem to be pretty standardised across the namespaces, so I don't see much of a reason to break from it. That's just me however. The closure is the easiest part of the job. :D PeterSymonds (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's already a well-established process, than it's not going to be worth the effort to re-educate everyone about it. I guess I'll add a parameter that only does it in my format when User=Aervanath. Thanks for setting me straight, Peter. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What would you consider the hardest part of the job?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) Ooh, good question. Definitely the process to orphan templates once closing as delete. Big batches can be done by IronGargoyle's bot (see WP:TFD/H), but I find it's quicker to orphan anything below 20 manually. That is pretty dull work, but it's easier than bothering people for 5 remaining templates. PS I don't see it as setting straight; it's a good idea, but until it's widely known about, people will keep adding two signatures! :D Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• As for the closing template, you'd want to change them all at once if you made a change, they are all somewhat standardized at WP:DELPRO. I always just copy/paste the template code from there and the signatures are part of the code there.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected templates

How would a non-admin do a TfD on a protected template, other than by use of {{editprotected}}? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can request to have it unprotected first, at WP:RFPP. Once it is unprotected, then you can nominate for TfD in the normal way.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Template abuse in Malaysian transport articles

Some overly enthusiastic users have created a huge set of Category:KL-RTS templates, which exist solely to add color and boldface to links to various rail lines in Kuala Lumpur, with results like this:

Main articles: {{KL-RTS-KEL}}, {{KL-RTS-KTL}}, KLIA ERL station,KL Sentral

Kuala Lumpur International Airport can be reached by the {{KL-RTS-KEL}} and the {{KL-RTS-KTL}}. {{KL-RTS-KEL}} provides a non-stop express train service to the KL City Air Terminal (KL CAT) which has an IATA designation XKL, part of the Kuala Lumpur Sentral transportation hub in Kuala Lumpur. The non-stop trip between Kuala Lumpur and KLIA is 57 kilometers and takes exactly 28 minutes. Passengers departing from KL CAT can check in their luggage for flights on Emirates Airline, Cathay Pacific, Royal Brunei Airlines and Malaysia Airlines. Whereas {{KL-RTS-KTL}} is a high-speed commuter train service linking Kuala Lumpur Sentral, and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport ERL station. It shares the same tracks as the {{KL-RTS-KEL}} but with stops at several major stations. Check-in facilities are not available at {{KL-RTS-KTL}} stations. Passengers to/from Low Cost Carrier Terminal can reach KLIA ERL station by boarding the Feeder Bus provided.

I think this looks terrible and goes against WP:TMP: Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. Would I be justified in proposing the whole lot for deletion? Jpatokal (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New multi-target-with-categories listing tool

{{Catfd3}} is your new friend. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Appeal process

Please can someone point me to the process for appealing a template deletion? Template:Biota was deleted, but there doesn't seem to have been consensus to do so; even several those initially calling for a deletion subsequently agreed to compromise proposals. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

I believe that would be WP:DRV. delldot ∇. 00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

/Header suggestions

A respected user recently commented that the directions were hard to follow, and I think they are kind of wordy, reducing the chances that they'll actually get read. I made some bold edits I didn't think anyone would mind. Here are some suggestions for streamlining, let me know if there are any objections:

• If a template is intended to be substituted, wrap the {{tfd}} or {{tfd-inline}} template in tags: <noinclude>{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}</noinclude> -- this is a repetition of earlier info -- one or the other instances could be removed.
• Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete). -- Is this necessary, or could we just point readers to other pages? At least, could we streamline it to something like Anyone can join the discussion, but please explain your reasoning? I don't find it that helpful for people to bold their actual opinions, is it necessary for this page to instruct people to do that? Also, the 'criteria above' are actually reasons for deletion.
• Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to term a proposed action: "keep until orphaned" or anything similar as administrators will generally orphan any template before deletion. Please instead phrase it simply as "delete". -- Once again, I don't think this is that necessary to include at all, and at the very least it could be pared way down to something like templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed. -- trust the reader to figure out the implications of that, and the closing admin to understand what "keep until orphaned" actually means if it does occur.

Shorter and simpler is better. I'm for cutting out the excess, anyone object? delldot ∇. 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well apparently no violent objections so I'm gonna go ahead. Also I'm gonna boldly add a <div class="tfd-header"> tag around the header so folks that want to can hide it from themselves by placing div.tfd-header { display: none } in their monobook.css (this won't affect the appearance for folks who don't do that). As always, if there are any problems let me know or just fix them. delldot ∇. 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Substing and GFDL?

So I know this is a pretty basic question to be asking now, but how does substing and then deleting work with the GFDL? If we're merging that content into the article, don't we need to preserve the history of the template somewhere? But if that's the case, I guess you'd need to do that every time you subst a template. It seems like for GFDL purposes you'd need to add a link to the template in the edit summary or somewhere so folks can find the history, every time you subst a template into any page (but that doesn't seem to be current practice). If we're substing and deleting, do we need to move the template into an archive or something to preserve the history (and then delete the templatespace redirect)? delldot ∇. 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since templates should not be part of actual article content, it's not an issue. Usually, we subst: things like user talkpage templates or Xfd notices. Templates which go in articles, such as navboxes, infoboxes, cite templates, etc., shouldn't be subst:ed anyway. Do you have any examples of this happening, or is this just a theoretical question?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Examples of substing and deleting? It's sometimes consensus that articles should be substed and deleted and I was just wondering if I should be substing and deleting when closing discussions like that. Here's one from recent memory. Why would the role the template plays in the article matter for the GFDL? I mean, the page history must still be important for templates too, right? Why would it matter whether it was part of the content? Which is not to say I'm unhappy to hear what you say or that I don't believe you--we subst stuff all the time. Just curious basically. delldot ∇. 05:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I hadn't been thinking of instances like that. I was thinking of templates such as user warning templates, which aren't part of the encyclopedia, per se. Or, for example, {{prod}}, which only stays on the article for at most five days, so it's attribution history isn't critical to the articles which it's transcluded onto. So, since I was thinking in a completely different line than you were, that makes my above answer totally moot, I think. I think that the reasoning included in Wikipedia:Merge and delete applies here, too. Basically, the answer to your question is YES, we are obligated to preserve the history. So, a "subst: and delete" vote should be read as a "subst and history-merge" vote, probably. Anybody else have an opinion on this?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I talked you out of it, huh. :P If this ends up being the case, we'll need to change the wording in /header which currently mentions subst and delete outcomes. (Also I'm gonna have to go back and undelete some stuff like the above linked to histmerge it somewhere). As a side question, where would be best to histmerge the template to, if you were substing it to multiple pages? delldot ∇. 06:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know. If the template is only subst:ed on one page, then you just merge the history. But I guess it's not possible to merge one page's history to several different pages. Maybe copy the template history to the talk pages of the articles which are subst:ed to? Or copy the history to a subpage somewhere and link to the subpage from the talk pages (or, even better, the edit summary). Or, it might mean that "subst and delete" votes can't really be deleted, you just subst: it and leave a link back to the template in the edit summary. However, like you, I'm hoping someone comes in and contributes either a) a GFDL interpretation which doesn't require us to change current practice, or b) a GFDL-compliant method of preserving the history while still involving little to no extra work on behalf of the deleting admin.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would work to move the template into a talk archive of one of the articles and then linking to that in the edit summary (the way you do with a merge), so no big worries on that front.  :) I'm with you on the hoping this isn't necessary though. delldot ∇. 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a big pain in the butt.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way of seeing what articles a template is substituted into? Taemyr (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing cool like Special:Whatlinkshere, but you can do a search for some of the content of the template. For example, I have a userspace template that I post on talk pages (yes, I'm that lazy), and if you search for some of the content it'll show you some (but, oddly, not all (maybe I'm doing something wrong)) of the pages it's substed onto. You can also use an in site Google search, and there might be other, better strategies. delldot ∇. 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Template:Herbs for deletion?

I couldn't really say it on the actual page because this is not a vote, but why is Template:Herbs for deletion? It is a redirect to Template:Herbs and spices. Now I know that Template:Herbs and spices ins nominated, and I am not here to discuss that. I am here to ask why the redirect was nominated. If the original template is deleted, then why don't we just have an administrator visit the page afterwards and then delete it? If you want to delete a template, then it is only logical to delete nothing or all redirects along with it. But why nominate it separately? An admin/sysop (whichever the reader prefers) can be asked to go to the redirecting page and delete it when its redirectee is deleted. I do not think that redirects need to be nominated. -BlueCaper (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiversity

I have noticed that there are two template that serve the same purpose:

• Template:TransWikiversity (adds to Category:Articles to be transwikied to Wikiversity)
• Template:Copy to Wikiversity (adds to Category:Copy to Wikiversity - note: this is not empty)

It looks like one of the two should be a speedy delete, but I'm not sure which one to keep. --mikeu ^talk 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:TransWikiversity and Category:Articles to be transwikied to Wikiversity proposed for deletion. --mikeu ^talk 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about mass nomination

What would be an efficient way to nominate the 121 navigational templates included in Category:Swaminarayan_temples_navbox_templates for deletion ? All these templates are used on a single (mainspace) page Swaminarayan temples, and since most of these temples are not notable enough to have a wikipedia page of their own, it is unlikely the templates will find use on even two pages each. Abecedare (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Had done something similar a few weeks ago with LS2004-xxxx templates. Instructions at the WP:TFD states we have to use {{catfd3}} and the template page gives details of parameters. We should also a table with collapsed setting for the list, in order to keep the view small for other users. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how that work for nominating 1 cat and 121 templates. I'll see how you format the TFD for possible future use. Thanks! Abecedare (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix links after move?

When a category is moved, a bot comes along soon afterward and moves all the links (corrects all the uses). Does that happen after a template is moved? Do I need to arrange for that to happen, and if so then how? --Una Smith (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to amend a TfD nomination?

I nominated a bunch of templates for discussion here, can it be amended to add another template? Even better, can it be relisted for further discussion? --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 08:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It could certainly be relisted, but since the earlier comments wouldn't apply to the last template, I would say that would need to be nom'ed separately, although there's no policy that says you can't add it now.--Aervanath (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, never mind then. Thanks for the advice though. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for relisting

I am hereby formally requesting that the deletion discussion for Template:1911 talk be relisted for discussion on February 3's TfD. Thank you. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Holding cell

Is this ever used any more? It meets speedy deletion criteria but I thought I would ask first.--BirgitteSB 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Early closings

I've just come across two TFDs from Feb. 24 that were closed early well short of the expected 7 days, in both cases by non-admins. Unless there's some provision I'm not aware of clearly allowing for such exceptions, it seems to me that they should be reopened and allowed to run their full course, in the interest of adherence to due process. So, unless advised to the contrary, I would like to remove the closing templates some time in the next 8 hours. Cgingold (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is "some provision... allowing for such exceptions": WP:IAR. But if you're going to insist on "adherence to due process", you need to follow it yourself. As a non-administrator, WP:DPR#NAC does not permit you to unilaterally overturn XFD discussion closures: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." You are, however, welcome to seek the reversal of these closures at WP:DRV. I have already listed the one that I performed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 1. Erik9 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I'm disappointed that you've chosen to cite WP:IAR here, after I had already explained to you on your talk page that it really wasn't an appropriate response to another editor's concerns about your early closure of a CFD discussion. Moreover, the supplementary essay advises that: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule.

I, on the other hand, decided that, rather than unilaterally invoking WP:IAR, it would be wise to first solicit input here before proceeding. It's really quite extraordinary that you would refer me to WP:DPR#NAC, when you have yourself ignored three of its provisions:

1. "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines." [the 7-day rule for TFDs]
2. "Non-administrators should not close even unanimous 'delete' decisions...."
3. "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision."

Since you've already taken this to DRV -- a wise step -- I guess I will forego asking an admin to reopen the discussion you closed. Cgingold (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really citing WP:IAR as a justification for the TFD closure per se - as I explained on my talk page, the rationale for the TFD closure is that "there was unanimous support for deletion at the TFD, and a discussion of adequate length to give reasonable assurance that no opposition to the deletion was likely to be expressed." WP:IAR is invoked solely as a response to your implicit claim that there's no "provision... clearly allowing for such exceptions" - that is, that a technical violation of Wikipedia:DPR#Templates_for_deletion_page couldn't possibly be justified. I ask for no rigid and technical adherence to the precise language of WP:DPR#NAC (though I would find genuinely premature or controversial non-administrative closures to be problematic, as would most editors), but only that editors who do request that the precise language of WP:DPR#NAC be upheld should likewise respect its exact terms. Erik9 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I only listed my non-administrative closure at DRV - if you also want to have Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_24#Template:Infobox_Electronic_component overturned, you'll need to bring that to DRV yourself. Erik9 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, I would be favorably impressed if you would simply acknowledge that you made a good faith mistake (haven't we all?), but the obfuscations in your reply leave me wondering whether you've even gotten the point -- which is very simply that the rules that have been put in place with respect to deletions should not be trifled with, even if the outcome seems obvious to you. WP:IAR should only be invoked in extraordinary circumstances, which this certainly was not -- so I hope you will re-evaluate your thinking on that score. Cgingold (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating templates

I've been using the {{city}} template for a while to simplify maintenance of pages mentioning city/state names ({{city|Brewer|Maine}} to Brewer, Maine, for example). I recently made the mistake of linking to {{city|Atlanta|Georgia}}, which goes to a redirect page for Georgia, instead of the state. When User:DuncanHill pointed this out, we found {{USCity}}, which has a switch to display Georgia correctly, and {{City-state}}, which is identical to {{City}}, but much more widely used. What's the best way to organize this so that we don't have redundant templates?

My first thought is to edit {{city}} so that it passes the parameters through to {{City-state}}, and to have {{USCity}} do the same, and then to replace {{city}} use with {{city-state}} and delete the original. Is this reasonable?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply redirect {{city}} to {{City-state}}. You can update the pages if you want. But as long as they take the same form of input that should be all you need to do. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You will also need to redirect {{tl:ci}} and {{tl:cy}} at least, there may be a few more. I'll also add that these templates should be checking to see if they are subsisted and if not generate an error message. There is no reason that I can see for these templates to be reprocessed every time the page is loaded. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no -- they should be left as they are for maintenance reasons. Granted, you don't change city/state names very often, but the templates make it easier to read on the back end. I see what you mean about the redirects -- I wasn't sure at first if that applied. However, the USCity template needs to stay as it is -- there's no way I can see to shoehorn it into the city-state template and have Georgia come out properly. You'd need a third parameter so you could do {{City-state|Atlanta|Georgia|Georgia (U.S. State)}}, and that adds an unnecessary level of complexity, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Random praise

I would just like to say i like the new improved deletion template. I thought the other one was rather hard to read and could be easily missed. Well done to people involved. Simply south (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Something up with TfD

We've got three blank days in a row at the moment. I suppose we could be all out of deletable templates, but it's still a bit odd - anybody know if there's a reason for no nominations? — Gavia immer (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Of course, I need but say it, and there are now new nominations. Never mind. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template transclusion count

I have just put the finishing touches to a Template transclusion counter. It's fairly unreliable at the moment, but I thought that if it'd be useful for anyone, it'd be useful for the people at TfD as a timesaving measure. Feel free to post your comments below (or not). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting succession boxes

Is this the appropriate format for deleting succession boxes? What is the procedure, since they don't follow the standard template naming? Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube template

An administrator should tag Template:YouTube as it has been nominated for deletion, but cannot be edited because it is protected. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Rescue squad and TfDs

Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron? In particular, should the {{rescue}} tag be applied to templates currently at templates for deletion?

Please do not comment here but at the RfC thread itself. Thank you for any assistance and insight you may be able to offer. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Practice on closing TfDs as Keep no consensus to delete vs. relisting

I am not familiar with practice here at TfD. Could someone please advise on what is usual practice, and/or reasoning, for removing a discussion that nearly at Keep, or at least has no consensus to delete a template, and relist it? I am concerned, in particular, about Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 17#church disambig which was just relisted instead at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 2#church disambig. In that case, I am an involved editor, but believe the discussion was at near-consensus to Keep, and there was no consensus to delete, and that it is unneccessary and unhelpful to prolong agony and relist it. But, I would like to understand more generally what are relevant practices and policies. doncram (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RELIST for the guidelines on relisting deletion debates. The possible reason to relist the case you refer to is that the relisting admin felt that there was a good chance that consensus could be achieved through further discussion, which is usually better than a "no consensus" close. With a "no consensus" close, people are free to nominate the page for deletion again after a short time, whereas a solid "keep" decision means that any re-nomination too soon after the first nomination could result in a Speedy keep.--Aervanath (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I know that I personally often relist when there is a long detailed discussion that seems to be continuing. Yes the rule is 7 days but some discussions simply take longer. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice that an XfD has failed should be standard.

Sometimes, when an XfD has failed (i.e. resulted in a keep, the item's talk page is marked with a template such as {{oldafdfull}}.

I believe it should be incumbent on the closing admin in these cases to mark the item's talk page. Is there a page with instructions to closing admins? Should this page have such instructions? I'd like to add it. --Elvey (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to closing admins

When the outcome involves substituting mainspace transclusions of a template, would you mind adding a short HTML comment to the template before it gets subst'ed, denoting that this is the case and naming the deleted template? It would help to track accidental vs. deliberate substitution in mainspace. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Stub/doc

Resolved

 –  Fixed

For some reason this template documentation subpage was listed at WP:SFD rather than here. I thought it would make sense to transclude it here as well, but it's made a mess of the formatting (adding two headers for June 2). I can't think of a better way to do it right now, but if anyone can help, please do! Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I think I fixed it with some parser function magic. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a tool?

Does anyone have a tool that will automatically substitute (recursively) existing instances of a template on multiple pages? Something like Special:ExpandTemplates, but actually making the edits to the pages.--Kotniski (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other creations of User:Fabartus

Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_1632_characters contains quite a few templates which seem to be just as usused as the two listed below (Jimmy Anderson & Tom Simpson). I am running late; maybe someone review them and bundle all nominations (including the two below) into one? See alsoCategory:1632 series typing-aid templates. Can anybody contact this User:Fabartus for explanations? Bye for now, - Altenmann >t 06:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment moved from the project page. See Jimmy Anderson TfD and Tom Simpson TfD. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw those, however I saw the batch related to "Charmed" first and have nominated them. Ricky nom'd two more of the 1632 character related ones and some more; lots more with the same core issue to review. He's left a note for Fabartus. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• See Category:1632 series templates for them. Some are also internal to other templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Subst but don't subst

It says "Do not substitute either template." let before have {{subst:}} already in them. Rocket000 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ship decommission templates

It says "Reasons to delete a template ... 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used". But it doesn't give me any hint of how to conclude the template is not being used, if the absence of backlinks (excluding backlinks to each other and to the author's sandbox) doesn't accomplish that. So I will propose the deletion of 12 templates here, rather than on the project page. For more information see User talk:David Newton#Ship decommission templates. Art LaPella (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential merge if info

There is a discussion at Template talk:Smallville#Actors regarding the merging of all of the actors from this recently deleted template into the general Smallville nav box. Opinions are requested to arrive at a more sound consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedcar Series seasons

I believe this template should probably be deleted - Template:Speedcar Series seasons. The motor racing series is now defunct and the template only features links to two seasons. Every page in which this template is on has links to the seasons pages anyway so as far as I can see this template is obsolete and should be removed. Is someone going to see it gets done? Officially Mr X (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered nominating it yourself? Just follow the instructions on WP:TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename as Templates for Discussion

Templates for Deletion is becoming increasingly combative, with a growing propensity to assume bad faith. Perhaps the heat might be reduced by naming it "Templates for Discussion"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Definately a good idea.. Himalayan 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The term 'Deletion' does seem to have been a problem in some recent discussions. Often even when the !vote result is "delete", the real outcome (in terms of what happens to the templates) is a merger or redirection. So renaming to Templates for Discussion seems reasonable. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Frequently people don't understand that the discussion is often about merging or redirecting. It is almost never a discussion about literal deletion of information. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we went forward with this idea, what would need to be done? Obviously the page would have to be moved. I assume there are a number of references to the page that ought to be renamed, and the wording of related templates ({{tfd}}, {{tfdnotice}}, etc.) would need to be changed. Anything else? Should this sort of change be discussed anywhere else first or is the discussion here sufficient? --RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the matter on Village pump (proposals). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with doing this as well (as a matter of fact, I think that they should all be "X for discussion" instead of "X for deletion". There is an ongoing discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Rename as well). I wish I could help with the technical aspects, but I don't know what's involved myself. I'm sure that someone will come along and help, though.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• I also feel that since the outcome is often a merger or redirect, it should be "for discussion". And we have a few precedents already. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• I came here after reading the VPPR posting. There was a similar, substantial discussion for AfD: WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Renaming this process Articles for Discussion. Before undertaking the large task of renaming all the subpages, this discussion may benefit from additional input attracted per WP:Publicising discussions. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I would also oppose renaming "Articles for Deletion", but I'm in favor of renaming "Templates for Deletion". The term "deletion" has created confusion in a number of TfD discussions because deletions often also involve substitution or replacement with a different template, issues which aren't applicable to articles. --RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I didn't mean that the AfD result should overrule here. There were (apparently superficially) similar arguments and heavy participation. I don't know how many TfD regulars there are, but it seems like more input may be desirable. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support "Templates for discussion" (notice capitalization) as well. I'm not necessarily sure it'll help alleviate the problem Andy talks about, though. Jafeluv (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not so certain that this will solve Andy's problem. If moved to TfDiscussion, this might not be strong enough to attract those who would want to deliberate. This might result in a deletion, and then several editors who would have been attracted by a TfDeletion template would be "up in arms" about the deletion. So moving it to TfDiscussion, a not-so-straightforward template name, which may imply a "project discussion" or something else other than a "deletion discussion", might just cause more "combativesque" problems.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Local area infoboxes

I'm having a problem with the local area infobox templates coming up for deletion. {{Infobox Australian Place}} was nominated but because it has a large constituency the nomination failed. The nominations of other Infobox templates are more likely to succeed only because they have smaller constituencies. I question the wisdom behind this process. Someone wondered what would happen if Israeli and Palestinian infoboxes where nominated. I believe a consistent style across articles is an important consideration but I also believe the process should not cause hostility. Perhaps a process or task force could be created to work with concerned editors and migrate these local area templates when practical. Perhaps {{Infobox settlement}} could be used as a meta template as this would assure a common appearance. While the intention behind these nominations is well intended the results might well be negative. An essay could be written on the sociological implications of the current method but I will climb down off my soapbox for now. –droll [chat] 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Those would best be nominated as a whole batch. A proper forum to facilitate migration from each local box to Infobox settlement would have to be found. --Dschwen 19:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that standardization is better. That doesn't necessarily mean that all types of places need to be squeezed into one template, but the proliferation of different place templates seems excessive. There's one nominated currently that is just for suburbs in the US state of Texas. That is far too specific. If there's a consensus for having nation-specific templates, or templates for different administrative levels (e.g., cities vs. provincial/regional units), then I think that would be OK, although even broader standardization would be nice. If there are going to be multiple different templates, I like Droll's suggestion of using one "parent" to minimize unnecessary variation. --RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, using {{infobox settlement}} as the backend for all related templates is a very good idea. It would encourage the use of standard field names, and a more uniform presentation of information. Keeping a lighter weight frontend, which simply pipes the information through would discourage cruft being jammed in, and make it easier for the casual user to understand. It would also allow for some variation in field names where it makes sense, like nazim vs. mayor. In addition it would also allow for some standard items to be fixed where it makes sense (e.g., timezone or country). For those who would rather see no frontend, this is still a good first step. My 2 pence after converting over 900 Amphoe pages to use infobox settlement using AWB. I am now wondering if it was the best choice. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling Infobox settlement from another template is a big step in the right direction (and is far preferable to the status quo); but fails to deliver some of the benefits of a full merge. For instance, recent additions to the parent template have included alt text for images and the native_name_lang property. It also still leaves a large number of choices for the editor wishng to add an infobox. Each "child" template must be updated to use these. Whereas merging means that the job only has to be done once. My preferred solution to the issues you (Plastikspork) address would be for local projects to provide a partially pre-populated blank template, with irrelevant fields omitted, on their pages, for people to copy into local articles. BTW, there's a larger discussion at VP; perhaps this should be moved there? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominating all the redundant, or possibly redundant, templates as one batch would not be viable; there are too many, and ether are too many issues specific to one or a small group. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the generic template as a back end, but we should also establish some notion of a limit on how granular the more specific templates should be. I understand customization to accommodate things like the nazim vs. mayor difference mentioned above. But we don't need things like {{Infobox Texas suburb}}. At a minimum, I would think that all similar administrative units within a country (e.g., all cities and towns within the United States) could use the same infobox. (Some exceptions could be allowed for cases where there are POV issues about what the "country" is.) Anything more specific than that should be merged, and even more merging could be done if there is consensus for it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if standardization is really always the better way. I think to differentiate between settlements on the first sight it seems to be a good way to use regional infoboxes. On the other hand many regional boxes miss some important(?) data, see for example {{Infobox station}} vs. {{Infobox DB station}}. I change 'my' articles to the standard 'infobox station', because I see no need for a local German infobox. But to use the German {{Infobox German location}} is in my opinion the better way to describe German towns and cities. The political and governing structure in Germany is very different to the US or even Austria. Maybe it is a way to use the infobox settlement as a parent, if the usage is easier and the difference to local data is addressed. (One of my reasons to use the local German settlement infobox is: 'I don't like it', the first time I tried to use the standard one was a disaster, I didn't understand the use and the documentation was of no help.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The prevailing logic in the move is that one settlement is very much like another, and there's no reason why the templates should look any different. That's one reason why standardisation is a good idea, and I'm not seeing a good reason why these mergers should not go ahead other than "we like it". Part of the procedure should be to figure out how the move is going to happen, and this should be inherent in any "delete" !votes. Hence the decision at hand is really "Do we go ahead and start the process of replacing one with the other?" rather than simply "Do we replace one with the other?" In my view, "Things need to be worked through before carrying them out" is not a valid objection, because they will be worked through - which is why people have suggested that it's probably not a good idea to pin down TfD to purely "deletion". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected templates

I've recently proposed deletion of Coor * templates and deletion of Moon & Mars templates. All are protected, so I can't add {{tfd}} to their pages. I have added a note to the proposals, requesting that an admin do so.

Is there a better way to nominate protected templates? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You might get faster results by adding a {{Editprotected}} template on the talk pages of those templates with an explanation that you want the TtD tags added. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template merge

In Category:Items to be merged we have quite a few templates with a merge template on them. What is the correct procedure for these cases?

1. Should a merge of templates be proposed here? Or even, is there an appropriate Template:Tfm to propose a merge?
2. If merged, should we keep a redirect, use {{Tdeprecated}}, or delete the merged template?

Debresser (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a Template:Tfd-merge being used on precisely 1 template, and no discussion. (I made the merge, BTW.) But even that is not a template to make a merge proposal for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, like Template:Tfd is a template to nominate for deletion: it is just a notification of an intent to merge. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be trivial to addept Template:Tfd to be fit for merge proposals. Such a template could take the place of {{Tfm}}, which at the moment is just a redirect to {{Tfd-merge}}. {{Tfd-merge}} would be a part of {{Tfm}}, to add the notification to the template that is nominated to be merged from. The only complication I see is that is would be preferable to put something on the receiving template as well. We could make {{Tfm-to}} and {{Tfm-from}}. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, when using merge templates (including the specific templates for merging categories), a notification isn't mandatory on the second category. So let's drop that idea. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done so far: seriously updated {{Tfd top/doc}} documentation page, merge {{Tfd bottom/doc}} documentation page with it; created {{Tfmnotice}} and documentation, analogous to {{Tfdnotice}}; checked that {{Tfd}} should not be transcluded upon Template talk pages. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC); created {{Tfm}} and documentation, analogous to {{Tfd}}; created {{Tfm-inline}} and documentation, analogous to {{Tfd-inline}}; Debresser (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC); tested templates, work perfectly! Debresser (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header, and you can now use the "templates for merging" (Tfm) templates.

Updated complex {{Catfd}}, {{Catfd2}} and {{Catfd3}} templates and documentation. Fixed many mistakes in documentation updated previously, especially in connection with substitution. Tried to keep one style in templates and documentation alike. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)