Wikipedia talk:Template namespace/Archive 3

Guideline creep
The earlier nutshell text said: "Templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content, ...". Then in recent edits by Netoholic, the 'normally' has diappeared. (My correction today was reverted by Netoholic). I claim that this is a change of the guideline, that should have been discussed as such.

Netoholic is drip-drip changing their position into the guideline here they quote this as "should be"). As it is, there are well-established exceptions to this guideline, and these should not be invalidated by this single edit.

I claim that at least the "should not" intention should be stay in the guideline, or possible we can find an even stronger "acceptable exceptions" formulation. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added section header. ping . -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * changed "content" to "text", but plenty of text in articles is properly contained within templates. I suggest the word "prose" instead of "content" or "text". "Prose" means the meat of the article, the body paragraphs, excluding text that is often properly contained within templates such as infobox, cite web, and various footer templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I clarified it to "text". When you use a infobox or cite web, the "article text" is still stored in the article itself, as parameters to a template, whereas the structure is the only thing that the template contains. --Netoholic @ 19:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is another point that could be clearer. My issue is that it should not be absolutely forbidden, and not in this editing way. There are well-bases exceptions & reasonings to do it. -DePiep (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions to the rule do exist, and should always be precariously perched in that position only by established consensus, but that doesn't mean its wise to move the boundary lines. --Netoholic @ 19:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Prior to my series of updates to the page (it was in kind of a sad state), the word "normally" in the "nutshell" summary did not match the actual text of the guideline, which is why I sync'd up the intent in this edit and later sync'd the precise wording in this one changing only "do the work of" to "be used to store" which I think is more clear. You can see I didn't alter the actual guideline scope itself there, only the mismatched summary text. In yesterday's edit, I changed "article content" to "article text", since content has been interpreted ambiguously. Changing back to "text" harkens back to the very original version of this particular guideline in 2005.
 * Isn't it kind of a tautology to say that 'article text (or content)' should be in articles and not in templates? If you say that templates shouldn't include things more appropriate for articles, that doesn't really provide any guideline. Besides, what are the exceptions leaving really? We have citations in templates, infoboxes in templates, various charts and tables. Is non-graphical prose accurate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could link it to What is an article? which describes the nature of the main article namespace - "A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics. Most articles consist of paragraphs and images, but they may also be formatted as stand-alone lists or tables. These lists or tables are also considered articles for Wikipedia's purposes." By that definition, citations are article text, and by extension of the template namespace guidelines, that text should be in the articles themselves. --Netoholic @  03:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * re . my series of updates to the page (it was in kind of a sad state) you write. Actually you edited out "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article" . That is quite a different text (and to me not that unclear or bad at all). In short: this is not an 'update', this is plain guideline changing. As is clear from related discussions, especially wrt "what is content" (in this thread too), the matter is not clarified, or improved.
 * There also is this. I sense a form of spiraling reasoning by you. First you quoted this guideline, then you change the guideline to make your quote stronger, and then you say it is just an update. In other words, the string of edits pushes out other reasonable angles. Next I can expect is that, in a future discussion, you quote this guideline (in your version) to say: "see, it is not allowed".
 * I disagree with the edits & the process, and I suggest they should be discussed to form a consensus. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The recent changes to the guideline ("Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace" to "Templates should not be used to store article text") were meant to clarify, not strengthen, because the the guideline has always been very strong. There is no substantial difference between the two versions, and I would be happy quoting any of them or even revert my own changes if people feel strongly. It doesn't change the fact that encyclopedic content should not be in the template namespace. In fact, how do you feel about this wording: "'The Template: namespace should not contain encyclopedic text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves.'"  That says the same thing, but makes it even clearer, since some people confuse templates  and template calls . Templates (calls) in articles obviously contain encyclopedic text as parameters, but Template: items should not. --Netoholic @  18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * re. how do you feel about this wording you ask. No reply. This is not the way to settle a wiki guideline question. Please start & write a proposal or something like that. I won't go with your 'as it was meant in 2005' ideas.
 * And there is this. As we speak, I am profoundly using your "article text in template space is illegal" route to improve enwiki big time. Without that route, I could not and would not have done this (see my edit history). If you want to call this illegal: do so plain out. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "illegal" in this context wouldn't fit. I wasn't aware of what work you do, but as you asked, I looked at your history. Seems like you mostly work on the Infobox element derivatives, which are single-use templates associated with the articles on each element. This seems, to me, to have the consensus of the community to operate as it does, but that is an exception to the rule. This doesn't mean that the main rule is bad, or should be abandoned or weakened, only that exceptions demonstrate a consensus for that status, and where possible (such as as we move raw data into Wikidata), then that exception will probably expire at some point. -- Netoholic @  22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTChelping)
 * Which is my point (and stop "helping" me, unasked as it is). We don't need your opinion on this for the guideline. I won't come and "beg" for your personal admission to use a template this way. Now please stop this, and don't abuse my editors's time explaining to you the obvious. Note: I find it destructive that you actually intrude my sandbox edits right now. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I am working with these 125 clearly offending and wikillegal templates, but which I only can improve sensibly exactly by having their code in a separated, single-use, "article-text" containing template. If you object to my working, then say so. If not, then use this knowledge. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest we conduct an RFC on the wording? I would remove the word normally just because it makes it a meaningless guidelines (which is just that, a guideline, so it isn't set in stone anyways). Is there an agreement on that? If not, we can offer a host of solutions and see where things go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strike that part. Just the RfC suggestion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, an RfC is required to make this WP:guideline current & serious. But ... there is the 2005 version (Netoholic keeps mentioning), and the evolved practice (I edit by). Must say, I have little confidence that we can change a guideline. This WP is so established, no change will happen at that level. I can't see me spending time on this RfC for guideline change. For energy efficiency, I prefer blasting those 2005 wikilawyers in a TfD. A choice. Wiki higher command could intervene to improve our guidelines. -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the injection of WP:What is an article? (a FAQ page) . Instead of working the wording to fit an unknown thing, this guideline needs sound text. The way it is going now, I expect to be hounded (for making sensible edits) in a few X units of time by these very fluid descriptions. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should we word the first guideline at Template_namespace (and in the nutshell portion) for templates versus what should be in articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Template namespace should not be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves.

 * Endorse - Ever since 2005, its been the intent of the community that the Template namespace not be used to store encyclopedic content. Templates are used to maintain formatting of that content (such as cite web calls), alert messages to readers (citation needed), and to provide navigation, but the main "meat" of an article, its information and data that we want editors to freely and easily be able to update, should be in the article namespace itself. What is an article? describes what counts as encyclopedic content. -- Netoholic @  02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates should not normally be used to store article text

 * Endorse — In particular there are some images and captions that are used in several places (such as Template:Old Norse language map) that are encyclopædic content that should be templatised for consistency across articles. I can't think of any examples that are more clearly encyclopædic content off-hand, but I'm sure there are exceptions that are reasonable. Fwiw, I totally don't have a problem with the citation-source templates (mentioned earlier on this Talk: page) either.* Because this is software, we're not limited in the same way as we might be with physical artifacts, so surely what does and doesn't belong in templates is, in part, down to editors' convenience. —  OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC) * Were there a convenient way for those to come from Wikidata, though, I would much prefer that, for tidiness's sake
 * Endorse, meaning that the normally allows editor's freedom. No time to argue extensive, right because I am working in that great article-text-in-template area (see my post in the section above). -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorse per OwenBlacker. --Holdek (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Cheers and Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I can think of several cases where we've put "text" into templates when we didn't want to needlessly duplicate something across several main space articles - something that wasn't strictly formatting or navigation. The other phrasing sounds like someone wants to use this guideline as a stick to beat people with if they happen to do this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * - No one doubts that the template space should be used for things like maps and other visual representations that should exist across several articles, but those are not strictly "text" (in other words, they aren't prose or other "readable" content). Option 1 (the current standard) would never affect the map that you linked, as it is a useful visual aid used across several articles. There are certainly exceptions for other things out there that do use prose/text in templates, but they are rare and maintain their status as exceptions which "break" this particular rule by way of strong consensus. I think the difference in the two options given here is that option 1 about maintaining this strong standard in a way that has served us well since 2005, and option 2 relaxes it in a way that could see those rare exceptions grow to be commonplace which has many negative results. For example, templates for entire paragraphs of prose, which makes that text difficult to edit for novice users and can't be monitored by people that watchlist the article, but not the template. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (to Netoholic) Please give me a break. For exactly the reasons that illustrate why I oppose this, from real editor's life: These weeks I am preparing & making a big changeover to ~125 off-article templates (singly used even, how illegal!). Were they in-article --as is proposed-- I could not and would not have made this improvement. I have no time to argue that wide, for obvious reasons. Just one question: would you oppose this process then, however indirectly? -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with some exceptions to the rule, when there is good reason and strong consensus, but those exceptions should be seen as temporary, and we should not rewrite the basic rule itself. It sends the wrong message. -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an idle statement. Your statement above does not allow for an exception. You know just very well that, once amade into a guideline or rule, there is no escape and any editor can deny any exception just by linking to it. And you yourself have not even admitted that my current process would be such an "exception". DSimply, igf you recognise there are exceptions possible, just enter them in the rule. -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong consensus allows exception to any wikipedia policy or guideline. That doesn't mean we soften the stated rules. Your element templates are exceptions, allowed by strong consensus, but in the future there may be solutions that eliminate the need for them to be exceptions. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Category:Encyclopedic content templates
The guideline "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content" needs work. I have just discovered the existence of Category:Encyclopedic content templates.
 * Some of the templates in that category should not be templates.
 * Others should provide instructive examples of cases where the "normally" of the guideline does not apply; such as might be worth illustrating in the guideline.
 * The guideline could usefully be augmented:
 * "Exceptions should be placed in Category:Encyclopedic content templates or a subcategory."
 * "Explain in the template documentation (or Template talk: page, or Category talk: page of a group of related templates) why the text is better put in a template than an article."

The big subcategory at the moment is Category:Election and referendum result templates. These are tables rather than paragraphs of prose, so I am unsure if "article text" is intended to cover such cases, but in spirit it really should. Digging around for the reasoning behind this result-templates category, I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 4 pointing to Deletion review/Log/2009 January 30 and Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 14.

For me the big problem with putting content in templates is referencing: in a simple case a single reference might suffice, but otherwise you may run into duplication of references between a template and an article in which it is transcluded. If editors have found any way to mitigate this it should be publicised. jnestorius(talk) 14:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing will continue to plague us until people come a consensus that the Template namespace should not hold encyclopedic data *at all*. Every time we squash one misuse, we discover another. -- Netoholic @  05:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Template to show worldwide article (page) count
I can't find a dynamic template that shows worldwide "pages" (articles) as displayed here. Currently it's at 37,631,570 pages. What is the template that displays that rolling total? Template: NUMBEROFARTICLES (PS: why does this template show as a 'red' link in this Talk page post?) accomplishes this on a rolling basis for en.wiki numbers only. Please point me in the right direction. Thank you. Cheers! 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is not a template; it's a magic word that dynamically shows the number of articles on a wiki in real time. You can use it directly by inserting the code where you want the figure to show up. — ALittle  Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 17:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Should we have interwiki links in nav-templates?
Pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.--Moxy (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Template used for inserting same text into multiple articles
Please express your opinion : Talk:List_of_chemical_elements. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Template namespace?
Template:External program hours seems to be a table of program hours for various radio stations around the world. It's been linked to in the "See also" section of several articles about radio stations, though the link is piped to hide the "Template:" namespace. Is this an inappropriate use of the Template namespace? It seems like an attempt to include content that would normally be in its own article (or part of another article) without actually having to follow those guidelines. --V2Blast (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like pure copyvio to me: Compare with this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion regarding to the scope of templates
I would like to understand the consensus regarding the scope of templates in this TfD. I'm pinging everyone who was involved in the previous discussion on the scope of templates:. Anyone else is welcome to participate. E to the Pi times i ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. I have no other involvement than fixing template parameter issues (spelling, date formattong). -DePiep (talk)

☺
 * The only generally accepted use is for extremely complex parts of a page which would inundate any editor and could be potentially changed in error and missed. The basic example is Infobox hydrogen used to store the massive amount of technical data in the Hydrogen article (done also for the rest of the elements). This is probably not ideal (I would prefer if these were moved to article subpages and out of the template namespace), but explains the current wording. The use of the template namespace for basic parts of a page which can be easily edited (manually or with bots) is not endorsed. See the history of cite doi for the type of thing we've workted to deprecate. -- Netoholic @  21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am maintaining your example-of-bad template Infobox hydrogen. Now what is the problem? - DePiep (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just meaning that, since Infobox hydrogen is used on exactly one article, and since it contains article text, it can easily be moved to a subpage like Hydrogen/infobox and transcluded from there, rather than reside in the template namespace. -- Netoholic @  00:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just briefly skimming the description of Cite doi, it seems like a non-sequitar, since the bot in that case generated a new template for each separate DOI source. Could you expand on your comment: "This is probably not ideal (I would prefer if these were moved to article subpages and out of the template namespace), but explains the current wording." (it is unclear what these refers to.) E to the Pi times i  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the context of why I've been pinged. Could you expand upon what you're asking of me, please? :o) — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 22:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OP pinged me. I am involved in Infobox hydrogen, and Infobox element. What is your question? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading the original comment. I pinged you because I wanted your feedback on this TfD, because it is related to the scope of templates, and you previously (in 2014) participated in a discussion involving the scope of templates. I would like your feedback in whether this use is suitable within the scope of templates.
 * I only pinged you previously because you were involved in a discussion about the scope of templates (RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates?), and the TfD is related to the scope of templates.  E to the Pi times i  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misparsed the opening comments and didn't spot User:E to the Pi times i's signature because it's in red and at the far right of my screen, so I didn't register that your comment was a reply, not a continuation of the original request. Sorry about that. — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Aaah, I hadn't quite understood when I read it first time round; but reading again makes it clearer now. I don't remember the way in which I'd discussed the scope of templates, but I don't doubt that I did. I've added a Keep !vote, with some commentary, to the TFD discussion. I'm definitely less bothered by the mainspace/templatespace divide than some other people — I definitely don't have any objections to Infobox hydrogen or Cite doi for example. At the end of the day, we all just want to make a better encyclopædia :o) — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Having just read the previous discussion, it would appear that User:DePiep and I have pretty similar opinions that don't seem to have changed much and we still both disagree with User:Netoholic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, will reply later. Sorry to have detracted from the OP, i'd invite everyone to go back to the OP. - from m DePiep (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I've reread this thread. 1: No opinion about the OP. 2. re Infobox hydrogen (I'm involved) being transcluded only once etc.: See WT:ELEMENTS. WP:ELEM is very good (some 90 out of 120 element articles are GA+ now). I wrote a serious paragraph about this (at TfD; cannot find the link); ask me if you want to read it. - DePiep (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here it is that TfD, read my point - DePiep (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion related to use of the Template namespace
A move discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know which may be of interest to editors following this page. -- Netoholic @ 15:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Single use template
A common rationale for deletion of templates nowadays is stated as "single-use template", i.e. the template is only used on one article. However this issue is not mentioned on this guideline (as far as I can tell). What are people's opinions? Is it acceptable for a template to be used on a single page or is this a valid reason to substitute and then delete a template? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many more templates that are not used at all. Why not delete those first? I know I'm not answering your question, but it seems a lot easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The only policy guidance related to "single-use templates" is (shortcut WP:TG), where it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. To me, it would help if this were spelled out in a bit more detail, for example:
 * Single-use templates can make editing easier when they encapsulate complex wikimarkup in template space, thereby making it easier to edit the article-space content without accidentally or maliciously modifying complex wikimarkup.
 * Single-use templates can make editing easier when they encapsulate complex wikimarkup that is used multiple times on a single page.
 * A set of single-use templates can be helpful in maintaining consistency between the different templates.
 * The guiding principle behind the acceptability of single-use templates is what helps editors. As such, deference should be generally given to those who are actually using the single-use templates to manage the content of WP articles.
 * Just my two cents. YBG (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure how The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion. [emphasis mine] in the first line of the very first paragraph of the page-proper was missed. :upside_down: :) --Izno (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, . When I read the page, I immediately jumped down to the "guidelines" section. Note that the lede sentence has a slightly different meaning depending on whether the comma is included or not. That lede would be improved if it were to state either "is generally used" or "is exclusively used". Everyone agrees that the vast majority of templates are used on multiple pages. I reckon very few people are aware of the templates (more than 100 that I know about) which were created to be used on only a single page. Of those that I know about, most easily survived a TfD; only two were deleted, a decision which I believe should have been different. But what concerns me most is not the particular deletion, but rather that the guidelines could be more explicit. YBG (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No Izno. I am here for agrumentation, no cynicism. Now what is your input -- whithout having me guessing? -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't cynicism. I think there is clear evidence that we intend for templates to be used on more than one page (c.f. the guideline says as much), implying that templates which do not probably should be deleted as a result. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, I can follow the "intended for", but that definitely does not forbid single use. There is no problem reading "multiple" as "one or more". The principle and the practice of transclusion is not broken if there is only one. IOW: for the transcluded page, there is no difference between 1 or 1000 transclusions. (Deletion of zero-used templates is anothor issue). Exploiting this difference between "one or more" is a locally invented issue.
 * Transclusion is essential part of web-design. Not just for wikipedia websites, but for each and every website. Our Main page is full of templates intended for single use. What is wrong with that intention? Should mainpage-templates be deleted? (Let's forget about secondary use in preparing etc. FSOA). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can come up with many reasons why a single-use template is useful; templates shouldn't be used merely for holding plain text in an article, but for display elements which would have complex or confusing mark-up that may make editing hard (like infoboxes, navboxes, etc.) templates can simplify the edit window so that editors can focus on the article prose and not get lost in weirdness they don't need or don't understand. Templates that serve the purpose of simplifying display elements that would not normally otherwise need to be changed shouldn't be deleted blindly if they are only used in one article.  The rationale, to me, is flawed, and "only being used in one article" may make a supporting rationale, but should never be the only or primary rationale for deleting a template.  -- Jayron 32 12:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We aren't living in a wikitext-editing-only world anymore. Complexity is hidden these days for new editors. And when you hide complexity, you make it harder for new wikitext editors to access that content to change it. (And I personally get annoyed when I have to load an entire new page to fix single-use content.) If your case is really so-well served as to be needed due to reasons of complexity, it is perhaps a good idea for multiple pages. For example, swimming schedule legend was in multiple pages as a "single-use". I pulled it out and now those pages are improved also because I have added template styles to it. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Utter BS, . Nothing of what you write relates to the issue: one versus multiple transclusions. Any basic template has the V·T·E links, nothing "complexity hidden". I'll give you UNhidden complexity: . How does that help any new (or experienced) wiki editor? DePiep (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chill out. No, it's not "utter bullshit". Yes, it does relate. Users using the visual editor cannot manipulate templates as easily as those working with wikitext, and are in fact taken out of the visual editing experience when they need to work with a template. Instead, if you've taken what was a templated table and turned it into a local table, they can manipulate the cells directly. And no, not every template or even every basic template has a VTE set of links. So, simply, you're wrong.
 * As for presidents, that looks like a mess because it hasn't been cleaned up. If that had been in mainspace since its creation, that mess wouldn't have happened. The table itself is structured poorly. If your responses to this discussion are because of that garbage, that's on you or whoever made that template, not on me. --Izno (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another factor to be considered: 1-page-1-use vs. 1-page-N-uses. IMO, both are acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others, but the 1st requires more justification than the 2nd. A complicated table that appears on only one page may benefit from having a row template to assure that all of the rows are identically formatted. YBG (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I advocate: no, do not require extra justification for a single-use template at all. Arguments are already there: good template design, do not store body text in tempaltes, ... It is all already there. Number of transclusions 1 vs. more is not the entrance of any question at all. (example. Main page uses many templates. Most have second usage for example in test & prepare situations. But when a template MP-related happens to have only one transclusion, should anybody have to defend that against deletion? No.) Transclusion is what templates are for, not "multiple" per se. -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not buying it. Such a 1-article-N-uses template may be temporarily helpful in developing the page, but should be substituted after you're done with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in your opinion about the general usage of row templates like CAint, which is a N-article-N-use template used for innumerable table rows in many articles. It is useful because it allows the format to be consistent across multiple tables in multiple articles. Furthermore, it facilitates data modification as roadways change over time, allowing even newbie editors to make the changes without damaging the consistent look-and-feel (so long as they don't accidentally remove a pipe). Further, it enables more skilled editors to change the format consistently without a massive global search-and-replace effort that could easily miss a few instances. I believe you would agree that all of these features are helpful to WP readers and to WP editors.
 * Now consider the case of an article with a table with several dozen rows that does not have any comparable articles or tables anywhere in WP. The difference is a difference of scale, not of kind: the same advantages apply. The novice editor can easily make changes as new information requires changes in the article, and is assured that the addition to the table will be formatted consistently with the other rows. Similarly, the more experienced editor can make changes to the underlying template without a global search-and-replace. Both of these features would be diminished if the row template were only used to set the table up in the beginning and then substituted. Using a row template to build the table in the first place and then substituting it might be OK if we could be guaranteed that under no circumstances would new rows be added to the table. But in a table requiring periodic additions - even just a few times every decade - using 1-article-N-use table row templates offers many advantages. I have yet to see any advantage to forbidding 1-article-N-use templates, but perhaps you could help me understand better. Thanks! YBG (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We have oodles of table-formatting templates, which are [generally] useful. The ones we keep have broad application and are not for only one article. That's the difference.  If you've built a table in an article that is so complex it would benefit from this, yet a row template for it would not be useful anywhere else, you are probably making a mistake, and need to redesign the table to either use a row template we already have, or to create one that has broader applicability. If none of that is practical, leave a code snippet of the row code on the talk page with an explanation of what it is.  I'm hard pressed to think of any situation in which we have a table in an article, and the table is being worked on long-term by many editors, in which one or another of the above solutions doesn't work and doesn't avoid us having a one-article template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously,, I do not understand a single point of your reasoning here (all posts included). Recap. The question is: why should we disallow (=delete) single-use templates (=templates that are only transcluded once). Why/not? - DePiep (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am more than willing to consider alternatives to 1-artlcle-N-use templates. Is there a category for table row templates so I could look at them? I'm always willing to learn new things and consider alternatives. But I must ask you again, what is the advantage to WP readers or WP editors of avoiding 1-article-N-use templates? I'd like to know the advantage, to let me weight the pros and cons in a given circumstance. So please, what would is the advantage of avoiding 1-article-N-use templates? YBG (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit of deleting templates? Does it speed up wikipedia? That is a nice discusssion, but what is the benefit of the discussed workload? --Stone (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Why do you ask? Why here? -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a good question. If there is not significant benefit to deleting templates, it weakens the case to be made for deleting "single use" templates. YBG (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The question doesn't make sense in this context. We delete templates for the same reason we delete any back-end page: it has served its purpose or there is duplication of content (in which case we sometimes redirect the page). The reasons for deletion are already quite set in stone and you're welcome to review WP:Deletion policy on the point. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the implication is simply that there's not reason, that they do no harm. An overextension of the "redirects are cheap" idea at WP:RFD.  Templates are not cheap, and they come with significant maintenance costs.  Ones we don't need suck editorial productivity away from working on the encyclopedia to farming useless (or insufficiently useful) templates. There are other reasons people argue to delete single-use/single-article templates, but that's a major one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On an aside, this discussion pops up every once in a while in this page's long history. --Izno (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Single use templates should be something that is used more.....it's to bad it's fading away. Long ago we use to make templates to reduce the coding on pages to engourage editing. It's too bad most don't take new editors into consideration anymore. A great example would have been the deleted World War II info box temp ....deleted even though the people that got it to GA explained why it's was desired..... now we have to search all over to refer back to Old discussions. Great example of mergerits thinking it's best to jam pages with coding and not caring that those that wrote and watch over the page had a system in place to discuss and keep track of the talks (Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 22).  It's weird that people actually think transclusion means on many pages..... in the old days we used it a lot for saving coding..... cuz it's not like Wikipedia is running out of space.  Template consolidation has done nothing but cause problems..... might look all neat and tidy but it's clearly was the wrong path to choose.--Moxy (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

From my point: There is no written test refering to single use templates, because of this there is no case here. --Stone (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this guideline should provide a better explanation. Our WP:P&G pages are better understood and more often followed when the rationale for a line-item is clear instead of appearing to be an inexplicable fiat someone injected when no one was looking. I have no particular preferences as to exact wording, as long as it doesn't substantively change practice ("make up new rules"). I thus cannot agree with the bullet-list of long-winded defenses of single-use templates near the top of this thread; I don't think any of those rationales stand up to close scrutiny, and we don't have a TfD history of accepting them.  All this said, be careful of templates that seem at first glance to be low-use; many are designed for substitution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All fine, but the other way around. TfD history of accepting them - I'sd say: we don't have a TfD rational e for deleting them (example in case: the TfD that this tread was invoked by). I think the deletion of single-use templates is not based in P&G (we have been asking repeatedly for that rule, to no effect). -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy and guidelines pages do not force consensus, they are written after the fact to codify consensus. If TfD has a decade+ history of deleting single-use templates, with very few exceptions, then there's a broad community consensus to do so, and it needs to be recorded in the guideline, with at least the overall rationales for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My question was "what is the benefit", I do not care much about "codified consensus" and the "history of deleting". That disucssions are of no good for my happieness. If somebody tells me I want to do it because it is fun I even would accept this as a benefit. The "suck editorial productivity" is not true for the elements pages and therefore it is not a valide point here. The deletion of the templates would generate a huge workload and gaining nothing. I renew by question: What is the benefit of deleting templates?--Stone (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I answered this (in part) above: a benefit of getting rid of templates that are not widely used is lower maintenance costs to editorial productivity. This isn't the only reason, but it's the one I care about enough to name it.  However,  very much if consensus changes to permit one-page-only templates.  I just observe that RM history shows that this consensus doesn't actually exist at present.  Don't shoot the messenger.  I didn't come here to kill your pet templates, I'm observing that if they end up in the dog pound they'll probably be put down. If the elements page (plural) are sharing a template, then it's not a one-page-only template, so I don't see what point you're trying to make ("what dog you have in the fight", to continue the doggy stuff :-).  I really am not interested in the fight, and am not going to argue point-by-point with people above, especially when they profess to be literally unable to understand what I'm saying.  Better stuff to do today. I do, however, care about "consensus doesn't matter because the result of this one makes me unhappy" arguments. That's not how WP operates.  And it is not possible to keep everyone happy all the time.  Some things efficient in one sector produce inefficiency in another.  Life is like that.  Compromise is needed.  We do not always get our way.  Balance is required.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How does a unused tamplate create maintainace costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The benefit is,, that we can use page (template) transclusion without having to care about the number of transclusions (one or more?). That distinction is figment (artificial) here at this wiki, and non-existant elsewhere on internet. There is no use in having to defend the "one" case. For over six years I maintain templates like , , , , and dozens more . Many of those are single-use -- I do not want to care. Now please tell me (just once, only just once ffs): what is wrong with single-use? Or are you gonna TfD-delete Periodic table? - DePiep (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know why the templates are used in the chemical elements. The point is why is it a productive work for wikipedia to delete the templates which are single used or not used. There is alot of work done in wikipedia which does not serve the people using wikipedia. This is the third or fourth discussion on the deletion of the templates used in the project and it takes a lot of work to get through all the discussions. I want to understand why the deletion is so vital that it has to be discussed every two or three year. Ground hog day is a funny film but a bad world to live in. --Stone (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion reappears because it has never been laid down in a rule (not to keep, nor to delete), while editors --admins too-- refer to this "rule" without a blink. Example in case: the recent TfD we are talking about. I am spending thime on this because I want to have it formalised (as being not an argument, is my point). -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can add: "Delete because single use" is always invoked by people who are not doing the maintenance work. As an uninvited 'I will help you doing cleaning this up'. Or wikilawyering without a law. This non-committedness makes arguing in a TfD extra hard. (BTW, wasn't it referred to long ago in some policy or guideline?) -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Scary seeing mergerist and deletionits trying to dictate use of templates.--Moxy (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not make this up. Again, TfD 2018 November 19 by . -DePiep (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please don't paraphrase me to bolster some alternative agenda. For those wondering, I started a DISCUSSION to DISCUSS why the need for multiple single use templates. I have not read this thread in its entirety, but from the looks of it there are some good points raised here! I don't think single use is a valid rationale alone for deleting a template. I was not, am not, advocating deleting anything SOLELY because it is single use. I was trying to understand the use case pertaining to templates for chemical elements. I'm sure we can all agree there is a bit of a slippery slope. Do we make a custom template for every city's infobox for example? Anyway, again, I was just trying to start a discussion. Something I now definitely regret bothering to try. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is, Zackmann08, as I wrote: There is no use in having to defend the "one" case. For over six years I maintain templates like,, , {{tlf|Periodic table} }, and dozens more. Many of those are single-use -- I do not want to care. Now please tell me (just once, only just once ffs): what is wrong with single-use? Or are you gonna TfD-delete Periodic table? |undefined. (, please take note. Exactly this is what I warned against).-DePiep (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't researched into any templates mentioned here, but I'll comment on the general argument. Generally speaking, a single use template shouldn't be used as it usually either holds content, which as has been noted, the guideline does not support; or is a duplication (even as a wrapper) of an already existing template. I would though like to see a non-lashing out argument for a good use of a single-use template (as the few I briefly looked that were mentioned here seem to be just holding article content which would IMO be better served in the article itself). To Stone who kept on asking about the cost, well, unlike in a lot of other coding languages where you can write something once and then extend the usage to something else without duplication of code, in templates, even if you use a wrapper, you end up duplicating a lot of the code. This means that when updates (read: fixes, changes, additions, removals, accessibility, etc) need to be rolled out, edits need to happen in all places that need it, instead of only one spot. In addition, if a template was abandoned in favor of a better one, but not deleted, then someone might use the old template again. --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the costs you mention are costs that would be borne by those who edit the single-use template or other templates upon which it depends. In the case of the element templates mentioned above, they are maintained by the dedicated members of WP:ELEM, in particular by . So long as the current group of editors are committed to working on them, your point about cost seems to be that of an external party coming in and saying, hey, I think your editing would be more efficient if you did it this other way, so I'll nominate the template for deletion to force you work in what I think would be a better way for you to work. Now if this were a new member of our wiki-project, that would be one thing. But these suggestions come from those outside of our project who are not going to be working on them in the long term, and so the argument seems IMHO to fall flat on its face. Now, add that to the fact that every 24 months or so some new outsider comes along and makes the same argument at TfD, which requires extra effort on the part of those who actually take responsibility for day-to-day maintenance, and you can see how it can quickly become frustrating.
 * In summary, although our primary concern at WP ought to be our readers and what benefits them the most, when you have two different methods of wikimarkup - method (1) and method (2) - that render exactly the same for the reader, the pros and cons are only those to the editor. If the editors active in a particular content area universally prefer method (1) over method (2), then who am I to come in from the outside and tell them that, no, you should consistently use method (2) and never use method (1). This would be grossly unfair to my fellow editors.
 * This argument is particularly cogent for a small wikiproject working on a limited set of single-use templates. The case mentioned above about city infoboxes does not really apply. The number of distinct chemical elements is easily dwarfed by the number of cities and the like within a short drive of my home - let alone those around the world. YBG (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In general, oppose.
 * There are some short, simple, templates where being used only once (and every indication of staying that way) could be reason to delete. However there are also a great many templates where their content is either bulky or complex (routemaps being a great example) and that alone is plenty of reason to justify them - no matter how many times they're used.
 * Templates should be deleted because that template, as it's used and how it's plausibly likely to be used, has no useful value. We can't simplify that to such a simple proscription as this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Short template shortcuts: are they pollution?
Under "Guidelines", the project page states:

Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates.

This leaves it unclear whether the name of the redirect itself should also always make clear the function of the target template.

We have a great many template shortcuts that are too short to give much information about the function of the template they redirect to. The more commonly used ones are listed at List of non-self-explanatory template shortcuts.

Two recent RfD discussions, this one and this one, have raised a question over the creation or retention of such templates. They have been described as "cryptic", "obscure", "strange squiggles" and "polluting the edit window". One discussant has [seen] a trend the past few years of templates moving from short, unreadable titles, to clear full word/sentence titles. If this is so, and has consensus, should it not be documented?

The case for such shortcuts would amount to: they save typing; they take up less space in the editing window; many are already much in use.

Aspects of the issue are: Bhunacat10 (talk),  14:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the creation of new examples of such "short" shortcuts be discouraged?
 * Should further transclusions of existing ones be discouraged?
 * Should existing uses of these shortcuts be converted to the full template names by some automated process?
 * Should the shortcut templates themselves then be deleted?
 * Should the answers to the above depend upon: template function: namespace(s) in which used; number of transclusions; whether applied only once to a page; length of the full template name; any other factor?
 * In case this is thought a non-issue or a leftover from past times, these short shortcuts are still being made: within the past six months there have been created E22, SON, @A, MCN, Ea, Stc, Vad, Cih, Hir and others. Meanwhile SHD and Sdesc have been deleted, partly on objections to do with the specific Short description project, but also on the general grounds mentioned above. I'm not bothered which way this goes, but I do consider that retention or deletion of any type of template should be based on more than editorial whim Bhunacat10 (talk),  11:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think most of the more recent examples you gave are absolutely unacceptable and not in keeping with the originally spirit of this section of the guideline which I think was mostly written to accommodate such redirects in non-article space - such as talk pages - and a few extremly high-use templates like cn (Template:Citation needed). Fundamentally, there is no point in having a guideline to name templates clearly, if all that is seen in the edit window of articles is an obscure shortcut. As to the question "Should existing uses of these shortcuts be converted to the full template names by some automated process?" - absolutely yes, within articles. AutoWikiBrowser, for example, does this as a semi-automated, secondary function. I think as a rule, every template called from a mainspace article should be named clearly and linked directly - and I'd be willing to support a change to the guideline to specify that. Perhaps if that's adopted, this can be a bot job, to replace all mainspace redirects with the full name, and then we can mass-delete those redirects. -- Netoholic @  12:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At the start of this thread is the following citation from policy
 * Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates.
 * This is followed by this reaction:
 * This leaves it unclear whether the name of the redirect itself should also always make clear the function of the target template.
 * I submit that it is perfectly clear. The English word but indicates that what follows is in contrast to what proceeds. If the intent of the policy was that the redirects also be completely spelled out and clear, the word but would not have been used. The threshold of how frequently used a template needs to be for cryptic template shortcuts to exist is probably higher for mainspace than for talkspace and higher for talkspace than technical spaces like template and template talk frequented primarily by experienced editors. See, for example, the use of tq by the editor who started this thread. But any attempt to establish a definitive list of acceptable exceptions based on frequency of use sounds like a proposal only the most entrenched of bureaucrat would like. A more productive solution would be to enable something akin to page previews that would explain templates when the wikitext is being edited; this would allow the experienced user to use usefully short shortcut and give the newbie an easy way to learn. YBG (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

T3 and Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines
I find it a bit strange that a speedy criteria exists for WP:T3 (Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template), yet in Template namespace it doesn't even mention creating a duplication of another template. WP:T2 however, does get mentioned here. --Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the following on the page right now: Templates that misrepresent policy or substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion. (emphasis added). That seems clear to me. How would you suggest changing the page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's good. It seems I was blind and didn't see it, even though I saw the the "misrepresent policy" part. --Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)