Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Ready to delete log

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Ready to delete says

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Since the closing is now on the daily log, and I've noticed that few are added to the /Log/Deleted, couldn't this step be eliminated?

--William Allen Simpson 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion

Should we make Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion to deal with all that rubbish so that we can focus again on templates outside of userspace? No wonder there's a backlog here. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see why this is attractive, the problem is that if you do it, it will mean that with fewer 'normal' participants seeing it, the userbox fanatics will find it all the easier to block any deletions. --Doc ^ask? 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...That could be a serious issue. Michael 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere appears fixed

The recent problems surround Special:Whatlinkshere for templates appears to be fixed. I've come across several templates that have plainly had their links fixed between nomination and closure, and bugzilla:4549 indicates that Tim Starling added a patch and reran the relevant script recently. This message is an advertisement for willing victims in the Holding cell, which is desirous of your ministrations. In exchange, you will find that your edit count goes up in a satisfying manner Note that this can be fatal as usual.-Splash^talk 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. And thanks to Tim Starling, of course. This is very good news. If I'm enough bored (and have time) I will continue to help at the holding cell. Sadly, I've been recently very busy in re WP:AUM, which is (was?) a tremendous wikipedian-hours resource hog. BTW I'm not interested in high edit counts (to the contrary - Re "recent changes spam" by my bot and accusations for running it too fast). --Adrian Buehlmann 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now if I could only get the dev's to fix the inaccurate (doubled) Whatlinkshere information I reported in bugzilla:4428. On a page that uses a template redirect (like Template:US City infobox), the "Templates used on this page" shows a link to the redirect AND to the redirect target. Also, the article shows up twice in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City (once normally, and once through the redirect). This is nonintuitive, and redundant. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also like to know why it is not possible to have links created through a transclusion shown as such, like those created through a REDIRECT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This does seem a little bit weird to me. I suppose, from a maintenance point-of-view, the 'remedy' is to always orphan any redirects first so that you're actually looking for the name of the redirect rather than of the actual template. I imagine a bot not doing redirects-first would get confused. -Splash^talk 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Criteria T1

User:Angr has been voting to speedy delete articles under T1 on the basis that argument on the template talk page "proves" that the template is "divisive". This seems preposterous to me, because it means that any time I want to get a template deleted, all I have to do is troll the talk page and the resulting argument will make it speedyable under T1. Can we get a clarification of what "divisive" means? --causa sui ^talk 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Divisive" in this context means that there are one or more admins willing to delete the item in question. T1 can only be applied to templates, however, not to articles. --Dschor 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously...

Hey guys, why are like half the things being suggested for deletion, because wikipedia is no place for advertisements or whatnot? I mean come on, there have to be other, more important things to be worried about then this...--TheOneCalledA1 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request admin assistance

Remember the templates AnarchismDildo and AnarchismDef? The user who created those, Hogeye, has been banned for a month. Now, however, he is even more belligerent as an anonymous user and sockpuppet, User:AnarChrist. He recently vandalized Template:Primarysources by wiping the page and replacing everything with the same thing from AnarchismDildo/Def. I'm not sure what bureaucratic practice I'm supposed to follow in order to help put a stop to the disruptiveness, so I was wondering if any admins wanted to take a look at the situation (evidence). Thanks! --AaronS 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• 03:51, 16 February 2006 Sarge Baldy blocked "AnarChrist (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of banned user) --causa sui ^talk 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Justification for my removal

I removed my own nomination of three templates because I have changed my mind. These should be keep. Since I nominated them, I think removing it should be fine. The other votes were only keep. Sorry for the mess.--Adam ^(talk) 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

tfd-inline

Please use {{tfd-inline}} when proposing the deletion of userboxes. Just paste in {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} into the body text and it will not break anyone's page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No archives for TFD?

The archives seem to be incomplete, or at least muddled. For instance, though Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 exists, I can find absolutely nothing explaining or documenting the vote to delete Template:User Lutheran: there's not even any TfD page that links to it, and the deletion debate only happened a week or so ago and is directly relevant to discussions about userboxes on the main TFD page now. --Saforrest 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There's no link because there was no discussion. See User_talk:Improv#Userboxen and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates. --Saforrest 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Useless

Could someone del Template:Useless? J. D. Redding 11:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You should have put it on Wikipedia:Speedy deletion as nonsense. But I'm deleting it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

{{See also}}

I suggested this for deletion, and before the day was out the TfD had been removed, debate closed, as speedy keep. All this without giving me a chance to respond to some of those voting (who admitted that they didn't understand my point — perhaps because, as editors hanging round the template pages, they're so used to them that they don't understand the problems faced by other users).

I suggested it for TfD in part because, after I'd posted a comment making the same point to Template talk:See also, after some time the only response had been one that agreed with me. It seems to me that this speedy keep was precipitate at best. The template is frankly absurd; it offer virtually no advantages over creating a "see also" section manually, and simply places another obstacle in the way of casual or occasional editors (who are perfectly capable of adding a bulleted link to a section, but have no wish to look up the template in order to work out how to use it. It seems to me that there's a regrettable tendency in Wikipedia to replace simple editing methods with geeky ones. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So many problems, it's hard to know where to start:

1. "before the day was out" -- no, before 3 hours had passed. It was important to get the background template update process rolling before the US East Coast awoke and the servers were swamped.
2. the official process was violated (and noted in the speedy keep). This is a long standing template with considerable history and past discussion.
3. there are something like 15-18 templates that redirect to this one -- {{seealso2}}, {{seealso3}}, ..., and {{see also2}}, {{see also3}}, ....
4. there are many hundreds (thousands?) of uses.
5. before nominating anything for TfD, always check What links here (WLH).
6. "the only response had been one that agreed with me" -- that would be Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- banned from the template namespace -- in the process of his 3rd or 4th Arbitration and banning.
7. the template does not add a "bullet", it adds indentation and considerable HTML markup (that matches the markup of other related templates).
8. and perhaps most important of all (related to the out of process nomination), you still show no evidence of having understood the relevant guideline for using this template! Really, that message at login that asks you to read the policies and guidelines isn't there for decoration!

--William Allen Simpson 06:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for violating process; I followed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header#How to list templates for deletion (as linked to from {{Deletiontools}}), which makes no mention of any problem. Specifically, it doesn't say that templates that have been around for a long time or which are often used are immune to YfD.

"it adds indentation and considerable HTML markup", all of which is unnecessary (and against Wikipedia guidelines that deprecate the use of HTML when formatting can be achieved perfectly well without).

The idea that any User can read every policy and guideline is absurd; I probably know more than most, but have barely scratched the surface. If you're going to wag your finger at good-faith editors, you should at least make sure that the most likely place that they look for guidance actually gives it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It does, in the very next section after the one you cited: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD.

"If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place."

Maybe it would be better to move that above the "How to" section. Consider it done.

--William Allen Simpson 07:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's virtually impossible to go through every policy or guideline to see whether a template is part of one (and that's a pretty vague description anyway). Which policy or guideline is involved in this case? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you missed the very first step: "If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead." That would mean you need to check WLH.

--William Allen Simpson 07:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I considered it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This template is not part of any policy or guideline...the point of the rule Mr. Simpson refers to is that people shouldn't nominate, say, {{afd}} for deletion just because they don't like AFD. While this template might be recommended for use at various guideline pages, that doesn't make it part of the functioning of any Wikipedia process. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel very strongly about the exclusion of process-related templates so I feel compelled to explain it.

By process is meant ongoing activities within the project; the obvious example at hand is TfD itself. TfD makes use of a number of templates, each one of which has a specific purpose in service of the TfD process. These templates are all immune from the TfD process itself -- as are similar templates used by CfD, AfD, and so forth. Templates (such as see also) are mere article namespace templates. They support the activity of editing, not the meta-activity of debating what edits can be made or which should be deleted. On the other hand, some templates may be created to support new and untested process; these also are exposed to TfD.

It's vital to see beyond words to the heart of any matter. Here, the important value preserved is the collaborative nature of policy making and process. Let's say that someone wishes, perhaps, to alter the process of AfD. The proper place to do that is at Talk:AfD. That is where interested parties "hang out"; that is where the most informed comments will be seen. It wouldn't be right to undermine that process by nominating an AfD-related template for deletion here.

Another point is that some templates are very heavily used. Tagging one for deletion is automatically wrong; if it is appropriate to nominate the template for deletion at all, then the tag should be placed on the nominee's talk page. It's just too disruptive to tag on the template itself.

Given all this, it's clear that there has been some misunderstandings on all sides. This template is eligible for consideration at TfD but should be tagged only on its talk page. I have seen the template in question and it does appear to me to be very poorly written. This is not a result of incompetence on the part of its creators; rather it is due to the limitations of the transclusion machine. This has many shortcomings and they will likely be with us for a long time. It's not immediately clear what the best interim solution may be. John Reid 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no misunderstanding. This template is explicitly part of the standard section markup. That is a guideline. NO guideline templates are eligible for TfD.

Sorry that you don't like it, the design required a great deal of discussion, and technical expertise.

--William Allen Simpson 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

{{tfdend}}

There are a plethora of ending templates. I've found:

• Template:Tfd-keep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (badly redirected with different parameters),
• Template:Tfd-kept (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for 2004 and 2005 Logs,
• Template:Oldtfd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and
• Template:Oldtfdfull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (confusingly, different parameters than oldafdfull).

Meanwhile, I've developed:

• Template:Tfdend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to match the practices of
• Template:Cfdend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (that is, just date and optional result, with bolding supplied).

At least for me, that will help for remembering the syntax.

I'm going to spend the evening fixing all the tfd-keep and tfd-kept. What should we do about oldtfd and oldtfdfull?

--William Allen Simpson 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect them, that way you don't have to go through and update every single instance of them. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Each has radically different parameters, as the way that TfD was Logged changed over time. I've just finished hand replacing all the remaining tfd-keep with valid tfd-kept (often searching for the log entry), but those are for 2004 and 2005 Logs. Oldtfd was probably subst'd, as it has no remaining inclusions.

For new logs, it's down to {{oldtfdfull}} or {{tfdend}}. The former requires the date in 3 parameters, the latter a single parameter date (like {{cfdend}}), and has a default result (keep, like {{tfd-kept}}) for the lazy among us.

--William Allen Simpson 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in having a template to affix to talk pages for templates about to be deleted. John Reid 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused. Templates that are deleted can on occaision have the talk page remain. The result parameter is required to describe any conditions. It defaults to "Keep", just like {{cfdend}}.

--William Allen Simpson 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Noticed that the Wikipedia:Deletion process still had references to moving to the old log, so I updated it to match the current process, using this template. Note that the Talk discussion there has decided not to subst: the keep templates anymore.

--William Allen Simpson 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much value in tagging talk pages of deleted templates but I won't argue against it. I don't care which template is used to tag talk pages after closing so long as only one is used and it is mentioned in the TfD instructions. All other template names should rd to the preferred choice or be deleted. Failure to preview and pay attention to parameter use is punishable by ten lashes in public square. John Reid 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course! Anyway, the Wikipedia:Deletion process and the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header were diverging, so I merged this into Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Closing. And I've listed the obsolete templates for speedy deletion, pointing to this discussion.

--William Allen Simpson 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Should {{Tdeprecated}} be affixed to {{tfd-keep}} and {{oldtfd}}? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

They're redirects, that won't show up. There are no known references to them anymore, but they might show up in edit histories. I spent a fair amount of time converting them. They had different incompatibile parameters, so it took a lot more than just a redirect.

--William Allen Simpson 01:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)