Template talk:Single-purpose account/Archive 1

How this template came about...
Those templates that you put into the Mini Mammoth AFD for users who had not made other contributions - what is the code? Viridae Talk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't one! Though I probably should create one. I'll get back to you when I do. Need to think about the wording and linking first to be as impartial as possible. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:spa? — Viridae (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. If you think it's good enough, do you think I should add a note about it to the afdnewbies template? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it! That will be really useful. Viridae Talk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. has really taken off. From Articles for deletion/Meathead (2nd nomination):
 * Delete is still my vote from last time, for the reasons above. But I give it 3 more hours before the meatpuppets attack again. Get ready with your and  tags. &mdash;  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging me to turn it into a template. I now have a inane claim to WikiFame. I'm the inventor of the increasingly popular tag! = P Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I had noticed the increasing use. Its awesome! Viridae Talk 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

XfD discussions and concerns of possible misuse
In the recent XfD discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account and Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 14, several editors expressed concerns that this template has the potential for misuse. Also, attaching this template to the signature of a user is viewed by some as potentially uncivil. As always, sound judgment is required when using this template and others such as. If at all in doubt, it is probably best not to use, lest we run afoul of Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks, Satori Son 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this is a better option than sock, which is what used to be used quite often. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But the question remains: since we don't really vote here, and it's based solely on arguments, what was wrong with just saying "this user only has 12 edits," or something similar? I definitely still think the use of this tag is unnecessarily hostile - it shouts out "this user is probably only here for one thing," regardless of any evidence to really suggest it.  I know a user who only adds speedy and prod tags to articles.  That's all he does.  If he offers an opinion at AfD, can I tag him as an spa?  After all, I can point out that nearly all of his thousands of edits suggest he's here for a single purpose. The answer is "of course, we'd never do that."  And yet... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we changed the language to "...has made few or no other edits outside this discussion" instead of "topic"? The template is not designed for those editors who contribute primarily to a single topic, right? -- Satori Son 06:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Second and third parameters
Two points: Philip J. Rayment 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The usage notes do not mention the second and third parameters.
 * Shouldn't the third parameter be outside the brackets around "UTC"?

I don't like this template
...Although I understand that it can be useful currently, since AFD discussions and the like are often discussed and voted on. Usage of this template, however, would encourage that behavior, in my mind. If I recall correctly, AFDs and such are supposed to be closed on the merits of the discussion. Although single-purpose accounts often use "I like this article" as a reason for keeping something that should be deleted, they also have the amazing ability to reason well sometimes. Oh my gosh!

This template, in usual practice, is only added by people to SPA comments that take a different position than them. This encourages closing administrators to completely overlook or undermine the actual merits of the argument, cultivating the view that AFDs are a vote.

I could also see hypothetically that closing admins might be swayed by the addition of single-purpose accounts to a discussion. "OMG, five single-purpose accounts are voting keep?! This discussion must be closed as delete, then! I don't want people to think that I closed this discussion by vote-counting!" Yeah. Not saying it happens, but it's definitely a possibility.

The V in VFD was changed for a reason. I feel that this template and the attitude which it is used with completely destroy that reason. Voretus 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This was discussed in some detail at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 14. I think the consensus was generally that the benefits of this template outweigh the disadvantages. Personally, I think you should give the closing admins a little more credit. The vast majority are not going to completely disregard a logical, articulate, policy-based opinion simply because it has an SPA tag slapped on it. This tag is primarily meant to help identify and compensate for sockpuppet votestacking. -- Satori Son 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
This template is protected, and should be tagged with, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Satori Son 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When should this template be used, and when should it not be used?
In the TfD, it seems to me that there is a general consensus that this template is useful in some situations, but can be misused. (I would not agree, but I seem to be a one-editor minority.) So, would it be possible to include documentation on the template page about when this should be used, when it shouldn't, and what to do if a newbie takes offence to it? Could we also link to alternatives like Afd-welcome and uw-notvote? Thank you, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The other templates are important, and I will explain below why. However, if an editor's first post is in an XFD discussion, in which they feel strongly about a topic, their comment should not count as part of consensus of the Wikipedia community. However, they can be encouraged to become part of the Wikipedia community with those templates. People should read WP:SPA before using this template, so a link in the documentation should be helpful. Grace notes T  § 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response! : )  I completely agree that the opinion of someone very new to Wikipedia should not count for much, if anything, in determining consensus.  However, I also believe it is insensitive to tell them this, or at least focus on it.  A link to WP:SPA would be good.  Perhaps we could even go so far as to subst it into the noinclude portion of the template?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Get documentation to subpage
Could we move the documentation to a subpage, Template:Spa/doc? Grace notes T § 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So we can edit it? I would support that.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shhhhhhhhh... :) I would just not prefer to have to always wait for an admin to drop by with his/her flashy edit-protected-page tools for us to implement consensus. Grace notes T  § 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done, can't see any harm in doing so. Feel free to make sure I did it right (I think I did, but you never know...) and if I did stuff up somewhere with the noincludes/includeonlys, tell me on my user talk so I can fix it. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language change
I attempted to start a discussion after the last TfD debate to make the language more specific (and thus less likely to be misused), but got no traction. Since it has been nominated for deletion again (which I oppose), I would like to suggest changing the language to the following:


 * User: (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this XfD discussion or its subject.

This should help prevent the template from being improperly used on "talk" and "user" pages, which is not its purpose. -- Satori Son 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see this template being useful in e.g. policy discussions, community noteboard discussions, etc. Accordingly, I'd support changing the text to "... few or no other edits outside this discussion or its subject." Sandstein 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sandstein; it should be 'this discussion', piped nowhere. --ais523 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I would be hesitant to use this template in a general debate were the number of !votes doesn't really matter, I don't object to your language. The current "topic" is simply too broad, so any refinement will be an improvement. -- Satori Son 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been necessary outside of AFD. But "this discussion" with no pipe would be fine. — coe l acan — 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this proposed change. This template is appropriate for any policy or community discussion including, but not limited to xFD, RFA or community bans.  I'm going to be bold and remove the EP tag... at lease until consensus is reached. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with simply changing "topic" to "discussion"? That seems to be the emerging consensus. -- Satori Son 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, to me. Just to be explicit, are people favoring the "or its subject" bit, after, or no? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with it, but I prefer "topic"... Just because I wouldn't mark someone as a SPA if they have 50 edits in 10 different and unrelated articles but I would if the person had 50 edits to the article the AFD is about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too wordy if we said "outside this XfD, RfA, RfC or straw poll discussion"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say this is rather wordy, and if we list discussions, we're bound to miss some type of discussion that this template can be usefully applied to. "Topic" is also OK with me. Sandstein 05:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since "topic" is what it says now, I guess we're back to square one. Perhaps there is not consensus for any change at this time. Thanks for considering. -- Satori Son 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there is consensus for some kind of change... just not about which one. —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to pull the rug out from under you. Obviously, I would still support a change in language that would make this template less likely to be inappropriately applied, but I'm not sure what to suggest at this point. -- Satori Son 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's okay. Sorry for the long response time, I have been somewhat distracted with other things.  Well, I have another idea about this.  We could create multiple Spa templates, each one for a different type of discussion - XfD, RfA, straw poll, etc.  This would hopefully include all situations where Spa was relevant, without vagueness which allows too much room for misuse.  The trouble would be what to do with this version.  We could subst all current uses, but getting a bot to do that should probably only be done if we can build a strong consensus for this idea.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection request
Please update with. Per Template documentation/List Thankyou. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct redirect
This template currently contains a link to Single purpose account, however, that is a redirect to Single-purpose account. Perhaps an admin could correct this (the page is currently protected, so I cannot do it myself). Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - I think you mean to change Single purpose account to Single-purpose account, and I have now fixed that. I have also fixed it on the /doc page. (You could have edited the /doc page yourself. /doc pages are almost never protected.)
 * Next time you ask for an uncontroversial edit (needing no discussion) of a protected page, then feel very free to put the edit protected template above your request to make an admin come here and take care of your request. This time you were lucky that an admin (me) was watching this page.
 * Anyway, thanks for catching this bug! :)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. Didn't know all that, this was the first time I encountered a completely protected page (and don't know much about templates anyway, so wouldn't have dared editing it myself out of fear to create more problems than solving... :-) --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
How about adding an indentation to the template to make it look better with bullet-form comments? Example:
 * Support
 * — Example (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

versus

— Example (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support

&mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, so I won't deny this, but the template's designed to be used on the same row as the comment, after the signature and so a colon would be undesirable:
 * Support Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Example 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC) — Example (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Like that. --ais523 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and adding the colon probably doesn't do what you'd want it to do anyway (e.g. if used at WP:RFA, it would disrupt the numbering as well as getting the indentation wrong.) --ais523 23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ais523 is correct: talk pages are not like email, and signatures should be after a space on the last line of the comment. Normally a signature should not be on a line of its own. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not done, per concerns raised. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit Request
I would like it such that the tag no longer says the word "unsigned" when you use the time stamp version. Most of the time this is 100% false as the comment is often signed. Why would we write a tag that suggests that a signed comment was not signed, it makes no sense. Could we make it such that there is an option you fill in if the comment was actually not signed? If we go this route the default should not use the word "unsigned" in my opinion. --MATThematical (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If you do not want "unsigned" added, then do not use the timestamp parameter. Why would you want a timestamp without "unsigned"? You could add five tildes after the template to give the template plus a timestamp, although I do not see why that would be wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I want a time stamp to let people know what time the comment was made by the SPA. If I don't use the time stamp no one would know when the SPA signed his/her comment. The 5 tildes would give the time that I tagged the person as opposed to the time. Am I confused at how this template should be used, I assumed you delete the SPA's signature and replace it with this tag with all the proper information filled out. If this is not the case, the procedure should be explained on the WP:SPA page. Does this make sense? --MATThematical (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, do not delete the SPA's signature. The procedure is to add Example after the signature (if a signature was given), or add Example (example timestamp) if no signature. In both cases, nothing of the original comment made by the SPA is changed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I have seen examples where this is not how the editor did it, so there seems to be genuine confusion then. I suggest that something along the lines of your last comment be added to the template directions/examples to clarify. I think there are a few explanations for the confusion. Firstly the word "substituted" in the description can be easily confused for substituting the signature with the template filled in. Secondly, I think aesthetically some editors probably saw the method you described as going against WP:Link, because it repeats all the links in the signature. I will edit the WP:SPA page but someone should edit the the tag to make the proper method more clear.--MATThematical (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012
This template has line breaks that screw up ordered lists. I would edit it myself, but I can't. See it in action here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action#Full_blackout

Badon (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I see no linebreaks in this template, and it looks fine in the page you link. Anomie⚔ 04:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Page creator
I prepared a version of the template which allows to identify page creator :

As the template's output is only altered if additional named parameter is used, and the use case is pretty obvious and common, I believe the change to be uncontroversial. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I guess your intent is to flag SPAs that created the page(s) under discussion, but that's not at all clear from your proposed wording. My reaction on reading your proposed wording is "Lots of people create pages, so what?". Anomie⚔ 15:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This template has no place in Wikipedia
This template is just an invitation to disregard WP:AGF, and I'm not surprised to see that it is often abused that way. The fact that an IP has made its first edit in a !vote may well mean that they are on a dynamic IP, or they feel so strongly about something that they intervene for their first time on WP. Yet, we all know what getting tagged by this template means. It means, "you are a piece of crap and count for nothing&mdash;and quite possibly your opinion differs from mine". 49.132.209.82 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * --85.197.20.10 (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then make a few other edits so it doesn't apply. Fix some capitalization or something. It's not that hard. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The template specifically says " few or no other edits outside this topic", so in the mind of a spite-tagger, "SPA" still applies. I've also tried pointing to the article which I've helped bring to GA status, but then the spite-taggers simply claim that it's "other IPs" due to dynamic IPs (and to explanations along the lines of "the IPs all track to the same ISP", the reaction is usally a resounding IDHT). --78.35.250.140 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Template is broken when used on IPv6 anonymous accounts
I made this edit to tag an IPv6 SPA and the template added that the "unsigned comment was made at  UTC". The comment was already signed by SineBot. A bug that needs fixing? Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at above (specifically, my comment at 08:50, 14 March 2011). After reviewing that, if there is a problem, please say what you added. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what happened. I added 2600:100B:B11A:43A7:6DB8:B2A:A146:7239 and the template expanded to the "unsigned" version with the IPv6 address used as the timestamp field. I don't understand why that happened, since the separator for template arguments is "|" and there is clearly exactly one argument to the template I placed, therefore only the username argument should have been invoked, not the timestamp version. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When I preview " " in a sandbox, I see the correct output ("[IP] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.", with links). Any chance you might have copied the IP address in the edit window, and copied everything from after "User:" to before "]]" in  That would explain what happened. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be the case. Thanks for the tip. Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Request
I would like this templated to be nominated for deletion per WP:TFD. It is transcluded on many pages, unfortunate since it is supposed to be subst'ed each time, but many of the pages are exceedingly old. I realize this template has been nominated before, but as a user who was editing way back in 2006 (until really 2010), I do think Wikipedia's culture has significantly changed over these years.

This template inherently violates WP:AGF. Every user who defended it in 2013 said that they could use it as code to tip off others in regards to a certain account. Most of those users said that the template was useful mostly for debates with socks. But either a user is violating Wikipedia's policy against sock puppets (and an investigation should be launched), or they should be judged on the strength of their arguments. This template is not the way to make a legitimate SOCK accusation, yet an accusation is certainly what it fundamentally is. (Even "potential sock" is an accusation.)

We do not punish people for being new users, nor is it against policy to have an exclusive interest in one page (assuming there is no conflict of interest, which is the alternative subtext of this template). Consider a suggestion that each new account's comments on a talk page be text-aligned right so that people could discriminate "new user" comments from others'. Such a suggestion would obviously be rejected; in theory, we don't minimize voices based on Wikipedia resumes. So even if this template was merely the equivalent to that (and that is what it proclaims to be), it wouldn't be acceptable. Even if we stopped here, a TFD would be appropriate.

And yet this template is worse than that proposed scenario. Why worse? Because in practice it invites abuse. At some point we have to recognize how users will functionally use templates like this. Say I am a user participating in a deletion discussion, and I oppose the deletion. Will I tag all new/single-issue focused accounts regardless of whether they agree with me or not? Or will I target the users whose voices I am trying to minimize? This isn't difficult.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much a TFD would be successful. Are you sure you want to nominate it for TFD? --Izno (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am, but I do appreciate the advice on the probable outcome. The fact is this template was used much more often when it was previously nominated (four years ago), and I do think it is a pretty clear violation of WP policies. I mean I realize I said this, but fundamentally this is designed to minimize the voice of certain users, and we don't really accept discrimination on the basis of those qualities (with rare exceptions) for other issues.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019
Please replace with the current sandbox version. The change I made was to ensure that, in the event of an error due to no username or IP being provided, the category that the error adds the page to does not get transcluded when the page gets transcluded.


 * See Articles for deletion/Illegal immigration to the United States and crime - the SPA templates have errors, placing the page in Category:Pages using template:spa with no username
 * See Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 17 which transcludes the AfD linked above - now the log page is also in the category, even though the error isn't on the log page

See Single-purpose account/testcases for examples - if you look in edit mode, the second error wraps the category in s

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but take a look at the unsubsted versions. I know that a bot should come along and subst the template for you, but it's a bit awkward to show the noinclude text while we wait. Any thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What about using Require subst which would both eliminate the need for bot subst'ing and solve the appearance issue --DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Can you try it in the sandbox? – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- / Alex /21  12:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This T is shady as hell
You can use it to accuse/annoy people you don't like at AfD, and you don't have to sign when you do so. That is shady! I guess people like to have that option though? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you're having fun since returning and you don't like Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). However, that issue has long-term POV pushing from banned users (WP:ARBR&I) and SPAs are a known problem. Please find something useful to do without all the fuss about whether some groups of people are dumber than others. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to address my concerns about this template. Basically this template is "I think this users a piece of crap, and I don't have to sign this". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be your opinion that SPAs (or that Wikipedia thinks that SPAs...) are less than human, and you are desperate to impart that opinion to the rest of us, but we do not share it, and that has never been the implication or intent of the template, so I am not seeing a problem. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This template says "discount this vote". And because it's a template, "I'm not signing this". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , at this point in time I would like a template to express WP:IDHT and abandon this pointless conversation. Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference between my two statements was this: "Template" implies "not required to sign", as "premise" implies "conclusion" in formal logic. I did not really say that in the first statement, but I did in the second.  Feel free to not read things I write, though. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I got a little snippy with "Feel free to not read things I write, though." and I apologize.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change
Would it be possible to change the default behaviour of this template so that if there is no username or IP specified, instead of throwing an error, the template simply reads "This editor"... I'm not quite familiar enough with template-how-to to know how to change this. In any case, it seems redundant to mention the username/IP since this template is usually appended right after the signature... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read Edit requests. Then, reformat your request with an exact, BEFORE/AFTER description (or, remove this, replace with that), using Template:edit template-protected. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what an edit request is (I rather frequently go through CAT:ESP &c.); and the reason why I didn't format this as an edit request should be rather obvious... I started this discussion because 1) I am not sure if there is consensus or a specific reason why the username/IP is included and 2) I don't know nearly enough about templates to make sense of the wikicode as currently written to suggest an X to Y change which would implement what I suggest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Use outside of AFD
Until this week (see this), I'd only ever seen this used at AFD and I believe this is the only way the template should be used, but the documentation doesn't actually say that. Should it? SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used elsewhere (example 1, example 2), and it seems to me that the same concerns that can apply in AFD's (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc.) can be relevant pretty much anywhere else. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is useful in other forms of discussion, particularly structured ones like RfCs -- I would not want to see it limited to deletion discussions. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The usages of this template at Talk:Parler are fine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This descriptive template is appropriate for wider use. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2021
I think we should add Category:Wikipedia canvassing-related templates to this template's "noinclude". For a similar example, Template:Not a ballot is a member of this category and references this in-line SPA template directly. SPAs are often canvassed, so much so that Template:Recruiting is almost entirely about SPAs and is referenced directly in WP:CANVAS. As is this template. It would be helpful to have a link back to CANVAS policies on the SPA in-line template page to better establish this connection.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the edit request because, unless I'm missing something, the category would go on the doc page which is not protected: Template:Single-purpose account/doc. The suggestion seems desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done (though either of you could have done it) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you both! I'm sorry I totally misunderstood that, conflating the doc and the actual template. But you're right, that is precisely where it goes. I just want it to appear at the bottom of the template page, doesn't need to be on every single page the template is used on, of course. Lol. Sorry for the trouble-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)