Template talk:Afd/Archive 5

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.

← Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 →

Contents 1 Big red message 2 disambiguations 3 Why is this page protected? 4 Auto-including text for the second template in "How to list a page" link 5 Reverse change 5.1 Maybe it's just me 6 Addition to not bite the newbies 7 Interwiki 8 Non-substed message doesn't work 9 New check-if-subst'd method 10 How-to box 11 Change in the category? 12 Unnecessary material on this template 13 Short-Circuiting the Reasons Behind Blanking/Removing the Notice

Big red message

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for an example of why the "big red message" is a sloppy solution. Rhobite 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we come to some sort of compromise instead of fighting back and forth over this? What if it were only displayed if the template was unsubsted in the main namespace? (As an aside, I really badly dislike that the current version does not subst PAGENAME. I would be happy to have my bot spit out a list of afds with redlinked discussions to some lucky volunteer's user talk page instead of a file on my hard drive as at present; fixing these is getting real old, and the recursively-substed PAGENAME would fix a significant chunk of them.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

disambiguations

Somebody should make some disambiguation pages for VfD nominations that are entitled on the same article name (e.g. "WP:AFD/x" and "WP:AFD/x (2nd nominaion)") so that people can know that there are multiple iterations of deletion ballots. --Nintendude 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, you already did. It mangled them horribly. Please don't do it again. —Cryptic (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

Page protection is considered harmful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.61.186 (talk • contribs) 23:10, February 8, 2006

On articles, yes, it is harmful. Alas, this is not an article, it is a high-risk template, which means that page UNprotection is harmful, and protection is good. (Category:Pages for deletion, the related category, has many articles in it, and editing high-risk templates can make Wikipedia vulnerable to a brief database lock.) More info is in the aforementioned link. So, that is why the template is protected. I should note that I am not a developer, I am just saying what is already known. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Auto-including text for the second template in "How to list a page" link

I'd like to change the first link under "How to list a page for deletion" from the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afd/Archive 5 to 5 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afd/Archive 5. (code directly below)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User%3ASuperm401%2FTemplate%3AAfd2+starter&editintro=User%3ASuperm401%2FTemplate%3AAfd3+starter&title={{PAGENAME}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]

This uses a inputbox link to automatically put the text of afd2 into the editbox and put information about the next step before the edit box (someone apparently suggested something similar in #why not use preload and was ignored. This hack won't break any of the auto-afd scripts or bother editors who don't use the "how to list links". The link relies on User:Superm401/Template:Afd2 starter and User:Superm401/Template:Afd3 starter. These would be moved and probably renamed, but are there for testing purposes (if people ignore this too, I'll go ahead and implement, as warned in my recently successful adminship nom :) ). Superm401 - Talk 03:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverse change

Who ever made the last change to this tempalte messesd it up badly, please put it back the way it was, {{AfD}} isn't supposed to look like this--Cr0w bar 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me

But in the last couple of days the link to "Create its AfD subpage." seems to have changed... but the history of the template isn't showing anything? Has it been (for example):

Copy {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groucho glasses}}

to today's AFD with an edit summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groucho glasses

{{subst:afd2|pg=pagename|text=Reason}} ~~~~

Since the 9th and I haven't noticed? And it now says "pagename" as opposed to putting the {{pagename}} into the afd2 template? Or am I just loosing it?
brenneman^{T}{L} 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See Template:AfD doc :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 04:33Z

Addition to not bite the newbies

As per my addition to {{prod}} which stayed, I've added "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria." This is an addition not to bite the newbies. Despite rules on article ownership, having your creation nominated for deletion feels like someone's knifing your baby (even when it's well-deserved, which it usually is); there's no reason to fail to be polite about it - David Gerard 19:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 04:33Z

Meh. I just noticed this. I find it to be somewhat patronizing, and makes the assumption the person posting the afd is in the right, and the article creator is in the wrong. -- MisterHand 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, add bg:Шаблон:Изтриване

Done. —[admin] Pathoschild 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the interwiki links were accidentally placed as comments in the AFD source code. Someone should fix it. And while they're at it es:Plantilla:Aviso borrar should added too :). Pasajero 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Zsinj^Talk 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-substed message doesn't work

It displays {{subst:empty template|This template was not substituted. The link to the deletion discussion below is broken. Replace {{afd}} with {{subst:afd}}}} (plus bolding, but I don't feel like taking the effort to do that). TimBentley (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, as described in the following section. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New check-if-subst'd method

I've implemented a new method to check if the template is substituted based on a logical check between the namespace magic word and the same includeonly-substituted. See User:Pathoschild/Help/Template special effects, where I describe the method in more depth. Note that I've added a CSS style which will hide the box if it is not substituted, since many users may not notice the little error message above it (or not care). That aspect can easily be removed if desired. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How-to box

The how-to box is not functioning properly. In order to have it shown it's necessary to click on the "hide/show" button twice (after first click, it changes from "hide" to "show"), after second, the box is shown). The same goes for cfd templates. Could anybody fix it, please? Conscious 10:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see, the problem involves Template:Hidden. Conscious 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think only developers can fix it...  Grue  08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Pathoschild who edited {{hidden}} on 11 May to look into it. Conscious 08:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Change in the category?

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_7#Category:Pages_for_deletion_to_Category:Articles_for_deletion, Pages for deletion was kept and the other XfD categories were made subcategories of that. To properly set the categorization, the afd template will need to be changed to dump tagged articles into Articles for deletion instead of Pages. I just thought I would bring this up here in case someone has objections. --Syrthiss 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary material on this template

I don't think we need a "how to" section on this template. In my skin it is not hidden, and thus this, to most of us, at best utterly useless information and at worst completely mystifying material is displayed on every single article listed for deletion, making the template display obscenely large.

The result is very unprofessional. People coming to read the article are getting about sixteen lines of confusing stuff before the first text of the article they came to read.

I just don't see the point of having this, except perhaps to show off someone's skill/ineptness with cascading style sheets.

If editors want to find out how to list an article for deletion, you can provide them with a link to click. This is, after all, a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's a pain to have to hunt down where the current nomination instructions are to find the next 2 templates you need to do an AfD, not everyone has them memorized (I don't), and besides, it's 2006... forcing people to memorize exact syntax or hunt through instruction manuals should be long dead by now. Perhaps a return to the older style, where the two templates were mentioned "for maintenence use" in tiny text, so people who wanted them could get them. --W.marsh 13:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. The purpose of this template is to alert the reader that the article has been submitted for afd, and to direct them to the discussion. There is no need for an instruction manual here, since editors don't generally see an article up for afd and then immediately run off and submit another one. Completely unnecessary and garish. -- MisterHand 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In reply to w.marsh, I certainly don't ask people to memorize the instructions. If a howto is needed on the template (and I agree that it's a logical place to start looking, then it can be given as a wikilink to a separate document instead of being inline on every single instance of a substed AfD template. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do (anecdotally) recall that malformed AfDs became much less common once the instructions appeared on the actual template. Like it or not, many people aren't going to click through to a new page to read instructions. But I could live with returning to that system though, if there was a good effort to make sure the template always pointed to a concise version of the current instructions... though I'd prefer to keep the instructions on the template unless it becomes apparent that it bugs way more people than it helps. --W.marsh 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony Sidaway. In fact, when I saw the instructions start showing up, I came here looking for some obvious syntax error. A link to the how-to section should be sufficient. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They should be hidden by default. Must be some glitch with Template:hidden or something. The instructions are extremely useful since they include the PAGENAME where needed, so you only need to copy paste. They were there for quite a long time.  Grue  16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to fixed it. Do you like it now?  Grue  17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (or maybe it wasn't me after all...)

Why has nothing been done to fix the problem. Apart from making AfD nominated pages look horrible, it just looks odd to put descriptions of the process for anyone who wants to nominate another article. Who changed the process to have it display? User:Ansell 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's still horrible. There doesn't seem to have been any change at all.

I propose to edit this template to place the instructions on another page. I will leave a link to that page in the template. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Only applause. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong? The instructions are hidden by default. Can you provide a screenshot of the problem?  Grue  15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They're not hidden for me, but I find having the forms there, with the PAGENAME in place, very convenient. Perhaps a last instruction: "Replace this template by {{subst:Afd1}}", which would be the short version? Septentrionalis 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{hidden}} template must not be working correctly, however, I still wonder why they must be included in the template at all, if by definition they are not going to be shown on the pages using this template. Ansell (T) 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image showing problem Image:AFDHiddenTemplateNotWorking.png Ansell (T) 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this skin you're using? It's probably a bug in skin, not in the template. Also, this template doesn't use hidden, but rather Template:hidden begin.  Grue  06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am using the Cologne Blue template. It is a standard Mediawiki template, and therefore I think that something as major as an AfD notice should be consistent across the range of supported skins.

It still strikes me as totally unnecessary to include the listing information in the template though. What use is there in someone looking at an AfD nominated page to find instructions for how to list another template. Seems like much more hassle and more unnecessary subst'd text than is necessary. Ansell (T) 09:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were a bug in the skin, putting these instructions into the template to be downloaded every time, whether the instructions are needed or not, seems unnecessary. This is a wiki. What's wrong with having a wikilink to the instructions?

Would there be a serious problem with this? I don't think anyone is asked to memorize instructions, just that we shouldn't be putting the instructions on every AfD'd page. --Tony Sidaway 09:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The instructions on a separate page would be useless, because you'll have to substitute all metasynatactic variables, such as PageName to the real page name. With the current system it's a matter of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V. With your proposed system user needs to copy-paste several times, significantly increasing the probability of error.  Grue  10:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless? Hardly. I did my first afd with zero problems, and there were no instructions on the afd template at that time, just a link. Thousands and thousands of editors have done afds without the instructions on the template. It makes no sense to me to put the instructions on a template that many will read, but only one will be actually following. A link will suffice, and more concise. -- MisterHand 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like a very well intentioned addition to the process to reduce errors, however, it is not needed, and in its current state where it is not supported by all skins particularly, it is hindering the process significantly. I do not see how hard it is for someone who actually wants to propose something for deletion to follow manual instructions. If they make an error it is a simple edit to fix it. Ansell 12:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But it makes it much more tedius and error-prone. Wikipedia requires way too much exact syntax and instruction hunting as it is, anything that helps bring us out of the stone age even a little bit is good, in my opinion. The pregenerated afd2 and afd3 templates should stay on the afd1 template, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the drop-down could be a lot shorter, just 2-3 lines, so even if it does display in full it won't be particularly bigger than the normal afd box? --W.marsh 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even without this unnecessary clutter, the afd template is ridiculously large. Two or three extra lines? I still don't see why the instructions can't be on a separate page. Do we want to make it easier for people who aren't even able to do basic editing to to go around listing pages for deletion? If we want to do so, why is this so important than it excuses making articles much, much more difficult to read by imposing a simply massive template at their head? --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, most AfD'd articles are hoaxes and so on that can not be saved through "basic editing", so to act like AfD nominators are simply lazy non-editors is wrong and a bit insulting. We should not be making templates less useful because we don't like people who use those templates. --W.marsh 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This hidden thing does not work on the classic skin either. And the show/hide thing on the monobook skin is weird. --Henrygb 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the last version without the pulldown instructions: [1]. I know it's not the best looking thing in the world but if the current semi-broken template annoys a lot of people I think the one with the maintenence stuff in fine print would be tolerable (of course some changes would need to be made, it's nearly 6 months old). --W.marsh 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. We do really need to get back to just having a simple notice without filling an entire page with crap before the editor can actually read the content of the page that has been proposed for deletion. Would anyone have an objection to adoption of an updated version of the form of the template wmarsh has linked to? --01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion, I would. It certainly is convenient when going on New Page patrol, and the links, when clicked, contain a pre-filled version of the template. Perhaps it is lazyness, or it could also be being barraged with a boatload of junk and trying to spend the least amount of time trying to get rid of it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be convenient for you, but do you recognise, at least, that the current version of the template is obscenely large? --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is excessively large, but if it is really necessary, just copy the following code into another template, and make a call to it, which will cut about 5 lines of text from this template:

{{hidden begin|ta1=left|header=<span style="font-weight:normal;">[[Template:AfD in 3 steps|How to list a page for deletion]] ([{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}} log])</span>}} {{AfD doc|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} {{hidden end}}

Titoxd 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've no idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean, but why don't you try putting it into the template if you think it will help? --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it, I'm now going to check if everything works as intended. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And it does. Titoxd 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Looks like the same old horrible mess to me. Nearly a whole screenful of template before you get to the actual article. That is completely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the horrible mess is mostly prose now. The optional listing is only 12 characters. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could see what is supposed to have changed. The template looks almost the same size and it contains quite a lot of garish and distracting color--quite unsuitable for a bit of boilerplate that is supposed to appear at the top of an article.

I would like to try the suggestion of using the older version, just to see if it looks better. This would require a bit of editing to bring the wording up to date, but otherwise should be quite simple. Any objections? I really, really want to get the size of it down to something reasonable for the top of an article. --Tony Sidaway 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I woudl like to see this much smaller, too. But I looked way back to, e.g. Nov 2005, and then it was 17 lines (1024x768), and it's currently 19. So I'm not sure that a significant improvemnt is possible, without some radical reinventing of the template. Which is possible, but I'm not sure how one might go about that. That said, at least going back a ways would squelch all the unreadable conditionals stuff. -Splash - tk 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone suggested this one. I like it and I think it puts the usage information into its place, instead of splurging it all over every single article on AfD. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good choice, I think. Perhaps with an addition of a link to the current instructions, wherever they have been moved to. (And that "Wikipedia:Maintenance" link is odd.) I think the phrasing could be de-flabbed a bit, in the manner of my edit to the template a minute ago, but that's not important really. My only concern is that we might break someone's helpful bot somewhere if we don't check; but then this thread has been around enough that they'd have spotted it. -Splash - tk 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever since this version, the pulldown instructions briefly appear before being hidden when I view a page with AFD on it (I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4 on Ubuntu Linux). Besides this bug, I think the best way to reduce the clutter would be to make the main AFD template a non-substed one. I really don't see a strong argument for substing AFD notices.--Eloquence* 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we subst it anyways? WP:AUM? If we didn't subst it, we could have all the prose we wanted, and we wouldn't need to split code into {{Afd-list}} and others. Titoxd 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Subst wouldn't make the template any less intrusive. It's ludicrously large at the moment, subst or no subst. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a mock-up for the compact template at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/afd . What would need to be changed in this to make it acceptable to all? --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. Short, simple, and too the point. Nice work! -- MisterHand 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's actually one more line (on 1024*768) than the present template, even though it does away with the "how to" bit. But I would't object to the replacement. -Splash - tk 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. The links that are what people seem to think justifies the aft-list template are still available but they aren't intrusive (or buggy, ie. "hidden" that don't hide consistently) Ansell 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll swap it in. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please tweak a little if it needs it. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One query I have is the relevance of the Maintenance link. It is really just for the nominator, however, you probably don't want to say Nominator use only. Sounds suspicious to me. Calling it Official use only is also not the right term as anyone is welcome to use the templates if in good faith they are sure something needs deletion. Possibly "Initial use only:"... although I am not sure about that either. The page BTW that is linked to almost looks like a collaboration point for efforts to expand the encyclopedia. Is that what is desired? Ansell 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay myself. It's good because someone curious enough to click it is taken to Wikipedia:Maintenance, which he might not otherwise know about. This gives an introduction to all the minor chores that go on behind the scenes. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Short-Circuiting the Reasons Behind Blanking/Removing the Notice

Current "tweak" revision (for admin consideration):

Big top-to-bottom rewrite:

Discussion:

I think the vast majority of people who delete the AfD notice on pages do so under the belief that that will stop the page they care about from being deleted. I suggest that we could short-circuit that reaction with a slight tweak to the AfD template:

Thoughts? — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the "blanking", in my mind that is wikipedia jargon, and as such might not be interpreted correctly by authors who are being slowly put through the wikipedia process. I suggest changing it to "removing all content from the page" if only to avoid the feel that there is jargon in the community that they have to know to get anywhere. Ansell 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "blanking" is terminology from the existing page. I didn't want to go too crazy with the wording changes, to increase the chances of community approval. I understand your point about jargon, but I think there's also value in conciseness. As someone far too prone to verbiage, I always think my writing is better when it's tighter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also say this in response: I think the verb "to blank" is fairly jargon-free. If I go up to someone entirely uninvolved with Wikipedia and ask them to "blank your mind," they're going to understand I'm saying "wipe your mind clear." Similarly, "blanking a page" conveys to a total stranger "clearing a page of content," which is what it is.

That's not to say that we're not a bit jargon-apt on Wikipedia. But since I have no reference for that statement, if that was in the namespace, I'd be in violation of WP:NOR, although not WP:NPA (thankfully, or someone might use {{RPA}}) on me, the text of which can be found in WP:TT, and then I might get reported to WP:ANI and possible even ArbCom. Of course, that'd only be if someone was wikistalking me. (And if I was an experienced Wikipedian, I'm sure I could've stuffed that entirely made-up nonsense anecode with even more Wikijargon.) ;-) — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's get of the wording "consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria." This is condescending and implies that the person who created the article is in the wrong, and the person placing the afd is in the right...before consensus has been reached! -- MisterHand 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a little time today in AfD. Although I acknowledge your point, trust me, a very large percentage of the stuff that comes up to AfD should be up for AfD — non-notable bands and people doing their own bios, mostly. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good modification but i think you should get rid of "people from being aware of it" since the purpose they remove it is to prevent people from being aware of it. I dont think we should confirm their expectation. - Tutmosis 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't think they do that to prevent people from being aware of it; I think they do it thinking somehow the process is tied to the warning, and removing the warning ends the process. ("I don't like this, so I shall make it go away!") Still, you could be right, so here's another try:

— WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats perfect although the underline I think is over the top. Its straight to the point and it doesnt side track "this will happen/or this will not happen" type of stuff. I definetely support your proposed changes to the current template. - Tutmosis 02:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I'm formally submitting this, but I have to admit, i do think the whole template could use a rewrite — something like:

I think that might require more discussion to get passed than the above wording tweak, but thought I'd post it just for the halibut. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I liked this was it uses the active voice and not the passive voice (i.e. "Mary reads the book," and not "the book is being read by Mary"). — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These all are very large. I like the French one: L'éventuelle suppression de cette page est discutée, conformément à la procédure de Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer. ("The possible deletion of this page is under discussion, according to the Pages for deletion process"). There is a little trashcan logo to the left. Short and sweet. I don't see why we always have to overload our templates so that they eventually take over the page. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)