Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 1



Template:Pp-create

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator with no remaining delete opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Though the look is different, this is in essence a recreation in purpose of the old deletedpage template that was TFD deleted here. Protecting existing pages to prevent recreation is obsolete and is no longer needed. — TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the template is used as edit summary. → Aza Toth 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that means. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's used in the reason when protecting a non-existent page, see for example User:AzaToth/Nada → Aza Toth 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then my response is that it should not be there either. Protecting pages from recreation by creating them before protecting them is obsolete, and a template that exists for that is thus also obsolete.  The existance of this template will persuade some to salt pages improperly.  Heck, the reason I found this was that it was being improperly used to do just that.  Pages should no longer be salted this way, and a template that promotes doing it this way is causing more bad than it is doing good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, this template is specially created to be used for the new system. → Aza Toth 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How can a template that reads "This page is protected from creation..." be used in the new system? The new system is to protect the page when it does not exist.  If it does not exist, it cannot have the template.  If the tempalte is used, the page will exist, and we are back to the obsolete system.  So how can a template exist to be used on pages that do not exist? - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's used in the protection summary, similar to how blockmessages are used. → Aza Toth 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The nominator misunderstands the purpose of the template; it's not used to slap on a page by creating it and protecting it, but rather as the explanation for the new creation-protection system. It's also worth noting that this template and its sister, pp-create-old, are part of the site interface now. Keep, if it wasn't clear. east. 718 at 18:47, April 3, 2008

Ok. I finally see your point. (Took logging out and relogging into a non-admin dopleganger account of mine to actually see it in use, but I do *finally* see it.) Ok. But it is also being used in the exact same way as the old deletedpage template, and it was this use that got me going here. So I do now see your point, but I still have a major problem with the template as it is being used improperly. Let me drop a note to User:Stifle. If he will withdraw his delete vote, we can likely close this out as a Keep or withdrawn. I really cannot withdraw it as long as there are outstanding Delete !votes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't work that way. The block templates expand themselves when you read the block message, but the creation templates don't. So it won't work usefully. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Never mind, I had to log out so that I could see how it would work without admin rights. Fine to close this. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Admins just cannot see it in use because it's a protection message and, technically at least, pages are never protected from admins.  Anyway, with Stifle's withdrawl of his Delete !vote, I now officially Withdraw this nomination.  I'll let someone uninvolved do the technical closure. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Project Chanology summary

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete - Nabla (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)



I'm nominating this template because it seems that this template is a misuse of template space. The author claims that this templates use is justified under the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace, however if any consensus is to be inferred from that discussion, it is that transcluding prose should be reserved for short subsections. This template could not be considered a small subsection as it is nearly the size of an average article, contains an image, and to date includes up to 27 referernces. Problems this creates are:
 * Makes it difficult for new editors unfamiliar with template editing to edit the main article.
 * Makes vandalism easier to mask as it forces article watchers to also watch the template.
 * Facilitates widespread vandalism by the editing of one template.
 * Disrupts the easy editing of footnotes since the inclusion of footnotes in the template makes following the flow of footnote numbering in the main articles difficult to follow.
 * Can complicate the article protection procedure as protection of the template would also be required. Protection of the template would create pockets of protection in articles without any protection.
 * Can cause inconsistent prose style in main articles and create unintended redundancies.

For these reasons, I believe the template should be further summarized and re-incorporated in the main articles. Eleven Special (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A significant discussion (including my defence for the template's use) has taken place at the template' talk page. I am reproducing it hereunder. Ayla (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For me the issue is keeping several articles current and consistent vs. writing versions tailored for specific pages. The technical considerations about difficulties with semiprotection, references, etc are secondary. Z00r (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete. Not a valid use of Template namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the points raised by Eleven Special are worth considering, and the suggestion of tailoring the prose for each specific article would have been great if any concrete modifications of this nature were proposed or performed. However, as I have already argued, the disadvantages of having to (or, more likely, failing to) update the separate versions outweigh these considerations. In the collapsed discussion above, I had given concrete examples of how the content in the individual articles had degraded as a result of being kept separately. Here are two more examples: Unfortunately, the quantitative consensus will most likely be dominated by appeal to tradition rather than a practical evaluation of the specific situation. However, given the way these discussions work, I have no intention of attempting to individually overturn the consensus. Since no-one else appears to agree with the merits of keeping the template, then go ahead and delete. Ayla (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Scientology article made no mention whatsoever of Project Chanology, save for a picture and a "see also" link, until February 14 – four days after the first wave of protests – even though there had been an abundance of reliable sources in the Project Chanology article for weeks.
 * As of March 21, the Scientology article still contained: "Anonymous has stated the next protest will be on March 15."
 * Comments on the nom's six problems:
 * Put an HTML comment beside the transclusion instructing new editors to go to Template:Project Chanology summary.
 * Makes vandalism easier to detect by putting the content in a central place. You ever try to maintain 3+ articles covering the same subject?
 * 3 transclusions is not so widespread that vandalism to the template noticeably harms the quality of the encyclopedia.
 * You don't edit footnotes by number, you look for them and edit individually.
 * The protection procedure is already complicated. When an entire article is protected, editors cannot edit uncontroversial sections. If the template or its transcluding articles happen to get protected, the effect would actually be an improvement over the current system.
 * I trust the editors involved to make sure this isn't a problem.
 * Otherwise, it's an editorial decision and there's no inherent problem with duplicate introductions to the topic in broader articles. –Pomte 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eleven Special wrote: "Makes it difficult for new editors unfamiliar with template editing to edit the main article." Templates are used extensively on the main page, sports articles and all portals.  Typically there is a clickable 'edit' link.  HTML comments are not friendly to new editors.  Just put a clickable edit link in the Project Chanology template.
 * The nomination also said: "Can cause inconsistent prose style in main articles". Many encyclopedias have sidebars or boxes that visually identify a piece of the article that presents some specific facts, is in a different style, or is from a different contributor.  Instead of being jarring, a sidebar adds variety and a change of pace to the article.
 * This could be an opportunity to introduce a sidebar style into Wikipedia articles.  This is a wiki where editors' experiments should be welcomed, discussed, and then kept or deleted on their own merits.  I say keep until it causes serious problems.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I had originally used an HTML comment in the three articles (see for example). However, Hroðulf's suggestion of including an edit link might be better. How about using ? The sidebar idea also sounds interesting, but I'm afraid it would take way too much discussion to get accepted. Ayla (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep hrothulf has convinced me. Z00r (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete Usually I would like to support this kind of experiment, but it is trivial to copy-paste content from one article to another, and using the template needlessly constricts editors of the individual articles into tailoring their edits in a way that serves all 6 (or however many) articles, rather than the article they are currently editing. Bold editors should not have to worry about unintended consequences. The potential gain is far outweighed by barriers from added complexity. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were indeed trivial, then why did nobody do it before the creation of the template? Do you find it tolerable that we are presenting stagnant information simply because editors can't be bothered to take up a redundant task? And, again, could you give one concrete example of tailoring which might need to be performed, which wouldn't be served by the leading/closing sentences discussed on the talk page? (By the way, there are 3 articles in which the template is used.) Ayla (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quite simply, this is not how templates are supposed to be used, for all the reasons pointed out by User:Eleven Special. If we're going to start using templates like this, then we're going to have to rewrite Template namespace, as it says right there: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Substitute and delete as per concerns raised above. I simply don't see any reason as to how this makes anything easier on editors.  The same reason you cite as making it more difficult to vandals is the same thing that will daunt inexperienced editors who wish to edit the template.  Not everybody understands template transclusion.  I also do not believe this is an appropriate application of template transclusion.  The text should go directly into its respective articles. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Substitute and delete. This makes it more difficult for all editors (including newbies) to control the content, leaving control in the hands of a few experienced editors. There should only be a maximum of one step between editors and the article, and that's the article's own talk page. -- Fyslee 23:18, April 5, 2008 (UTC)
 * Substitute and delete. Per, which is pretty much in-line with comments I had already stated at the template's talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fact

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

The result of the debate was Yes, it was an April Fool - even if not I think I'd have broken the server to tag the template at TFD :) Stifle (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)



Spammed all over the encyclopedia with no real purpose, meaning or logic. Causes far too many transclusion calls and a drain on resources. — Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – clearly notable. Grace notes T § 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A core part of the project's requirements towards reliable sourcing. That it gets misused at times does not make it a bad/improper template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the template has not itself been properly tagged as being up for TFD. Given that this is (IMHO) a key project template, nominated by an admin, I'm thinking this whole nomination may be an April Fools joke of some sort.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagging the template for TFD may produce more server drain than days (maybe weeks) of use will ever produce :) Grace notes T § 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think more than 10,000 transclusions and being featured in an xkcd comic makes it pretty notable. :) Jokes aside, it's important as a representation/reminder of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. Midorihana ~いいですね?  はい! 21:55, 1 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Speed subtemplates of template convert

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

The result of the debate was delete both - Nabla (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The following subtemplates are designed to allow for kilometres per hour and miles per hour to be specified in template calls of convert using the respective codes  and. In accordance with discussions on the template talk page this code has been depreciated in favour of a new coding in which the code is identical to the unit abbreviation/symbol. All of the main space tranclusions of these subtemplates have been moved over to the new code. These subtemplates no longer serve any useful purpose, let them be deleted. J Ѧ ρ 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Convert/km:h



 * Delete assuming they have been migrated correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Midorihana ~いいですね?  はい! 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Convert/mi:h



 * Delete assuming they have been migrated correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Midorihana ~いいですね?  はい! 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.