text:
Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 1

TFD template on top of the template itself, or the template talk page?
The instructions state: "When listing a template on this page, add to the top of the template. This will add the following text to the template:". Should the notice be placed instead on the template's talk page? Especially since it also says: "Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing." Wouldn't this result in the text appearing on every page linked to the template? I think that could be quite confusing (especially as many users may even be completely oblivious to the existence of templates). older ≠ wiser 14:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * TFD is a very small text template, designed to not be distracting on a template. I would put it on the template talk page, but part of the purpose of those headers is to attract attention to the debate, and so they need to balance the concerns of brevity and visibility. Snowspinner 04:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have slightly altered the directions t at least make the message always appear in the box when applied. Snowspinner 04:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't add it to Template:CamTiny cos that's really small. (And exists to be a template that looks like text - presumably to allow lots of medical articles to have their text apparently altered without it showing on an edit summary.) - David Gerard 17:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This same issue revisited
See Template talk:tfd. • Benc • 06:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Waiting Period

 * The page says that a template can be deleted if it is listed for more than a week if consensus has been reached. What about removing a template from the list? How long should we wait to do that? There are some templates that have been listed for up to six weeks. Josh 20:42, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's basically where we stand on this. I was taking care of this. I asked for permission to run a bot to make it more efficient. Multiple people objected to this. I decided that, if multiple people are going to object to this task taking less than an hour for some of the more frequently used templates, those multiple people can clear the damn templates off of pages themselves, because I'm not going to spend an hour hunting them down and taking them out. I'll sort it a bit, though, and make it a bit easier for people to see the work that needs done. Snowspinner 20:56, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice cleanup, although there's a slight problem. I agree that the templates that you removed from the list should have been taken off, but many, if not all of them have Template:tfd references that need to be removed. Josh 22:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Delete the template and replicate the text
I've noticed quite a common vote on TfD is delete the template and replicate the text, and I'm thoroughly mystified by it. Clearly there are circumstances where a template needs deleting because it is unnecessary or undesirable, but to say delete the template but replicate the text surely suggests that the template is doing something useful. And quantities of replicated text are clearly a hostage to fortune in terms of future consistency, maintenance load and translation overhead. Our own article on database normalisation is relevant here. I'd like to propose that we document delete the template and replicate the text as a deprecated action up front on the TfD page. -- Chris j wood 14:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll second that (note that my only template was voted that way so I'm a partisan here). Gady 15:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Although it is important to remember that some of those votes may be due to disputes over what is considered a 'quantity'. We don't really have any sort of guideline at the moment, as far as I know. Josh 23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * What? Who voted in such a way? I strive to find moderate language to describe my opinion about this, but fail. Deprecate. — Xiong (talk) 02:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

vfd / tfd equalisation
Why is VfD 5 days and TFD 7 days for voting? Would it help to standardise these to similar waiting periods and rules?
 * VfD is also seven days long. Zscout370 14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's five days long, at least in theory, and anything that's been on the vfd pages for 120 hours can be closed. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy.)  In practice, it's been varying up to three weeks lately. —Korath (Talk) 17:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mistake in edit summary
Template:OoP mess (referring to this edit)

I forgot to count Netoholic's implicit delete vote. It's 4 to delete, 3 to keep. It shall be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm... but you forgot to fix the pages which were using this (now deleted) template. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:OoP_mess. Perhaps we should let someone else handle TfD, since you've made a few mistakes today. -- Netoholic @ 15:45, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

 * Netoholic, I was getting around to this. Stop attacking me. Also, try reading up on deletion policy. Firstly, I get some leeway as an admin on these deletes. Also, a simple majority is not necessarily required. It needs rough consensus. Some of those templates for deletion didn't have this. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * How about you stop being so insulting? The WP:TFD page has a "holding area" at the bottom of the page. That is where templates, which have been decided to be deleted, are listed.  The "owner" or anyone else, then goes through an pulls the template out of the related pages. Immediate deletion of a template without cleaning the pages is incorrect procedure, and really "I'll get to it later" is not acceptable. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

 * Firstly, I wasn't insulting you. Secondly, OK, fair enough. It really wasn't that big a deal, however. What is a big deal is that you fail to understand how the deletion vote count works. We don't delete based on majority, we need a clear majority. Also, administrators are given some leeway in making decision. Read the policy page again. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Follow procedure. Remove instances, then remove the template. Or wield your admin powers in another area. — Xiong (talk) 02:58, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Section editing
Why are we creating separate sections for each entry if we average only one or two entries per day? This is a lot more trouble. Editing by date sections will suffice. --Jiang 00:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Date sections make for very messy editing. It's ungainly and difficult to deal with voting on a template when you have to sort through the wikicode of others to find where you are.  It's easier to have by-template sections, like WP:CFD - that way votes and coments stay together and summaries automatically include teh template name.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sections at CFD are not templated on subpages like at VFD and nor are they here. Can you please clarify what you mean by voting on template? Your votes and comments stay together either way. It's pointless to have the one-entry date sections we're dealing with here. We shouldnt use these extra sections until we get a greater influx of entries per day. They're so few so that we can edit them all by date and not have to wade through much code or run into an edit conflict. --Jiang 05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't mean putting anything on subpages. CFD has a section for each category; we have a section for each template.  It organizes the page, makes reading easier, and stops comments from ending up in teh wrong place - I've seen comments for a template mixed into a nother on teh same date because clicking edit gives a huge confusing crunch.  And I'm not sure how the sectioned way causes more edit conflicts than the other way.  Sections cut down teh code to wade through even more than just dates, but you can still edit by date or whole page for mass commenting.  Having a few "extra" sections doesn't hurt anybody, and it streamlines the whoel process.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 23:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Separate sections make history browsing much easier. Compare:
 * (cur) (last) 17:44, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum m (→November 21)
 * (cur) (last) 17:43, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum (→November 27)
 * (cur) (last) 17:36, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum (→November 26)
 * (cur) (last) 11:30, 4 Dec 2004 Earth (→December 1)
 * (cur) (last) 08:05, 4 Dec 2004 Whosyourjudas (→December 4)
 * (cur) (last) 08:02, 4 Dec 2004 Netoholic (→December 3)
 * (cur) (last) 07:52, 4 Dec 2004 Whosyourjudas (→December 3)
 * (cur) (last) 04:02, 4 Dec 2004 Neutrality (→December 3)
 * with:
 * (cur) (last) 22:08, 22 Dec 2004 Dante Alighieri (→Template:Ugly math)
 * (cur) (last) 21:45, 22 Dec 2004 65.37.109.158 (→:Mediawiki:Christianity/:Template:Christianity)
 * (cur) (last) 11:05, 22 Dec 2004 Jni m (→Template:D)
 * (cur) (last) 11:00, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:D - vote:delete)
 * (cur) (last) 10:58, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:Past-vfd - vote:delete)
 * (cur) (last) 10:54, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:TempUndelete - vote:keep)
 * (cur) (last) 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 Dpbsmith (→Template:TempUndelete)
 * In the first case, you have to read the whole diff, in the second only the parts that interest you. -- Naive cynic 13:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. It was much more difficult to look at the history before each template had its own section. The sections should stay. Josh 04:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Status quo. — Xiong (talk) 03:00, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Unsure consensus

 * I am trying to clean up the page and move nominations that are expired to the archive or the deletion queue, but I am not sure what to do with the listings for Templates_for_deletion and Templates_for_deletion. It looks like there is consensus that something should be done with them, but I am not sure exactly what.

Large Page! as of 04:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) it is over 55kB
The page is getting large... should the WP:VFD templating method of subpaging for each discussion start to be used? (that would be somewhat ironic, using tons of templates to discuss template deletion) 132.205.15.43 04:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we just don't have any admins that regularly monitor it and take action. We also have some very involved votes running, which will be gone soon. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Nauru-stub
Template:Nauru-stub has gone from the tfd page, with (IIRC) 7 keeps and 1 delete. Yet the discussion wasn't archived on the template's talk page, and the tfd message is still at the top of the template. What gives? Grutness|hello? 11:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've dealt with this particular one... — MikeX (talk) 12:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not removing removed?

 * (cur) (last) 02:19, 2005 Jan 29 Netoholic (rmv ", and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing" - that point is not always correct)

This seems sensible to me, why do you want to remove it? --fvw *  02:23, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

removing prior to listing
I removed a phrase from the intro which stated templates "should not" be removed from pages prior to listing. Certainly, this is not always the case, and each template has its own circumstances. If one template replaces another or a template is damaging on some level, it almost surely should be removed ASAP. Good judgement is the rule here. -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Ofcourse vandalism and such should be removed immediately, but that's not relevant to TfD anyway. --fvw *  02:23, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * I'm with Fvw. -- Itai 02:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Take the case of a template which the community agrees should be changed or removed, perhaps when a WikiProject changes something. It makes sense to clear the template first, then list here after the transition.  Also, when the software got upgraded last, many changes happened and required templates to be cleared quickly. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * The "community agrees" part is something with which I agree, and which was allowed under the old rules as well. In other words: a template listed on this page should not to be removed from articles. However, it is, of course, permissible to hold a vote elsewhere as to whether a template is required, keep or remove it accordingly, and eventually list at WP:TFD an orphaned. The template at the root of this problem does not belong on WP:TFD; listing it here merely creates here a poll concerning its validity (for a poll on its deletion can be interpreted as nothing short of this) which should have been placed elsewhere. -- Itai 02:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So anyway... back to the main discussion point. It is not true in all circumstances that templates "should not be removed from pages prior to listing". I have already given a couple example where it is not true, and in fact the opposite course is preferable. If it is not true in all circumstance, then the phrase should be removed or replaced. -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * I agree with Netoholic on this one. In some cases it should be removed, in other cases not, but the decision should be left in userland, not stated as policy at WP:TFD.  I'd support language to the effect of "Listing a template here is not a reason to remove the template from its pages, though there other reasons for doing so in certain cases."  (Though hopefully something more concise than that.  dbenbenn | talk 03:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Because a lot of people don't watchpage templates, the "don't remove or blank" rule exists to make sure that people notice that the template is up for deletion. If there's a persuasive case for why this template should be removed, feel free to Ignore all rules. Snowspinner 13:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case, this is about the templates listed at Template talk:Sisterproject. (Template:Wikisource, for instance.) Have a look at the page histories to see what this is about. A resolution would also be useful, as Netoholic and me have been banned for 24 hours for waging an edit war on this very subject. What is it to be: never remove after listing (my preference), remove under certain criteria, only remove if a consensus is building up on WP:TFD, or something else? -- Itai 16:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is a complete double-standard. You created that template, and implemented it on a couple dozen other templates (affecting hundreds of articles) without testing or discussion.  So now you say someone with a different opionion should be prevented from undoing your actions?  If I had not listed it here on TFD, what would you then use as a "policy" to prevent its removal? -- Netoholic @ 16:57, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * A discussion on a Talk: page, such as we both know that I have asked for a myriad times. The advantage of discussing this on Talk: pages is that people participating in the discussion will most likely know what is going on. Orphaning a template means that the general audience which frequents WP:TFD will have no idea what it was for, especially if it is non-trivial. Hence, my preferred ""policy"": no removals (or additions, come to that) after a template has been WP:TFD'd; if removing a template requires extensive understanding of its background, which is beyond the scope of WP:TFD (likely to burden it), discuss it on a Talk: page (in which case it can be orphaned temporarily, restored for a trial run, and the like, there being no time limit), eventually orphan or keep it accordingly, and only afterward list it on WP:TFD. Of course, there is nothing wrong with favoring a different policy, but a policy should be decided upon. -- Itai 17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For an example of Netoholic's actions, see Template talk:Picp. Orphaning pages before a vote concluded made the vote on WP:TFD meaningless. — Itai (f&t) 14:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In the case of Template:Picp (which is a poorly-named functional duplicate of Template:Commons), I will always migrate to the more common usage and list the duplicate for deletion. Actually, I first tried to redirect Picp to Commons, a pretty reasonable compromise, but Itai reverted that, so I listed it for deletion.  We need less complexity in the Template space, not more.  As soon as people like Itai and Patrick stop making bad templates, and especially ones that duplicate existing ones, this issue will get making to being one of normal maintenance, rather than the debate/battle it currently is.  -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Thus spake King Netoholic. Humble ole' me, however, would like to wait until the community decides, and only then orphan (or keep) a template. Unilateral action is bad. — Itai (f&t) 15:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Itai, I suggest you start re-evaluating the way you are speaking to your fellow editor. Difference of opinion is one thing, but taking that disrespectful tone is inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I am but a a fool and a troublemaker. — Itai (f&t) 18:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed this wording. I think it captures the fact that no one rule regarding orphaning templates exists: ''Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphaned (removed from pages) prior to listing – each case is different. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.'' -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

 * Now I know what it is like to be locked in a phone booth with seven angry rabbis. How is it possible to debate this point? Templates for deletion is the ground for debate over whether templates ought be deleted. It is obvious (to me, at any rate) that no editor should methodically go and remove a template from every place in which it appears until:

 * The template has been marked tfd
 * Discussion has taken place
 * Consensus for deletion has formed
 * The template has been moved to the Holding tank

 * Then, every instance of the template should be removed, and finally, the template itself deleted. This is a sane, rational, reasonable way to do it; it is the method prescribed on the cited page. Please do not advance a discussion attempting to undermine the procedure. I'd hate to have to spend my nightly editing time reverting dozens of prematurely removed tfd tags. — Xiong (talk) 03:12, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Does "keep" mean "use"?
What is your opinion: if it is decided that a template listed on this page is to be kept, does this mean that it should also be used? This is hotly contested regarding Template:Sisterproject. -- Itai 16:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. This page is for considering deletion only. It is not a policy page nor a content dispute resolution process.  There is no reason to draw any further conclusion from this page other than "Delete, or not". -- Netoholic @
 * Ah. But deleting does have a certain "not use" tinge to it; and it is unlikely that someone will vote for keeping a template unless he wishes it to be used. -- Itai 17:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleting means "it's gone so you can't use it". Voting keep can mean many things, but usually that at this time it is better not to delete it. -- Netoholic @ 19:50, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Be it Template:Gay, Template:Tetragrammaton or Template:Actor-stub (a random selection from ongoing votes), I'm pretty certain in all cases it is understood that if the template is not deleted, it will be used. Then again, Netoholic and me can go on like this forever, so we could really use a tiebreaker. -- Itai 19:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Despite what a vote implies, in the interest of keeping discussion managable it is wise to keep the discussion of seperate issues in seperate areas. The appropriate place to discuss whether to delete a template is Templates for deletion and the appropriate place to discuss whether to use a template (with what changes) is on that templates talk page. Hyacinth 20:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. (Which is to say, I disagree, but I understand what you're saying.) Which do you think should be done first? -- Itai 20:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right. So, if there are no more comments, and seeing as I am outnumbered, should I add a note to the guidelines at WP:TFD along the lines of: "Note deciding to keep a template does not mean that it will be used."? -- Itai 12:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * How about "A decision to keep a template is not an endorsement of that template, and users are encouraged to fix whatever problems got it listed in the first place." Snowspinner 14:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Mine's shorter. Nicely phrased, however. Now, same question as above - in case two polls (deletion and usage) are necessary - which do you reckon should be done first? — Itai (f&t) 15:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we shouldn't poll usage. Snowspinner 17:08, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, we should poll only when consensus fails, see Survey guidelines and Consensus. I like Snowspinner's language. Perhaps "not an endorsement of that current template"? Hyacinth 18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that detaching use from existence would merely mean that everything has to be discussed twice, and would result in the awkward position of templates being neither deleted nor used, but apparently I'm the only one who thinks so. Let it not be said I am a sore loser. Add away. — Itai (f&t) 14:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Keep does not mean use. But, keep does not mean don't use.

 * Don't keep does mean don't use -- don't keep means unuse wherever used, then unkeep. Also, don't keep does mean don't create again, at least not this month; so, by implication, yes, don't use, because use creates.

 * I abhor the stench of a template deliberately kept, yet labled not to be used. Such worn-out Torahs should be burned and forgotten. — Xiong (talk) 03:39, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Notification?
Since WP:TFD is a place that most Wikipedians do not monitor, I would like to suggest that there should be a policy that when a template is listed for deletion, then there should be some attempt to notify the Wikipedia interest group that would be most affected by the change, or the talk page for the Wikipedia article(s) that would be most affected by the change. For example, when any stubs are submitted for deletion (recent ones include template:nauru-stub, template:bush-stub, and template:actor-stub), then the Stub sorting WikiProject should be notified. For template:darwin, then either talk:Charles Darwin and/or Evolutionary biology WikiProject should have been notified. The Wikipedia has a large number of WikiProjects and Regional notification boards, plus the various weekly collaborations, but they often do not get used to their best advantage. BlankVerse 09:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No. -- Interested parties are already notified; the tfd tag is placed at the top of every article that might be affected. Interested parties, almost by definition, watch those pages. Done. — Xiong (talk) 03:44, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

 * I'm changing my hasty and ill-considered comment. Since it is disruptive to tag the template body, and tagging the template Talk may not be sufficient notice, I now support the general concept of direct notification of interested parties. — Xiong[[Image:Xiong2char.png]]talk 06:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Hard to count votes
I've been trying to clean up this page, and I've deleted quite a few templates. However, it's often quite hard for me to count the votes; therefore, I'm going to be bold and establish a protocol for adding pages here. I've made a template that automatically puts in the delete/keep/discussion sections in, and I will add instructions on how to nominate a template shortly. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW the template is at Template:New TFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's done. You should see a red box reminiscient to the one at WP:VFD that links to instructions on how to nominate new templates for deletion. I think that this way is a lot easier, and should keep things more organized, but nobody's going to shoot you if you use the old method ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 02:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed this. On a regular basis, this page and the votes are very easy to determine. Yes, we get a couple contentious ones, but they are not too often.  Please be bold and re-order confusing discussions, but we don't need the extra instructions. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

 * What red box? Who removed what? When I looked, I saw three versions, all by the same editor (Frazzydee), none with red boxes. Has somebody fooled with the Talk here? If so, that's a no-no.

 * Anyway, it makes great sense to me -- enormous. I had only one quibble. I imagine you intend that all voters will confine themselves to sigs only under the "Delete" and "Keep" sections, and confine their discussions to the "Discussion" section. This will never happen and may not be desirable anyway. I do understand your rationale.

 * I've changed the third section to "Other". I expect both votes and arguments to occupy all three sections. At least this will clearly divide the discussion into yes-no-abstain groups.

 * The next step is to alter the template which appears at the top of the actual Templates for deletion page. — Xiong (talk)

I don't care one way or the other whether this gets used, but if it *does* get used, it might make more sense to use it as so the headers, etc get inserted into the source. Noel (talk) 13:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, you have to do it as a "subst", otherwise the edit links don't work - they try and edit the template. So I'll fix the instructions. Noel (talk) 14:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, Thanks Jnc!  — Xiong (talk) 00:27, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Proposed header change
Could Netoholic please post an explanation of why he reverted this edit? Comments are welcome. Vacuum c 15:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * You changed the text "Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually." to "Please do not remove templates from pages until their listing here has expired with a consensus to delete.".   That instruction is incorrect, as already discussed on this talk page above.  There is no consensus that templates should or should not be orphaned prior to listing or completion of the discussion.  I don't even agree with the current phrasing, but yours is certainly far off.  -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

 * Very well. I'm restoring my changes minus the ones to that paragraph. I changed them because I though my version was more concise and was semantically equivalent to the previous directions. Vacuum c 19:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've further refined that, combining some verbage and removing some links that are redundant with the "Deletion tools" box. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Voting time
I am also going to change the voting time from 7 to 5 days. I think template votes seem to be lingering here a little too long, and 5 days syncs up with other deletion activities. -- Netoholic @ 00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree with you, but you should wait to obtain consensus before making major changes to policy. Vacuum c 00:54, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * A major change in policy is to say "all templates beginning with the letter "A" should be deleted immediately". This is a simple change in process which is easily reversed if there are any real objections. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * TFD is not VFD. This is a backwater area in the Wikipedia decision-making process. If people do check to see if there are templates that are nominated for deletion, it is probably only once or twice a week. In almost all cases there is no reason to rush to delete any of the templates, so there is no reason to shorten the number of days. I think that qualifies as a "real" objection. BlankVerse 04:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Templates are also of a more transient and trivial content than articles going through VFD. Like I said, my reasoning is from observing this page, and noting that there is a large backlog (with the page size encroaches 100kb regularly) and also that discussion for the vast majority of templates is done by the fifth day of listing. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Orphaning templates prior to listing
The discussion above has stagnated, and no consensus has been reached. I shall try to provide an outline of what is being discussed:

Generally speaking, the discussion is of whether templates listed for deletion should or should not be orphaned prior to their deletion. There appears to be a consensus on the following:
 * Everybody agrees that vandalisms should be removed immediately.
 * Nobody's saying that all templates listed on WP:TFD should be orphaned prior to their deletion.

This leaves us with two options:
 * A. Templates up for deletion should never be orphaned prior to their listing.
 * B. Templates up for deletion should sometimes be orphaned prior to their listing.

If (B), the question is also asked of the criteria under which this should this be done.

Personally, I favor (A). I believe that: (I) you cannot vote out of context (that is, without seeing how a template was used); (II) allowing editors to orphan templates at will renders WP:TFD meaningless (it is already not very powerful now that keeping a template is not linked to using it, and the question is asked: what if a template orphaned is voted to be kept?); (III) allowing editors to orphan templates gives them the ability to present the community with a fait accompli; (IV) “unorphaning” a template is very difficult (and often cannot be done) – orphaning it once the vote has concluded is very easy; and most importantly, (V) no harm will come to Wikipedia if a template is kept for five more days.

Of course, other opinions are welcome. — Itai (f&t) 12:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree. Seeing how the template is used helps in deciding on whether or not the template can be editted to be more distinctive or useful. — UTSRelativity 15:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In some cases you are right. Are you suggesting we keep using a template that is either 1) disruptive/offensive, or 2) redundant, just to satisfy this desire? If the use is obvious from the template's design, it's easy to see without a live example.  Also, page histories can be viewed if one really needs to see how the template appears in context.  -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * 1a) Itai's summary notes that "[everybody] agrees that vandalisms should be removed immediately".
 * 1b) If the template is offensive, maybe you should try doing a NPOV edit
 * 2) Redundancy is in the eye of the beholder.  Minor differences in wording can make a big difference in what the template could apply to.  So even if another template should be used in some cases where the one in question is being used, there are cases where that is not true.
 * — UTSRelativity 23:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me make clear, (A) is the policy. I say this with certainty because I wrote this policy. Do not remove templates from use when you list them on TfD. Any reading of the policy that says otherwise is a misreading, and I support any attempts to clarify it. Templates should not be orphaned to be put on here. And I'll extend this one step further - a template that survives TfD probably has something resembling consensus to use. Repeated removal of it from pages is, while not against any policy, extraordinarily bad wikiquette. Snowspinner 15:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * "I wrote this policy, so it is policy" - Snowspinner, you amaze me sometimes. Ok, you wrote the initial page, and it's worked pretty well, but no portion of this process has ever been voted on, so you cannot say the whole thing is policy by your decree.  The way I count the templates on this page, I see about half which should be immediately orphaned (if they haven't already), and half that shouldn't.  It is harmful to make any blanket statement saying the all should not be orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * Unless the template is posing some clear danger, it should not be orphaned. In the case where it is posing some clear danger, it should instead be blanked. That way, should the consensus be to keep it, it is much, much easier to deal with, because one doesn't have to put it back on a bunch of pages. Also, one doesn't start edit wars. Snowspinner 21:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely (A), mostly because of points (II) and (III). If a template is "disruptive/offensive", then "Be bold" and edit the template during the voting period (but please note that you've edited the template). If the template is redundant, the one-week period during voting on the template shouldn't make any difference. If there are ever any egregious templates, people can vote "speedy delete" and "speedy orphan" and generate consensus that way. The orphaning of a template should not be a unilateral act by a single editor. BlankVerse 05:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Missing conversation for CamNotice
I can see in the google cache here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:cdF6Kxt5Z0gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TfD+CamNotice&hl=en

I can also dig through the history of this page to learn more.. but it's rough.

That there was some discussion about deleting Template:CamNotice. I'm not sure what became of things, but User:Snowspinner took it upon himself to alter the template to mark it for deletion. Because I couldn't find an archived conversation, nor a reference to the deletion of this template being either approved or denied, I reverted his changes.

There appear to be other controversies surrounding this user, which may point to attempts at vandalism, but I don't particularly care. See talk:Wikiproject Alternative Medicine and Talk:Alternative medicine for discussion on that.
 * I agree! this user has been vandalizing a lot of my edits lately.  And, I would this user to STOP his obvious vandalism. -- John Gohde 03:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Basically.. I saw nothing official surrounding these mysterious edits, so I was bold and made changes that I thought were appropriate. If I end up learning that there was vandalism involved, I've got no problems escalating the abuse. If I learn that I'm wrong to have done this, then I could help to put things back where they are supposed to be. Either way the lack of a paper trail surrounding these edits, reports of vandalism and such are is really annoying.

-- Sy / (talk) 23:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My bad. I forgot to archive that debate. Done now. It was 4-1 to delete. Snowspinner 01:21, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for adding the discussion to Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted. I guess my only concern was that the template itself has been replaced by a deletion notice, which means that any page which uses this template appears to have a notice to be deleted.  Saying that, I checked the backlinks of the page to see what's using it, and few topics are.. so I stepped in to remove uses of this template where appropriate.  As i generally approve, I am now stepping away from involvement. Thanks again. -- Sy / (talk) 03:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverso?
Every time I visit tfd, I head to the wrong end of the page. All the other similar pages (or most of them, anyway - cfd, vfd, cleanup, move to wiktionary, and the like) have the most recent articles at the top and the oldest ones at the bottom. I'd like to suggest the same is done here. Any comments yes or no? Grutness|hello? 07:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, and have been wanting to do this for a while. I've been waiting until the admins catch up with the maintenance of the page (currently about 15 days behind), to make it less of a chore.  -- Netoholic @

 * I really dislike the reverse order, so I'll probably give up on doing deletes here if the order is changed. Noel (talk) 04:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Any particular reason? Reversing the page has many advantages over the current system - new items appear at the top (and are thus more easily accessed) - older items sink down the page until they are right next to the holding cell - which is their next logical stop - and (as I pointed out) most other similar pages are done that way. Why don't you like the idea - are there any advantages this method has that I haven't noticed? Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 07:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Partially it's habit - you get used to things being a certain way. And for some reason I can't put my finger on, I really like date order. But there is also a rational reason, which is that if old stuff is at the top, it's more likely to intrude on your conciousness and get itself dealt with than if it's in some swamp at the bottom.
 * Also, usually there will be stuff between the completed stuff someone is removing, and the holding pen - most items are non-contentious, and they all get removed before the contentious ones, which stay on the list longer. So you're always mostly pulling stuff out of the middle anyway, no matter which way you order it. Noel (talk) 13:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gundam Seed mobile weapons
Template:Gundam Seed mobile weapons was put up on TFD at somepoint and disappeared at a later point. I can't find the discussion, where would that be, and if possible, could it be copied to : Template talk:Gundam Seed mobile weapons ? 132.205.15.43 04:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admin attention message
If people (i.e. non-admins) can help by: none of which require being an admin, that will really help. I don't mind dropping in to delete things, but I have enough janitor work elsewhere that I don't have the energy to do all the above here; I would imagine quite a few other admins are in the same boat. Noel (talk) 04:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * counting votes and making sure there is rough consensus to delete (i.e. not 50%+1)
 * making sure templates have no users (and fix any pages that refer to ones that are about to be deleted)
 * archive the debate for ones that had significant debate
 * list items in WP:TfD once all the above are done

 * The above recommendations seem to have been quite misunderstood. I will try and return this page to proper working order. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

 * Sorry if I got slightly confused about current procedure, I may have misunderstood the latest state of things. Are you copying the votes for every nomination to the log? I thought it was only necessary to log the ones that got significant discussion; i.e. the ones with a nominator and maybe one concurring vote could be just ditched, and the name noted in the edit summary for their removal from the page. If so, sorry...
 * In any event, I do stand by my comment that it's much easier if there's just a *-list of templates (with no additional text for each)at WP:TfD to delete that someone can just march down, as opposed to having to look through the by-dates lists, copy stuff to logs, etc. Noel (talk) 19:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Netoholic has not provided the context for his statement. Please see the following discussions ... User_talk:Ceyockey (where the conversation starts) and User_talk:Netoholic. Courtland 03:42, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Since I didn't know what the proper procedure is for logging, I created a "done, ready to be logged" section at the back, and moved the entries for all the ones I just deleted there. Y'all can do whatever logging is proper from there, I assume, yeah? Noel (talk) 23:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That was a good idea, though maybe more than you had to do. I occasionally trawl through the list for red-ink (I did this a couple days ago I think .. or maybe that was on the categories-for-deletion) and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.  Have you found that deleted templates sit for a long time in the holding cell or the main list before being taken off the page and logged?  Courtland 00:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

 * I don't drop in here often enough to tell, actually. (I'm usually too busy with archiving WP:AN!) As for moving the entries, I don't mind doing that, it keeps things organized. Yes, yes, I know, I'm being silly - if I go to that much work, it's probably just a few clicks more to actually archive them; I'm just not 100% on the archiving process, so I thought I'd leave it for someone who is. Noel (talk) 13:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PROPOSAL
I propose that we establish a rule stating that the same template should not be posted twice within a given timeframe if consensus has been reached, and it was kept.

Exceptions:
 * 1) The template can be listed again if there is, for one reason or another, more reason to delete it now than there was before. This should be done on a mostly case-by-case basis.
 * a) Templates that fulfill this criteria should have a relatively high voter turnout.
 * 1) Violations of this rule that have already been listed on TFD should be grandfathered.

Voting hasn't officially started yet, and you should not vote yet, since the text of this proposal might change. If it's obvious that nobody wants this proposal, then voting won't take place. You can feel free to make alternative proposals, new exceptions, etc. Voting will start on March 14 0:00 UTC (subject to change). -Frazzydee|✍ 02:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * With a distinct lack of corresponding policy on other deletion pages, I think this amounts to instruction creep. Users who serially relist templates should be aware that they are being disruptive, and that being disruptive rarely has long term positive consequences.
 * The above remark by User:Snowspinner

 * What is the reason for this rule, have there been recent cases to which it would apply? Radiant! 14:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Logging clarification
I've fixed the note introducing the subsection Holding Cell:Ready to delete. It said that discussions should be logged before moving to this subsection. On the other hand, the whole purpose of the major section Templates for deletion implies that discussions should not be logged until after deletion of template.

I have temporarily removed 2 discussions from Templates for deletion to each template's talk page itself -- in one case, to delete; in another, to keep. I'm not even sure this is correct.

This is a real bucket of worms. We should be able to move more smoothly from discussion → to preparation → to deletion and log. The discussion content itself should only ever be moved once. — Xiong (talk) 00:40, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Streamline process structure
Now I'm thinking the whole process should be done over. Instead of moving templates through process sections, just leave them where they are and add notes to the bottom of discussions that indicate at what stage of the process they are. For the convenience of admins who come to do actual deletions, a simple list up front, "Admin attention please: templates ready to delete", with each entry linked into the main work area, just in case the visiting fireman has questions. Thus, new overall structure:

 * Process (explanation/instructions)
 * Admin attention please: templates ready to delete
 * A template
 * Another template
 * Workflow
 * A template
 * Some discussion
 * Outcome: flagged for admin
 * Another template
 * Some discussion
 * Outcome: flagged for admin
 * Still another template
 * Some discussion (no outcome yet)
 * And yet another template
 * Some discussion
 * Outcome: keep (log discussion)
 * Bork bork bork template
 * Some discussion
 * Outcome: flagged for admin
 * Admin: deleted

New tfd's to be added at the bottom of the workflow; tfd's removed as their discussions are logged. (Note that "Foo bar template" is not shown; as soon as its discussion was logged, it was removed entirely from the workflow.)

By keeping discussion and process stage together in chronological order within a single subsection for each template, I think we'll have a more straightforward process, less prone to error, and easier to operate. — Xiong (talk) 01:07, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Nobody objected to the last major overhaul of the TfD page -- granted it was mostly cosmetic. Nobody has objected to this upgrade, either -- though it is mostly structural. Absent comment, I'm going to work up an improved page and substitute it. Note that all discussions will remain intact during the upgrade. — Xiong (talk) 04:00, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

 * Hate to bring this up again, but I still favour the reverse sequence used on other similar pages - new entries at the top where they're easier to spot straight away, older ones further down, holding pen at the bottom for admins. Or better still, the same sort of system as on vfd, where each template has its own sub-page. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some interest in an upgraded workflow. I'm going to take your comments to imply that you agree the existing system is cumbersome. I'm afraid I can't agree with subpages -- tfd's are too trivial, for the most part. Templates are pages too, and if their nomination occasions lengthy debate, I think we should just kick them to VfD, which is by nature a combat zone. Ordinary malformed and foolish templates should move through the TfD workflow without so much hassle, and subpages mean more work.

I have no strong opinion on the direction of the workflow -- new nominations at the top, or new nominations at the bottom. Because of the way I work, it's a little easier for me to add new matter at the bottom of a page. No system will please everyone. My main motive for boosting top-to-down process is that individual comments are added top-to-down, so this keeps everything moving in the same direction.

As I note below, I'm no longer sure we really need admin attention on most templates. Blanking a template and inserting the deleted tag really should be sufficient. Admins have enough to do. Another advantage is that we can move both more swiftly and more decisively, knowing that templates we so delete are not utterly gone.

Unfortunately, there is no way to make this kind of change gradually. I intend to refactor the workflow and stick it in for comment. We can always go back to the old way if the new does not work. This is like a haircut, not like surgery -- no matter what the barber does, it'll all grow out again in a few days. — Xiongtalk 10:30, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Change tag?
And -- oh, hell -- change tag itself to  or not? Where is the user's manual for this thing? — Xiong (talk) 01:07, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

 * It's all templates. Template:Tfd could have been theoretically moved (just as you would move articles - redirects work in the Template: namespace just as well) to Template:Delete if that had not already existed, but there is no reason to move it. There are numerous deletion templates (and numerous things that require deletion), and that all have an equal claim to the name Template:Delete, so there's nothing wrong with . For information on how templates work, I suppose the best place to begin is Help:Template. For a list of templates used in Wikipedia, see Template messages. — Itai (f&t) 16:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I failed to make myself clear. It's hard when there's so much metadiscussion of metaobjects.

I'm not suggesting mucking around with the content of the template, found at tfd. I'm not suggesting changing the name, or the tag itself (which amounts to the same thing).

The current delete means "candidate for speedy deletion". I suggested that, when a fully orphaned page is completely ready for admin attention, the instance of the tfd tag, inserted at the top of the to-be-deleted template, be changed to an instance of delete.

Having thought about it a bit, I think this might not be correct; speedy deletion is not available for things with histories. But we could cook up a similar template, say tfd-done, and manually place it in to-be-deleted templates. This would allow admins so inclined to check out the Special:Whatlinkshere page for tfd-done to find instances of it, and go there to delete.

Having thought about that, I start to wonder why we have to demand admin attention at all. Storage is not at a premium. A fully orphaned template bothers nobody, incurs no overhead. Why can't we just blank it? And insert an instance of deletedpage? And forget about it?

The only time we absolutely need to erase a template from existence is when the material remaining in its history simply cannot be kept. I'm sure such a thing can happen, but I can't think of a likely case just now. In most cases, I don't think admin attention is required. — Xiong (talk) 06:03, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

This organization was kludgy, and there was far too much instruction creep in it to be really useful. More worrysome was that you introduced significant procedure changes which weren't discussed. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Tag location (process)
Shall tfd tags be placed on the template page itself, or on the template's Talk page?

Indeed, it's common practice to place similar tags on pages themselves. If, for example, the page on Water skiing is up for VfD (because, say, waterskiing is "non-notable"), then this is something we all want to see and know about, right away. The {vfd} appears in only one place: at the top of Water skiing.

I think Netoholic has demonstrated clearly that this is a mistake when applied to templates. Templates are used on many pages, and if {tfd} is attached to the template itself, it is replicated on every instance of its use, disrupting pages which have nothing to do with the nomination for deletion. This use of {tfd}, when intentional, is actually hostile: it begs the question, anticipates the outcome of debate, by trashing every appearance of the template, possibly rendering it useless. Thus, it's an attempt to bypass the TfD process itself and usurp consensus.

There are times, I agree, that {tfd} should appear on a template page. When the template to be deleted is a series box, {tfd} should be inserted not only on the template page, but within the series box. This makes it clear what is being considered for deletion; and brings the matter to the attention of those most likely to care to discuss it.

tfd

The actual text of the {tfd} tag just makes the matter worse; it refers to "text below", although some templates generate no text at all.

I fixed both of these issues; Netoholic reverted both fixes. Netoholic is actually rather useful, in a way; he consistently finds technicalities with which to justify vandalism and disruption of the project, thus encourages us to fix these loopholes. Unfortunately, he goes past this point and reverts the repairs to process, as well.

I ask for discussion on the matter. — Xiongtalk 17:04, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Shall tfd tags be placed on the template page itself, or on the template's Talk page?

 * Older discussion at the top of this page, and also at Template talk:Tfd. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Leave it on the template itself. It's mildly disruptive for a short time, sure.  Having the template mysteriously deleted with no one the wiser beforehand, except those who religiously follow TFD, is a heck of a lot more disruptive. —Korath (Talk) 22:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

We tag templates within their bodies so people will know they've been nominated for deletion? That is the reason? It's a service to interested parties?

You know, we needn't tag templates, debate them, and remove them with a blare of trumpets nor under shade of night. It's perfectly possible that we tag templates on their Talk pages, and make a polite notice to affected users.

This is not nearly so hard or burdensome as it appears. I see which kinds of templates come up here frequently. They fall into four general groups:

 * Foolish or vanity templates, such as mine own 01: tfd

It's all just zeros and ones!. Only a single user is likely ever to make any defense of such, and can probably be reasoned with directly, leading to immediate speedy of the template in question and sparing us the drudgery of nomination, tagging, debate, request for admin attention, and logging.

 * "Polish steam locomotive engineer family tree" templates: monstrosities that loom larger on the hundreds of pages on which they appear than any actual page content. These must be dragged through TfD and might discover some support from Polish steam locomotive enthusiasts. These single-minded users haunt Polish steam locomotive pages to the exclusion of all else, and if we notice the deletion on one Talk page within the set -- the template page itself being the natural place for this -- it will show up on every Polish engineer's watchlist and -- with the proper edit summary -- appear as a great red flag. Nobody will be left out; if only one or two Polish engineers take note, they will sound the alarm and every Polish engineer in the project will caucus at length before descending on TfD in mass.

 * "Rain Man" templates, created by obsessive-compulsive semi-autistics (like me) for the purpose of categorizing different shapes of pinto beans, or marking articles as rainforest-endangered-wildlife-film-star-stubs. You may rest assured that the slightest dummy edit to one of their babies will startle them from their dazed counting and re-counting of places within the project where split infinitives fester. I cannot promise they will deign to speak to us, but they will read the notice and have the opportunity to do so.

 * "Frankenstein's Kitbash" templates, which I illustrate (vainly, for which I apologize) again from my own stable: divbox and doctl. If they work, these highly technical templates may be of great interest to many users; if not, nobody will weep over their deletion. The trouble is that placing a tag -- any additional code at all -- within the body of such templates may cause them to break -- in unexpected ways, perhaps. Even if they do not fail outright, their usability is so immediately degraded as to suggest that they were broken before nomination: fait accompli. Or the tag inappropriately points to something that has little to do with the template itself, sowing confusion.

Since it was a certain user's adamant insistence on tagging {divbox} that moved me to this debate, an example of this template is appropriate. For all examples, the same source code insertion of {divbox} is assumed:

This is the way the template is meant to be used by a user to do something on a substantive page -- possibly a template, possibly a sidebar, with or without the  atom. The only thing that varies among these examples is how {divbox} is tagged for deletion.

(The actual source of these examples was created by substitution.)

Here is a use of the template as it is intended; obviously, it will render the same way whether it is tagged on its Talk page or not:

 Lorem ipsum Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

But adding {tfd} to Template:Divbox forces every instance to appear thus:

 The text below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Templates for deletion for comments and voting.

 Lorem ipsum Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

Perhaps {divbox} stinks and should be carted off with the rest of the rubbish, but the text within the {tfd} tag appears to point to "Lorem ipsum...". FWIW, I copied and pasted that text; it came from no template. Lorem ipsum is not up for deletion. And while you may say "that's obvious", it is only obvious if you have already been over the battleground. A naive user who sees this notice will naturally think {tfd} applies to the contents of the box, not the box itself, which is all the nominated template generates. Further, it damages the appearance, which -- since a colored box is all about appearance anyway -- is again tantamount to strangling the baby in the cradle and fait accompli.

Still, this is not the worst unintended -- or maliciously intended -- consequence possible when fooling with technical templates. {divbox} does some tricky things to make life easier for humans. In particular, I want an easy way for a user to be able to choose colors for a box; that's harder than it looks, because both box border and box background must be set individually, and one cannot be specified as a tint of the other. Besides, that might not be wise, even if technically feasible -- I think one of the most successful styles is "amber", which is a light yellow background and a brown border. I actually expect some user to demand that all boxes, of whatever background color, be bordered in black. Nor will I interfere with the change. I built that robustness into the model.

On another level, I want to be sure that users at a slightly higher level of technical competency can create new styles and extend the set, not be limited by the first dozen things that popped into my head. So, all the style information is contained in one or another subtemplate. But I don't want to create a template named "blue" or "navy"; that's too general. The subtemplates have names like divstylenavy and the calling template, divbox, supplies the first, pseudo-namespacing part of the subtemplate name, allowing users to merely type the style code word "navy".

Now, we should all be glad that a certain user was too lazy to go and tag the template bodies of all 13 subtemplates. If he had, then every call to {divbox} -- no matter where it appeared -- would lead to this:

 The text below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Templates for deletion for comments and voting.

 The text below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Templates for deletion for comments and voting.

background-color: #AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em"> Lorem ipsum Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

Clearly, this is a sort of government-sanctioned vandalism, utterly destroying any usefulness the template might have had. There is no need for a vote; let's just tie the creator to a stake and burn him in public square. As I said, I'm glad he didn't do it, but I suppose this comment will give him an Idea.

This last case is difficult to explain and I thank sincerely anyone who has read this far. I hope you will all agree than anyone bold enough to create Frankenstein Kitbash-type technical templates is able to take care of himself; you do not need to tag his templates in order to ensure he comes to the table for discussion of the deletion. You might drop him a line on his Talk page; he'll drag in all the friends he needs or wants.

Meanwhile, though, since the template has not been deleted; since templates, as humans and dogs, are innocent until proven guilty; it is criminal to destroy them to prove a point. To force this premature destruction upon anyone wishing to nominate a questionable template is clerk-mind, the hum of the worker bees. To do so in order to deprecate a comment on a debate page -- which is what led us here -- well, it is beyond my understanding why anyone else would tolerate this, much less endorse it. — Xiongtalk 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Not every editor religiously watches every page he edits, and far from every user of a template edits those templates.  Template:Manga is a current, real-world example.  It appears on hundreds of pages, and was placed by nearly as many editors, very few of which will have the template on their watchlist.  Deletion of the template will have a major impact on those pages and to do so without giving those editors a chance for input would be a grave disservice.  Likewise, if anyone were actually using Template:divbox instead of Template:Message box like they should be, they should know immediately that the template is up for deletion.

 * You provide an excellent example above of what's wrong with Template:divstylenavy above. As an example of why  shouldn't be applied directly to templates, it falls rather flat.  Netoholic did exactly the right thing in putting tfd only on Template:Divbox, since the subtemplates are by nature useless outside of it. —Korath (Talk) 12:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Too dark? Too light? Or just susceptible to vandalism, like any template?

Netoholic did not do exactly the right thing, by his own lights. He maintains there is no flexibilty in policy, that all templates must be tagged in Template space. Maybe he saw that if he adhered too closely to his interpretation of policy, it would be easier for other users to see how destructive that interpretation is.

Actually, the subtemplates are not useless outside of divbox. I don't write junky code if I can help it. The color style templates are usable as is anywhere anyone wants a ready-made, color-coordinated, fully appreciated specification for colors, margins, and padding. Especially if {divbox} were somehow taken away, the subtemplates would become all the more useful to editors thus forced to "roll their own".

Template:Message_box sucks; with all respect to its creator, it was written by somebody with little experience writing code for naive users, and no experience in graphic design. It gives too much freedom to the user, demands the user master too much technical stuff, and makes the user work too hard to achieve a simple end. Too much hair is exposed, making it more likely for a naive user to break something. The documentation is impenetrable.

In contrast, {divbox} gives the user freedom, but not unlimited -- unless he substs it in and edits the code by hand, which is always available -- or he writes a new style subtemplate, which is also always available. It puts soft limits around the range of possible box styles. It's easy to use. And the only keywords the user must remember are simple mnemonics, like "blue" and "amber". If the naive user copies an instance of {divbox} from one place and uses it elsewhere, and foolishly changes the color style parameter without looking at the template documentation -- say, from "amber" to "green" -- he may not get the exact result he expects, but it will be pretty damn close, and nothing breaks.

There is a reason people pick up the phone and dial my number when they need something fixed, and fixed good. But then, they're paying Cash Money and they actually want it fixed good when they invite me aboard. Wikipedia asked me aboard for free, begged me to look around and fix anything I saw that was broken. I tried hard. But, of course, nobody appreciates anything they don't have to pay for.

I can't imagine any longer why I am wasting my time here. I can't make up my mind whether the completely open community model self-selects for small minds, or whether I have been wrong all along, and my faith that Good drives out Evil may be exactly backwards. I do know that if I had spent the time I've wasted here on the work my paying clients have given me to do, I'd have a fatter bank account and much less stress. — Xiongtalk 05:15, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Any reasonable way to mark templates that have been deleted?
See User talk:David Gerard - where Template:WikiProject Scientology was recreated and I zapped it, and its author quite reasonably points out: "May I at least suggest that when templates that others may want to reinstate are voted deleted, that some sort of flag appears to that effect if someone tries to rewrite it. It was the first time I'd set up a template, and I wasted a good 90 minutes organizing that thing, only to have it blanked within hours."

Bad ideas will get recreated, but they don't constitute a reason to discourage the editors in question. I can't think of an easy solution - except leaving the template marked "Deleted, see discussion, do not include" and locked. Ideas? - David Gerard 19:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Was the content of Template:WikiProject Scientology the same as the previous version? Seems hard to imagine someone would re-create it with the same content.  Can an admin please check and do a comparison, restoring if they are different ? -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * Perhaps links in MediaWiki:newarticletext and MediaWiki:noarticletext to the entry in the deletion log? —Korath (Talk) 07:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Using those is extremely confusing to good faith editors, especially new ones unaware of our "cleverness". -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I think you're misunderstanding what I was suggesting - not to place these where the template was, but to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page= %3A in the MediaWiki messages. (On further reflection, and inspection of their talk pages, though, this probably isn't such a hot idea; MediaWiki:newarticletext in particular is pretty long as is.) —Korath (Talk) 09:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * How about leaving a note on the talk page of the template upon deletion? -Frazzydee|✍ 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Up from the memory hole
This comment originally appeared in Village pump (policy) 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure Orwellian censorship, and not by a common user, either.

If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. — Xiongtalk 03:13, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I'm striking my accusations of this complaint being "disappeared". I am not convinced! It is just as easy to make me look foolish by altering history as to eliminate all reference to the complaint. But perhaps I misfiled it -- just because Somebody's out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid -- in any case, as usual, one act of ill will cloaks another. I only wish Someone would address the substantive issues. — Xiongtalk 06:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Following process on Templates for deletion
'''Who are we? Why are we here?''' I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here?

Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views.

If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the Templates for deletion page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. No need for debate, no need for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP.

But it is not so. I think widget should stay and blivet should go; El Supremo thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then?

Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones.

Recently, the nominated template divbox came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on the nominated template's Talk page.

Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page and simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?

 * TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions -- here is an excerpt:

 * "It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept."

 * I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must all be destroyed. (!?)

 * This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work at the same time as we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do?

If we have come to the point where everything is up for grabs, please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which manage the way we manage the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement illegal?

If we have not come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Colored boxen considered harmful. See recent discussion on VfD. I don't quite get your point, are you going to 'work' on Jimbo's homepage to make a point? Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * There are inclusionists; there are deletionists. There are em-dashers and double-dashers. There are boxers and there are anti-boxers. I'm not a One-Thing person; I like a little variety. I wrote {divbox} so that if there is to be a box, it should be consistent with other boxes. That's all. Some boxes okay; no boxes boring; too many boxes ugly; boxes in a variety of styles worst of all.

 * If you don't get my point, I don't think it would help me to carve up a few pages to make it any clearer. I've been pretty clear: I think it is wrong to alter process guidelines in order to justify what one is doing -- especially suspect to alter them at the same time as one is doing something underhanded. That's all. But if the community as a whole approves of this, and considers this appropriate action, then I will feel free to edit all kinds of process and guideline pages, do weird things that serve my ends, and cite my newly-edited page in justification. I like to think the community does not.

 * Once more, for the record: Will you reply to the substantive issue? Is it acceptable to edit a process and so justify your actions within that same process, at the same time as that action? Please answer directly. Thank you. — Xiong熊 talk 01:04, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

 * Nobody has spoken to this issue since I posted it over 10 days ago. The malefactors are silent. If the group active on TfD supports their underhanded activities, it is time to speak up. Otherwise, I shall consider silence an admission not merely of guilt, but of guilt unsupported even by the tyranny of the majority. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk 03:15, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

 * Please don't cause trouble. I suspect that others, like me, don't have the patience to read your less-than-succenct comments above.   -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

 * You have all the time in the world to stalk me throughout the project, but no time in which to answer any of my questions. If you cannot be bothered to review objections to your conduct, I suggest you cease to raise them. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk 07:42, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Deleting template talk pages?
When should template talk pages be deleted along with the template themselves? I think that we should always keep them for historical purposes, but I'm not entirely sure of the process. What happens when there's no discussion? What about when the talk page only serves to instruct users how to use the now-deleted template? Is it deleted then? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, Talk pages are routinely deleted when their referents are deleted. I agree that in many cases, they should be retained -- especially when controversy surrounds the deletion. This is just another case of deletionists running riot. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk 03:22, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I would be very bad for templates to be handled differently from other deletions. Talk pages should be removed so that someone who recreates under that title isn't confused by old discussion, and, in general, because it keeps the database "clean". My suggestion is not to do things at all different from other deletions, and to take this suggestion to a wider audience than just here. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion policy for TFD
"Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised."

I disagree with the latter part of this rule. Firstly, it directly contravenes the deletion policy (although that part is talking about VfD, it should apply for its equivalents):
 * "At the end of five days, if a rough consensus...has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains."

It also does not follow the Deletion guidelines for administrators. The first rule in the "Deciding when to delete" section explicitly states:
 * "Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)"

If there are no votes, a template should not be deleted. I propose that if there are no objections to deletion (usually meaning no votes), that the template is either:
 * 1) Kept and logged to /Not deleted
 * 2) Postponed until there is some consensus

If a decision is not made in a certain period of time, I believe the template should be kept.

-Frazzydee|✍ 14:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's also essentially saying "If nobody says keep, then it's an automatic delete". I don't think that it should be this way.  It's taking a deletionist approach, and presuming that templates are always useless unless proven otherwise. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that templates that have had no votes should be moved to or listed on a Debates requiring votes page that would host templates, categories, articles, images, etc. that have all received no votes after the relevant period. This page should be listed (weekly?) on the recent changes page in the current surveys section. Thryduulf 14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No more instruction creep, please. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * That's hardly instruction creep, the template in question would be listed on both TFD and on the other page, if I'm interpreting thryduulf correctly. That would just bring more traffic to templates that aren't getting enough attention. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't mind it if "or no objections to its deletion have been raised" from the text. If that wasn't there, I'd just go through and second a lot more nominations. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Does anybody have any problems if I remove the part that says "or no objections to its deletion have been raised"? -Frazzydee|✍ 03:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like it but I'm not a regular here. If you do this, please find some way to make it obvious to TFD newcomers/non-regulars who may otherwise assume that TFD follows the same principle as VFD. FreplySpang (talk) 17:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Currently, TFD does not follow the same principle as VFD. Doing this will make it follow the same principle as VFD.  I think that you might be misunderstood about what this change is about- the deletion policy regarding VFD explicitly states that there must be a rough consensus.  No votes is not consensus. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right. I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up for me! FreplySpang (talk) 14:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This process is currently biased in favor of deletionism. I am an inclusionist, and I feel conspired against. Nothing should be deleted unless clear consensus is to delete -- that excepts bare majority vote, by the way -- and anything that passes into this process must pass out again at the end of a defined period. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk 20:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

 * No problem :D -Frazzydee|✍ 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about this...if there are no votes for or against a nomination, then it is deleted if it is not used (i.e., nobody cares), but if it is being used, it is left alone. If there are no votes, at the very least, notes should be placed on one or more of the talk pages that uses the template before it is deleted. --ssd 00:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, although this might be a bit of instruction creep. I would prefer if we just said keep for all templates with no votes, but this would probably work well. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this happen often? Pcb21| Pete 13:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

User templates
The TfD space says it's for things in the Template namespace. However, a number of templates are found in other namespaces, particularly Userspace. Does this mean that
 * 1) Those templates are untouchable, or
 * 2) We need a new page like User templates for deleteion, or
 * 3) We should modify TfD so that it can affect templates no matter where they're put?

Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * imho, I think that TfD should be modified so that it can deal with templates wherever they are put. Thryduulf 14:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, but apparently consensus says #1. Radiant_* 16:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Everything in Userspace is essentially untouchable. If someone puts something in his user pseudospace that is so offensive to one principle or another that it must be removed, I think that comes under the heading of a personal discipline problem.

 * For the record, there is no such thing as a User Template namespace. Strictly speaking, there are no templates -- not even in Template space! The template inclusion markup  can be used to include any page in any other. Think about it. TfD manages deletions in the Template namespace, period -- and the process probably should not exist at all. It was created to take some of the load off the more formal VfD. The assumption was that since most Template namespace pages are fairly short, they could be deleted with less formal discussion. But we have seen that is not always the case. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk 01:23, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm already aware that people can get away with everything in user space. WP:WIN an experiment in anarchy, but apparently userspace is. Radiant_* 14:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userspace is not an experiment in anarchy - it just has somewhat lower standards than the article space. Snowspinner 23:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Xiong, wait is that true? How come  is not replaced by the entire content of the article at Elvis Presley then?  I'm trying to set up something similar for the Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions page, but I can't get this notation to work.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to transclude a normal article, you have to add a colon before the page title, thus:

 * Sou desu nee. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Template:School
This template claims to be based on Template:University. However, I cannot find the latter. Was it deleted? If so, why? And should the same reasoning be applied to this template? Radiant_* 13:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * It was really based on Template:University information as explained in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A_schools_template (full discussion).  Template:University information was taken off TFD  with no consensus. --iMb~Meow 14:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it provides a bit too much information (principals photo and email) and most of the school articles that I see on the VfD can just be stuck on this template, so we can just see articles with just the template and information plugged in place. Zscout370 14:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion of templates?
There currently are no criteria set for the speedy deletion of templates. This makes it difficult for me to process templates marked with the delete tag, unless they meet some of the general criteria (recreation of previously tfd'd content, pure nonsense, etc.). If you're interested, can you join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion so we can come up with some ideas for the types of templates we feel should be deleted? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Main page a little skew
I'm as bad a culprit as anyone for this, I know, but the main page has god a bit out of hand as regards people entering new candidates under the right date. I was trying to work out where to move the "five day" bar to, and most of the entries under April 22 are from April 23, and the only one under April 23 was (just) from April 24. We all need to take a bit more care, methinks... Grutness|hello? 08:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're going to get a one-count bobble -- one day, actually -- unless you stand over everyone and insist we all stick to UTC. Another reason not to shorten the comment period to 5 days -- some nominations might only get a bare 4, or even 3 day review, if the bobble at each end stacks up the wrong way. — Xiong<font color="#997749">熊 talk<font color="#009900">* 13:24, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Five days?
When did the main page get edited to say five days instead of one week? There was a suggestion to change from 7 to 5 days (see the Voting time section above), but there was barely any discussion, and certainly no consensus. So many of the TFD decisions are being made with fewer than ten votes, and even fewer than five votes, that I think that we should be trying to allow for as much time as possible before a final decision is made. Blank <font color= 	#F88017>Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>∅ 01:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I remember somebody changing it a while ago, IIRC to maintain consistency with other pages.  I concur with you; the voting time should be 7 days again.

I agree with the current process of five days. Considering TFD's traffic rate and backlog, I think it works well. Most votes are well decided in the first 2-3 days anyway. VfD needs to be longer because articles are our main product here, and the decision is important; images are listed for one week because one cannot undelete them once gone. Templates aren't quite so unrecoverable. That being said, I have no problem if a vote has low participation or is still undecided, to allow it to remain active for a couple days. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

When I set the page at 7 days originally, it was because the other auxilliary deletion pages were also 7 days, which made sense - VfD is high traffic and can generate a good discussion quickly. This page, being smaller, gets an extra few days to come to a resolution. Snowspinner 17:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

To answer the first question: on the 7th of April, with the edit summary "refactor. header information, and reverse the date order per talk and similar pages", by Netoholic. I suggest it be changed back until such time as there's an established consensus for any change in policy. I don't see the past month of status quo as being much of an argument: did anyone even notice the change, much less start to operate it? Alai 21:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe we need a quick straw poll to see how many days people think it should be. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Frequent flyers
I know from experience that there are a certain number of editors who frequently create one-off or bad templates, which seem to inevitably end up here. I'd like some ideas on how to handle these "frequent flyers", because their creations tend to clutter up this process. Is there a nice way we can say "please stop creating templates"? I'm sure other areas have had similar experiences... any wisdom? -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we could create a boilerplate template to this effect. ;) Snowspinner 19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh! FWIW, I've used a form letter for inappropriately created stub templates, but it doesn't always go down well - I've had at least one Wikipedian complain about "The stub police". Grutness...  wha?  01:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It is increasingly difficult to take the complaints of Wikipedians as evidence that you're doing anything wrong. :) Snowspinner 15:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Subst: only templates
I guess it isn't technically possible to make templates "subst: only".... but could we come up with some social convention that indicates that templates are for subst: only. (E.g. have all such templates start with the name "s:". This would give us a useful extra tool in TfD. Keep, delete, category only, talk page only, subst only, etc....? Pcb21| Pete 12:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep an eye on 2003 and hope that a developer takes it on. -- Netoholic @ 15:26, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

 * A nice feature, though I would hope that the flag can only be set by admins - way too much bad vandalism potential here. (Vandalize a template, set it to subst, and watch as a bunch of articles get suddenly vandalized with no easy way of tracking which ones they are) Snowspinner 17:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As the originator of the feature proposal: good catch, thanks. However, I think those templates for which it pays to vandalize them ({{Vfd}} et al.) are usually protected anyway. Also, weigh the impact of immediately visible, slow-to-update vandalism to a template shared by hundreds of articles against the impact of vandalism to articles newly using a subt'ed template this way. The latter is impossible to clean up in a coordinated fashion, but it lends itself very well to distributed cleanup, which usually works fine. The problem is real, but I don't think it would be crippling. JRM · Talk 17:50, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * My concern would be stub templates. Snowspinner 17:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think stub templates would be ideal candidates for automatic subst'ing. The text of the basic stub message hasn't changed, and stub notices are a bit of a throw-away -- uniformity of look, wording, etc. is not so critical, really.  The related stubs have the additional feature of being linked via the stub category. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * Yes, and an un-substed stub template is going to cause chaos if it gets vandalized and then set to subst. Which was my main point. Snowspinner 18:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, then, I'm missing your point. Give an example of "un-substed stub template" and a scenario describing the problem. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * So we have Template:Stub, which doesn't have the subst flag. Someone comes along and vandalizes the template, and also sets the subst flag. Stub is used a lot. Stub gets put on pages while it's vandalized. (Or, worse, depending on how it's implemented, all uses of the template suddenly go to subst as soon as the page is loaded) Now we have a bunch of vandalized pages, and no way of tracking what they were easily. That would be bad. Snowspinner 20:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I've signed to say I approve of that feature, but what do you think of my interim solution - templates of the form Template:s:XYZ, should always be used as subst:s:XYZ. Not that pretty I suppose, but nothing better springs to mind. It would be enforced only by social convention. Pcb21| Pete 15:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems like there would be a learning curve with that. I think a better solution is to revive the use of Boilerplate text under it's original purpose - to provide easy "copy and paste" text. -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I think it would be a better idea to not parse templates, see comment for bug. -MarSch 15:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Bot automated process
Please notify me if there needs to be a TfD bot. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that, given the length of TFD, that is an excellent idea. CFD was recently refactored into transcluded sections by day, with AllyUnion's bot NekoDaemon for archiving and stuff. Would anyone object if we did the same on TFD? As an added bonus, there could be a page 'Templates for Deletion/Log/Today' that people could watch to have a short daily list of things to consider. Radiant_* 09:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would object strongly. We aren't at all to the point where we need any voting subpages, and handling archival, etc. is not that easy as there may be lots of work needed to orphan templates.  Things are working pretty well on this page. -- Netoholic @ 16:59, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * I agree with netoholic. We don't need a bot at this time, except maybe for depopulating templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got an approved bot to help with depopulating/moving templates, just let me know when you need some help or put them in the "Holding Cell". -- Netoholic @ 02:20, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Cat:TFD
I put Category:Templates for deletion up for WP:CFD, since it contained 91 articles, 85 images, and only five templates. Clearly it isn't working as intended. Radiant_* 21:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * The technical reason is that the categorization is applied during the page save. If the page is saved, and incorporates a template which was TFD'd, Any category resident on Template:Tfd would be applied to the article page.  The problem is, like in the case of images or other rarely edited pages, that categorization doesn't update until the article itself is edited.  It's been months since we used a category in the TFD template, and still there are these pages.
 * I've developed a script to handle these situations. I'm running it now. What it does is make a "null edit" to each page, which is enough to refresh the categorization.  The category should not be used because this is a PITA. -- Netoholic @

Speedy category deletion
To counter instruction creep and repetitive discussion, I would like to propose the following:
 * if a category is only used as part of a template (e.g. Category:Foo Stubs to correspond with Template:Foo Stub), and that template is deleted by regular WP:TFD process, then the category can be speedily deleted.
 * I would like to put this up for vote at WP:CSD, but first I'd like to garner some feedback here as to its appropriateness and wording. Radiant_* 07:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've commented on this at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. To avoid a fractured discussion, perhaps all comments would be more apropriate there? Thryduulf 08:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Radiant_* 11:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * This should be put up for discussion at WP:WSS and not decided here alone. Courtland 02:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * I agree. A significant proportion of the category/template pairs are stub related. Perhaps this move should be tied in with the planned sfd in some way? Grutness...  wha?  04:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction templates
Template:Please don't edit this page, Template:Please don't change this page, Template:Please leave this line alone were listed with this explanation: "Duplicated text of Introduction, Introduction 2, Introduction 3. Or is there a point to this that I'm missing?"

If there are no objections here I am going to remove this template from listing since there is a point that was missed. Trödel| talk 16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind, but if you do, please explain on the relevant talk pages what these things are for. Also you may want to consider renaming two of the three templates so that their names are identical, but that's just a detail. Radiant_* 17:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know (or just fix it) if the explanations are inadequate. The templates need to have different names because they need to have different contents. FreplySpang (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant 'similar', not 'identical'. (e.g. "Please dont' edit #1" and "Please don't edit #2") Radiant_* 16:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolibertarianism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism
Where to begin? This is 1-sentence description of a term used obscurely as an invective by an obscure set of libertarians who call themselves geolibertarians. The same term is used much more commonly in a different sense, but the subject of the article as it stands hardly merits an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, this text might well be a copyvio from http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/neolib.htm, although I can't find anything on that page that indicates a copyright. - Nat Krause 09:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge in to libertarianism if it really deserves mention. Phil s 10:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into libertarianism. Ive never heard of this before but if its deemed notable enough then merge unless it can be greatly expanded. -CunningLinguist 22:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Neoconservatism has a page... this can have one too... needs expansion... gren 10:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we could never delete any page that begins with Neo- and ends with -ism. - Nat Krause 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - self-admitted subset [Pedantic point: what's 'neo' - "new" - about it ?] --Simon Cursitor 07:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to merge where? This word in this sense is an extremely rare pejorative term. I'm okay with merging to geolibertarianism. - Nat Krause 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - and merge Neolibertarian with it. The term "neolibertarian" has two meanings, depending on who is using it. The so called paleolibertarians use it to mean libertarians, who aren't followers of Murray N. Rothbard. The so called geolibertarians use it to mean libertarians, who aren't followers of Henry George. It is, as said, a pejorative term, and that should be explained in the article, in both uses of the word. I have never met anybody, who calls him/herself a "neolibertarian". As I havent met anybody who calls him/herself a "neoliberal", either, but yet there is a long article about Neoliberalism. That, too, is a pejorative term, constructed by socialists to lump together things they opposed, no matter if those things didn't have anything else in common than the fact, that they were opposed by socialists. 213.243.154.41  13:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a neolibertarian article. The two articles, as anon notes, are using completely different senses of the word, and the one used in neolibertarian is much more common in my experience. Incidentally, I don't think it's true that "neolibertarian" is never self-applied: check out http://www.neolibertarian.net . - Nat Krause 13:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the group which self-applies the term is much smaller than the group of which it is applied by others. An article about "neolibertarianism" should however explain both uses of the word. anon 16:54, 31 May 2005(UTC)
 * Keep, I have seen this term used numerous times. Afcassidy

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/