Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 11

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was consensus for move to. Per below, I am not moving any of the log pages (and glad to not even have to think about the Herculean task) and to sum up for future TfD discussion log creators and bot masters, from now forward the logs should be at. Because requested moves and WP:CFD are separate processes, please list the category renaming there and reference this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion → Templates for discussion —

For the time being the Tfm templates add tagged articles to Category:Templates for deletion. I'd like to raise the question now, should we rename that to Category:Templates for discussion perhaps, or should we make a separate Category:Templates for merging, or should we use the general Category:Items to be merged. Debresser (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps rename this page Templates for discussion? And make a Category:Templates for discussion including Category:Templates for deletion and Category:Templates for merging, or just Category:Templates for discussion for both? Debresser (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I would be in favor of a change to 'Templates for discussion', and redirect all 'Templates for deletion' to 'Templates for discussion'. Someone should figure out how much work would be involved, in terms of bots, and how many redirects we are talking about. The disadvantage to splitting is that TFD doesn't have that much traffic and splitting would create additional overhead. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No work at all. A simple redirect and time will do all that is needed. The bot owners should be watching here, if they are conscientious. If you know of any, they can be notified. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support changing the overall name of the TfD process to "Templates for Discussion", as previously discussed at the village pump and elsewhere. One suggestion in the village pump discussion was not to rename the past discussion logs, both because it could create confusion for people reading the archives and because it would greatly expand the amount of work needed for the transition. But I support renaming this page, the log pages from the change date forward, and the category. I don't see a need to subdivide the category unless the number of discussions grows. --RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jafeluv has also expressed his support on my talkpage, but recommended to list the discussion at Requested moves also. Which I do by this. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right. I'd also like to point out the earlier discussions here and here, both of which seemed to favour moving the main TfD page but leaving old subpages where they are. Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - it's clear that TfD deals with a lot more than simple "delete and delink" operations, with people proposing mergers, redeployment, deprecation, etc. I think it would be beneficial to centralize such discussion in the hope that people stop treating this like AfD and remember that TfD is more often a technical discussion than anything else, even more so after this change.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support it does more than deletion. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have unanimous consensus for the move. Please notice that all deletion and merge templates use the term "Templates for deletion". It would be proper to change that. A complete list of all deletion templates is found on any of them, and a complete list of merging templates on any of them. Alternatively, I can fix all of them, apart from the editprotected Tfd. BTW, nobody wants to make it semi-protected? It is not really that heavily in use, now is it. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's definitly a WP:HRT. The transclusion count will be low since it's a fast-moving template - it sits on a template for a week or two then goes.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wow
I wasn't aware that this was being considered. This totally should have been posted at Cent. I mean I would've supported it, but this seems so monumental, and has been discussed ad nauseum before... I don't know how well this decision will hold up with such a tiny little discussion. Equazcion (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Equazcion (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally disputed
Template:Totally-disputed was nominated for deletion in Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_22. The result of the disussion was delete. It has since been redirected, Tdeprecated, and in general kicked and beaten. I say it's time to delete it. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody seems to have reacted to this post with swift and deadly force. :) Debresser (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about appropriateness of Public Finance template and others of its type
I am concerned about Template:Public_finance. It is billed as grouping "a series of related articles". The template, which includes a picture, is placed prominently at the top of many articles included in the template. I have only seen this type of template on articles that have some relation to law and economics, and I don't like the effects or the precident they set. They seem to say that this is a "law article" or "economics article" and frame the approach that the article will take to the topic. They are created by Wikiprojects-- the public Finance template even has a link to the wikiproject. Aren't these things really a navigation templates, and don't they belong at the bottom of the article without a picture, and without a link to a wikiproject? Diderot's  dreams  (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These are often called "sidebars". They exist for a variety of different subjects, not just law and economics, although they do seem to be most common for humanities and social science topics. There are sidebars such as Jews and Judaism sidebar, Psychology sidebar, Feminism sidebar, Liberalism sidebar, Transgender sidebar, Snooker tournaments sidebar, etc. Some have pictures and some don't. If there is a bad effect, it is widespread. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. These templates are in some more places than I knew of.  Still, they still seem to be in a small minority of all articles or topics, the overwhelming majority of articles in the encyclopedia don't have them.  It looks to me that they are usually added to controversial topics (I consider economics and psychology to be controversial, too, because their scientific bases and the conclusions they reach are questioned).  This backs up my theory.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Transition for log naming
Now that the page name has been changed to "Templates for discussion", I'm wondering exactly how the transition for the logs will work. The current day page (Oct 14) is still under the "deletion" naming, but the consensus above was to move discussion logs to the new name going forward, without changing the old ones. To complete this transition, I believe all of the following need to be done, but rather than just doing them I'm listing them here, partly because I can't do all of them and partly because I don't want to break anything by missing an important step: Please feel free to add or delete from the list above, or mark any items complete that have already been done. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting as soon as possible, the new TfD log pages should be created at Templates for discussion/Log/ . These are created by User:Zorglbot, so I assume it will need to be reprogrammed.
 * The previous day/next day links at the top of the pages at the transition point (e.g., October 14 and October 15 if the bot is reprogrammed today) will need to be manually edited to link to the correct pages from the other naming scheme. ✅ Plastikspork
 * A new Templates for discussion/Log/Archives needs to be created. ✅ Plastikspork
 * The existing archive page at Templates for deletion/Log/Archives should be updated to note the transition to the new system. ✅  (updated calendar links and created redirects for all days in October) Plastikspork
 * The redirect for WP:TFD/L needs to be updated. ✅ Plastikspork
 * The search box for the archives needs to be fixed. Currently it automatically bases the search on the pagename, which means it now pulls zero results because there are no archives under the new name. I'm not sure if the search can be fixed to search both naming schemes, or perhaps we will need two search boxes? ✅ (Remarkably, it works to just shorten the prefix to "Templates for d") Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I ended up moving all the October logs to make the Archive calendar work without redirects. I don't think we need to move any logs earlier than October, but it's nice to have a clean break at a month boundary. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In case no one's paying attention above, I wanted to inform you of this ANI thread, regarding this move decision. Equazcion (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still Tfdend. If changed to discussion it will break a lot of links. I guess it first needs to be subst everywhere before it can be changed. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some "ifexists" logic to, so there should be no issues? Let me know if you see one with a broken link. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did not even realised you fixed it already. It seems to work. Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Help explain
Could anybody here help me give an answer on Template_talk:Merge? Debresser (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Help
I have tried to nominated templates for deletion, but for some reason, it keeps failing to post on this page. Could someone explain or fix the problem? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Navigation header
Anyone know what's up lately with the day before/day after navigation header not appearing on some of the log pages? I've placed it manually three times in the past week, most recently today. From the page histories, it appears that the header was missing when these days were first created. But on other days it is there from the start. Is it just the editors who create the pages forgetting to include it, because they aren't being created by the bot since the name transition? Or is something else going on? --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot has been not operating as expected. It as as you ascertained; "the editors who create the pages forgetting to include it".  The latest problem is that it appears the bot is running an hour late (daylight saving time).  The bot operator has been alerted to the problem. Thanks for helping sort out the glitches! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Making anchor links work at TfD
It seems links that point to a specific section of a TfD log page don't work. This is primarily a problem for me because I frequently use the "→" links displayed in the watchlist, which are normally supposed to take us directly to the section that was edited. This functionality appears to have been lost at TfD. Try this link, for instance, which I copied from my watchlist, and is supposed to take you directly to the Template:Outdent discussion in the middle of the page.

I believe (but could be wrong) that the problem has to do with the standard of naming TfD section headers using the  magic word. I'd like to know among other things why this is important, as from what I've read all it does is make the first character uppercase. If it is important, is there a workaround to get anchor links working again even with this magic word is being used in header names? Equazcion  (talk)  19:19, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Looks like manually-created anchor links work. Only the automatically-created "→" links don't work, such as in the watchlist, history, etc.


 * Works: Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 6
 * Doesn't work: Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 6

Again I'd like to know if ucfirst is actually of any importance, or can it possibly be scrapped to bring back this convenient function. Equazcion  (talk)  19:42, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Templates redundant to "better" templates
One of the reasons listed for deleting a template is if it is redundant to a "better" template.

Here are the following issues I have with that: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellno2 (talk • contribs)
 * How is it determined which template is "better?" Can it really be safely determined in just a week that an existing template that has been around some time is "better" than one that has been around for only one day?
 * Why does it have to be deleted? In main namespace, if two articles are redundant, the practice is to merge the two article, thereby retaining all useful information in both, as well as the edit histories of both.
 * The average deletion discussion gets comments from only a handful of users (typically 10-20). When there are perhaps millions of users of Wikipedia in all, how can this safely be determined to be a "consensus?" If you let something be around for more than just a week or a day, you can get a lot of comment, which would enable others to see what works and what doesn't.


 * That is "better" in the eyes of the nominating editor.
 * In practise often enough a template is completely replaced by another template. If need be it can be tagged for merging as well.
 * An encyclopedia (in bookform) is read by millions of people also, yet only a handfull of editorial staff decide what consensus is.

Debresser (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

category:Templates for deletion
Something is screwed up with placing this category. It is transcluded into thousands of articles. - Altenmann >t 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is due to the nomination of City-state. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can modify Tfd and Tfd-inline so they place the nominated template into this category without placing every page into which it is transcluded? I assume the purpose of the category is to be able to quickly see what templates are up for deletion, not to see all the affected pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases, I would say it is appropriate to put the tfd inside a . The idea is, of course, to balance the need for notification with the drawback of excessive tagging inside the article text.  I think this particular case certainly qualifies for a noinclude (and I will perform the necessary modification). Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine for this case, but I was hoping for something that could be implemented within the code for and  that would allow the notifications to appear on the articles without the articles also being added to the category. But it may be that it can't be done that way. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We could add a "nocat" option that would put the cat inside a noinclude? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't that keep the nominated template from going into the category also? I think the ideal result is a combination of three results: 1) notification appears on articles that use the nominated template, 2) nominated template appears in Category:Templates for deletion, 3) articles that use the nominated template do not appear in Category:Templates for deletion. I can think of various ways to accomplish one or two of those, but not all three at once. But I'm not a template-coding expert, so maybe there is a way I don't know of. --RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you cannot easily combine all three, please notice that the list of all nominated pages may be found by "What links there" from Tfd. Please also notice that as it currently works it is completely useless for search. - Altenmann >t 03:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we can accomplish all three by putting a namespace restriction around the Category (e.g., ns0). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added logic to restrict transclusions of the category to the template namespace. This isn't a perfect fix, in that if another template transcludes a template being considered for deletion, then they both appear in the category. However, that shouldn't happen very often. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Templates for deletion looks way better now. Thanks. - Altenmann >t 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Legal policy
I just created this template and Template:Procedural policy after agreement here that Template:Official policy is inadequate as a nutshell on relevant policy pages. I just made the appropriate changes to the text, and it seems to work, but maybe more needs to be done, I don't know. I didn't create /doc pages. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tfdl and Template:Tfdl2
While working on recoding the unified template Xfdl, I noticed that TfD has been moved from Templates for deletion to Templates for discussion. Unfortunately, this is going to cause a lot of problems with the template along with Tfdl and Tfdl2, which are used by some project in their deletion archives. The latter two templates currently links to logs at Templates for deletion/Log/. However, new TfD will now be logged under Templates for discussion/Log/. I can't think a good way to approach this problem eloquently without some sort of ugly hack. I've already had to use a hack for the old Categories for deletion. But at least there, the whole structure of the deletion logs changed, making a hack justifiable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We solved this problem by using some 'ifexist' logic (see being deleted for example). If there is an existing template which is broken, let me know and I can help fix it. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with using 'ifexist' is that these templates are transcluded hundreds of times on the deletion sorting page. This causes the the transclusion limits to trip and breaks down. See WikiProject Anime and manga/Deletion Archive for an example. It's easier to simply create redirects, which is what I'm in the process of doing for the 2009 logs. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished creating redirects to the past logs. So there should be no need for 'ifexist' anymore. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See more discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That thread is about a wider discrepancy in naming schemes for the logs. WP:SfD and WP:FfD being the most prominent. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TFD Helper bot
Hey TFD,

I wrote a simple python script to do duties (such as substitution and orphaning) on-demand. I was thinking the bot would work like this.

A TFD discussion ends in delete, or substitute.

An admin goes to the bots control page, (here) and request that the bot start.

Automatically, the bot starts, and logs what it does. (Note that there can be more then one request going at a time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you use the bot to replace {[tl|otheruses4}} with about? TIA174.3.123.220 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. You will probably find a wider audience at WP:BOTREQ, if you haven't tried there already.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with dates
So, I just realized that I efficiently and thoroughly closed a day's worth of discussions ... one day early. Apparently I need to look at my calendar more closely. I doubt I've changed the outcomes by doing it early, but if anyone wants a specific discussion re-opened (and the associated template undeleted, since they all closed as delete), I will obviously do so without even a peep of protest. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They all appear to be relatively uncontroversial closes, so I don't foresee a problem either. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves for templates
There's a discussion that has started at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves Commons/Archives/2010/June regarding which process would be best to use for moving/renaming Templates. Participation there would be appreciated. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance please
After placing a TFD notification on Template:GP3 Seasons the author has removed the TFD because it corrupts the templates operation. Can anyone have a look to see what the problem is? --Falcadore (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been fixed. --Falcadore (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A move
Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper nomination
Could an uninvolved admin please consider closing or moving the nomination for Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26? It was added by on February 2, long after it was appropriate to add new nominations to that daily page, and without any notifications, not even the standard Tfd template. I believe the discussion should be procedurally closed and restarted on the current daily page, with proper notifications. I would do it myself, but I am involved in the related discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 26, and don't want to create any perception of administrative COI. --RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion
Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfd and Tfd-inline
Just to keep everyone updated, the functionality of Tfd-inline has now been merged with Tfd, so that calling tfd-inline is equivalent to using tfd with  or    There is now an additional option for   which is similar to the standard type, but reduces the width and floats it to the right to nest it with an infobox or sidebar. The plan is to keep the tfd-inline template around for a bit for transition, and also there hasn't been any formal process put forward to delete the tfd-inline template, but it's basically now redundant to tfd with the proper setting of type option. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd situation for Template:HK-MTR lines
I recently closed Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 20. Despite being open for longer than usual and having a lot of discussion, there were only three significant participants. The consensus result was to remove or substitute all uses of the template and then delete it. This was basically a 2:1 result, because one of the participants preferred to keep the template for some uses. After the closing, one of the participants changed his mind, and now agrees with keeping the template for more limited use. Another editor, who did not participate in the TFD, seems to agree. This appears to create a 3:1 balance different than the original close. I don't believe there is any significant policy issue at stake in the arguments for and against the more limited usage, so I'm inclined to accept this as a modified consensus and disregard my own TFD close. Since it seems overly bureaucratic to take my own close to deletion review, I'm planning just to note the change on the template's talk page. If anyone has objections to what I've decided to do in this case, please speak up (at the template's talk page would be best, to keep the discussion centralized). Otherwise I will make my notation at the template talk page in a couple of days and consider the matter settled. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We could always formally delete it in its prior form, then recreate it as an uncolored version, which would be compatible with the s-line template. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Boilerplate
I'd like to change the boilerplate for new entries from:

to, say:

but I can't figure out where it resides. Can anyone help, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 April 2010
 * It's probably in Templates for discussion/Header. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not there, though it does contain the same text, as documentation, so I've updated that, in advance of this request. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one oppose this proposed change. I find the previous wording perfectly fit to its purpose, and the proposed one inferior to it. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal first of all lacks the necessary question mark... but the main problem is that it sounds so amateurish. You make a nomination? So use that word! And "rationale" is so much more sophisticated then "why". This is an encyclopedia after all, not a talkgroup. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If a word is "more sophisticated" then conversely it is likely to be less clear. We should use the plainest language possible. Also, my proposed wording differentiates between deletion and merger proposals, unlike the original, which thus is not "perfectly fit to [sic] its purpose. There is no question mark, because no question is being asked. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of templates to introduce inappropriate associations
I'd be grateful for comment on an issue I came across yesterday. I have recently posted about this to the Admin. Noticeboard because I have not been able to find whether WP has published any clear guidelines on the issue I have raised. For the time being I will leave the issue at the Admin Noticeboard because of multiple issues (established user (probably) making rapid edits with potential WP:POV, WP:OR and hiding behind a newly created account). But there is a deeper issue and this is the one I want to raise here now that I have traced this page (which I managed to do only after my posting at the Admin. Noticeboard.

The issue is simply this.


 * 1) A User creates a new sidebar template on topic A (in this case the Welfare State)
 * 2) The user creates a link in the template to a related topic B (in this case socialism
 * 3) The editor then places the Topic A sidebar on an article on Topic C related to Topic A (in this case, rather tendentiously, Universal health care).

Hey presto in one fell swoop the editor has created a visual link between Topic C and Topic B (i.e. between socialism and universal health care) which is false. What is more any changes to the template show as changes in the article on topic C creating further impressions without the editors at the article following their watchlists being even aware of the fact (for example connecting universal health care to communism or even nazism).

Now I know that some in the U.S. DO regard their as being a link and some political party spokespeople repeat these things all the time. But the reality is that these issues are not linked. There are non socialist countries with universal health care and there are socialist countries without it. The two are not linked per se even though each may have some tendentious links to a third subject such as welfare state. Because of the political linkage and the potential for this to get even worse, and because the editor was new but acting like an old hand I decided to act.

The question I now want to raise is this. Why, when there are so many other ways to link to articles (wikilinks, categories, portals etc. do we allow template sidebars to carry rather contentious links, coloration, photos and content etc. which have the ability to spread quickly through so many other articles?  It appears to be designed to be misused (knowingly or otherwise) to hit the lazy reader with images and ideas without the need to read the text. Having experienced Universal Health care at first hand in two countries and second hand in several others, the last image that would be appropriate to an article on this subject would be one of scraggy men in flat caps eating in a soup kitchen. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_health_care&oldid=358850104) compared to how the article appeared in December (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_health_care&oldid=334033522). But that is exactly what this editor managed to create.

Maybe I am being a bit cynical here, but having seen similar tactics used in certain articles (albeit by the overuse and misuse of wikilinks rather than templates) I know for a fact that this sort of thing goes on. The Socialized medicine article at one time was riddled with wikilinks in the header that highlighted words like socialism, taxation, government control that were clearly intended to fix certain ideas in the heads of the reader before they had even fully read the text. I quickly identified the perpetrators and eventually this stopped. Now the tactic seems to be to use templates. We need to stop this kind of activity too. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On 4 May I blanked the template again and deleted template placing on various articles. The issue has been re-opened at the Admin Noticeboard after it seems another user agreed that this did seem to be the work of an experienced editor engaging in sockpuppetry. Let me stress. there may be legitimate usages for templates like this, but I suspect that they are being used for an inappropriate purpose. The apparent sockpuppet (User:Traimb) had not opened any discussions about the sidebar at the targeted pages, though I did. The only other editor to have edited the sidebar was me and that was to remove contentious content or to test the motives of Traimb. The sidebar does not sem to have editor community support and therefore I have balnked it for the time being and will propose it for deletion in due course.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tool smashing
Editors who frequent this page may want to read a new message at the Village Pump on tool smashing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

New speedy criterion - templates consisting entirely of red links
After seeing so many of them at TFD, I've proposed that templates consisting entirely of red links should be speedy-deletable. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Robofish (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I still would like to use this template to update the Y tree. I need to find another template mechanism to properly display a tree.

Does anyone have a proposal?

 • <font color=black face=serif>Archæogenetics TALK  18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical actress
I'm not sure what to do with this malformed template I've found... but seeing as it's only being used by the Cinta Laura article, I figure it's likely a greater candidate for deletion than it is repair. Perhaps someone with template deletion experience could take a look and assess what should be done with it. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it is a candidate for deletion, as it is replaceable by Infobox musical artist. I have replaced it in the article in question and will nominate it for deletion.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  04:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly Plastikspork. Your changes make perfect sense, and the article looks much better now. Regards :) -- WikHead (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Average White Band
I know I am probably at the wrong page for this request - if so apologies all round, but templates are not my area of expertise. Could someone have a look at this template, which seems to have a problem, as it is not able to be edited through normal routes. Pressing the 'e' button on the template merely produces - '[[Roger Ball (musician) | Roger Ball], Saxophone and Keyboards'. I have not got a clue why this should be, but perhaps some kind soul could investigate and repair it.  Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The "name" parameter must match the actual name of the template.  In this case, the actual template name wasn't the best, so I moved it to the value given by the name parameter.  They now match so all should be fine. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop transcluding deletion pages?
As the main TFD page is getting very large and unwieldy because of the slow closing of discussions, might we want to consider simply linking to the discussion pages like what is done on the AFD and CFD pages? Train2104 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be cut in half by just clearing the backlog. Not that that is the only solution, but it would certainly help. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All better. :) JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TfD philosophy regarding massive, single-use templates
Greetings,

A proposal has been made to convert several large and bulky Infobox template entries into separate templates that are incorporated into the main (featured/high importance rated) science articles. The goal is to convert a large swath of text occupied by the template into the equivalent of an include file, thereby allowing visiting editors to go directly to the prose after skipping a single line template entry.

This technique has been successfully implemented on a number of science articles. However, a concern has been raised that the TfD representatives may frown upon this practice (even though it does not explicitly appear to satisfy one of the deletion criteria). Please could I get a clarification regarding this? Is it an unwritten tradition of this forum? Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, single use templates have been routinely substituted and deleted here. However, there have been exceptions. If you could provide a link to a specific example, I would be happy to have a look.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I checked your edit history, and I believe you are talking about moving the infobox from Earth to . If the argument is to reduce the article size, it won't since the same HTML will be rendered. It will also split the edit history for the information in the infobox.  So, I would say that it is probably not a good idea, and this is the sort of thing that is routinely undone (closed as substitute and delete) at TFD. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I didn't want this to get too specific at the risk of provoking more TfDs on perfectly good templates. Okay, well if the rule is that single-use templates almost always get expunged, then it would be helpful if that were documented among the reasons for TfD. Unwritten Wikipedia guidelines and traditions just seem to provoke discord. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the goal is to 'reduce the article size'. I think the goal is to make editing (not reading) more accessible to less-experienced editors, by making the first line of the article actually visible in the normal edit-this-page editing box (not four screenfuls down, which is where it appears now).  Currently, editors are faced with an intimidating 'programming language' instead of plain old article text.
 * I don't think that this is an unreasonable approach, although it's not a normal one. I might have more sympathy for it if the page weren't indefinitely semi-protected.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You alternatively could create the infobox at Earth infobox and transclude {&#123;:Earth infobox}}. However, the issue remains in that doing so removes the infobox from most users' watchlists, so I would not recommend it (or the approach in the Template namespace, for that matter). Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that Earth infobox would appear as an article and it would either be moved or deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 05:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can this (single-use template) be added as a fifth bullet to the "Reasons to delete a template" section? That way when it comes up for discussion, we can point it out? Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's really that simple. I wonder whether we could get a list of templates currently transcluded only once (and thus find out whether the community is actually doing this).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the above comment that "In general, single use templates have been routinely substituted and deleted here" makes it seem pretty straightforward. :-) Virtually all of the chemical element infoboxes are examples.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to assume that Plastikspork is omniscient, then yes, that unsupported assertion doubtless seems pretty straightforward. I think it probable, that Plastikspork's belief is accurate, but I don't know that it is true.  For all I know, there are hundreds of templates out there that are used only in a single article (just not, for example, in articles that Plastikspork happens to edit).  Your choice, then, is to decide whether you want to accept the assertion on faith, or to investigate it further.
 * BTW, I want to be clear that I have nothing against Plastikspork; I'm just aware that there's only anecdotal evidence behind it. (You might consider reading Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I have a specific instances that matches my concern. In looking through the current TfD entries, there appear to be a number of instances of sub-classes of the Infobox character templates that are being viewed as "redundant". If this is the case, it appears that the word "redundant" here is being broadly interpreted to include "sub-classes" templates. I.e. a flattened structure is preferred over a tree structure. To me this is not made clear in the "Reasons to delete a template" section entry. The wording there says, "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". But this does not appear to be the case in this example. A sub-class template can be considered the better design because it is specialized for the topic in question, just as Infobox character is a better design than Infobox for handling characters.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my comments about what is routinely deleted at TFD is based on my recent observations over the past couple years. The fact that single use templates exist and are in use neither confirms nor refutes this claim. My point is only that when they are brought to TFD, the majority opinion tends to be to substitute and delete them. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, especially when there is a vocal majority opposing the deletion, but this doesn't happen very often. Opinions change, and this trend may change in the future. The character infobox deletions are part of a movement to clean up the in-universe cruft that typically occurs when specialized infoboxes are created for a single television, film, or book series. See Template talk:Infobox character if you have an opinion on the matter. I never claimed to be omniscient, and please don't read anything into my statements. They are merely based on observations of what happens here at TFD, not what happens in a broader context. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you might find User:RL0919/Templates of Redundancy Templates interesting. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not a problem. I was just seeking transparency on this process. Not sure I've reached that point yet though.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)