Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19

RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD
This RfC seeks to establish consensus on the question: should experienced non-administrators be allowed to close TfD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes?


 * 1) Currently, the backlog at WP:TFD is so large that the transclusion limit on the page has been exceeded. Very few admins are currently active in TfD closures. Many TfD discussions are uncontroversial deletions.
 * 2) The purpose of non-admin closures of discussions is to reduce, not merely displace, admin backlogs. Per WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion." This is particularly important at AfD, where deletion decisions are immediately actionable.
 * 3) At TfD, deletion decisions are not necessarily immediately actionable. When a discussion is closed as delete, the template in question must first be orphaned. This is within the technical ability of, and is often completed by, non-admins.
 * 4) After being orphaned, the template is listed at Templates for discussion/Holding cell to await admin action.
 * 5) As a result of this structure, non-admin closures of discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes would reduce the backlog at WP:TFD and permit admins active in TfD closures to concentrate on more complex cases, while still allowing a final admin review of the decision before the template is deleted.

Consensus in favor of this proposal would interpret the WP:NACD guideline as permitting delete closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Deletion discussions, regardless of namespace, should only be closed in favor of delete by users that can actually perform the deletion.  This adds a second level of bureaucracy that is unnecessary.  Admins would have to re-assess the closure and come to the same conclusion before taking any action on deleting pages.  Admins should be notified, and perhaps prodded, to complete these backlogs in a reasonable amount of time.  Nakon  03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be caught dead proposing more bureaucracy ;) This discussion is the result of such a prod. Having reviewed the backlog and picked off the quick ones as I have the time, I'm convinced this is a more efficient workflow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We're talking about uncontroversial closures; assessing the consensus takes literally seconds. What does require time and effort is the orphaning of the templates to be deleted, for which admins are most likely to defer to an AWB or bot operator. When that is completed, the closing admin will have to be poked, or the template moved to another section of the holding cell, or speedy-tagged. Therefore, the proposal does not displace nor increase the admin load, but reduces it. Alakzi (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Nakon: at TfD, the closers are not required to perform the deletion function. Non-administrators typically "orphan" the template by removing all transclusions of it, and then list the template for final deletion by an administrator.  TfD has suffered from an acute shortage of closing admins in 2015, and the ability of uninvolved, knowledgeable and experienced non-admins to close non-constroversial delete outcomes would greatly alleviate the continuing backlog, and allow admins to focus on the "hard cases".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Dirtlawyer1. Allowing non-admin "delete" closures, especially since there are only a few admins who are willing to come here to close discussions, would make the TFD process much faster. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be crystal clear, JC, I continue to believe that some TfD close calls and controversial deletes are best left to administrators in the spirit of WP:NAC. That said, there are many, if not most, TfD delete outcomes that by established precedent, prior consensus, present weight of argument, and/or clear !majority of opinion, which an experienced non-admin editor may properly close.  Such logic applies equally to keep and no-consensus outcomes.  Just as an administrator's close is subject to DRV review, so will any non-admin editor remain subject to review.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm a non-admin, but I would still be uncomfortable with any random user being able to close a TfD in this manner. It literally makes no difference; any admin is going to have to check that the close was correct anyway, so it won't speed things up in the slightest IMO, and in many cases, it will slow things down because the closer cannot delete things straight away. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been explained how it'll speed things up - see my comment above and the extended proposal; do not just say "it'll slow things down IMO", but explain how. The proposal was drafted by people who are regulars at this venue and have got a pretty good understanding of the TFD workflow. Furthermore, if it "literally makes no difference", what is it that makes you uncomfortable? Perhaps it helps to think of it this way - when we !vote to delete a template, what we really care about is that the template is orphaned or replaced; its deletion can come at any (reasonable) time in the future. Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, I see there being no benefit as an administrator is going to have to check the closure. That's a given, right? So what's the point of letting a non-admin close in the first place? That is just an extra layer of bureaucracy and is not, in my opinion, actually going to speed things up. Even if a closure is completely non-controversial, an admin is still going to have to take exactly the same amount of time checking that as they would do anyway. It is also my personal opinion, and one that will not easily be changed, that you should not be able to close something in a manner that you cannot immediately act on yourself. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have explained this above. We're talking about uncontroversial closures; assessing the consensus takes literally seconds. What does require time and effort is the orphaning of the templates to be deleted, and admins are most likely to defer to an AWB or bot operator. Once the orphaning is completed, the closing admin will have to be poked, or the template moved to another section of the holding cell, or speedy-tagged. If this proposal were to pass, discussions would be closed by non-admins with the intent to immediately enact the outcome; afterwards, the orphaned templates would be listed in WP:TFD/HC for any passing admin to ascertain that the closure was - indeed - diligent and press the "delete" button. Evidently, not only does this not increase bureaucracy, but it also (a) saves us time and (b) alleviates the meaningful backlog. Alakzi (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have little more to say, other than the fact that even with an uncontroversial closure, an admin will still have to check that the closure is valid before anything can be do. That's an increase in bureaucracy, and I do not agree with your assessment. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

More concretely, it's also not healthy for any process to have such unpredictable and discontinuous throughput. Building up huge backlogs for a small handful of people to muck out in big batches every so often is inefficient and frankly more likely to lead to errors than allowing more NACs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if you feel you have the skills and knowledge and judgment to make these kind of decisions, then WP:RFA is thataway. Non-admins should not be deciding to delete things, as simple as that. And in fact it just creates more work given that an admin would have to check the close anyway... GiantSnowman 19:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't need to give the deletionists any more ability to remove content. If they can't pass RfA they can't delete templates. RfA is our measure of trustworthiness for tasks like that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Deletion discussions, regardless of namespace, should only be closed in favor of delete by users that can actually perform the deletion.' By unbundling this to non admins we would have no control whatsoever over the technical knowledge and competency of who is doing it and IMO like other minor rights it would be a magnet to wannabe admins. One could, I supppose, create a new user right for TfD Closer like we did for Template Editor but again, IMO it would just create yet another peg on the hat stand and more work for the admins at PERM. The only real solution is to either call more of our barely active admins into action, or clean up RfA once and for all, make it a less humiliating experience, and get new, keen, enthusiastic admins on board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - This is a well reasoned proposal, but I have to weakly oppose -- largely on principle. I don't think the solution to a shortage of admins is to move matters like this outside the domain of admin duties. To me, it would be ideal if there were enough admins to close all XfDs (i.e. get rid of non-admin closes altogether). RfA functions (to the extent it functions) to ensure anyone placed in the role has been well vetted and demonstrates competence and general alignment with the community. An improperly executed XfD close is just too painful to remedy to let anyone do so. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If an user was knowledgeable and trusted enough to delete any page, even with admin review, then he/she probably could pass RfA. Also, it's another dream of editors lusting for the mop. Esquivalience t 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's true, . I have many successful CSD nominations, which require admin review, so from that perspective, I should be "trusted" to delete a page. Yet, I doubt that I would pass an RfA now or any time in the immediate/near future. -- Biblio worm  00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, strongly. We need to devolve the tools, because we're not getting more admins. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support many non-admins have the judgement ability to close TfD's, quite often there are three delete votes and nothing else at a tfd, yet it sits for weeks waiting for an admin. Yes RfA is nice but we have all seen how difficult that place is. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People who want to close deletion discussions need access to the deletion tools, because otherwise the one who actually presses the delete button is the admin responsible for the deletion.  Sandstein   06:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And why does the closer at TfD need access to deletion tools? Indeed the one pressing the button is responsible for the deletion, but checking an uncontroversial close takes moments; what more does an admin need to assure themselves that they can safely delete, especially if they recognise the non-admin closer as capable? Doing it your way requires the admin to close the discussion and then spend possibly considerable time in orphaning the template. No wonder there's a backlog. Have you ever closed a TfD? --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The user who closes the discussion should be able to handle the deletion; the closing admin should close the discussion, then list it for orphanning if (s)he is unwilling/unable to handle that. If we allow NACs as delete, then some admin will need to show up and deal with it - and itnwould be his/her own responsibility if the deletion is wrong. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And why should admins be absolved of their responsibility? The reason we're proposing to let non-admins close delete TfDs is because there's only one admin who's a regular. Do you have any other suggestions? And if the answer is RfA, you're gonna have to excuse me if I respond less than kindly. Alakzi (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose who decides who are well-trusted non-admins? Heck there are some admins whom I don't trust with the mop, yet they are able to block, delete, etc. At least those who hold the mop have gone through a screening and !vote. If anything mop holders should have to go up to periodic re-approval of holding the mop (say every three years).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - experienced non-admins are allowed to close deletion discussions at Articles for deletion and I don't see why TfD should be any different. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Preventing capable non-admins from closing an uncontroversial TfD discussion as "delete" (followed by orphaning the template and leaving it in the holding cell) is simply bureaucracy for its own sake. It helps nothing. Any non-admin who showed themselves able to do that job would soon be recognised as capable by the few admins left who attempt to work on this backlog - and that would speed up the process. That in itself might encourage someone to stand for RfA who otherwise wouldn't want to be subject to such an unpleasant experience. But insisting that that broken process must be a pre-requisite for the ability to do such a simple task smacks of the view that adminship is an exclusive "club" that us mere peons aren't worthy of joining. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — 3 people posted below that they'd start closing discussions as delete if they were allowed. That seems like at would (at least) double the users closing TfDs where the outcome is delete. If most admins don't go near TfD, a helping hand by some non-admins seems like it would help the backlog. The time it would take an admin to check the outcome of the discussion is trivial and as long as they did take a few seconds to check the discussion, there can't be much harm caused. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Non admins can and should help with the backlog on Templates_for_discussion. There are lots of work to be done there. Closing uncontroversial delete discussions does not help much, if they do are uncontroversial admins will not take long to access that either. (I'm on low activity nowadays, but that is exactly one of the things I do once in a while). Also what is and how do I recognise a "trusted experienced editor"? - Nabla (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nabla and GiantSnowman. Non-admins can help with the backlog there, and if they are "trusted" enough, they should be able to stand for an RFA. Also opposing per WP:BADNAC, which lays out why non-admins shouldn't close discussions as "delete" to begin with. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can help with the backlog there ... That's just a misdirection. ... if they are "trusted" enough, they should be able to stand for an RFA. Am I trusted to close TfDs? I've closed well over fifty with nigh no complaints. Would I stand a chance at RfA? No, and neither am I willing to go through the ordeal. But you won't accept my help, because? Closing uncontroversial delete discussions does not help much, if they do are uncontroversial admins will not take long to access that either. How long admins take to close a discussion is only part of the issue. This has been explained at quite some length previously. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can help out at Templates_for_discussion. That's a fact. There are several templates in that list that needs to be merged and non-admins can definitely do that. As for your other statement, that's not a problem with TFD, but with RFA. If you go to RFA and say that you'd want to help out at TFD, given your track record, I think you'd pass. You've got enough experience with templates and 17,826 edits is impressive. I'd even nominate you because I know how bad it's needed and because you've helped me out a couple of other times. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a fact. It's also not what's under discussion. Delete closures are not kept in the holding cell for very long, usually. As for your other statement, that's not a problem with TFD, but with RFA. People have been harping on about how RfA is broken for eons, it seems. I might've missed it, but I don't think anything's been done to remedy the situation. If you go to RFA ... I don't share your optimism, but thank you for your vote of confidence. Alakzi (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only "broken" because people don't want to run. (Most people would agree that it needs a reform, but the current system works). Since I've followed it in 2015, I haven't seen a single candidate fail that really should be an admin. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. People advocating RfA as a solution are living in fairy land. For me there are two questions that need answering: is there a serious backlog at TfD?; and if so, would allowing trusted non-admins to close uncontroversial TfDs as delete help alleviate that backlog? The answer to both questions seems clearly to be yes. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "trusted non admins" should be made admins, and while RFA has far too few candidates, those who do run are often getting over 95% support. If we are going to have another unbundling I'd much prefer that we unbundled "block IP and BLock newbie " rather than the delete button.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably confusing "trusted non admins" with "those willing to go through the unpleasantness of an RfA". You've perhaps also missed the point that this proposal does not suggest allowing non-admins the ability to delete a template - any more than allowing non-admins to nominate for CSD allows them to delete an article. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a similar reaction to this comment. "Unbundling" is a technical modification; this proposal is about modifying the procedural structure of the TfD process to better match the existing technical capabilities of the participants. Currently, artificial backlogs are created waiting for someone to perform a social role ("closing a discussion"), not a technical action ("clicking the delete button"). This is a distinction without a difference at AfD where the two actions almost always occur in tandem, but at TfD they're often decoupled. We have broad general agreement that admins are experienced editors with extra buttons, not people with privileged social status. Treating this differently than a CSD or a prod does not seem compatible with that view.
 * Oppose - Per GiantSnowman. What makes an editor "trusted"? Administrators are administrators because they have the confidence of the community and have shown that they can make these kinds of calls. More importantly, admins have access to the deletion tools, and non-administrators do not. Non-admins often have a hard time with what an "uncontroversial delete outcome" even is, so I'm not comfortable with what is being suggested. - Aoidh (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - IMHO if you want to close TFDs as delete (and then physically delete them) you should become an admin, I'm also a bit concerned with non-admins deleting a template assuming it's not controversial when it is controversial. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that non-admins should be able to delete anything. Alakzi (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry it's been a very long day!. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if the page is going to be deleted it will require an administrator anyways. This does not save much time and introduces a lot of bureaucracy and potential for drama (who is an "experienced non-administrator" and who gets to decide?). Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 22:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The only reason that non-admins can't close other discussions as delete is because they can't implement the outcome. Since implementing a delete result at TfD just means putting it in the holding cell, non-admins can implement them, so they should be able to close them as such. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose, the solution is to have more admins closing discussions, not to let random/unvetted editors close the discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What a nice way to describe your fellow editors. Alakzi (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but can always be rolled back later, if necessary, by the community. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Nakon and Chris Troutman. Slippery slope. BMK (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support As an admin, I have no problem with this whatsoever. db-xfd could be used here. If we ever get to a day where backlogs are small and infrequent, I may ask the non-admins to lay off. As such, there's no shortage of such work to be done, and I appreciate qualified non-admins stepping in. Those who abuse the ability can easily be sanctioned. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This will greatly reduce the workload of admins. I find no harm in an non-involved editor closing a discussion as delete. And, the deleting admin will also give a glance at the TfD for the surety of the outcome rather than going through each and every discussion line by line. As templates doesn't require much assessment as AfDs, I support the proposal.. Regards-- JAaron95 Talk   08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Produces no savings of time and effort in cases where this proposal would work as idealized, and will increase time and effort while providing opportunities for confusion and error in real-life.  The best possible case is a hypothetical, trusted non-admin would split the workload with an admin.  This idealized case will be rare if this proposal is approved for the simple reason that there are few non-admins that have achieved the level of trust required while still be short of the level of trust needed to pass an RfA.  This is before we even consider the problem of a random admin being able to recognize such an individual and be willing to stake their reputation on this person.  As a result, any admin performing a deletion on a closed TfD will still have to verify the non-admin's original findings in the vast majority of cases.  This results in no savings of time and effort for the admin while adding the non-admins efforts to the total cost of dealing with a discussion.  On top of this, the fact the discussions are being closed without needed actions being performed as part of the closing makes it harder to keep track of what discussions still need admin attention, resulting in situations where a discussion's true status is unclear and allowing for discussions to slip through the cracks without appropriate actions being taken. --Allen3 talk 00:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , please time yourself closing a brief undisputed XfD of your choice and report back to us how much time will be wasted ;)
 * As for not taking actions that are both needed and doable at the time of the close, I expect that what will happen is what happened when I closed a few the other day and got interrupted halfway through: someone leaves a note on the inattentive user's talk page and they finish the job next time they're online. However, the case we're discussing is the one where needed actions will not be immediately taken at the time of the close regardless of who closes it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The period between a TfD closure and the actual deletion is often months, as there is much work to be done replacing templates in the meantime. No admin involvement is required, until the last minute. It's clear that many opposing this proposal have either not considered or not understood this point; whoever closes this discussion should please take that into account. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like the language of "experienced non administrator." It creates a new category of editors I'm uncomfortable with. I think the solution to this is for someone to go through the RfA process with the promise to assist with cleaning up this mess. If someone is an experienced non administrator, and is ready willing and able to help in this regard, then they should be able to pass RfA. --ScWizard (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A comment on WP:NACD that leaves me undecided in this discussion: many TFDs, due to lack of participation (say, 1 or 2 users), do not have an obvious consensus. WP:NACD is silent on what to do in this situation, as the two users may have agreed on what to do with the template (e.g. delete the template) and so the "close calls and controversial decisions -> do not close" criterion is satisfied... Thoughts are welcome. (This specific question and this general discussion may be a good discussion to invite watchers of WT:Deletion process to participate in.) --Izno (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting over there as well. As stated in the TfD closing instructions: "There is no quorum. If, after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted." Many TfD discussions see lower participation than AfD, as you'd expect, and in my experience low-participation TfDs are typically uncontroversial. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I've seen a number of low-participation (even with seeming-consensus) TFDs be relisted by at least a few users (not sure if they're admins off the top of my head). The interesting phrase is the statement post-your quotation: "However, if after seven days there is no consensus or little participation the closing administrator may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion." I'm not sure if it's presently in the scope of this proposal, but it seems to me that it would be better for non-admins to re-list a low participation TFD (obviously they aren't touching a nocon TFD) than to be permitted to remove the template in its various uses and send it to the admin holding cell. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of practice, non-admins do relist discussions. But repeated relisting after a general lack of interest is evident doesn't help the backlog problem and is a distraction. It's an attention-conservation issue. The process should funnel the efforts of the limited number of participants into the tasks where they can be most productive.
 * I don't think it's necessary, but I wouldn't object to an expectation that NAC delete closures should have been relisted at least once. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from proposer: I posted this discussion as an admin who has closed TfDs recently. I can confirm that this would not cause displaced backlogs and burdensome duplication of effort. I wouldn't make a proposal to give me more work ;) At AfD, evaluating and enacting an uncontroversial delete outcome both take seconds, so splitting those two actions makes no sense. At TfD, orphaning the template may require significantly more effort. Currently, throughput at this step is limited not by carrying out the orphaning, but by the relatively simple task of closing the discussions. This proposal parallelizes the slowest step of the process at the trivial cost of doing a quick, simple task twice. I do exactly that all the time as a programmer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a great analogy. Alakzi (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: to those who have voted "oppose", would it be better to allow just template editors rather than everyone to close TfDs as "delete" where the result is clear? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be better, but unless they have the ability to actually perform the action, I would still oppose (albeit less vigorously as one of my two major issues would be resolved) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet your other objection is that having a non-admin closure at TfD needs an admin to check before deletion - and that's bureaucratic duplication, right? Let me ask you, do you object to CSD for the same reason? In CSD a non-admin assesses that an article should be deleted and without further discussion an admin will check it and then delete the article. Isn't that a duplication of effort? Why do you think we permit non-admins to mark an article for CSD? Would you support requiring only admins to make the CSD judgement because they are the only ones who can perform the deletion? We'd soon be up to our armpits in crap articles if we took that line. If the size of the task at TfD matched that at CSD, we soon have those opposing here screaming out to let non-admins share the workload. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that could be an interesting proposal. Allowing templateeditiors to delete pages in the Template: namespace... I think that would be a good idea, many admins don't actually know all that much about templates, but Template editors have a demonstrated ability to judge and work with templates. But that is probably a topic for a different RfC in a different place. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this is an interesting idea, but better discussed elsewhere. The current proposal is intended to refocus the "social" part of the process to better facilitate what can be done with existing technical tools, while this alternative would make a technical change to facilitate essentially the same social process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a couple of different threads in the above arguments that I want to try disentangling. There are two common themes:
 * Non-admins shouldn't close anything as delete because there's too much risk of an error.
 * Non-admins shouldn't close anything as delete because it's a waste of time for an admin to review the decision.
 * In truly uncontroversial cases, of course, there is no time wasted, because it takes a trivial amount of time to determine that the closer's judgment was valid. In the rare circumstance of an error, surely the second argument obviates the first? Either the admin catches the error or takes responsibility for it - same as any other process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In truly uncontroversial cases, of course, there is no time wasted, because it takes a trivial amount of time to determine that the closer's judgment was valid. In the rare circumstance of an error, surely the second argument obviates the first? Either the admin catches the error or takes responsibility for it - same as any other process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: would this actually help the problem? Are there non-admins who would be willing to close discussions and orphan these templates (presumably regular TfD contributors)? I know it's a crap way of conducting a poll, but if there are any editors who are reading this comment and would start closing TfDs if the proposal went ahead, please can you just post below. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alakzi (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I'm willing to stipulate that I will be working with admins Opabinia regalis and NorthAmerica1000.  The object is to clear the non-controversial backlog and free up admin time to focus on the hard cases.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Allow Orphan as a close result
What if instead of allowing outright delete NAC closes, we instead permitted NAC Orphan closes; and then created a speedy criteria for: "Template that has been Orphaned and has had no transclusions for 4 days. (Does not apply to templates that are intended to be substituted)" By going this route, first, we would minimize duplication of effort, as the admin would only need to verify the template hasn't been transcluded for 4 days. Second, there would be ample time for anyone to object, even assuming the orphaning happened immediately, there would be 4 days (chosen because that is what we use for CSD:C1) to object, challenge the close, and seek some initial review. Third, it would create a structure where the NAC close is something the closer can fully perform, the big part of the process, which is orphaning, and would then shift the remaining bit of actually deleting the template to a simple and quick thing for admins to do. Monty 845  14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Would also work, and would have the additional benefit of massively cleaning up the Template namespace instead of having thousands of unused templates lying around. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this alternative workflow formulation as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Whatever works, I guess. Alakzi (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Monty's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the same as the previous suggestion, with *more* bureucracy. - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, this is the way to go about this. I love the idea of a template CSD that mirrors C1 as that would go a long way to clean up the template namespace without clogging up TFD with so many uncontroversial nominations. It also is a good way to take care of the WP:BADNAC problem from above. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as templates in user space are excluded. (I assume there is a way to tell the difference between a template which has been orphaned 10 minutes ago and one that's been orphaned 4 days ago.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be four days from tagging the template. The notice would display a counter, similarly to many other CSD notices. Alakzi (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - since this is the process for deleting a template anyway, it might as well simply be understood that "delete" for a template means "orphan and place in holding". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is why this is the same proposal as above with a different name. Interesting (mostly off topic) fact about the power of words - "delete and orphan" vs. "orphan and delete" - is that one version gets a majority of opposes and the other a large majority of supports. Human mind is fascinating :-) - Nabla (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you check whether a template has been orphaned for 4 days? — Keφr 13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You AGF on the part of the nominator. Alakzi (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please reformulate template discussion notice
The template discussion notice is covering up part of the lead paragraph. See, for example, Jim Gilmore.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)