Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 14

more than a TfR needed for bcgnis and cite bcgnis
See Template talk:cite bcgnis. This needs more than a change of template name, as the parsed content of the linked items as structured now yields 404 errors due to restructuring of BC Govt URLs. My comment there about the cumbersomeness of the "cite FOO" templates stands; BCGNIS and related templates were requested to speed up citations, not slow them down with irrelevant fields. Any new BC Names template does not need nor is it useful to impose code decisions on such templates made by people who do not use them. For months, and longer prior to my absence, I boycotted {{tl}cite bcgnis}} and have used the old-standard square-bracket-URL-space-title-square bracket URL refs. And will continue to do so, as it's faster and easier than bothering with templates. But the existing ones, which are legion in perhaps thousands of usages over several hundreds of articles, are obsolete and must be reparsed.....there are simple too many to do by hand.`Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

how to propose/mandate a Rename of a template?
Unlike CfDs, where there is a CfR option, I see nothing here for renaming a template. cite bivouac currently yields "Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia" but as you will see by googling the site name is now "Bivouac Mountaineering Directory. I note that there are various reasons for this, largely I'd guess because it's not just about Canadian mountains and mountaineering anymore.  As far as I know, the URLs have stayed the same, which is not the case for bcgnis and cite bcgnis where URL parsing has to be changed wholesale.  Bivouac is also no longer an authoritative source for various reasons and on many things, including fake "official" names and deletions of ranges and their replacement by prominence regions; I know this from my experiences as Senior Geographer there before coming to Wikipedia when I left it, and protracted discussions with the siteowner about his creation/imposition of fake/made-up names, which have impacted googlemaps and other sites and should not have. No further comment about that, I'm not sure where to take that, perhaps WP:RS if not simply the talkpages at WikiProject Mountains and related wikiprojects. My issue here is the renaming of the template and its structure/title as the "CME"/"Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia" title is now defunct.Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you can always use the procedures outlined in RM. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Images in templates
Where can I find direction on when and when not to include images within templates? My revert of the addition of images to a template has itself been reverted, and I don't want to consider furthering this without first doing my homework. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right and those anonymous editors are out of line. Those images serve no useful purpose in identifying the subject matter. If somebody were to add those to Toronto or Montreal navboxes I might hesitate, but not in this case. Images should not just be inserted randomly - anywhere. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Template mislinking to wiktionary not wikipedia article
Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese. Can anyone help please? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there such a thing as a Template tech help corner? Please In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

July 13 page
Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13 has a number of nominations which seem overdue for closure. Has it perhaps dropped off the radar? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * try Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Make notifying significant editors of deletion mandatory
In the third step for nominating a template for deletion it says "It is considered polite to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template". I propose that this step be made mandatory to begin a deletion discussion.

Is there any reason why notification of relevant users shouldn't be a compulsory element of process? Involving the people who know the initial reason for developing template is surely essential for this kind of discussion. I can't see how making this optional is of any benefit to the discussions that take place (if the creator's reasoning is not a good one, then this will not negatively affect an outcome). SFB 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I currently use watchlists, myself, but prefer being notified. On the other hand, it is sometimes difficult to search out who to notify, and the template is tagged for many to see. Maybe notifying at least one user or project that contributed most significantly in recent time would be a good policy? I also think it would be good to include a search of the template name, using the project page search, for reference. -PC-XT+ 04:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you care about something, watch out for it. Sw2nd (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at least one user or project can easily be notified. I know I'm in the minority here, but checking watchlists for deletion notifications isn't very practical for those who have the killer combo of (a) irregular editing patterns and (b) major contributions to thousands of pages and an interest in many more. SFB 20:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For all XfDs notification of creator should be required. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the creator isn't banned, there is really no excuse for not notifying them. Particularly on older pages, the major contributors and relevant wikiprojects should be notified as well. In the case of templates and images the talk pages of where they are used should be notified as well. It's more than just politeness, it's basic fairness to ensure that the deletion discussion has access to all the facts. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist and so its very easy to miss some things, particularly when my recent attention has been on other areas. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I made the change a couple of hours ago based on this discussion. Feel free to revert, but please explain why... Hobit (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to revert your edit, but I would point out that sometimes notifying the creator of the template seems fairly pointless, e.g. if they haven't edited for several years. Having said that, whenever I nominate something for deletion, I always notify someone - usually the creator (unless they haven't edited for a very long time) and any relevant WikiProjects. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went with "You generally should notify the creator of template" too try to address that. I'm not thrilled with the wording, but I'd trying to get to "generally required" Hobit (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good compromise - it's stronger than "it is considered polite" but doesn't mandate a potentially pointless activity. DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2012. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is an RfC, I support this if it can be technically achieved without great labor (I'm fairly sure it can, although the Twinkle people need to do a little adjusting). Technical 13 (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What to use instead of Template:Move header
If Template:Move header was deprecated per the archived discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11, what article hatnote would best be used instead? This question arises with regards to the current state of the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning article, which was moved following the subject's coming out as transgender, then moved back, then frozen for 30 days. I think that casual readers should be made aware that the article's title is currently in dispute, rather than presenting on the surface an endorsement of the status quo ante. Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * probably Template:Disputed title. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That, or, , depending on circs. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD
The last time I could find this as being discussed in the archives was January of 2006 and since CCC especially in over seven and a half years, I think it is worth discussing again. Userboxes are templates and if they are in Template: space, than nominating them as anything other than a template doesn't seem or feel correct. So, the question is: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD?

Support Nominations at TfD

 * 1) This just seems like where these nominations belong to me. Technical 13 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur. We are overcomplicating the process by submitting templates for deletion/discussion to three or more different places. Its policies andn processes like this that make it difficult for newby's and casual editors to participate in the project. We need to keep things simple, Templates go to TFD, Categories to CFD, etc. Not this Template for deletion confusion trifecta we have going on now. Kumioko (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that, but yes, I agree. Having to nominate Userbox templates in template space not as templates but instead as miscellany probably is WP:CREEP... Technical 13 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add a parting though to all of this here is another nugget of my personal feelings on Userboxes. I believe they are non encyclopedic crap and 99% of the should be deleted. Where not here to create and post userboxes about how we like spongebob squarepants or we think Madonna is a fox or some other dumb shit. If people want to have one that says something actually useful like they speak X language, can program in x language or that they are a male or female for the sake of clarity that's fine. But most of the rest of the are just a waste of bytes on the server and should be done away with IMO. Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While that's certain a valid opinion, I'm struggling to see how it is relevant to whether they should be discussed at TfD or MfD? Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I would be fine with them all being discussed at TFD, but I think having templates being submitted in three different venues is confusing for anyone. I'm not surprised that people are resistent to change around here but it surprises me how many have presented the argument that we shouldn't change because that's the way its always been done. Where that comment becomes relevant is that we seem to be expending a lot of energy on an issue that we frankly shouldn't even have. That this discussion is arguing over userboxes, most of which are crap anyway and should be deleted outright with appropriate malice, is just par for the course in Wiki. All my point really is though is that we ought to make this process as easy and painless as possible. Things in template space should go to RFD, things in Category space should go to CFD, articles to AFD and every thing else to MFD. I just think splitting templates into three or more directions is madness and there must be an easier way. Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everything in Template space should go to TfD, no matter how much you think it would reduce confusion. Template-space redirects are fundamentally redirects, not templates, so they should be discussed at RfD (which handles redirects in all namespaces) not TfD, leaving TfD to discuss templates. Way back when, stub templates and categories had to be nominated separately at TfD and CfD - this was not practical as very often each would defer the answer to the other or occasionally come up with contradictory results, this lead to the combining of associated templates and categories into one nomination at one venue. A single WP:VfD was too busy so it was split into the component parts we have today. Just because it's been done the present way for a long time doesn't mean we should automatically continue to do it that way, but its worth finding out why the current way was chosen. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. But the bolded question seems deliberate. Would this keep userspace userboxes as MfD? I wouldn't like that at all; all userboxes should be discussed in the same deletion venue, regardless the namespace in which they're hosted. As userboxes are templates that can reside in template space, I do think as a matter of common sense that they should be discussed in TfD. But if the proposal is to separate userboxes based on where they're hosted, I'll instead say a strong no. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All userboxes are templates regardless of the namespace thy reside in, and should be dealt with at TfD. They should indeed all go to the same place. Technical 13 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Then yes, I think this is a sensible change, notwithstanding the Sturm und Drang of the past.(little German joke there) --BDD (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Nominations at MfD

 * 1) These are explicitly not to be treated as templates, per a very very very long and foul-tempered grudging consensus. Read the discussions around, and pages linked from, WP:German userbox solution. Treating them as templates may seem intuitive, but it would reopen a can of worms which is nailed tightly shut for good reason. –  iridescent  21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia and not the German Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ie. WP:German userbox solution) has no bearing on how we should do things here.  Can you show me how they do not fit into the definition of what a template is?  Technical 13 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "explicit" reason to do it is because at some point in the past someone wrote it into a rule. If there is a valid reason that was done, then bring that out and lets discuss that. I would also add that if it was a "very very very long and foul-tempered grudging consensus" then was it really a consensus? By that statement it seems more like people got tired of talking about it to me. Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This allows for a more uniform treatment, since they may be in either userspace or templatespace. and, there is really no reason to change something that isn't broken. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is nominating Templates that are in the Template: namespace as Miscellany for Deletion uniform when we have a Templates for Deletion? Templates in the template namespace should be discussed on Templates for Deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess that over half of the userboxes are not in template space after many were moved after the WP:Userbox migration was implemented. all userboxes should be discussed in the same venue. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I would agree that if they exist in Userspace they should be sent to MFD. But if its a template, it should be treated as a template. Kumioko (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * on the flip side of your "all userboxes should be discussed in the same venue" argument here is the "all templates should be discussed in the same venue", and since there is a venue named WP:Templates for Discussion and there is not one named WP:Userboxes for Discussion OR WP:Userboxes for Deletion, the proper venue should be WP:Templates for Discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and we don't discuss userspace templates at TfD either. the distinction here is that userboxes are different, since they are not used in articlespace. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So its better to send templates to three different venues than to send userboxes to 2? How is that easier? Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with you there, User: space templates should be discussed at WP:TfD as well. These are all technical entities, and despite them not being in the Template: namespace, they are still defined as templates and as such should be reviewed with all of the other templates.  We have WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:FfD, WP:RfD, WP:TfD, and WP:MfD in the WP:XfD system... Articles, Categories, Files, Redirect, and Templates should all be discussed at their respective venues regardless of which namespace they are in.  Only things that aren't defined as an Article, Category, File, Redirect, or Template should be discussed at MfD. Technical 13 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) All userboxes should be discussed at the same place to keep results consistent.  MfD makes the most sense IMO as it deals with those types of problems more often (where TfD is largely focused on article space as far as I can tell).  And yes, as Technical 13 points out, it would be nice of have all templates at the same place too, but the reasons for deletion for userboxen (templates or not) is generally quite different than the reason for deleting templates in general, but much closer to standard MfD discussions.   Hobit (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that either way we are not keeping things together. On one side we are keeping userboxes together and on the other we are separateing 3 different types of templates into different places. Some go to TFD, some go to MFD and some go to CFD. Do you have any idea how confusing that is for new editors Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of keeping things easy for new users. But how many new users are there that are messing with templates? I'd think keeping userbox results consistent is more important.  Is my intuition wrong and are there lots of new users playing with templates and getting involved in TfD?  Hobit (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And a good way to make sure that continues is to keep the process complicated where we send templates to 3 different venues. Its better to submit userboxes to 2 different venues based on where the box resides than on the presumption that a template really isn't a template. Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TfD is for templates... Userboxes are templates. Userspace templates are templates... They clearly fall under Templates for discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep the status quo which seems to be WP:MFD (see a list). No compelling reason to change, very compelling reasons not to change per iridescent. If there is confusion add a line of documentation somewhere.--User:Salix alba (talk): 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding instruction WP:CREEP is not the answer, having all templates nominated at WP:TfD makes much more sense. If it is a template, regardless of namespace, it should be nominated and discussed at Templates for discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Like all things in Wikipedia, status quo until recommended otherwise by a series of discussions which start by asking a question and progress until there is some indication that there might be a benefit from making a change. Why is there no link to a recent discussion in the nomination? Per the excellent "who gives a shit" analysis below, an RfC should not be called over such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did link to the most recent discussion I could find, it just so happens it was over seven and a half years ago. Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. This whole time nobody cared enough to propose a change. Because if there were a newer discussion, I believe you would surely find it.
 * For the record, I am in favour of the status quo. Changes like that need a better justification than that the current rule set "doesn't seem or feel correct" for some particular editor. It just so happened that MfD evolved to hold discussions about userspace content, while TfD deals with templates actually relevant to the encyclopædic mission. A quite sensible division, not in just my opinion, but it seems some others' who spoke here too. What I like to call the "metaspace" (see metapedianism) has already grown too big. And so yes, I agree with Kumioko, userboxes are a waste of resources. We ought not to have (the vast majority of) them at all. Keφr 20:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no practical difference between a userbox in template space and a userbox in user space, so they should all be nominated at the same venue. Whether that is MFD of TFD is of less relevance, but I'm not aware of any problems with the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all templates by definition and should be nominated at WP:TfD for that very reason. Technical 13 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Hobit's comment that "All userboxes should be discussed at the same place to keep results consistent." This is because those who participate in MfD discussions are not always going to be the people who participate in (or close) TfD discussions - for example, I discuss and close MfD nominations but can't remember the last time I participated at TfD. Whether a particular userbox is in the template namespace or user namespace is often a matter of chance and splitting discussions between two venues isn't the best idea.  I know that it means that different template space items get discussed at two different venues (so, Technical 13, there's no need to make that comment after my contribution, we've got that message now and repeating your point isn't going to make it any more convincing), but in the absence of any evidence that this is actually causing a problem I don't see any reason to change. Incidentally, has notice of this proposed change been given to WP:MFD, as it ought to have been?  I can't see anything at WT:MFD. BencherliteTalk 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you wouldn't take your car to a pizza shop to have the brakes fixed, you would take it to a garage; on the same note, templates should be taken to the forum with the most people that understand how templates work. Taking them to a "general" forum like MfD results in mostly "votes" for the wrong reason.  If the people deciding the fate of these templates do not understand how templates work and what they are doing, there are only two criteria they can base their opinion on {A} Does it work?  Does it do what it says it will do? {B} Do I like it?  Those are very bad reason to keep or delete things on Wikipedia... There are essays and policies advising against these things such as WP:I just like it, WP:I just don't like it, and WP:TFD ("Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems."). Technical 13 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for your assertion that those deciding the fate of userbox templates at MfD do not understand how templates work or are making decisions based on improper criteria? No, thought not. BencherliteTalk 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP:I just like it, WP:I just don't like it, and WP:TFD exist is evidence because if people weren't deciding things based on whether or no they like it or whether or not it worked, then those policies would have never been written as "if it ain't broke" would have discouraged it. Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "I like it" and "I don't like it" pages existed before userboxes did. TP:TFD would need to exist wherever userboxes are discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Iridescent and Bencherlite. It has long been established that the content of a template, not the fact that it is a template, determines where it is discussed. And a discussion before starting this RfC may have avoided the need for it altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Just because something looks like a duck (has a duck bill), walks like a duck (webbed feet), and acts like a duck (lays an egg) does not automatically make it a duck (i.e. a platypus). Userboxes use inclusion, template syntax, and show up on a page just like a template, but at their very core, they are still userboxes. I think it is that very difference that tends to upset (or outright piss off) editors around here. Templates do serious, useful, and/or helpful stuff. Userboxes are fun, silly, informative, inane, and/or offensive. They have a lot in common, but since their purpose is fundamentally different, they need to be judged by different criteria. MFD is for the miscellaneous stuff on the wiki, and that's certainly what userboxes are. I do not see the need to discuss related categories in CFD unless the category is used in more ways or by more things than a single (or batch of related) userboxen. So, if a cat and a ubx are intimately and exclusively related (monogamous?), then MFD is all that is needed. However, anyone who notices that a category has other purposes should be able to split the category off of the userbox's MFD. To accomplish that, a little note could be added on CFD (much like how WikiProjects are notified when one of the articles or cats they maintain comes up for discussion). This would be recommended and a courtesy, but lack of such notice would not be a "technicality" that should result in a deletion decision being nullified. Similarly, a linking message could be added to TFD if desired, just to let folks know that the discussion is going on. I'm thinking some kind of nightly bot run could note any new userbox MFDs and post the two link messages to CFD and TFD. That way, no additional effort is required on the part of the submitter. That leaves us with one place to go for all userbox discussions, and yet those who primarily only monitor CFD/TFD will be notified just in case, but it keeps those areas tidy. Does that sound like a reasonable accommodation? It's a change, but, I think, a gentle one that makes things easier and less confusing. &mdash; Will scrlt  ( “Talk” ) 07:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) The name template is confusing, in a way. Template: space can be used for content, technically, though this is usually discouraged. Any page may be intended for transclusion only, whether in Template: or another space. Hybrid pages may even be designed to be both linked and transcluded, though there is probably a better way. People will make all kinds, and many of these will need discussion, afterwards.
 * I think that we need TfD to deal with the generally more serious templates meant to be used in article space, and MfD to specialize in the difficult work of sorting out the grayer areas of user/project space. I really don't think most userboxes belong in Template space, but since they are there, they should be discussed where the rest of the userboxes are discussed. A common test in TfD is, "What practical need does the encyclopedia have for this template?" The answer to this question for many userboxes is weak. Userboxes that help developers of userscripts, event coordinators, or others, may stay, but many would need userfication or deletion. I think "templates" in project or user space should rarely be discussed at TfD. MfD provides a venue for non-encyclopedic "templates" and other pages in gray areas. If we ever decided to move userboxes out of Template: space, it may work to discuss anything in template space at TfD, but for now, this exception seems to be needed. -PC-XT+ 04:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
I shall be brief and blunt: who gives a shit? Why start a project-wide discussion over such a triviality? Keφr 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, who gives a shit? — Lfdder (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously people who a) love userboxes, and b) people who hate having stinking userboxes cluttering up three different discussion categories. :-) It's a worthwhile discussion if something positive comes out of it. However, if we let snarky and rude comments derail the discussion, then it will have been a waste of time for those of us who make the effort to post a meaningful response to a question that, in good faith, was well intended. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The road to hell is paved with assuming good faith. Nobody questioned this rule for several years. There seems to be no mass confusion of editors not having read/not able to follow it: only the occasional editor, who just learns to roll with it. And then suddenly, a wild RfC appears! Without any other discussion beforehand. Why? Because it "doesn't seem or feel correct" for one editor. I shall call it by name: this is blowing things out of proportion. Keφr 07:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to join the cadre of people who give very few shits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the closure process for all outcomes other than "keep"
It concerns me that at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 7 there are people who appear to be !voting "keep" purely because the TfD notice upsets page formatting. It also concerns me that several others are under the impression that if the TfD closes as anything other than "keep", then one or more of the following will occur: I am aware that part of a TfD closure involves ensuring minimum fallout - for instance, closure as "merge" means that the merged-to template needs to recognise all the parameters of, and provide all the functions of, the merged-from template - but that does not seem to be common knowledge. What I would like to see is a clear, simple explanation for the ordinary person of what happens at TfD closure. Not an admin's how-to-do-it but something fleshed out from "when an admin closes a TfD, what they will do is X and Y, and will give a bot the task of doing Z. You need not worry about doing anything".
 * the transcluding pages will be left with nothing where the deleted templates had been;
 * the TfD notice will be permanent;
 * there will be no automatic process for updating articles and people will be expected to fix each article individually, without assistance;
 * one template will simply be replaced by another with no regard for parameters, causing much breakage;
 * functionality will be lost.

This explanation should be placed on WP:TFD, between Templates for discussion and Templates for discussion, and not hidden away in WP:TFDAI. We do have a small note under Templates for discussion concerning "subst and delete", but that's very scanty and does not cover other outcomes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes! I have noticed that many objection come from editors who do not understand that, in most cases, the template in question will be replaced by a generic or similar template and any significant missing parameters will be included in the conversion process. This can also unbalance the debate in favour of retaining a redundant template simply because of this misunderstanding. Sw2nd (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's not a keep or a quick delete then it's going to end up in the Holding cell until someone wants to do the work involved. Those nominating should also be aware that they may need to comeback after the discussion and do some work to implement the result. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - They are asking for education. When I first became involved in TFD, it took me a few weeks of reading through discussions before I figured out some of this stuff. Contradictions and long arguments don't make it easy. The notices pull in people who may not have much time to research this before !voting. -PC-XT+ 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger Request received
Can someone here handle this? I am unfamiliar with the logistics of listing a merger here at templates. Thank you. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [Merge Template:Characters in Twelfth Night to Template:Twelfth NightDwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: *. Wrong noticeboard.  Please see Templates for discussion...]
 * It's already listed under Template:Characters in Twelfth Night, or here's a direct link: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_18 (but it doesn't have the instructions from Templates for discussion, which you should know before replying) &mdash;PC-XT+ 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot error?
FYI, I've reverted this. Looks like an bot error. Perhaps there are more instances?  « Ryūkotsusei »  04:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Template deletion discussion at CSD
Attention template folks:

There is currently a discussion as to whether deprecated or orphaned templates should qualify for speedy deletion. Here it is: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please comment. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Search link in nomination templates
In nomination templates, (Tfd links,) should we include a link to search in previous discussions, along with the (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete) links? It would be more convenient than copy/pasting into the TfD search box. —PC-XT+ 09:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Transcluding
The TfD comment I just made isn't transcluding [yet]. I'd be grateful if someone competent (ie not me!) could check what I did. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean that your edit to Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 19 isn't (yet) showing at Templates for discussion. You can either wait for the job queue to process Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 19, or you can go to Templates for discussion and WP:PURGE it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

TFM in limbo
I've just found that Template:En bears but is no longer listed at WP:TFM, presumably it should be in the holding cell. What's the procedure for dealing with this, and how many others are there which have similarly passed into limbo? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting history: This template was discussed at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18, along with ar, which has since been recreated as a redirect. (That redirect seems against the consensus to me.) The closer placed en into the holding cell. It was then disputed and marked as such in the holding cell. The resolution was to keep the template for File space, but not use it elsewhere. There was no real consensus on what the template should contain. It was eventually removed from the holding cell, leaving it as is for use in File space, with the deletion notice still on the page. I think I will file an edit request to remove the deletion notice and replace it with a more appropriate one, if possible...


 * The templates marked as being deleted should be listed at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Being_deleted&namespace=10&limit=500], unless someone makes a typo in the transclusion or something. Anyway, I assume any templates in limbo will eventually be found, one way or another... —PC-XT+ 11:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that ar should be deleted and salted, and yes, en is officially in limbo and have the being deleted tag removed and/or have some namespace detection added to restrict it to file space. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to CSD G4 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Ar&redirect=no {Ar}] with a notice asking for WP:SALT, and Lfdder helped get the deletion notice changed on En. Redrose64, Frietjes, Lfdder, or anyone else interested, feel free to look over Template:En/sandbox's namespace detection and improve it before we make the request. I'm correcting some of the article space transclusions. —PC-XT+ 09:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * nice. we should do something about de as well, which was also deleted at TfD, then recreated. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right! I've already started replacing it, for consistency, and will continue. When de is gone from article space, I could try the same thing I did with ar. There aren't that many article space transclusions of en, either. When they are gone, I'll submit the edit request, unless someone else does it first. —PC-XT+ 16:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the most recent is here. it looks like there was a bot actively fixing these after the TfD closed, but the bot is probably no longer running (or is just less active).  Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten it was a part of that. So there's at least two deletions. It probably could use salting. <tt>—PC-XT+</tt> 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I submitted the en edit request. Plasticspork and Sporkbot took care of the remaining transclusions and deleted and salted de. <tt>—PC-XT+</tt> 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:TAPPS_1A
I tried to relist Template:TAPPS_1A, but the relist got reverted by someone involved in the discussion. Only two people have responded to the TfD so far, so I feel that relisting this TfD is more than reasonable. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Station templates replaced
I have carefully replaced Infobox Norwegian station, Infobox Oslo Metro station and Infobox SPT subway station with the standard Infobox station. Could someone with the authority now delete them and any related sub templates, doc pages, talk pages, redirects, etc.? Thanks. Sw2nd (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * tagged with db-xfd. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple templates to be merged
The guide says under Multiple templates: you can propose multiple templates for merger in step 1, but then step 2 doesn't actually support the discussion title through tfm2. I added part of the functionality to tfm2. I think the guide should be updated in Step 2's Multiple templates: to mention using the new title parameter of tfm2. Also, I changed the guide's recommendation for tfm (step 1) to use heading since what the guide said to do before didn't work. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A club ≠ a team
Why should Template:Infobox bandy club be merged into Template:Infobox sports team? One club can have many teams, like men's and women's teams, youth teams for different ages etc. One sports club can also have teams in many different sports. Bandy boy (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 1; bear in mind that the discussion was six months ago, but if you disagree with its outcome, you could take it up with the closing admin, which was . -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have sent Plastikspork a question about it. The discussion gives no clues, as no reason for the suggestion is given there except that the template is not used in many articles, which isn't a sufficient reason in my book. Even if the discussion was six months ago, noone has done anything about it yet, which also seems to point at that it wasn't such a good idea after all. Bandy boy (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the source of the deleted template, and it was indeed redundant. If you have a problem with using Infobox sports team, then use Infobox sports club.  If there are parameters which are missing from the more generic template, then propose adding more on the talk page for the generic template.  I, personally, don't see what the problem is here. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong?
At Warren Cuccurullo, there is a message:


 * ‹ The template below (Rellink) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

Clicking the link "templates for discussion" leads to Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 24 but there is no mention there of this template.

A link at the page "Template:Rellink" purporting to go to "this template's entry at templates for discussion" points to the same irrelevant page.

In any case, the section at Warren Cuccurullo does not contain any reference to any "rellink".

86.128.2.151 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the notice has now been wrapped inside some noinclude tags, so it shouldn't appear in any articles. but, in case you are interested, the notice was appearing due to the fact that main uses rellink. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping templates
Is there guidance on what is and isn't appropriate for a "ping" template, e.g. Ping? Or barring that, are there ping templates introduced since the echo notification change which have been to TfD? Protonk (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt if we are creating more instructions yet. I know people got unhappy with Kumioko using  (or whatever it is called), and he stopped doing it.  Dealing with notifications is pretty low level requirement I think, so I doubt people will worry about it much. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC).