Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy Close  MFD is not the venue to determine the validity of a new deletion (sorting?) process. This closure neither endorses nor admonishes the WP:DOT process. Discussion should be continued on Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion, WT:DOT, WT:TFD, and/or WT:CSD (as the page states it is an organization of pages that comply with CSD). — xaosflux  Talk  18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates
What is this, a prod for templates? Who authorized this? What deletion policy covers this? It looks like someone decided to start doing this on their own. I have also listed a related template at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_11 -Nard 16:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This page was created to try to deal with the enormous collection of unused templates in the Template namespace (about 25,000 templates). It was discussed on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion prior to implementation. It involves marking a template as deprecated/orphaned, notifying the original author, and having a page for objections for a 14-day period. It is not a new process, as specifically outlined on the page. It's a systematic approach to cleaning out the clutter. All of the templates qualify under WP:CSD, though there were concerns that people might want more notification. It also seemed like a bad idea to clog WP:TFD with all of these templates, most of which would have little or no objection to their deletion. This page should be kept. --MZMcBride 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of consensus for the new system and I see a valid objection in that discussion. It lacks transparency. It isn't even widely used or known outside the project. If an editor like me who spends sometimes 12+ hours a day on Wikipedia didn't know about it, what does that say for the level of transparency in the process? -Nard 16:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Wikipedia's very large. --MZMcBride 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Template space is in desperate need of a clean-up. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.