Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Templates for deletion

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was unanimous keep --cesarb 12:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates for deletion
Templates are pages like any other, actually. The transclusion code  operates just as well on any page within the wiki. There is nothing a priori about pages within the template space to distinguish them from any other page. Deletion of a page within template space should be considered here, on Votes for deletion -- with the same consideration given any other page.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion was created to take some of the load off VfD workers; the idea was to deal with obviously malformed templates quickly. But it has degenerated into an angry, biased forum for the deletionists, who run roughshod over all other voices. There is no longer any discussion, no attempt to reach consensus; members simply weigh in with their votes, often without explanation. I have seen no evidence whatever that any member bothers to attempt to improve a malformed template. The process has devolved into a kangaroo court that recalls those of the French Revolution; a steady stream of heads are shoved through the thirsty guillotine. See: "...the decision to permanently delete an article is not taken lightly, and the deletion process is followed..."

The page itself is an embarrassment. Compare it to VfD. What ought to be an orderly process is barely sketched out. The last attempt to reform the process was obliterated by a faction that found its terms insufficiently ambiguous. The dead bodies of its victims are not even carried out with regularity.

The sad truth is that what ought to be a fair and honest process has become the little empire of a few strong opinions, who simply go ahead and do what they like, oblivious to any dissent, let alone the principle of consensus. Templates are nominated on shaky grounds or none. Nominations that fail to reach a consensus to delete are not relieved from the onus of TfD, either; they often languish indefinitely, as it were in a dungeon without trial.

Some TfD regulars have begun to pick up on the fact that any page may be transcluded, and are pushing to expand the scope of the process to include other pages which have been used as templates. By that logic, TfD's scope includes the several subpages of the Village Pump!

I nominate the page in question for deletion, on grounds that it has now become a mere POV soapbox for deletionists, a hazard to the larger community. It is frequently employed merely to vandalize properly-working, useful templates; it is seething with uncivil remarks. There are a limited number of Wikipedians with the willingness to fairly deliberate page deletions; they concentrate on VfD. TfD is left as a neglected backwater in which bad practice festers. The page itself should be deleted and all pages nominated for deletion here only. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 04:11, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a policy page, and VFD isn't the proper place to debate the underlying policy. This nomination should be cancelled. Firebug 04:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is not a policy page; it is a process page within the Wikipedia namespace. There is no underlying policy; the page has no foundation.Do you assert that VfD has no jurisdiction over pages in Wikipedia namespace? If you can get any sort of consensus on that point, I shall withdraw the nomination. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 13:40, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I weren't so darned full of good faith, I might be tempted to suggest that this nomination is meant to make some kind of WP:POINT.  I also concur with Firebug's remarks; this isn't the proper venue.  See Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Invalid VfD. Discuss this on the Talk page.  RickK 04:35, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Invalid nomination. Concur with Firebug; not the appropriate place to air grievances about TfD. Take it to an RfC or something. Also, WP:POINT. android&harr;talk 04:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Firebug and RickK. If you want to get rid of WP:TFD or even just reform it, create a Thinktank article and seek consensus&mdash;don't nominate the page at WP:VFD. Blank Verse   &empty;   04:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is disruption to prove a point and unacceptable.  Postdlf 06:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and was I just called a deletionist? - lol) -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Invalid; vfd has no jurisdiction over policy pages. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, nomination is as silly as the attempts to nominate the VfD page for deletion. Sjakkalle 12:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I might agree with that TfD is a bad thing (but I don't know if nominating the templates hare is a solution) but putting the page on VfD is the wrong way of voicing your oppinion about TfD. Jeltz talk  14:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * TFD is de facto policy. That's how the Wiki works. You don't like it? and propose a change (such as Categories for deletion/Restructuring). Keep. Radiant_* 14:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am doing here: proposing a change. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * No, that is exactly not what you're doing here. Policy proposals go on the Village Pump policy pages. You do not request for an old policy to get deleted before you have consensus on a new one. Radiant_* 08:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -Frazzydee|&#9997; 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't we have Users for deletion or something like it to deal with this sort of thing? --Carnildo 21:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:PFD. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. WP:POINT. --cesarb 01:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultra Strong Keep - Templates are templates, and articles are articles. BTW, placing the vfd template on another template is awful.  The tfd template is small and compact. Andros 1337 03:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not technically true. I agree that VfD tags should not be placed on any page which is used in transclusion without carefully considering the possible side-effects. The page's Talk is a fine place for a tag. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no good reason to make VfD even bigger and slower. Wmahan. 04:12, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * keep--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep keep keep keep keep. But get rid of this ridiculous listing. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Oklonia 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. As per everyone. FreplySpang (talk) 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''"Comments" section moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Please continue the policy discussion there. FreplySpang (talk) 02:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)''


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.