Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Page duplication

The page was duplicated here. Check your edits. --cesarb 5 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

That was almost certainly an example of this unresolved bug. Though the page doubling bug has existed for more than a year now, no one has been able to generate a procedure for duplicating it on demand and hence it is unclear what causes it. There is some speculation it might be caused by a race state if two editors submit content within the same millisecond. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 19:52 (UTC)

I have several times, including I think that edit, made an edit and gotten a "no response from the wikiserver" message. After that I usually click "back", and find my changes still on the screen, when i usually click save again (after copying my text to a local file in case of loss). Sometimes i then get an edit conflict, at least once apparently with myself. When I do i make sure that my edits are properly included in the upper edit box, and click save again. I admit that I havn't been checking if the upper box includes a double copy of the page or section. Most of the time this has happened has been on section edits, but than by far the most part of my edits are section edits.DES 5 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

You actually seem to be describing the other hypothesis for how it happens, that you enter into some kind of edit conflict with yourself state. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to encourage you to submit a report on your experience to the bug tracker, in order to remind people to pay attention to this, so maybe some day they figure out what it is and how to fix it. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

I already provided this same info to User:Rick Block, who asked about how it muight be duplicated. How exactly do i access the bug traker, and submit a report? DES 5 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Go to bugzilla:275 and add your comments there; no point filling another bug report which will just be closed as a duplicate (notice you need to register with a valid email account, which will be visible as your user ID). --cesarb 5 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I've chased down every instance of this bug I've heard of, and at one point thought the sequence was simply to submit a change after encountering a conflict while editing a section. This sequence doesn't do it. Perhaps more eyes should look at the code (I've looked, but am not a PHP expert, I think the most likely spot for the problem is in this source file). One way I'm sure it can be reproduced is to copy the entire conflict window (which shows the complete article), hit the browser "back" button (to the edit section page), paste the contents, and submit. This is arguably user error, and I haven't found a case where a user remembers doing this. -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

In an act of extraordinary frustration with this bug, I just spent some time poring over the wiki code, and I believe I have identified the sequence of events that can conspire to cause this bug to happen. I have submitted my hypothesis to the bug page. Here's hoping I am right, because I would really like this to go away. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Closing section on the instructions page

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Instructions

User:Radiant! recently added a "Closing" section to this page. This section is a general statement on ?fD vote closing, but has no information relevant to TFD itself. It is a vague philosophy, and contains points that I for one do not share. I believe the section should not be included in a TFD-only instruction page. If Radiant feels it is necessary, it should be split off into a separate page for discussion.

I'm not prepared to go into a debate here about the specific points I disagree with, since they are non-relevant to only TFD. If Radiant! takes my wise advice and move this somewhere else, I'll be happy to comment at length as to what points are just flat out wrong and anti-wiki. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

In reference to TFD-only instructions is an implication of the existence of more general instructions. Links to such would be a good idea. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators ? (SEWilco)

Template:Steven Spielberg's films

Could people take a look at the disposition of this template? It is marked as Convert to Category with the description: "(7 catify, 1d, 8k but most keep-voters didn't object to catify, one explicitly stated he wouldn't mind, and at any rate catify is not a form of deletion)"

I don't know how other's feel, but my "keep" vote certainly wasn't intended as "keep, but catify would be okay too" vote. It doesn't seem reasonable to treat the failure to object to an option as some sort of implicit endorsement of that option. Reading the log, I also am not sure which keep vote the closing admin is reading as saying it would be okay to catify. None of them seem explicit in that way to me. JPS's vote is perhaps closest, but I read his comments as saying he wants both a category and a template.

I would say this looks more like failure to reach consensus to me, in which case, I believe the appropriate action should be to do nothing and let it stay by default. Dragons flight July 8, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

It is very clear that there was no consensus to delete the template. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

• I concur that there was no consensus to delete. However, there was a majority to categorify. Converting to a category does not cause information to be lost, and therefore (like merging an article, for instance) is not a form of deletion. Even if I assumed that all 'keep' votes were objecting to categorify, there still would be a majority to categorify (it would be wrong to assume that they were not objecting, but it would be equally wrong to assume that they were objecting).
• What I believe to be the general issue here is that many voters do not take the larger picture into account. People want information kept, and care less whether it's a list, category, series box, or all three of them. A good example is the recent debates on Exploding animals. The list, template and category were each nominated for deletion, and each was kept. Arguably, they're all equally informative, and two of the three are redundant. A special vote section for deciding what to do with obvious redundancy may be useful, but may also be overly bureaucratic.
• Anyway. WP:CFD can do deletes and renames, and tends to label the latter very explicitly to prevent people from voting to oppose the deletion when that wasn't proposed in the first place. As such, I think it would be appropriate to start a new vote on this template, making it clear that it is proposed to be converted to a category, rather than deleted outright. That way, when people vote on it, we will know for sure what they are supporting or opposing. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 06:15 (UTC)
• I agree with Radiant. We may also consider either adding it to this Tfd, or closing that one, are doing all three together, as they are all were listed on Tfd, for the same reasons. <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
• Converting to a category AND deleting the template is DELETING THE TEMPLATE. If you do that, you are making the assumption that most of the people who voted "keep" were really saying "keep or convert to a category", but if that is what they wanted, they would have said that. There was no consensus to delete the template, so it should not be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  • That's exactly why I suggested relisting it. You are assuming that "keep" really means "keep and do not convert to a category". It's possible to make a case for either. Radiant_>|< 08:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with <>Who?¿? that all three templates should be discussed alongside each other. It should not be relisted separately: that sounds to me that it will be relisted until voters get bored and it's deleted. If it's not added to Hitch and Kubrick, then, spin aside, no consensus to delete means leave it alone. The JPS 11:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, all three should be consistent. I've added this one to that vote. Radiant_>|< 20:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think this should be revoted on the principle that we shouldn't just keep voting things indefinitely. However, if it is going to be revoted it should not be quietly added to a vote already close to closure. I have moved the new merged vote up to the top to give time for a complete vote and added a disclaimer to explain the situation. Dragons flight 21:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • True enough. By the way I did note that I "added the third per talk page comments". But giving it another week sounds fair. Radiant_>|< 10:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

TfD instructions not followed

The TfD instructions have not been followed for the following. (SEWilco 16:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC))

• 1.2.5 Template:Seesubarticle
• 1.2.6 Template:Seesubarticle2
• 1.2.7 Template:Seesubarticle3
• 1.2.8 Template:See details

III.       Give due notice.
Please consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} on relevant 
talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. 
This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the 
template's talk page.

• Instead of making an issue about it, wouldnt it be better to just go ahead and fix the problem? Or post a comment on the users page so they can correct the mistake? I mean, these instructions are not always going to be followed to the letter. It also says "please consider" which underscores the nature of these instructions. As well, SEWilco, you seem to have implied in other cases that a TfD is invalid because instructions were not followed. Do you have somthing to back that up? Stbalbach 17:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not nominating the templates for deletion so I can not fix the problem. I already fixed the Step I error of not providing Template:tfd with the template name. I believe I have nothing to back that up; nothing being announced, nothing in my reminder to the TfDer. And "Please consider" was not there when this TfD was made. (SEWilco 19:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC))

III.       Give due notice.
Add {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}}
on relevant talk pages, which will create a section,
warning other editors.

You had a choice. You could have either silently fixed the problem yourself (there are no rules against that, just as people often sign other peoples name when they forget to do so). Or you could have notified the nominator that they made a mistake (which if you had done, and they still didnt fix it, you would have a real case). Instead you choose to make an issue over it to discredit the vote. These are not laws, it's not a "bottom line" court room, everything is looked at in context and the persons beahviour is the thing looked at. I cant comment on the "please consider" that now sounds like a new issue, although I dont agree with it being added without any discussion or rationale in the talk page, but in principal you would have to show someone intended to deceive others, that it was not just a mistake, because lots of people make lots of mistakes on Wikipedia. In the end Wikipedia is about behavior. Stbalbach 21:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean like this: User_talk:500LL#Tfd_instructions. This time I happened to notice the TfD early despite the lack of notice. But he's done nothing. The previous event was complicated by delays which are now becoming similar to this one. And I won't nominate for deletion when I don't want to nominate for deletion; I don't yet want to keep all but I also don't want to nominate for deletion. (SEWilco 22:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC))

It seems to me that you are suggesting that the community consensus is in some way irrelevant if you were not personally informed of proceedings. Seeing as you have come across and participated in the proceedings, I'm wondering what your point is. If you are trying to tell a consensus community that, because you think the letter of a non-law was not followed in one particular talk-page's case, they are all invalid, I think you may be stretching things a bit. To be explicit: are you requesting that the developing consensus should be abandoned and the TfD closed to keep because of this? If that is your desire, you should get in touch with an administrator, perhaps at WP:AN/I and let them know. If the TfD is closed in this way, I will shortly after renominate them all, properly, myself. -Splash 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're not hearing from those who did not stumble across the TfD, so of course you're hearing from someone who did stumble across it. In my case you're hearing from me only because the edit of the TfD page happened to appear in my watchlist before someone hid it with an edit on another topic. (SEWilco 06:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The suggestion that 'interested parties' should be informed of a template's pending deletion is a matter of civility, and not an essential part of the procedure. In particular because it generally isn't obvious who the interested parties may be. Putting the {{tfd}} in place on the template will already inform people that something is up (since it appears on all pages that use the template) and if people are concerned about a particular template they should keep it on their watchlist. Finally, as Stbalbach pointed out, {{sofixit}}. If you believe certain people should be told about the template's deletion, go ahead and tell them. Radiant_>|< 07:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Many people would consider the creator of a template and those looking in the Template Talk page to have some interest and should be notified. Putting {{tfd}} on the template is only apparent when one happens to look at an affected page during that one week period, and I've been doing a lot of looking at diffs and article sections rather than whole articles so I think I didn't see the recent TfD notice in an article. There already are few voters on TfD, and having less notification will not help the process. Or are there already very few proper notifications and thus there are few voters? (SEWilco 05:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC))
    • I understand your point, and it would be polite to notify more people, but requiring people to do so would make it prohibitively difficult to nominate anything. (m:instruction creep). It is not required for WP:VFD to notify anyone who contributed to the article, either. Note that the people who would be most interested are those that use the template, and that's hard to check from the template itself. Of course, the template should have a notificaiton on it, generally on the tl itself but if that's not a good idea for layout reasons, then it should go on the talk page. Either would be noticed by anyone who watches the template (and other than that, almost nobody reads template talk pages at all). If you see any template on TFD and you notice it doesn't have a TFD notice, it would be most appropriate to add one. And by the way there are few voters on TFD because it's a backwater and most people apparently don't care about templates overly much - but when an oft-used tl is nominated, they do flock in almost instantly. Radiant_>|< 08:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I assume you mean "when an oft-used tl is nominated with notification". 2 of the current 27 had no notification, which is about 7%. I hope admins doing DofT are checking content and are aware of such situations. (SEWilco 02:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
        • No, I did not mean that. Take a look at the nominations for {{nonsense}} and {{sofixit}}, which are the only two oft-used templates presently on TFD. They get lots more votes, including from people who generally do not visit here.
        • If you're not convinced by the above, I suggest you do one of two things: 1) keep track of TFD and, whenever a template is nominated, contact the people who use it; or 2) create a Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/proposal page to propose that it become mandatory for people to contact template users before nominating it, and list that page on RFC to get feedback. Radiant_>|< 09:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • Your two examples {{nonsense}} and {{sofixit}} do have notification. It would be interesting to see how many people arrive for TfD of an oft-used template for which no notification is added to the template. (SEWilco 05:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC))
            • Yes, they had the TFD template on their template, as is proper. I believe, however, that you were arguing for notifying anyone who frequently used the template, and I see no evidence of that being done for these two. Nevertheless they get a lot of votes. Radiant_>|< 14:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Survey of TfD instructions

I examined the present TfD list. I did not examine notification of individuals. (SEWilco 06:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC))

• Both: TfD on template and notification in Template talk:
  1. Template:Sofixit
  2. Template:Worldperks
  3. Template:European Commission President
  4. Template:Rambot-cruft (TfD notice exists in current version but TfD section points to old version)

• One: TfD on template but no notification in Template talk:
  1. Template:Quantity
  2. Template:Structure
  3. Template:^
  4. Template:Current sports
  5. Template:PD-Philippines
  6. Template:Sisterlinks
  7. Template:Prime Minister of Portugal
  8. Template:Survey
  9. Template:Article note
  10. Template:Seesubarticle
  11. Template:Seesubarticle2
  12. Template:Seesubarticle3
  13. Template:See details
  14. Template:Summary
  15. Template:Kubrick (actually, Neither: no TfD notices now, because TfD template was deleted.)
  16. Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films
  17. Template:Steven Spielberg's films
  18. Template:Jul7Bom
  19. Template:Lifespan
  20. Template:Buffy-character

• One: No TfD on template but notification in Template talk:
  1. Template:Judaism-Attention

• Neither: No TfD notices.
  1. Template:Ancap
  2. Template:Text

• • I've fixed Ancap and Text; they should definitely have TFD notices. In the case of 'text' the notice went to its talk page instead, since it might mess up layout otherwise. Radiant_>|< 08:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, it might mess up layout? You figured out what Text is for? What did you learn and how do we figure out the same thing with other templates? (SEWilco 15:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC))
      • No, I didn't. I'm inferring that from the fact that it's a small, unboxed template. Simple rule of thumb: if the TFD notice is bigger than the tl itself, put it on its talkpage instead. Radiant_>|< 09:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Userfied

What is the reasoning for "userfying" templates and how does that affect those templates? Hyacinth 18:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't really affect those templates, they can still be used from userspace. Userfying is sometimes proposed when a template seems unlikely to be used other than by its creator. Radiant_>|< 08:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

That is illogical. 1st, if it is exactly the same, what was the point? 2nd, they certainly will only be used by their creator after having been cordoned off in userspace. Last "my" templates which have been userfied are intended for a general issue and should be used by many. On what basis was it decided no other users care about negative behaviour on talk pages? Hyacinth 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful in following the conversation if you would identify which template(s) you are talking about. Dragons flight 21:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to understand what exactly "userfy" means and what it entails, and finding no answers in the above. Could someone please explain it to me more simply? What does userfy mean? Thanks Codex Sinaiticus 23:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No notifications, June 17

The following have no TfD notification in the template nor talk pages. (SEWilco 05:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC))

• Template:TPOV
• Template:Cleanup-serious
• Template:User la

Fixed. —Cryptic (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Inform the creator

I think it might be a good idea to add the following text to the nomination instructions:

It is sometimes courteous to inform the creator of the template about the nomination, particularly if it was recently made.

I think this should be on all deletion pages, such as TfD, CfD, etc. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• • No, I don't think so. It's instruction creep and would add to the already rather length VfD etc. processes. This is what watchlists are for. -Splash 18:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's not a requirement, so therefore not instruction creep. I suggested this after someone deleted a category I created during a particularly busy week of mine - I would've been able to properly contest the deletion had I been informed. Normally I would spot it on my watchlist, but it's hard to monitor 3500+ articles when you are really busy offline. violet/riga (t) 14:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is a problem. But adding a fourth stage to *fD will start to make it too complex, imo. Also, sometimes, partic on VfD the article's author is an anon who is never seen again. Sometimes too, the article has been numerously edited before going to VfD; informing the original author then doesn't seem so relevant, and informing all editors is potentially prohibitvely time consuming. Would be nice if there could be a separate feature on the Watchlist which alerts you when one of your things has been nominated, but we'd the developers' to do that...and some means of sensing the appropriate templates etc. If this were to be a guideline, we'd soon have people on VfU saying "I was never notified that my article about Mr Vain the Teenage Drummer was on VfD, and I want it back". It'd be hard to refuse them in the face of the guidance, even it weren't policy. -Splash 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've argued this point before. It's just common courtesy, and therefore fits nicely under civility. It takes only a little longer to do the notification, and many template creators apprciate the notification. BlankVerse ∅ 07:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I do not think this should be added as a suggested best practice. The creator of a template or article or category has no special status among Wikipedia editors as there is active rejection of the notion of article ownership in the Wikipedia environment. To recognize the creator in this manner would undermine the basic tenet that all Wikipedians are to be treated with equal respect and consideration for their editorial activities. Courtland 14:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How about: "It is often a good idea to inform the user or users who created or have most often edited the template, particularly if there are only a few such users. This is not required, but may allow them to expalin the purpose of the template and the reasons why it should exist." DES ^(talk) 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As the template's purpose and intent are considered relevant, notification of the creator should be mandatory. That is the only editor which can be identified who definitely had a purpose in mind (the other editors might have merely adjusted appearance). (SEWilco 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
      • It's pretty clear that both of you feel that my opinion is out of the mainstream and bordering on silly; is that correct? Courtland 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for templates for deletion

A template can be used thousands of times. Some of the templates up for deletion right now are being used thousands of times. They have a much wider audience than a single article. That said, when a template goes up for deletion it becomes a seroiusly sore thumb and it is confusing to casual readers of the encyclopedia, upsetting the flow of information. Templates for deletion should not be pockmarked with a message saying so as they receive such tremendous exposure. --Alterego 00:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• On the contrary, templates should be marked precisely because this draws people into the discussion. Most templates nominated here aren't used all that often. On the case that one is, the 'pockmark' will draw in comments from many of the frequent users. The tag should be up for only a couple of days anyway. Radiant_>|< 07:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:expand_list has been up for a week and has around 5000 articles using it give or take. That is way too long. --Alterego 00:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • You are mistaken. TL:Expand list is linked from ~300 articles, not >5000. Radiant_>|< 15:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

a useful tool

Just realised I've not mentioned here something that I created for use on the stub sorting project pages: {{ttl}}. By typing {{ttl|stub}}, for example, you get {{stub}} (t/l), showing the template, its talk page, and its links. Hope its of some use here! Grutness...wha? 09:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

I'm removing it as it seems to be disused - no point keeping around something that no-one actually uses! Dan100 (Talk) 07:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Except that you of all people ought to be using it. Explained at User talk:Dan100#The Holding Cell and Closing TFDs. Dragons flight 15:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

overzealous deletionism of templates

Okay, crap in the main namespace should be deleted, someone clicking [[special:randompage] doens't want to be shown crap, but we need to be more lenient on templates because they are not what is shown to the reader. In particular, templates should be redirected more than they are in order to maintain redundancy. Dunc|☺ 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirection is good, yes. The main reason for deletion of unused or malformed templates is that a template implies a certain officiality. If an article has a template that refers to a certain process (e.g. {{cleanup}}) then people seeing the template tend to assume that said process is widely accepted and actually works. If for instance a template says "this article will be translated next week" and it has been on an article for several months, then it's misleading and something should be done about it. (not necessarily deletion though, renaming or rewording if appropriate) Radiant_>|< 10:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go so far as to elevate the goings on at TFD to the level implied by _it's cleaning Wikipedia of things that provide a false sense of officialness or credibility_ (my phrasing). Many of the appearances here are based solely on perceived redundancy or perceived appearance of unprofessionalism; impending deletion can be countered by the voting process, but not the appearance of templates here in the first place. So, counter to the oft said "don't vote on everything", it might be more appropriate to encourage with "vote smart and vote often". Courtland 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of orphaned redirected templates

When trying to clean up {{seemain}} (t/l), which was redirected to {{main}} (t/l), all the referring articles were updated so as to orphan seemain. It was then discovered that "What links here" on a redirected template apparently is not updated when referencing articles are updated. This means that there is no simple way to identify when an obsolete redirected template is an orphan. An orphan has to also be actively checked, by examining all articles which reference the target of the redirect. This creates a tendency for obsolete templates to accumulate rather than be eventually deleted. (SEWilco 20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Not entirely. Whatlinkshere does update, only not instantaneously, and in particular not for widely-used templates that have been around for awhile. Software issue. Googling on a template may work as an alternative - and if a template is relatively new and whatlinkshere is empty, then it's safe to assume that nothing links there in the first place. Radiant_>|< 10:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that Whatlinkshere is updated on the target template of a redirected template. seemain has few links listed, and it is easy to find seemain in Whatlinkshere:main (main is the target of the seemain redirect). (SEWilco 15:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

AutoSubster

Occasionally we come across a template that ideally should be subst'ed whenever used; there has been a long-standing feature request to allow a flag on templates that would automatically do this. However, it's also possible to employ a bot. I've requested this on WP:BR; if the bot is feasible, we can decide where and when to use it. Radiant_>|< 10:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Isn't this an issue for the Discussion-space of each template individually? Courtland 00:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. I just wanted to point out the possibility in a central place, i.e. here. Radiant_>|< 08:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:otherarticles

There is clearly a demand for a more intuitive navigation tool for navigating some categories that the category tag itself. See Template:Areas of Edinburgh now up for deletion. I have built this as a tool for more intutive quick navigation; as it says in Template talk:otherarticles this puts a page into a category, and then provides a link to the category and a list article, or a general article. Please comment and edit. Septentrionalis 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please provide some evidence of this 'clear demand'? Surely you're not suggesting that we replace each and every category tag with a template? Radiant_>|< 08:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Evidence? Examples of Navigation templates come up like this on TfD every other day or so: someone has decided that this or that particular class needs to be something more visible than a category tag. Usually, as here, it is a category which is the most important cat for the articles concerned.If it isn't, then we can delete the cat, and have the brawl.

• • Usually they design something large, garish, and filled with a list - often the completeness of the list is open to question. Template:otherarticles is a small, quiet template, with no list. It generates a category tag, and so encourages categorization. View it as a compromise which may make Listify go down easier, without giving up anything of importance. Septentrionalis 20:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that this could be used to replace Template:Las Vegas casinos by adding 3 categories and using this template if desired? Vegaswikian 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think navtemplates and listboxes are good. But I haven't heard a good argument yet for a template that only links to a category, as the link on the bottom already does that. And you can skin it to make it more prominent, too. Radiant_>|< 10:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No TfD notifications, August 19

No TFD template notice for the following:

• seemain2
• seemain3
• seemain4
• seemain5
• seemain6
• seemain7
• seemain8
• seemain9
• seemain10
• seemain20
• Npov-intro
• POV-intro
• ccm
• Infobox SoftwareProduct

(SEWilco 03:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

• {{sofixit}}. Radiant_>|< 10:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Votes cancelled. Fixed. (SEWilco 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC))
    • That is quite not the way to do it. We've discussed this before - WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and notifying people is not a mandatory part of the deletion process. By "sofixit" I mean you should notify the people you wish notified (and possibly extend voting a bit, there's no harm in that) - not cancel the vote. Radiant_>|< 08:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • That would seem to suggest that steps I and III at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#How_to_list_templates_for_deletion should be considered optional, yes? Courtland 07:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Step 3 is entirely optional and listed as a courtesy (note that it starts with "please consider"). Step 1 should be used, although in some cases the notice goes on the template's talk page instead. Either will, of course, appear to people watchlisting it. My point, however, is that (per WP:NOT a bureaucracy) if you have a problem with lack of notification, the proper action is to notify those people - not to invalidate the discussion. Radiant_>|< 09:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Predeletion of Templates

Apparently User:Lifeisunfair thinks that TfD requires deletion of all template usage before initiation of the TfD process. Somewhat avoids {{tfd}}'s notification purpose. See the August 22nd changes preceding the TfD edits. [1] (SEWilco 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

I always try to assume good faith, but the above is a deliberate distortion of the truth. I've advocated such a measure only in the rare instances in which the TfD message would be contextually nonsensical within the confines of the articles (thereby generating confusion instead of notification). Our top priority is to uphold the quality of the encyclopedia for readers, not to blindly follow standard procedure when it makes no sense. —Lifeisunfair 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing deliberate about any distortion. I'm not aware of your advocacy, only of what you did. Fix the situation, then fix the TfD process. If {{tfd}} generates a confusing message, perhaps it needs fixing, such as a rightward box saying "Template:XXX nominated for deletion". (SEWilco 02:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

"There is nothing deliberate about any distortion. I'm not aware of your advocacy, only of what you did."

This is another lie, because I explained the precise reasoning behind my actions in this specific case. You then disregarded everything that I'd written, and announced (above) that I apparently believed that "TfD requires deletion of all template usage before initiation of the TfD process."

"Fix the situation, then fix the TfD process."

Please cite an excerpt from the TfD instructions in which the removal of TfD-listed templates from articles is prohibited (not that I generally advocate such a measure).

"If {{tfd}} generates a confusing message, perhaps it needs fixing, such as a rightward box saying 'Template:XXX nominated for deletion'."

The standard message usually is appropriate, but the above might be a good idea for an alternative version. —Lifeisunfair 03:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Where had you "explained the precise reasoning"? In the explanation which you published on the non-Talk page while I was typing this message? Not seeing what had not previously existed is not the same as "disregarded". Nevertheless, removing templates from articles so as to not have the notices appear to users removes the {{tfd}} notification to those users, which is considered important for participation in the process. (SEWilco 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

"Where had you 'explained the precise reasoning'?"

Here and here. You replied to the former message before initiating this thread, and to the latter message before posting lie #2 in this thread.

"In the explanation which you published on the non-Talk page while I was typing this message?"

To which explanation are you referring?

"Not seeing what had not previously existed is not the same as 'disregarded'."

That isn't what occurred.

"Nevertheless, removing templates from articles so as to not have the notices appear to users removes the {{tfd}} notification to those users, which is considered important for participation in the process."

Again, seemingly nonsensical messages generate confusion, not notification. —Lifeisunfair 05:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I replied to the "latter message" at 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC), when I read it after posting the article here at 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC). (SEWilco 06:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

As I said, you replied to the former message before initiating this thread, and to the latter message before posting lie #2 in this thread (at 02:32, UTC). —Lifeisunfair 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

At 02:32 (UTC) I was replying to your 02:23 (UTC) message in which you tried to read my mind about my 02:12 (UTC) message. (SEWilco 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Here's the timeline:

22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC): I explain the specific reasoning behind my edits.

23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC): You reply to my explanation.

01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC): Once again, I explain the specific reasoning behind my edits.

02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC): You initiate this discussion by claiming that I apparently believe that "TfD requires deletion of all template usage before initiation of the TfD process," despite the fact that you previously read and replied to my first explanation (from 22:15).

02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC): I respond to your 2:12 message by noting the fact that you deliberately distorted the truth.

02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC): Meanwhile, you reply to my second explanation.

02:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC): You claim that "there is nothing deliberate about any distortion," because you are "not aware of [my] advocacy, only of what [I] did," despite the fact that you previously read and replied to both my first explanation (from 22:15) and my second explanation (from 1:46).

—Lifeisunfair 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you know what I was thinking better than I knew it. What is Greenspan thinking right now? (SEWilco 02:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

I know that I explicitly explained my stance, you read and replied to my explanation, and then you made disparate claims about me. I also find it amusing that you've repeatedly accused me of attempting to read your mind, given your decision to post wild speculation about my motives that directly contradicted my actual statements. —Lifeisunfair 03:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Calm down please? What precisely is the problem there - whether the notification goes on the template or its talk page? Radiant_>|< 06:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's a related issue. I moved {{seemain2}}'s notification to the talk page after SEWilco restored the template to all fifteen of the articles that I removed it from (orphaning it), due to my strong belief that the message's appearance in that context would only confuse most readers (who would have no clue as to what "template" is being referenced). A redirect from {{seemain2}} to {{main2}} (the template with which I made the replacement) would be quite uncontroversial (closely reflecting the consensus to redirect {{seemain}} to {{main}}), and I don't see why a TfD debate (which, as far as SEWilco was concerned, had not yet officially begun) should change matters. A redirect (which this manual replacement was largely tantamount to, aside from the fact that it permitted the TfD notice to remain in place) doesn't even require pre-established consensus, and certainly doesn't equal deletion. Redundancy (and not "lack of use") has been cited as justification for the template's deletion (or more likely the aforementioned redirection). The other numbered "seemain" templates, however, were unused or almost unused. —Lifeisunfair 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, Lifeisunfair felt thqt the standard {{tfd}} notice would be very disruptive when used on the various seemain templates, and so chose to remove them from the pages where they were in Use. I'm not clear why Lifeisunfair thought that tagging on the talk page would not serve the purpose. SEWilco objected to thei procedure, and seems to have assumed (or claimed to assume for rhetorical effect) that Lifeisunfair would do this for any template on TfD. Have i got all that correct?DES ^(talk) 07:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a fairly accurate summary. Eventually, I did tag {{seemain2}}'s talk page, and SEWilco continued to object (and added the notice back to the actual template twice). —Lifeisunfair 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• • DESiegel got it correct. (SEWilco 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

seemain

Redirection would not be uncontroversial; for example, I have deprecated the idea at some length, and regret, and resent, that {{seemain}} has been redirected to a less civil version. Septentrionalis 01:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, "uncontroversial" doesn't mean "unanimously approved." I sometimes disagree with decisions, but that doesn't make them controversial.

Secondly, I fail to see how omitting the word "see" (the sole difference, and one that didn't always exist) makes the template "less civil," but that's beside the point. Irrespective of the surviving template's precise wording (which is subject to change), it's widely agreed upon that we shouldn't have two templates that serve an identical purpose. The {{main}} & {{main2}} templates predate the {{seemain}} & {{seemain2}} templates (which were created entirely because of a typo-derived misunderstanding), and the former pair has a preferable naming scheme (because the purpose of templates is to eliminate unnecessary typing). —Lifeisunfair 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is compelling you to use it; but there are editors who prefer it, and they should be permitted to do so. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Septentrionalis 21:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it curt. Your perception differs. Fine, we will style articles slightly differently. What's the problem with our each being able to do it with a template? Septentrionalis 23:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"I find it curt."

No offense, but your belief that adding the word "see" transforms the template from "curt" to "civil" is very difficult for me to comprehend. I can understand preferring one wording over the other, but not to such a great extent.

You are not being asked to comprehend; merely to tolerate. Septentrionalis 18:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Your perception differs."

Indeed, it does. If anything, Main article: seems slightly more polite to me, because it's a simple notification of the article's existence (as opposed to an instruction). Having said that, I don't believe that this disparity is remotely significant enough to worry about; either wording is fine.

Then I have a bold suggestion for compromise: reword {{main}} and both will be happy. Septentrionalis 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fine, we will style articles slightly differently."

Do you honestly feel that there's no advantage to maintaining as much style conformity between articles as can reasonably be attained?

Wikipedia is inconsistent. There would be some advantage to a list of suggestions for the genuinely undecided; attempts to impose a standard have led to the AD/CE war and the Style Wars, and would lead to Anglo-American wars if they were not routinely suppressed. If enough people like Main article: it will become universal as they change to it; if not, not. That's how wikis are supposed to work. Septentrionalis 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"What's the problem with our each being able to do it with a template?"

I can't fully gauge the scope of your question until you answer mine. (Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation?) —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pre-emptively, no; but if someone wants to bother to make a template for his favorite variation, and it is used and documented, fine. Septentrionalis 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the wording and style of {{main}} should be in Template talk:main. (SEWilco 04:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

inline

On the question at issue, there is now an inline version of tfd: {{tfd-inline}}Septentrionalis 01:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that variant, but it doesn't address the issue in question. The problem relates not to aesthetics, but to the fact that no obvious "template" is visible to the reader (so it isn't remotely clear what the message is referencing). —Lifeisunfair 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain when this new template should be used in Template_talk:Tfd-inline#Usage. (SEWilco 02:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

I've given it my best shot. Feel free to make improvements. —Lifeisunfair 03:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the refactoring error. I realize now that your message was intended to be displayed as originally posted (a reply to Septentrionalis). I should have known better than to think that you would attempt to communicate with me in a civil manner. —Lifeisunfair 04:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, let's be clear on this...
  1. If a template is nominated for deletion, that should be mentioned on the template itself, or on its talk page.
  2. Preferred location is on the template itself, except if the template is not a box (because then it would be unclear to any reader what exactly is proposed for deletion), or if the template is heavily in use (because of server issues explained in WP:AUM). In the former case, {{tfd-inline}} may still be appropriate on the template itself.
  3. If notification is missing for a nomination, please add the notification, possibly extending the vote by a couple of days. Per WP:NOT a bureaucracy, a mistake in procedure does not invalidate a vote.
  4. Do not revert war [2], period.
• Radiant_>|< 09:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, but I refuse to interpret "do not revert war" as "reward the persistence of those who repeatedly make patently inappropriate edits by allowing such changes to stand." SEWilco's edits don't quite constitute "vandalism," but the result was the same. (Articles were messed up.) Perhaps SEWilco felt similarly about my edits, but this was based entirely upon a misunderstanding of policy. —Lifeisunfair 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be "messed up" by the {{tfd}} notice. See discussion in Template talk:tfd. If you don't like it, fix the TfD method rather than conducting a secret template deletion. (SEWilco 15:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

1. I'm not referring to aesthetics. I'm referring to the insertion of a message that doesn't make sense to readers, and therefore doesn't provide "notice" of anything, but does impede their use of the encyclopedia.

2. I've done nothing in "secret."

3. By "template deletion," I assume that you're referring to my removal of {{seemain2}} from fifteen articles and of {{seemain3}} and {{seemain4}} from one article each. (I'm not an admin, so I'm incapable of deleting templates.) I find it utterly hilarious that you would complain about this, given that, without any prior discussion or notification on {{main}}'s talk page, you recently deployed your bot to remove the highly popular template from hundreds of articles (thereby "correcting" uses that you deemed "improper" because of a minor typo in the description), and refused to reverse the process until a "consensus" to do so had emerged (despite the fact that there had been no consensus for the original change, and an overwhelmingly obvious consensus for the status quo). —Lifeisunfair 17:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You're aware of the so-called typo now, but you weren't participating in the earlier documentation and usage. Welcome to the community. (SEWilco 04:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

"You're aware of the so-called typo now,"

1. Are you denying that the original documentation contained a typographical error?

2. Yes, I'm aware of this issue now. And do you know why? Because I actually bothered to discuss the matter with the template's creator (who promptly corrected the mistake). Why didn't you?

3. Even if the restrictive wording had been intentional (which it wasn't), why, in your assessment, would it have been sacrosanct? This community is governed by consensus, and a template's creator has no authority to dictate its strict use. In the eight months leading up to your bot's "fixing" spree, the {{main}} template was utilized almost exclusively in a manner that the description inadvertently precluded. And yet, instead of amending the documentation (or proposing such a change), you deliberately created redundant templates (and advocated the adoption of others), purely for the purpose of being able to authorize the "prohibited" usage. You continually stated that the templates' "appearance" (id est, their actual output) was irrelevant, and that it wouldn't matter to you if they contained identical code, as long as the correct "type" of template was used in each situation (as though some soft of important technical distinction existed). These comments can be found at Template talk:See details and User talk:SEWilcoBot.

"but you weren't participating in the earlier documentation and usage."

That's true; I was entirely unaware of the situation until your bot "fixed" an article on my watchlist. Please forgive me for failing to take part in every English language Wikipedia discussion. —Lifeisunfair 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're in favor of discussion yet hide notification of activities which may inform others of interesting events more quickly than you became aware of such. (SEWilco 06:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

"So you're in favor of discussion"

Yes, discussion. That's the first step that you skipped over when imposing the aforementioned "fix."

"yet hide notification of activities which may inform others of interesting events"

1. Once again, nonsensical message != "notification."

2. Notification is the second step that you skipped over when imposing your "fix."

"more quickly than you became aware of such."

Had you posted a single relevant message on the {{main}} template's talk page (initiating discussion or at least providing notification of your intended "fix") prior to your unleashing your bot, I would have become aware of the situation immediately. Why did you "hide" this information from the community?

Oh, wait, I forgot; it was everyone else's fault for not reading a specific TfD debate that occurred "over a month" earlier. And as I remarked previously, a notice undoubtedly was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." —Lifeisunfair 07:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Those are improvements of the How_to_list_templates_for_deletion phrasing. (SEWilco 18:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
• I just put {{seemain}} up for deletion again, after orphaning the "What links here" pages hidden by the redirect. Notice that if the TfD notice had not been put on the template during the last TfD, the problem with redirect-hidden references may not have been found and articles would have been somewhat more messed up after TfD than during it. (SEWilco 21:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

The bug (which just reared its ugly head yet again) was known to exist (by Radiant, at least) prior to that TfD. —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what reared its head now is that some What_links_here are not being detected by pywikipediabot. This is a different problem, as the articles are indeed visible in the "wrong" place but the bot is not accessing them there. (SEWilco 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

The bot silently hit a limit on WLH links. I added code to detect such a situation, and an additional 114 articles using seemain have been converted to main. (SEWilco 17:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• Any suggested phrasing for the TfD instructions? (SEWilco 04:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

To what sort(s) of changes are you referring? —Lifeisunfair 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Radiant's points above. Although it would also be nice if the creator of {{tfd-inline}} would ensure that the documentation on the template's Talk page actually matched the intended usage of the template. (SEWilco 07:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

Vote cancelled

Vote cancelled; Templates can not yet be deleted. (SEWilco 04:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• Don't cancel the consideration for deletion just because it is difficult to orphan .. if the consensus is for deletion, a way will be found. Courtland 04:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• The purpose of the vote was to delete an orphan. I think I found the problem, but have to restart the vote clock when notifications are reissued. (SEWilco 05:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

1. Why have you repeatedly proposed the deletion of template with a recent TfD consensus in favor of redirection? The reasoning behind that decision is that it usually isn't a good idea to delete widely used templates that can simply be redirected to the other templates with which they're redundant (because people who aren't aware of the situation are likely to use such templates in articles).

2. Why did you remove the TfD notice, thereby necessitating (in your mind) a "vote clock reset"? And do you honestly believe that these debates are timed that precisely? —Lifeisunfair 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Deletion proposed because the redirection of a template of different wording is effectively a delayed deletion, the same as the merge of an unobvious article name. The template is no longer listed as a template to be used. When it is no longer in use it can be deleted and users will have to find a new link, just the same as having to find the new name of a renamed article or category. The problems being encountered are due to this being one of the first used templates to be fully deleted, due to the recent availability of templates and lack of candidates. Garbage has to be cleaned up eventually. (SEWilco 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

2. Notice removed because the time can't start until the template is orphaned and deletion can be considered. The TfD notice should go on the template itself so those affected will know about it, particularly in case the template is for some reason not the orphan it should be. If it is an orphan then it won't matter; if it is used in new articles during the TfD week the editors will get notice. (SEWilco 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• (moved here) Radiant_>|< 08:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• One moment ... are you suggesting that a template should not be brought ... cannot be brought ... to TFD until after it is orphaned? Surely not, otherwise we might has well do away with the Holding Cell altogether, yes? Courtland 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not usually. In this case, seemain was a template which lost its identity in an earlier TfD and became a redirect. The template was then removed from documentation promoting its use. In effect, the template no longer exists. The existing references to the template have been removed. This TfD is to remove the unused template, just as we remove articles which are no longer needed. The process has encountered complications because templates are new and the deletion process has not been done before. (SEWilco 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

Dates

At the moment, the TOC has entries of the form 4.10 August 11 This can be confusing. Is it worth switching to European dating (DMY) to avoid this? Septentrionalis 01:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed listing instructions

• Proposed new TfD listing instructions. Discussion below. (SEWilco 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName with the name of the template to be deleted — do not include the namepace identifier "Template:")

==== [[Template:TemplateName]]====
''Your vote'': Your reason for nominating the template ~~~~

Also consider adding to your watchlist any articles you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that your TfD tag is not removed by a vandal.

TfD instruction discussion

Items changed:

• Urged use of {{tfd-inline}} if not similar to nav box.
• Changed "page" to "template" in heavy-usage sentence (probably an edit error).
• Made voting action easier to cut-and-paste.

(SEWilco 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

Looks good to me; gives good instructions and options to potential TfD editors. – Friejose 19:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't really like the layout (the one-two-three steps don't work well with such lengthy steps) but that's just a quibble.
• More importantly though, the second part. This is templates for deletion. Hence, if you nominate something, it is generally apparent that you want it deleted (indeed, if you want it moved or reworded, {{sofixit}}). People do not generally start their nomination with stating their vote, and should not be required to. Radiant_>|< 08:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I got the vote-at-nomination from the existing instructions. I thought it was there because TFD is also used for actions other than deletion, and the first entry helps guide other voters. I've also found it handy for using cut-and-paste for a vote. (SEWilco 14:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC))
    • Well, I suppose that's true (listify/categorify come to mind). However to avoid ambiguity I would like to state that, since the page is "templates for deletion", the intent of a nomination should be assumed to be 'delete' unless stated otherwise. Just to avoid future issues. Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Otheruses1

I wanted to use a template instead of a hard-coded disambiguation message. So I went to Wikipedia:Template_messages/General and found that it recommends otherusers1. Then I tried to use otheruses1 but it said it has been submitted for deletion. So I went to this page, but it's not listed.

Does anyone know the correct template to use when you want something of the form:

This article is about XXX, for other topics with a similar name see YYY.

Ben Arnold 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since they still exist, and are not mentioned or logged, {{Otheruses1}} and {{otherusesabout}} both must have survived TfD, and are therefore unexceptionable. Closers should be careful. Septentrionalis 20:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Las Vegas casinos

What the hell is going on with this template? First it's blanked, then it's nominated for TFD, so I reinstate the content so there's something to vote on; the vote is inconclusive so it's kept, and then the template is blanked again! I really don't give two hoots about this template one way or the other, but I get the feeling not everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet here, procedure-wise. Either the TFD vote was to keep it, in which case the content should be restored, or otherwise it should be renominated. Do something. sjorford (?!) 18:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what's going on, but blanking it was improper. I've reverted the blanking and left note on the talk page. It seems the author abandoned it, but it's still reasonably well linked to. Radiant_>|< 19:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

How to improve Template:Tfd

deletion proposal for Template:Tfd

This template violates WP:POINT. If used, it generates needless clutter in article space on every page including a template proposed for deletion, where the notice does not belong, and it surely adds to server load. Delete. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep but make much smaller, like {{tfd-inline}}. I think this template is useful, as otherwise TFD would get very little attention. ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain & Request. I don't like to have things I've done called "foolish" or "pointless" or "in bad faith", but I have to say that this nomination is foolish, pointless, and in bad faith. There is near 0% chance that this template will be deleted, that is clear, unless we are ready to retire this administrative process. Nominating the template for deletion is NOT the way to effect a revision in the template. The nomination is a clear-cut example of WP:POINT itself. I ask that this be removed from this page and placed into Wikipedia_talk:Templates for deletion for extensive and thorough discussion rather than providing a distraction from the business of this page. Courtland 01:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, surely. This is the TfD equivalent of {{afd}} and {{cfd}} etc. It does belong in article space (note it will usually only be transcluded) since that alerts those likely to have an interest in the template. {{tfd-inline}} would probably break things like infoboxes and the like simply by being inline, but it's ok for the smileys below, for example. -Splash 01:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT and it already survived a TfD before. --cesarb 01:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Did it really? Never mind, then. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 03:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The link is on the template's talk page. --cesarb 04:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, obviously. Happy to discuss it elsewhere. And I would like to point out that this TFD is invalid, because {{tfd}} was never added to the template in order to give notice. Runs away and hides. Dragons flight 01:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delist, it seems like User:Eequor retracted his nomination, and also, it has survived a TfD nomination before. --Titoxd 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Make it smaller

Like {{tfd-inline}}. ~~ N (t/c) 20:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:DecencyWikiProject

continuing conversation from the Holding Cell

Perhaps this template should be moved out of the Deletion Log and to a "Special cases log" (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Special cases) in a section labeled "protected from re-creation"? Am I right in assuming that such a template should neither be deleted nor used? Courtland 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This should be listed at WP:PP. I think leaving the Deletion Log as it is and adding it there is enough — the "what links here" for the protection template also documents it. That way is approximately analagous to how AfD does things: we don't remove the AfD subpage to somewhere special, it just gets listed at WP:PP. -Splash 03:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Block

continuing conversation from the Holding Cell

Like template:DecencyWikiProject, maybe this template should be moved out of the Deletion Log into a "special cases" log, this time in a section labeled "consensus to delete: action delayed"? Courtland 02:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could do. Simpler might be to quarantine it in the holding cell so that, if you/me aren't around when it comes time to do something with it, they haven't got to guess where it went. What do you reckon?-Splash 03:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

responding down a long corridor of time ... Agreed; sounds reasonable. Courtland 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Closure template

I think it would be useful to have a closure template like AfD and CfD do. At the moment, it's hard to work out who to flame when your template gets deleted. More importantly, it provides a standardized space for the closer to document their reasoning in, which is better than an edit summary. We can just adopt one or the other from AfD/CfD, recolour it, and call it {{tfd top}} and {{tfd bottom}} with the usual redirects. Thoughts?

The scope of VfU

Since this is a deletion process and, as such, is within scope to VfU, those that participate here might be interested in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. This is considering expanding the scope of VfU to include review of all decisions on deletion process whether the result was delete or notdelete. -Splash^talk 22:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"deleted page" in deleted templates

It doesn't seem to be a good idea to replace the content of a deleted template with {{deletedpage}}. In articles in which the template appears, the {{deletedpage}} template is simply substituted into the article, making it appear that the article has been deleted, rather than the template.

You might think this isn't a problem if you've gotten rid of all references to the template in question, but you'd be wrong; it's still there in article histories. I got bitten by this problem with the {{substub}} template in the history of Projective set. I've fixed up Template:Substub to address this problem. My fix was kind of ad hoc; maybe someone can figure out a more automatic solution. --Trovatore 07:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we create {{deleted template}} which contains the same information as {{deletedpage}} with <noinclude> tags around it, so that the notice only appears if you look directly at the template itself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to the noinclude feature (having only discovered it 12 hours ago), but unless I am misunderstanding you, there would seem to be a logical problem with putting noinclude tags around a message and then trying to include that message on another template. Dragons flight 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That would seem to a problem! I suppose the correct solution is to put noinclude tags around the deleted message in the template itself. We could use making {{deletedtemplate}} anyway, since the phrasing in {{deletedpage}} isn't quite right for a template. -Splash^talk 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it calls for a software update. I would strongly support being able to use "<includeonce>Foo</includeonce>" in template T1 so that if template T2 contains {{T1}} then T2 renders as Foo but if article A contains {{T2}} it would not show anything. Would that solve the problem? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review proposal

In a post a few sections up, I mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. That proposal received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review.

There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splash^talk 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

{twoversions} proposal

Given that {twoversions} is heavily used currently I propose that we not delete or blank the template until after a bunch of things happen:

1. Allow the current TfD to last the requisite amount of time before being blanked/deleted (being blanked before TfD seems like obfuscation)
2. Warn on the talk page of all the articles that use twoversions that it is being phased out, with the idea to give more people a chance to vote and comment on its TfD
3. some effort should be made to resolve disputes on the articles that use the template before it is deleted (transition period)
4. Pro "delete" folks should create an official proposal that tries to argue all headers similar to "twoversions" are inappropriate (a tfd vote does not set precedent as far as what is appropriate header wise inside an individual article, does it?)

Comments? Why was the {twoversions} template blanked prior to resolution of this TfD (articles that use the template have no idea the template is being deleted)? Perhaps we need another proposal or discussion on how to resolve POV forks (instead of arbitrarily deleting templates)? Aren't bad faithed POV fork problems usually decided on a case by case basis? zen master T 23:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Heavily used currently"? As far as I can tell it isn't currently used on any actual articles, and is rarely used in the Wikipedia space. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The template was blanked before it was placed on VfD so no articles that use it were made aware it was being deleted, was that the plan perhaps? Do a google search for "site:en.wikipedia.org" and "two versions of this page" and you will see a ton of chached WP pages that use it. Does a TfD vote set precedent for what is acceptable in an article? zen master T 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. When two (or more) parties cannot reach any consensus in the short run, the only way out is to present different versions to the readers, and let the readers themselves to decide. This also helps cool down the edit wars, and bring the parties to discussion. Better guidelines and enforcement is necessary to ensure no one abuses it, and ignores it to carry on the edit warring. (See also my comment on the project page.) — Instantnood 13:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed a self rolled twoversions-esque header I added to an article yesterday, is this TfD really setting precedent that such headers aren't good? Surely such a big policy change should require more than 15-20 template delete votes? zen master T 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What was the difference between the actual twoversions template and your self rolled twoversions-esque header? They look substantially the same to me. Carbonite | Talk 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly my point/question, if {twoversions} is deleted does that mean articles can no longer use anything that is similar (or the same)? Does this TfD set precdent about what can go at the top of an article as far as signifying disputes is concerned? Seems like a bigger deal policy change proposal is required here, in my interpretation. zen master T 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that anything twoversions-esque constitutes a POV fork, which is "generally considered unacceptable", although the page on POV forks doesn't explicitly give its own policy status. -- Tyler 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that {twoversions} was policy for so long I think it should take an above board policy change proposal and vote to discontinue use of it or similar. If someone rolls their own {twoversions} template are you really going to refer them to this TfD vote as justification for removing it? Seems too unofficial. zen master T 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. {{twoversions}} was never policy. Don't assume that the status quo is on the side of {{twoversions}}-style disclaimers, either as a template or made from scratch. NPOV is not negotiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone rolls their own {twoversions}, it is a recreation of deleted content, so yes TFD would be an appropriate place to refer them. -- Tyler 22:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The "negotiability" of NPOV is not the issue here, the problem in this case is that there are different interpretations of what it means to be NPOV. Some people think {twoversions} is ok and helps cool down edit wars and allows readers to learn specifics of controversies (and the template had been used ok for months if not years) while others think the template encourages POV forking to too extreme a degree. But if the people voting "delete" or apparently support deletion such as yourself are so confident that {twoversions} "violates NPOV" then an official Wikipedia:Two versions proposal to that effect should make sense to almost everyone and pass easily? Why resort to minimizing the number of people that will know the template is proposed for deletion by blanking it before the TfD if you are a true champion of NPOV as you claim? (this is a complaint against David Gerard since he also claimed "NPOV" in his vote without explaining how it's applicable nor acknowledging his interpretation of what it means to be NPOV is disputed) zen master T 22:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The community is wholly against the "two pet versions" interpretation of NPOV you are espousing, as illustrated by this TFD. If you must, open a style RFC on this topic after the deletion of this template, but do not use this template or any similar split version template after the likely deletion of this template and before the establishment of a consensus in favor of using split-version notices. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• The template was never policy (templates usually aren't, in fact). It simply existed. If it were recreated, it could be speedily deleted under CSD#G4. The whole point here is, of course a conflict should be talked out (or if you really must, apply at WP:RPP). But a conflict should not be polarized into two mutually exclusive versions, as this prevents a compromise being worked out (as well as third-party additions in other parts of the article); and also, people have a tendency to apply the template to their own version to give it extra credence. Radiant_>|< 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, {twoversions} has the effect of encouraging people to work together to resolve disputes so a big header can be removed from an article, and it's important that readers/third parties know the the details of a dispute so they can help out in resolving them. In my interpretation, this TfD vote sets no precedent as far as what can go atop an article. I repeat my question from above: if you are such champions of NPOV why the apparently underhanded technique of blanking the {twoversions} template prior to its TfD so very few people would know it's gone? If you truly believed you were right wouldn't you will be willing to have your position stand up to the light of day? zen master T 01:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Quite the contrary, {twoversions} has the effect of encouraging people to work together to resolve disputes so a big header can be removed from an article,"

1. Are you actually arguing that it's appropriate to deliberately mess up the appearance of an article, for the purpose of expediting content dispute resolution (thereby allowing the article to return to a non-ugly state)?

2. It's been my observation that this template actually delays conflict resolution (because one party is content to see his/her preferred version artificially locked in, rather than seeking compromise or running the risk of building a consensus that favors the other party's version). For related reasons, it also fuels new disputes.

"and it's important that readers/third parties know the details of a dispute so they can help out in resolving them."

When an article's NPOV or factuality is challenged (meaning that the reliability of the article is in doubt), it's appropriate to bring this to the attention of all readers (who otherwise might be misled or misinformed). That's why we have templates for these specific issues.

For lesser content disputes, we have talk pages and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. There's no need to drag casual readers into such arguments.

"In my interpretation, this TfD vote sets no precedent as far as what can go atop an article."

Of course it does. The recreation of substantially identical content is a criterion for speedy deletion.

"I repeat my question from above: if you are such champions of NPOV why the apparently underhanded technique of blanking the {twoversions} template prior to its TfD so very few people would know it's gone? If you truly believed you were right wouldn't you will be willing to have your position stand up to the light of day?"

The template was deleted, recreated in blank form, and protected by an admin who applied WP:IAR to eliminate an entity that, in his assessment (with which I concur), was harming Wikipedia with every passing moment. (He also removed it from all of the articles in which it was present.) The template's entire history was then restored by another admin, and it was listed on TfD. —Lifeisunfair 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no solid evidence that {{twoversions}} has ever "encourag[ed] people to work together to resolve disputes". In fact, there is considerable evidence that it has hampered long-term conflict resolution. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, that is a good argument, but you should try to make it official policy and try to get everyone to agree with you (and listen to what they have to say) rather than forcing through your (perhaps incorrect) interpretation of NPOV and {twoversions} upon other people by a mere TfD. I don't deny that {twoversions} isn't perfect, all I am saying is the alternative is potentially much worse (censorship, dispute obfuscation, errors go unfixed, disputes never get resolved in the spirit of true consensus [this shouldn't be a win or lose mentality, wikipedia is not an us vs them game], and the bad faith blanking of a template prior to TfD apparently so fewer supporters would come to its defense shouldn't get rewarded, etc)

Indeed. Which is why I suggested that you (and anyone else interested in the fate of {{twoversions}} see Wikipedia:Request s for arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop. The gross abuse of {{twoversions}} is a significant element of that case. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Lifeisunfair: 1) yes, if an in good faith edit war/edit dispagreement reaches an impase then {twoversions} can be good, after a while it is also a good way of determining if someone's dispute is in good faith (if they seem like they just want to mess up the article/header and they don't continue with their dispute then that certainly can be used as a point against them). Two versions shouldn't stay in an article long, if neither side is making progress someone should come along and try to kick start a compromise version. It would be better if more people were made aware of the details of disagreements, but conveniently {twoversions} does exactly that! It's also a good way of summarizing/seeing clearly the essence/differences of specific disputes which should help people work toward bipartite solutions. 2) I don't deny that content forking and article damanging with {twoversions} isn't a problem, I am just saying that the alterative is worse, potentially much worse. Because the {twoversions} template is blanked currently, David Gerard has effectively taken sides in all the article disputes that use the template (without enough people knowing about it). If you believe the {two versions} template messes up a page why don't you help resolve all the disputes in all the articles that use it (working towards true consensus rather than sweeping the existence of controversy under the rug or arbitrarily choosing sides by serreptitiously blanking a template that is a de facto standard, in my interpretation)? If someone pastes text similar to {twoversions} but not a template into the top of an article in an in good faith dispute by what criteria do you think you'd be justified in removing it? The {twoversions} template should not have been blanked until after the TfD, how do you know more people wouldn't support keeping {twoversions} if they were given the standard "This template has been proposed for deletion" warning? Was David Gerard fair to them? What about my other ideas, how about a transition period, how about some attempt to resolve disputes, how about proposing this as a potential policy so it's crystal clear what wikipedia policy on {twoversions} and similar is? (as far as policy for editing an article goes, TfD is not enough/is inapplicable). zen master T 03:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? We should just let rogue admins do whatever they want to? zen master T 14:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Without judging David's actions, there are several good reasons not to have this template, as discussed in the TFD. Your suggestion that this should require an official policy debate is misguided, as Wikipedia is far less formal than you suggest. If you think some people should be informed of the TFD debate, you are welcome to inform them. If you think the template should stay, you should accept the possibility that you may be in the minority, and that your reasoning may in fact be wrong. If you seriously think that somebody is a rogue admin, please request comment on the amtter. Radiant_>|< 16:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's impossible not to judge David's actions. There doesn't seem to be any competent rationale for deleting the template or changing policy surrounding its use. The template's use might be "bad" sometimes but that would have to be determined on a case by case basis, it can't possibly be always bad. It's also convenient you refer to the TfD as justification for your position, at a fundamental level we don't know what the entire community thinks of {twoversions} because David abused his admin powers to decrease the number of potential supporters that would come to its defense. I repeat my question from above again: is decreasing the awareness of the deletion of {twoversions} something a claimed champion of NPOV would do? zen master T 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The TFD debate has received substantially more input than the average TFD debate. So yes, it is a valid TFD, and if it has consensus to delete the template, that will happen. It doesn't have to be always bad; being "frequently bad" is an entirely valid reason for deprecating. If you think that official policy exists regarding the existence of this template, please point out where, because I believe you are mistaken. At a fundamental level we don't know what the entire communit thinks about anything because given the size of the wiki, that's highly impractical. To reiterate,
  1. If you think some people should be informed of the TFD debate, you are welcome to inform them.
  2. If you think the template should stay, you should accept the possibility that you may be in the minority, and that your reasoning may in fact be wrong. Trying to invalidate the deletion on procedural grounds is not going to work for you.
  3. If you seriously think that somebody is a rogue admin, please request comment on the matter.
• Radiant_>|< 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think that official policy exists regarding the existence of this template, please point out where, because I believe you are mistaken.

Not only was it not a policy, but there was a proposed policy Wikipedia:Two versions that was explicitly rejected. After it's rejection, I put the template on TfD (April, May?). Those upset that the policy was rejected successfuly voted keep on the template, creating the schizoid situation that people used a template based on rejected (because it was bad) policy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to inform people by letting them see the standard TfD deletion warning. I agree there doesn't seem to be any explicit wikipedia policy in favor of {twoversions} (I haven't even checked), but the same fact is true for the opposite position you seem to be supporting, there is no explicit wikipedia policy that says a TfD vote to delete one template somehow changes what editors can put at the top of the article. If someone copies the content of {twoversions} and puts it at the top of an article in an in good faith dispute the appropriateness of that would have to be decided on a case by case basis, this TfD vote sets no precedent article policy wise. You need to have an explicit policy outlawing {twoversion}-esque headers. But why not just determine the appropriateness of {twoversions}'s usage on a case by case basis like most everything else on wikipedia? Why do you need to completely delete {twoversions}, editors will still have to work to resolve disputes in all the articles that use it? What you mischaracterize as me trying to invalidate this TfD on "procedural grounds" is actually me pointing out that people such as David Gerard were gaming the system to get their way (rather than seeking true consensus nor being true champions of NPOV). zen master T 18:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is why David chose to IAR. There is no explicit policy against forking because it should be considered as stating the obvious. Don't do it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy against signifying an article is drastically disputed with two or more versions? The {twoversions} template isn't for "POV forking" it's to signify there is a fundamental dispute with the article. zen master T 20:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the ways to be NPOV is to present all different points of view to readers. For an article which is terribly disputed and contested, presenting two or more versions, and the differences between these versions, is far better than putting the {{dubious}} and {{fact}} templates here and there, and directing readers with {{controversial}} (or {{NPOV}} or {{disputed}}) to the talk page and let them dig out the different points of view themselves. (see Kulturkampf (talk) for instance.) — Instantnood 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence has clearly proven that this, although sounding nice in theory, has simply not worked most of the time. See the number of times it has been shown to work compared to the times it does not. Whatever the case, this discussion here is nothing more then an extension of the comments made in the voting process. It still does not work, proposal or no.--Huaiwei 10:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• In a word, no. Juxtaposing two versions like that makes it harder to find a middle ground or reach a compromise. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that a temporary fork is an inherently bad idea. My vote for deleting the {two versions} template was because of the flawed way it implemented the idea, since it gave one of the versions a preeminence compared to the others. Caerwine 22:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  That's exactly the reason why I called for better guidelines and enforcement. — Instantnood 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Your so-called "better enforcement" refers to administrative action against me who removed your insistance in abusing the template to fit your agenda. How is this any different from the fact that the template in itself is impossible to be "enforced" without being obviously biased against one party, the very reason most people are calling for its deletion? You are seemingly campaigning here based on selfish wants and needs in pages you fought valiently for, and hardly for the good of wikipedia in general.--Huaiwei 04:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    Before saying I'm abusing the template to fit my agenda, you'd better make sure whether I have only been using the template solely to display my preferred versions to bias towards myself. If not, clarify yourself, or apologise for what you have incorrectly said. — Instantnood 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    • I think I have already given a full-length overview of what has happened, including the fact that you changed the displayed version to your opponents' version, and had to do the same in subsequent abusive use of the template only after folks like myself brought our strong objections to the attention of admins. Dont try to claim that you did it on your own accord without any outside pressure. Clear enough? Not only do I not see any apology neccesary, I further more feel you require even greater disciplinary action for trying to dismiss responsiblity in the above statement.--Huaiwei 07:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

      You said I am " abusing the template to fit [my] agenda ", " seemingly campaigning here based on selfish wants and needs in pages you fought valiently for ", and the template has been applied that "biased against one party ". If I were abusing it to fit my agenda and my selfish wants, I do not have to apply it according to the original intents, instead of my preference, of those articles. — Instantnood 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are blabbaring about, and I have got a feeling you cant quite understand what I am getting at either.--Huaiwei 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FFS, can you two please give it a rest? Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) the Special Olympics. Chris talk back 20:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. — Instantnood 09:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Subst'ing templates

A bot is under production to automatically subst certain templates. It is generally accepted that certain templates should always be subst'ed rather than transcluded, for page stability and to reduce server load (see WP:AUM for details). If you have suggestions for templates that should always (or never) be subst'ed, please contribute them to Wikipedia:Subst. Radiant_>|< 23:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Do we need more TFD "tag" templages?

In light of the recent "splash" caused by my Irish infobox nomination I got to thinking. Maybe creating a some variations of {{tfd}} would have been an idea. If the TFD noice on the template was more in line with the actual nomination it might prevent simmilar "knee jerk" reactions to the "this template is nominated for deletion" message in the future. WP:CFD have {{cfr}} and {{cfm}} for rename and merge requests respectively, maybe something like {{tfm}} would be in order, with a message along the lines "this template has been nominated for merging into XXX". That way less people might come barging in here in full "defense mode" because they think we are going to just delete the template and all it's info. It might also be an idea to explain what "substing" means somewhere on the top of the page, as it's aparently not unoversaly understood by all Wikipedians. Just a thought. --Sherool 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good thoughts. Please implement them, per {{sofixit}}. Radiant_>|< 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely. I think these suggestions will go quite a ways toward lowering blood pressure across the board. Thank you. Courtland 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've gone and created {{tfm}} and mentioned it in the instructions. --Sherool (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SFD

Any objections to removing the list of all items on SFD from here? I think that everybody who needs to know about SFD already knows it, so no point in listing everything twice. Radiant_>|< 17:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• What would you propose leaving behind to indicate to people that there are, in fact, stub templates up for deletion? Courtland 00:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How about a link at the top? WP:MD has a lot of links to the other deletion pages. I don't think many people read the green template these days, so a link would be easier. R[[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 09:53, just15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Let's face it, there are always some stub templates or redirects up for deletion anyway, so hopefully anyone who comes to TFD who's intereested in them will be a regular visitor to SFD by now anyway. A link sounds a reasonable solution to remind people that SFD is there. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Random frustration...

Ugh, what a mess... Wish they didn't use that "HTML tidy" feature at all, it obvisly encourage sloppy formating. Now the TFD page (and many others) are currently almost unreadable while the "tidy" feature is disabled because a few dozen malformated HTML signatures have turned it into a mess of tiny text alternating between green, blue and orange. Oh well, end rant. --Sherool (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed all tags of type sub, sup, big and small --AzaToth 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Without TidyHTML, this would be an obvious and obnoxious way of vandalizing any page. Anyway the devs are fixing it. Radiant_>|< 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree

I like the idea of a single template for political office holders. You do lose the successor/predecessor information, but overall the suggested template is an improvement. I like that it lists all of the offices held.

You don't lose them if you have succession boxes at the foot of the article. Chris talk back 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)