Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/T1

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

T1 (prose templates)

 * Templates that without any doubt masquerade as article content, other than list boxes or series boxes should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Such text should be copied into the related articles prior to deletion of the template.
 * Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) I am shocked to find myself the only supporter. This is for paragraphs of what look like article text but are actually transcluded from a template - thus giving someone a handle to change multiple articles without it showing in RC. This was a favourite trick of User:Mr-Natural_Health's, for example, and several of his were the first things culled by TFD. I understand the cricket wikiproject has also adopted this odious practice - David Gerard 5 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the wording is so poor, nobody can figure out that it's meant to refer to prose. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Because I never get to agree with David on deletion issues, and I'd like to for once. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Ambi 6 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, absolutely deffo - chunks of prose aren't what templates are for. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per David Gerard. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
 * 5) Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Carl Hewitt 20:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  This completely makes sense to me - prose is a block of explicatory text, and should not be snuck into an article through a template that does not appear to be a template from simply viewing the article. -- BD2412  talk July 7, 2005 16:51 (UTC)
 * 9) <> Who? ¿ ?  7 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
 * 10) Support  &mdash;thames 7 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, agree with BD2412. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 8, 2005 07:37 (UTC)
 * 12) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:32 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
 * 14) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. TheCoffee 21:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. This editorial loophole needs to be plugged up. I never thought people would resort to this method of sneaky editing. /Peter Isotalo 17:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Edits should be transparent and reversible. I'd have no problem with empowering admins to delete these on sight. Grace Note 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Transcluded data can get annoying and confusing--when I click to edit I want to actually be ABLE to edit, not find a dozen . GarrettTalk 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This was my proposal, but the wording was changed by User:Radiant! without discussion and I disagree with its current phrasing.  What's the point of having pre-vote discussion? -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
 * 2) *The point is that other people made suggestions as to this wording on the talk page, and this was the result. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
 * 3) Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:59 (UTC)
 * 4) Dragons flight July 4, 2005 21:29 (UTC) "without any doubt masquerade as article content" is strong language, but it fails to draw a good sharp line in the sand.  For example is Template:Timeline Geological Timescale article content?  And even if it is, I would still argue for transculsion because it is so complicated that it would interfere with editting the rest of the page if included.
 * 5) Too many templates get deleted --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
 * JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 01:06 (UTC) Changing vote to support. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * 1) Not a good idea. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
 * 2) Way too subjective. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
 * 3) What DES said. One of my earliest edits was to Current events, way back before Current events was separated out.  It Was Excrutiating. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Dragons Flight. Xoloz 5 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. It's entirely unclear what this is supposed to mean. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)
 * 6) I understand neither this criterion, nor its current form. "Masquerading"? What? -Splash 5 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
 * 7) This proposed rule doesn't really make sense, but IMO it seems unnecessary. — Bcat (talk | email)
 * 8) WP:TFD works fine as it is. See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
 * 9) Unclear --Mononoke 5 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
 * 10) * Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose.  Confusing and fiddly. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:46 (UTC)
 * 12) oppose. troubl with the wording. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:45 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Don't we already have WP:TFD?  Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
 * 14) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. I think that text templates may be useful in some cases and therefore I don't want them to be speediable just because they look like they're part of the articles that use them.  Sietse 6 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
 * 16) Just...no. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. If a template is patent nonsense, then it will be covered under other criteria. Separate criterion for templates not necessary. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Just find the wording difficult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:56 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose vague -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose.  Grue   7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose.  Unclear wording, difficult to understand.  Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose - ZeWrestler 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose A valid tool if used correctly. CalJW 17:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Just to be on the safe side. Shanes 06:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. Confusing, unclear wording. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose: I hate being confused. IanManka 06:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:55, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose, although I would be keen to see what the effect of this proposal, if it passed, would be on the Main Page, which uses a lot of templates which *I think* (the wording is unclear) would be speediable with this criteria -- Joolz 14:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose not a VfD problem so do we need to change now? Vegaswikian 05:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Sometimes we need the same text in more than one article, and if we have two copies then updates have to happen in two places, you get version skew, etc. Noel (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose.  WP:TFD isn't busy.  There's no need for this.  Furthermore, it's vague. Superm401 | Talk 13:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. Too vague/confusing. Kaldari 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * I'm not sure what constitutes "Maskerading as article content". Taxoboxes? succession boxes? Navigation templates? Does this mean templates that simpl;y insert prose text as a form of copy & paste? if so it should say that. DES 4 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
 * I should note that the wording is taken from a current guideline on templates, it was not invented for this proposal. In theory this is already the rule we are supposed to follow, unclear as it is (to the extent that a guideline is a rule, anyway). DES 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this proposal. I have no idea what it's supposed to be aimed at, or why such templates would be considered a problem (overlooking the extremely contentious use of the word masquerade here).  Presumably the transclusion of pages  in the VfD logs, which are the nearest thing I can think of to a template masquerading as page content, are not the intended target. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
 * Nope, paragraphs of what appears to be article text but is actually a template. See my 'support' vote for reason - David Gerard 5 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reconsidering my vote as I now have a clear idea of what it's about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
 * Also confused. Could proposers/seconders whathaveyou please link examples, archived deletions and/or discussions thereof please? Whitehorse1 | July 29 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Whitehorse1's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:33, 6 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This proposal makes sense but needs to be worded more clearly before it becomes policy. --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, the wording was changed to this awful version by User:Radiant!. My original was "Templates containing prose intended for use in articles." which was much clearer. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand that wording either. Isn't something like Template:Disambig a template containing prose intended for use in articles? Factitious July 7, 2005 10:45 (UTC)
 * I guess I need a clarification here. I use templates in a way that could be seen as forbidden here, and I didn't know anyone objected, and I don't see why they would. For instance, the articles 2003 invasion of Iraq, Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005, and Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 all list the number of U.S. and Iraqi casualties in the war, and they need to be frequently updated. They were all generally out-of-synch, and changing the information in three places seemed burdernsome. So I created Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and included it in all three articles. It's cleaner, it's easier to update, and it ensures consistent information. And yet it could be seen as "masquerading" as article content. Why is this a problem? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't meant to be a rhetorical question. Could someone who supports this proposal please explain whether it would allow someone to speedily delete Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and if not, why not? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)