Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 9

Quick Question
User box pillage was deleted. There was no notice that I was aware of. Can I get the User Box code for it so I can put it back on my user page?

that was the Transclude for it.

Thanks Æon  Insane Ward 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Posted to user talk. — sjorford++ 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

August 12?
August 11 and august 13 are there. No august 12. It's not on the project page for some reason but it exists on the sub page.--Tbeatty 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because the pages all have to be manually updated each day. We really should get a bot to do this. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Big Brother project
Could we delete this template as it involves metadata or maybe request that they remove this metadata stuff as it really looks dumm in the top of the screen. Lincher 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:OH Highways
The template, Template:OH Highways, is no longer needed as it would have grown in size to the point where it would function best as a single-use template. It would have fit on the bottom of all state route pages listed here, but would have consumed a lot of space. A more approperiate link back to List of State Highways in Ohio works just as well.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

August 21
Where is August 21? Eixo 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion not closed
It looks like Template:Serbia and Montenegro topics should be deleted per Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30. (Yes, I see it's under closing in progress, but it's almost two months old now.) TimBentley (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

August 25
August 24 and 26 have been closed out, but no action has yet been taken for August 25:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_25

Housekeeping tasks
It was mentioned somewhere above that it would be nice to have a bot to do some daily housekeeping on this page. Zorglbot is doing something similar for Copyright problems, so it would be relatively easy for me to adapt it to work here. Would that be welcome ? Schutz 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would definitely be welcome. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So here is the first step: creating a new daily page; the result is here, any comment welcome. Schutz 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please add the tfd log on the top as well. Hbdragon88 07:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The template uses July and 29, doesn't it mean that the dates in the headers will change every day ? Shouldn't we use a template with an argument, such as ? For now, the bot can just write the full header with the correct date, I'll try to have this in place for tomorrow's new page. Schutz 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The template doesn't work, and because it uses some additionally complex templates inside of it.. there's no direct way to make that work. It would just reset itself every day. But they do need to include the nav links (most of the recent ones are missing this, actually). -- Ned Scott 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, improved version for tomorrow is here; again, all comments welcome. Schutz 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Can it also adjust the links on the main page when the dates shift? -- Ned Scott 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It will, as it currently does on Copyright problems, but I have not had time to get around it yet. Schutz 06:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Very awesome. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the bot working (under User:Zorglbot), and I just tested it. However, I must apologize in advance: since I can not be in front of my terminal at 0:00 GMT, when the change is supposed to happen, I will run it manually a little bit earlier for the next few days, in order to make sure everything is going smoothly. This may produce some duplications of sections for a few hours, sorry about this. When everything is shown to work well, I will schedule it to run automatically at 0:00 GMT. Schutz 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be working great! Good job, this will make things a lot easier :D -- Ned Scott 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored
This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Create "Infobox:" namespace?

 * (also posted to WP:VPR)

Copying and pasting a proposal made at Bugzilla : ...Infoboxes seem to've become part of the Wikipedia furniture, at least in the English Wikipedia. Hence, rather than the many "Template:Infobox..." pages (with inconsistent capitaliz/sation etc), suggest an "Infobox:..." namespace created. What do folk think...? Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Infoboxes have become a major feature and many of them serve a very good purpose, but they, like all aspects of Wikipedia, should be presented consistently.  I think that's really important - everything should carry the Wikipedia "brand" and in style and appearance should be part of a set, rather than a one-off.  I think though, that it's difficult enough to reach consensus in discussing one infobox - I imagine discussing them as a group is going to be even more difficult, but worth aiming for.  Rossrs 10:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback! I agree that consensus on a more standardiz/sed appearance may be impossible and perhaps not necessarily desirable, but introducing the Infobox: namespace as a means to produce greater consistency (and less "Template:Infobox" redundancy) seems an obvious improvement... Yours, David (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage anyone interested in infobox consistency to please comment at Geographical infoboxes, a proposal to standardize the look and feel of a large class of templates by using a common CSS style. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointer added to Wikipedia talk:Geographical infoboxes; thanks for your suggestion, Rick! David (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the suggestion is to participate in the discussion at Geographical infoboxes (although adding a link to this discussion certainly doesn't hurt). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclosed discussion
Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 16. TimBentley (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25 was closed either. TimBentley (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unused, outdated templates
The instructions on this page are unbearable. Another editor has inquired at Talk:Hugo Chávez about how to delete a number of outdated, old, unused templates s/he came across. The original editor is no longer involved with the articles, and is only sporadically active on Wiki. . I don't know how to delete a template, and the instructions on this page make it sound like a lot of work to clear out something that's not in use. Here are the unused templates: If anyone can make this easy, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sandy 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:ChavezLinks
 * Template:ChavezNotes
 * Template:ChavezArticles
 * Template:ChavezHonors
 * Template:ChavezCategories
 * Template:ChavezReferences

Kudos
As a first time user of the TfD nominating process, I have to complement the editors of the page. The explanations, instructions, and process were very easy to follow. Good job.--G1076 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Useless But Funny Userbox Templates
Can we consolidate the votes for Earth, Mars, Wikipedian, etc, etc, etc onto one piece of discussion? They all do the same thing, excpet it's a lot more trouble when the argument is spread across many discussions. 75.33.140.40 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tfd log
User:Ned Scott noted that tfd log wasn't working, but I've fixed it using the relatively new parser function, so for whoever creates the new day's log pages, it's now available for you to use.  howch e  ng   {chat} 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Closebox
TfD's getting quite inconsistent about this now: should TfDs be closed like this: 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was example. --ais523 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Whatever
...
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

or like this:

Template:Whatever

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

The result of the debate was example. --ais523 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

There's both in the TfD logs at the moment, and it would be nice if it were consistent. --ais523 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I always do the second one, as it keeps the closing wikitext in the same section as the debate, whereas using the first, tfd top appears in the previous section, overly confusing the process. M a rtinp23 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one is how it's always been. — P ilotguy  (push to talk) 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Why is Dec 12 moved to old discussions when those nominations haven't been closed ? Why was the admin backlog tag removed ? Sandy (Talk) 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "old" section if for thiose that need closing, hence the bot moved them there after their time on the page was up - in your revert, you also removed today's page! I've rollbacked you - if there is no adminbacklog, feel free to re-add it. M a rtinp23 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) PS - I'll have some time to clear the backlog in a few hours
 * Thanks, Martin - sorry for creating extra work - I wasn't sure what to do. Sandy (Talk) 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah - it wasn't any extra work :) Just one click.  I've managed to clear the backlog fully now. M a rtinp23 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Give us a break
Can we get some kind of link, head or index to be able to find past Tfd's at the head end of this page please? Expand that request to encompass all xFD pages where necessary. &emsp;A template connection between all such (And in the WP:AN, WP:AN/I etc too! All archives really, to skate one to the next chronologically.) would also be a nice (and sensible and useful) thing too. Thanks // Fra nkB 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. For that matter, why don't we have a generalized XfD system, with minor modifications depending on purpose? Right now, our deletion processes look like a piecing together of things depending on the time they got split off from Votes for deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

oppose Patstuarttalk 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion → Templates for discussion — There seems to be no places to discuss renaming, moves etc Simply south 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Oppose. Um... did template talk pages disappear while I was gone? -Amarkov blahedits 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - No need to move general discussion here, when it can be done on the talk page. -- Renesis (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - RFD, MFD and CFD are all "for discussion", IFD, AFD and STFD are all "for deletion". There doesn't seem to be any determining factor for what debates should be called, and I think we need a more central discussion on this, if it's even important. Mart inp23  00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However, AFD is there because it is too big for RM or similar pages. Simply south 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

New CSD for Templates proposed
I proposed a new CSD for templates, for duplicate or unused templates. If you have any thoughts on the subject, please add your feedback there. -- Renesis (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now, those two criteria are #2 and #3, respectively, for the TfD − Twas Now 13:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed wording to deletion criteria
Currently, the criteria for TfD are Proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever: 1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); 2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template; 3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:"); 4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement); 5. The template does not clearly satisfy a criterion for speedy deletion.

I know that this implicitly means, "if any of the first four criteria apply and the last one applies, then speedy delete should be chosen". However, it is also only one criterion must be true for the template to be nominated, not all of them.

Thus, in a strictly legal sense, any template that is not divisive and inflammatory (the only CSD for templates) is fair game for tagging for deletion! No competent editor would delete such a template, but a vandal may abuse this clause, create a huge backlog in the TfD, and feign legitimacy by pointing to that clause.

For the above stated reasons, I have changed the wording to the criteria for TfD:

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a and ask an admin to delete it − these do not require consensus. Otherwise, proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever: 1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); 2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template; 3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:"); 4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);


 * Note: I'm not sure vandals even do this sort of thing. If so, I acknowledge that this won't stop vandalism of this type, but it will get rid of any plead of legitimacy.

Twas Now 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the problem probably has potential to occur (WP:BEANS), caused by disruptive editors/trolls. The easy way to avoid problems is to use speedy closures when a Wikilawyering nomination taking advantage of those error takes place.  However, on the overhand, I don't think that and TfDs have beeen remvoed for not complying directly with the criteria, and many which have been deleted don't comply with the "rules" there. Mart inp23  13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have WP:IAR for a reason. Still, may as well correct the rules when we find a loophole in them (even though WP:POINT forbids exploiting it). If a TfD is filed which doesn't satisfy any of the deletion reasons, that's a reason to close as 'keep', not to delist. --ais523 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Is there any page for the discussion of templates e.g. moves, renames etc? Simply south 14:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually that is done on the talk page of the template. If no one responds, you can either just go ahead, or look for input in other places. A lot of people do watch templates though, so people will usually respond. - cohesion 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this *generally* qualified for deletion?
Please take a look at this simple case, a stylesheet template with code that is effectively only a one-liner after shrinking, no computation, no summary or formatting, functionally self-contained, used by around 100 pages, mostly user pages. The only usefulness of this template is a readable-name that ease coding a bit, otherwise it's quite pointless. Thanks for advising, Godric/Talk 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this good candidate for deletion?
 * If kept, will it cost much resources?
 * If deleted, how to substitute/expand existing template references on other pages?


 * It is quite a small template, and I think it takes up hardly any resources. It is a much simpler way for technically inexperienced users to put round corners into their user pages, instead of having to type the code:
 * -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em;
 * I would recommend keeping this template. − Twas Now 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * tl is even simpler, and yet it's one of the most highly used templates on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, even simple templates are useful if they help people to read the wikicode. --ais523 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. Hmm... I don't consider tl is simpler than Round_corners, despite that it's shorter, since at least tl takes argument and Round_corners is only a static copy of stylesheet attributes, and in fact it can be shortened to "-moz-border-radius: 1em". Also, it can be parameterized to take the degree of "Roundness" too. This aside, I DO agree on the benefits of readability and code-abstraction-&-reuse outweighing the resources that it might have consumed, and especially in this case tiny. Godric/Talk 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do other browsers (besides those related to Mozilla), such as IE7, have similar code that can help them to round corners, too?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User_racism
Someone just created User racism. Should this be moved to a user space, or put for discussion? -- ReyBrujo 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as T1? Tito xd (?!?) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Substed templates
The instructions say to include. What about templates that are supposed to be substed at the time of their use, such as NoMoreLinks (currently under TfD discussion)? The TfD warning will be left as permanent feature in the substed code, each time where the template is used. I understand the TfD warning should be visible (at least in transcluded templates), so simply suggesting to encase it in like I did at NoMoreLinks wouldn't work as a standard solution. Could someone please work this out and expand the instructions accordingly? Femto 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are pagenames urls navigating correctly
Hi! This (I think from the Template notice): &emsp;Suggest someone with better thumb-fingered template skills than I possess adjust which ever templates necessary to reconcile the two experiences. Think I've seen the same kind of navigation error on CFD's too... which may implicate other Xfd links. Regards // Fra nkB 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_15#.5B.5BTemplate:Interwikitmp-grp.5D.5D doesn't seem to be able to find the section, as one would expect.
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_15#Template:Interwikitmp-grp, but this form built when clicking on the TOC, does.

9/11 Templates
When will anything happen with the 9/11 templates? They are in constant flux as far as their actual content -- therefore can hardly be considered 'templates' - and are being used a tool for everyone's battles on the 9/11 pages. They've been up for deletion for awhile now -- when is a decision going to made? bov 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision has been made to keep both for the moment. Unfortunately, due to your (and two other editors) repeated edits against concensus, the templates are not stable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, because Arthur Rubin's edits are supported by all (except three other editors), and the views of all others are only "against consensus." bov 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

School district navigation templates
What is the opinion here about templates like Template:South San Francisco Unified School District? Based on the current trends in WP:AFD, only the high schools are likely to viewed as being notable enough to merit articles. So the presence of this template would appear to lead editors who are not aware of the notability requirements for schools into creating an article that will likely be deleted. Vegaswikian 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Navboxes with that many redlinks are normally good TfD candidates unless there is some other reason why they might be worth keeping, and I can't think of one in this case. --ais523 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD for templates?
See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion. Mike Peel 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic log display
Hi, Would the idea at Images and media for deletion be borrowed here for the backlog? Consider the code:

I think this works, and means that manual updates of the backlog dates will no-longer be necessary. +mwtoews 01:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A bot adds the new day, and we only move the discussions after everything's been closed, so that won't work well. -Amark moo! 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD using subpages like AfD?
I am curious why the format of TfD is different from AfD. I like how AfD uses subpages, so that you can watch only those threads you are participating in. As it is now, watching the whole day in TfD makes it hard to see when something relevant to your previous comments has been posted. This issue has come up before (Jan 2006), and seemed like there were quite a few on both sides of the discussion. I thought I would bring it up again and see what people think. Thanks. - grubber 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why it failed before. The issue seemed to be the templates not working well, but if you only have to link to a specific page, you can just copy the afd code that does so. -Amarkov moo! 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this thread is so idle. As a person just getting into AfD and TfD, it is frustrating to do TfD because you can't easily tell if the ones you have voted on have changed or not without reading through the entire list. Anyone have any objection to changing the process? - grubber 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend posting this at Village pump (proposals). Not very many people watch this talk page. Chick Bowen 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Chick Bowen. This suggestion has been posted Village pump (proposals) for further discussion. - grubber 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Orpahning Templates
My bot, ^demonBot2 is designed to help with template deprecation and orphaning. Would anyone mind my putting a note in the "needs to be orphaned" section mentioning that any template that has a significant number of replacements can be done automatically by my bot? ^ demon [omg plz] 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, but make sure to note the things that the bot can't do, so people don't try to make it. -Amarkov moo! 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I'll go ahead and put it up there. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary prod process
Would anyone have an objection to creating or using a process involving proposed deletions (such as with prod, or an alternate version for templates) on redundant infoboxes? Then someone (such as me) would check to make sure that there are no problems with the nomination. This does sound somewhat drastic, but I think it would help focus attention on more controversial areas. Grace notes T § 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be fine – though I'm not sure people will agree with you checking everything; while I personally trust your judgement with templates, I think it would be best to use the same "any administrator can delete after five days" rule as with prods. This would definitely make it easier to clear out all the old, unused, forgotten templates that are lying around (four of which I submitted to TfD yesterday) – Qxz 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem I see is with a template which is always subst'd. Nobody would notice the prod and the person nominating deletion would not know the template was unused.  Also, I think a prod would need to have the notice be placed to be visible in all transclusions, just like is sometimes done in a regular TfD or otherwise interested parties would not notice.  Perhaps there should also be a guideline that you shouldn't prod something transcluded over X times since that means it implicitly has supporters.  &mdash;dgies tc 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more of other templates, such as redundant infoboxes or navigational templates, that are meant to be transcluded. This would not refer to functional templates, which are often meant to be substituted.  Grace notes T  § 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but if we are going to have template prod be a formal policy we need to define exactly when it can and cannot be used. &mdash;dgies tc 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made a draft policy at Proposed deletion/Template prod. Discussion has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod and I will advertise that at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion and Village pump (proposals).  Please continue any discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod.  &mdash;dgies tc 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to header
Note: I've made some changed to the TFD header here. I would appreciate if others reviewed them to make that they reflect consensus, etc. Grace notes T  § 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: cut and paste creation of subpages
Just a question. Is it common to create subpages for deletion votes by cut and paste, without informing anyone who has participated that the page has been moved? This happened to Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_18, here, with the new location at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place. I don't know much about the processes for Templates for deletion, but I ask because it seems contrary to the spirit of wikipedia as I know it elsewhere. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be done if a vote is overwhelming the page. Articles for deletion/Maintenance explains the process for AfD, and the practice seems to have spilled over into TfD; however, unlike AfD and MfD, TfD doesn't have per-discussion subpages, so cut-and-paste has to be used (unfortunately for the effect on watchlists). The two possible alternatives, a history split from the TfD page or a move-and-move back from the per-day TfD page (to add it to people's watchlists) are both unacceptable, and I don't think informing everyone who's participated is usual, so what you've described would seem to be a reasonable state of affairs. How do you think it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (after all, the discussion is linked from the main TfD page)? --ais523 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice, IMO, if the process was always a subpage. Monitoring TfD entries that you vote in is considerably more difficult than monitoring an AfD because you can't watch only the relevant discussions. Every change to any TfD for that day triggers a reset in your watchlist. I suggested that we make the process uniform over all XfD, but I didn't get much response to the idea. I can't see any real disadvantage, and it would clear up the issue that Deacon is mentioning. - grubber 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When you've got pages like Template:Pagemove and WP:SPLICE for articles on mainspace, I don't think it's hard to work out what spirit I'm referring to. In the case of the move I referred to, it was carried out by a user who had participated one way in the vote. There are two points of potential irregularity: 1) text and votes can be interfered with, and only a very experienced and willing editor would discover and 2) it enables the mover a potential advantage for their side of the discussion; as the mover has the power to inform who he/she pleases that the page has been moved, while hoping other select users don't notice the new page. Not saying either of these would happen, but the potential is there. That aside, it's highly irregular for a page history - esp. on something important like a vote - should be split in two like that. grubber is totally correct. There's no reason why Templates for deletion cannot follow the same process which, for instance, WP:FAC follows. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the problem you're referring to. I think there've been proposals to change TfD to use a MfD-like format before (using subpages but not as heavyweight as AfD), but I don't think they got anywhere. --ais523 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Deacon, I don't think that what I did was a cut-and-paste move, per se... not one that would need history merging, at least. My objective was to get content on a subpage, to emphasize the idea of a central discussion, and also to make the TFD page a bit shorter. I couldn't move the log page, because that had other votes on it. So I put it on a subpage of the log page, and all page history is kept on the log page itself. Nothing is lost, all is GFDL-compliant, and the people rejoice. Sort of. Anyway, I provided a link to the discussion on the main TFD page... this was crucial. If I didn't, then you would have reason to not assume good faith. I also tried to perform the moving of content earlier in the debate, when I saw that it would grow larger. Grace notes T § 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of GFDL compliance, I used "move to subpage" as an edit summary, which definitely means that history can be found on the parent page. However, relisting should probably have "relisting from TFD log for Frumpruary 41, 2017" as an edit summary. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T  § 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Firefox repeatedly truncating text areas, I [ edited] Template:Tfd log. Now editors do not need to click "edit this page" at the top of the page which was, at least for me, regularly truncating the bottom-most discussion. Instead, click the edit section link on the H4 header titled "NEW NOMINATIONS". Commented out instructions are just below that header. Template:Tfd2 is also an H4 header, so when the next user clicks the edit section link for "NEW NOMINATIONS", he or she will only be editing a new blank (with commented out stuff) section. --Iamunknown 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hairstyles
I would like to nominate Template:Hairstyles for deletion, but can't find instcructions on how. Do I just add it on Templates for deletion? --Bensin 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add tfd to the top of Template:Hairstyles and add &#123;{subst<tt>:</tt>tfd2|Hairstyles|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~&#126;}} to the top of the page, right under the section titled "April 25" (or whatever the current day is). --Iamunknown 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Now i see the instructions. Thanks for helping out! --Bensin 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. --Iamunknown 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template documentation for Template:Tfd
I requested an edit to Template:Tfd that allows us to create mass nominations while not breaking the existing functionality of the template. I modified the template documentation accordingly. Any suggestions and improvements regarding the clarity of and edits to the text would be greatly appreciated. --Iamunknown 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tablespace
For those caught unawares (including me) we now appear to have a "table" namespace. Since tables are essentially templates, I would suggest that the (inevitable) deletion discussions about tables take place on this process.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Tables for deletion. I suggest the same thing.  --Iamunknown 18:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The namespace was removed again, by the way (in the meantime, it's a pseudonamespace like WP: is). --ais523 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing templates while debate still going on
Should a template nominated for deletion be removed from all articles it's used in, or should it removed after it's decided to delete it? Perón 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The question to ask yourself is 'if this were kept, should it be removed from the articles it's used in'? Normally, the answer is 'no', so you should wait until the TfD finishes to remove the template. On occasion though, the answer is 'yes' (for instance, if a template designed to be substed has been transcluded and then TfDd, substing it and removing the TfD notice that results in the article is a sensible course of action even while the TfD is running). --ais523 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's someone else who does that, and considering his temper I just wanted to be sure about things before requesting him to stop Perón 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Converting templates to infobox templates
I would like to move/convert Artwork, ArtCutline, Painting and Sculpture all to Infobox x. Where do I propose such? I had been looking for earlier and now found it after spending some time with pages. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given no response, I nominated all of the above on project page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed this. I probably would have just been bold and moved all of them. Grace notes T § 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Deprecated templates
Would anyone object to me cleaning this category out? I'm asking here because I can't think of a better place to ask. I imagine that WP:CSD would apply to these templates, so I may use that. Some of the templates in that category have been deprecated for months, some even longer. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 00:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could institute an informal deprecated template deletion system: list the templates on a page, and if there are no transclusions/substitutions (a judgment that is hard to explain but easy to make), if the template is of no historical or technical value, and if there are no objections by people reviewing the list, delete it after a while. template prodding was suggested before, but maybe an informal centralized version of it would work, since most of those templates would meet WP:CSD.
 * TFD does not strike me as the best venue for deleting deprecated templates. Grace notes T § 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deprecated templates? Templates for deletion/Deprecated templates? something else? Which one do you prefer? --MZMcBride 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates would work, so long as the only criterion for inclusion is that it could be speedily deleted under G6; any possibly controversy could go to to TFD. Once again, it's just an informal list, but much better than tagging each one individually for a couple of reasons. I could start populating it, I guess. (By the way, sorry for the wait) Grace notes T § 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In case someone labels this creepy, what you can do similarly is build a list of such templates (perhaps here, on a user subpage, or in a personal file), then start a huge group nomination at the end of each month/week at TfD. Doesn't someone routinely do this already? If you alert the author and they agree, then it's easier to speedy than G6. –Pomte 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that should be most explicitly made is that such a subpage is not a deletion process, but a means of organizing deprecated templates, especially infoboxes. The mass nominations seem to be the thing we're trying to avoid, since a speedy deletion criterion (G6) would apply anyway. The list could also be on a user subpage. The author could be alerted that the template will be nominated for speedy deletion as housekeeping in several days, and then G7 might apply. On the other hand, that sounds like an approved Wikipedia process: the point is not to bureaucratically eliminate the templates; it's to do so informally. Grace notes T § 04:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. –Pomte 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep deprecated templates 1 year: Remember that viewing old revisions can invoke old templates that appear in the old display. Yes, an extensive analysis could reveal which templates have fallen 100 revisions out of sight in their parent articles, but why bother?  Just keep it simple: upon the 1-year anniversary, plan to delete most deprecated templates, unless they are obviously integral to a historical view of template development.  When you find a historically-notable template, mark it as such to avoid deletion.  I wish deleted images could first be auto-blurred as deprecation to avoid copyright-vio, and deleted when no-one would wonder just-kinda how did that image appear and how did the article format/wrap around that image (during the previous year).  Yes, those auto-blurred images would be a truly valuable improvement to Wikipedia, as opposed to "converting images to PNG" or other similar bizarre girations.  Anyway, keep deprecated templates 1 year as a simple plan. -Wikid77 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would someone care to explain how they think the housekeeping speedy deletion criterion applies to such templates? Housekeeping is for cleaning up after other deletions, or for enabling maintenance tasks like page moves and history merges, not for deletion in its own right. --bainer (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this
Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates. Feel free to make changes and revise the methodology. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How did we get from the above discussion of an 'informal list'/G6-able templates/'not a deletion process' to a, well, process for "prodding" templates, on apparently no basis other than their being unused? The basic problem here is the presumptive equation of "orphaned" with "deprecated". Mass-populating this with all orphaned templates only makes sense if this isn't a deletion process; OTOH, deciding these are deprecated should involve more judgement than just doing a sweep through the page of orphans. (I've pointed out elsewhere that there's a number of reasons why stub templates would be unused at any given, and that in my opinion it'd be better to list those at WP:SFD.) I therefore strongly suggest changing to specifically one, or the other. (I'd prefer the "non-process" approach; IMO we need yet another deletion process like we need a hole in the head.)  Alai 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Template:State terrorism be closed speedy keep
Nominator MONGO wrote:
 * The template is not helpful or encyclopedic and serves no benefit. Only used in two articles. — MONGO 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominator MONGO deleted the entries for this template Along with ultramarine Tbeatty, and Tom Harrison. This is really sad--delete the article to the point that it has no content, then put it up for deletion for the reason that it has no content. 216.60.70.61 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

American college football rosters
I was looking at Category:American college football templates and noticed a handful of single season roster templates. While I think a teams single season template is very useful for major league baseball, I do not for college football. What's the best way to discuss all of these at once? Jmfangio 10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football first to see what kind of reaction you get. If the project participants generally agree, then you can do a mass nomination here.  BTW - the templates seem to be used only in the articles about the corresponding team's season, so I think you're in effect suggesting the roster information be deleted from these articles. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll definitely mention this there. I see why you'd think i was suggesting that the rosters be removed.  Rather, I would simply just recommend that the rosters are moved directly to that page. Thanks for the tip! Jmfangio ► Talk  19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect apparently unused in template space
I wish to discuss Template:Current Event which was created July 29, 2007, apparently as an alternate spelling redirect to Template:current. Do I take it to the Redirects for discussion, or here at Templates for deletion?
 * -- Yellowdesk 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag it with rfd-t (by copying the template's code into the redirect with the rfd-t template above it) and take it to redirects for discussion; RfD's better equipped to handle this sort of situation, because tfd-tagging a redirect sometimes misleads people into thinking that the template it redirects to is going to be deleted. ais523 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)