Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. c. to end of 2005
  5. January 2006
  6. February – March 2006
  7. April – May 2006
  8. June – July 2006
  9. August 2006 – July 2007

Contents


[edit] Proposed expansion of WP:CSD#T2

An expansion of the criteria for speedy deleting templates to include "blatent violations of policy" is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (specifically this section). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Or, more specifically, an attempt to write down the fact that we already speedy delete such templates. >Radiant< 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-expand include size

The page has exceeded the maximum post-expand include size. Does this happen often? --- RockMFR 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's from me. Sorry. There are 434 "List of people" templates up for deletion. --MZMcBride 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a need to list all TfDs directly from this page?

I propose this page be made more like the AfD page and only list links to each day's TfD discussions to avoid this page being so long. --Android Mouse 02:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not normally bad enough to need that; we've just had a couple of unusually busy days here recently. Personally, I prefer the format of having all of the nominations on one page; it makes it a lot easier to scan through the templates currently up for deletion. Mike Peel 07:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I had thought it was like this most of the time. --Android Mouse 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:FC Inter

Template:FC Inter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Matthew_hk tc 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:FC Inter is quite a simple template; consisiting only of the badge and a link.

I was wandering maybe someone who knows the wiki stuff, would like to make a template that will expand the Tempalte:FC Inter. Thsi should consist of similar tempaltes of different teams but all in one tempalte.

Like the one { {fb| } } : similar to it.

JEPAAB 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi there. I need an advice regarding this political template

This user believes in the separatist Abkhazian government.


It has been developed in the userspace and is obviously POV currently used only by one user. It is clearly a deletion candidate, but I'm not sure whether it can be classified as a template. Thanks, --KoberTalk 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's in userspace, take it to WP:MFD if you want deletion, not here; that's where deletions of userspace items (even userfied templates) are handled. --ais523 10:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue template on Burj Al Arab

The article Burj Al Arab seems to have a rogue TFD tag at the top. There is no such thing as Template:Burj Al Arab and i was wondering if anyone here knows what is going on? Thanks. Woodym555 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is Template:Infobox Hotel that is up for deletion. I've moved the TfD tag to make it clearer. Mike Peel 05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template merge request

How do I request a merge of templates? I would like to see {{oldvfdfull}} {{oldafdfull}} {{oldcfdfull}} {{olddelrev}} {{cfd result}} all be merged into a single template, as they cover very similar ground. Their differences could be worked out by setting various parameters and then the templates could be converted by a bot. However, I have no idea how to do any of this, and I'd like to put in a request to those who do. — Jack · talk · 03:48, Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Incidentally... there is a template, {{tfd-merge}}, that is meant for proposing merges on TFD, but it is not used. (In fact, a proposal to change "template for deletion" to "templates for discussion" had failed.) Merging proposals are currently done using {{merge}} and similar templates. To build the template in the first place, you may want to go to WP:REQT, the requested template page. Responders there might be able to help you out. I should note, however, that the individual templates might be too complex to merge nicely (especialy {{oldcfdfull}}); it might be best to keep them separate. GracenotesT § 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

I've suggested we should convert most of the maintenance templates to use a "whatlinkshere" based mechanism rather than categories to keep track of articles needing maintenance, and have implemented an example using template:copyedit/test. If you have an interest in this, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date header in TfD log pages

It seems that a few editors (including myself) have more or less spontaneously decided to adapt TfD's nifty date navigation system (the date succession boxes at the top of the log pages) for RfD, which uses a similar log structure - see User_talk:Gavia_immer#Date_box_on_RfD_archive_pages. There's one minor problem, though - we haven't been able to determine where the table code originated, which would be nice information to have for both GFDL and bug-checking purposes. Does anybody here know the name of the template (if it is a template) or the originator of the table code (if it's just being passed around)? Any info is appreciated; please post it in the linked section of my talk page. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Template request

I added a new template, Template:ITF and I was told a similar template exists, Template:ITF male profile. Could someone kindly delete it or redirect it. Thanks much - 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. In the future, you can also tag it with {{db-author}}. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation changed to MfD

The conversation about High userbox is now here. Best regards Rhanyeia 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "What links here" emptying

What is the standard process of de-transcluding templates (that are to be replaced or deleted) on talk pages and user pages? Is it ok to subst: a template on someone else's user page? Or is it better just to let them fix it? Rocket000 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Substing a template which is then deleted would in effect be a copyvio would it not? A minor one, but a copyvio nonetheless. --kingboyk (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tfdnotice usage documentation conflicts

[edit] Conflicting documentation

This page WP:TFD#How to use this page Part III and {{tfdnotice/doc}} both direct using {{tfdnotice}} with example:

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}}

which conflicts with WP:SUB#Deletion-related:

Most templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted (it just makes more work to delete them).

[edit] Analysis

I've been experimenting with {{tfdnotice/sandbox}} attempting to add missing parameter behavior {{tfdnotice/testcases}} similar to {{cite web}} when parameters url or title are missing.

1. WP:SUB#Templates that should not be substituted states:

Technically, templates shall not be substituted that

(a) contain calls to ParserFunctions (#if, #switch, etc.) and
(b) template calls that do leave some parameters to their defaults by not specifying them
because those constructs are not replaced in the generated wiki-code (Substing of case (a) leaves the #if or #switch constructs verbatim at the subst location and (b) leaves constructs like "{{{1|default value}}}").

   where Part (a) above severely restricts options to improve {{tfdnotice}} behavior.

2. I concur with WP:SUB#Deletion-related which makes clear substitution creates more work when deleting.

3. I've not discovered any benefit to recommend using substitution.

4. Failing to substitute templates which create section headers triggers an error when attempting to edit the created section. The created section edit link opens the template for editing instead of the created section within the page invoking the template.

[edit] Recommendation

I recommend the following:

A. Revise WP:TFD#How to use this page Part III to remove "subst:" directions.

B. Revise {{tfdnotice/doc}} to remove "subst:" directions.

C. Revise WP:SUB#Deletion-related to read:

Most templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted (it just makes more work to delete them).

. . .
Exceptions: The following templates must be substituted in order to work correctly:
. . .

[edit] Discussion

Thank you in advance for participating. May I assume 7 days is sufficient to determine consensus given templates are considered sensitive? – Conrad T. Pino 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable. It's frustrating that these kind of talk pages receive little traffic.... --MZMcBride 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Recommendation edits A & B (above) are done. – Conrad T. Pino 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted – Conrad T. Pino 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Recommendation edits C (above) are done. – Conrad T. Pino 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty side effect when editing Tfdnotice in user talk page

Clicking the edit link on user talk page takes you into editing the {{Tfdnotice}} template. Definately not useful behavior. I'm reverting these changes immediately and fixing all uses I can locate. – Conrad T. Pino 07:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Completed – Conrad T. Pino 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Being deleted

I've created {{Being deleted}} for templates that hang around for a while after the discussion has been closed as "Delete", e.g. if the template's heavily used or if the user that closes the debate isn't an admin. Just thought I should let y'all know. Mike Peel 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zorglbot DST issue

User:Zorglbot is not keeping correct daylight saving time. Please review the Revision history of Templates for deletion and you'll see it's run time changed by one hour this week. I reported the issue to the bot owner User:Schutz with suggested resolutions. – Conrad T. Pino 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] TFD wording change

I've noticed that "What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)" includes: "The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks)". How does this jive with Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates? If there's not a difference, then I'd suggest removing #3 and putting a note above directing users who wish to nominate a deprecated template to the correct link. SkierRMH 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template process vandalism

I assume this has happened before, but I don't know the proceedures. A TfD in October 31 was removed November 4. I just noticed it today and re-added it. As I participated, I really shouldn't close it as delete, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of policy or guideline

This page says "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." If a template is part of the functioning of a policy or guideline and the template is listed for deletion, what should happen then? An early close of the TFD? --Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The template in question is Template:Current fiction, which is undergoing deletion. The wording indicates that such a template must basically be the function of a policy or guideline -- hence, "part of" does not seem to mean a template can't be contested if it's mentioned in one of multiple passages in an actively edited guideline (Wikipedia:Spoiler, in this case). Template regarding WP:V and WP:NOR clearly represent their respective policies, but here, Template:Current fiction is not representative of the style guideline as a whole. Of course, that's my biased perception, having nominated the template for deletion, but I'm interested to hear an independent voice weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates in project space

"Templates that reside in userspace or other non-article namespaces should instead be nominated on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but please note that Wikipedia is lenient about userspace."

The current system doesn't work. If a page is a template, it's a template wherever it resides.

  • If I nominate a project space template at MFD, the MFD notice then gets transcluded wherever the template is used. Of course, I know that I can place it in noinclude tags, but that's an unneccessary extra hurdle and not everybody will know they can do this.
  • Conversely, anybody who uses the template or sees it transcluded will not know about the deletion debate.
  • TfD is where template experts hang out, not MfD.
  • Attempting to use the {{TFD}} template on a project space page doesn't work (because template: is hard coded into to), and it doesn't appear to be easily hacked around.

(The template which alerted me to these problems is Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Page wikified which this time I will send to MfD. Of course, to make a further mockery of the system, I could just have moved it into template namespace first...! --kingboyk (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


    • Interesting points; furthermore, most templates are in "non-article namespaces" - they reside in the WP:Template namespace, so according to this, TfD doesn't have jurisdiction over any templates, they should all go to WP:MFD. Yes, the section goes on to say: "Templates that reside in mainspace should go on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion." But isn't that silly? If an editor finds any template in the mainspace shouldn't he or she immediately move it an appropriate "non-article namespace"? I think the idea is to keep jurisdiction over userspace, project space, and portal space with MFD, but that's not what this says. If the idea is instead to address where the template is used then say so - but then a lot of templates are in talk namespace which isn't the mainspace either. I think the terminology needs to be consistent with WP:Namespace first, then the lines need to be clearly lain out - and you're right there needs to be some logic to it as well.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the emphasis shouldn't be so much on namespace, but on function. {{tfd}} can certainly be changed to behave differently depending on the namespace of the page on which it is transcluded; we can also make an MfD-inline tag like {{tfd-inline}}. So the issue is whether userboxes, WikiProject banners etc. should be discussed at TfD or MfD. I would prefer MfD because that's where people generally argue about WikiProjects and the encyclopedic nature of social networking type things. This allows TfD to be mainly about templates used in the article and article talk spaces, which are what template regulars focus on. –Pomte 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see where you are coming from but again it starts to loop around on itself no matter how you try to get your hands on it: WikiProject Banners are by far the most common template in article talkspace, and many of the templates in the mainspace itself are infoboxes created and maintained by WikiProjects for users - the best way to deal with them is to go to the proponent project. My point above though was not that jurisdiction over namespaces should drive this, but that currently that's how all the XfD's seem to define their jurisdiction but they don't all use consistent terms and TfD just has it all wrong with statements that would appear to give them no jurisdiction at all. The confusion is real as shown by this nomination for deletion of a non-userfied userbox (i.e. one still residing in template space) - which only goes to prove your point as well - the namespace shouldn't be the driver, a userbox is a userbox no matter where it is (and of course as kingboyk pointed out, any other result could allow someone to forum shop by moving the template to the namespace of the desired XfD).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about for starters claiming jurisdiction on all templates by "function" not "namespace" per Pomte? Tweaks in jurisdiction could follow if that doesn't work... --kingboyk (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (just trying to move discussion towards a conclusion... :))

Is this what you mean?
Regardless of namespace, all pages that were designed as templates (i.e. they are meant to be transcluded or substituted) should be discussed here, not at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
Yes, something like that would be fine imho. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
or more along the lines of
List userboxes at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
–Pomte 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Per Pomte and Kingboyk... The notion of deciding if something is a template based on its intended use (intended to be transcluded) rather than the namespace it resides in seems eminently sensible to me, and fits with our descriptivist (vs. prescriptivist) overall approach to policy and process. Describe what we do, not what we should do. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If it's unclear, I agree, function over namespace. All templates, regardless of where they are located or used should be here, with the exception of the userboxes (not sure why, but it's tradition and right now it's a mess) and stub-types. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way, I notice the language was changed to reflect my earlier concerns that we were not clear about what namespaces we dealt with, is it just my imagination or did the moment the language changed, a bunch of template space userboxes were nominated? Userboxes really need to stay at MfD because that's where they've been and MfD is dealing with a big mess over the entire policy for them right now.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] userboxes

I like all the changes to the procedures at the top of the page. I've added a line to the "What not to nominate" section about userboxes going to MfD regardless of namespace. If the rest of you were actually advocating that TfD should take over userboxes because they are a template, then go ahead and revert, but that would be a significant change to the way things are usually done. MfD has a big RFC going on over userboxes and a lot of userbox issues involve POV pushing problems, etc..--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As userboxes continue to be nominated at both TFD and MFD and my changes at MFD instructions were reverted and apparently no-one has noticed them here, there apparently is not consensus on this point yet; however, it needs to be resolved. Discussing userboxes at two different venues simply because of what namespace they are in doesn't seem to make much sense. Especially as pointed out above they can be moved very easily and WP:UBM suggests they should be, particularly when WP:NPOV is the problem.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An excellent point, I very much agree. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new user forgot password

Hi, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, but it's because I'm a new editor and forgot my password. What am I to do? 75.8.214.142 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Logging in. If you set an email address for your account then you can mail a new password. Otherwise you can create a new account and link the old and new user pages to eachother, explaining the situation. A better place to request help another time is Wikipedia:Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecation vs deletion

This was originally a post to a CSD discussion, but once I got into my reply I realized that it should also be posted here.

Personally, I'd much rather we stop deleting deprecated templates and just start redirecting them, or placing a deprecation notice on them. It seems rather rare to me when we actually need to delete a template, and it makes things a lot more difficult for anyone working with an older version of an article. Often times I look for old templates because I remember seeing an idea there, and often finding the template has not only been deleted, but finding it very hard to find the template that replaced it (which might not even be related to why I was looking for it in the first place). Unless there's an issue with people trying to reinstate a template, or if there's really no value to keeping it (something made recently that hasn't had a chance to be used), or is some kind of violation (attacks, bad "stuff", etc), I'd strongly encourage people to not delete a template. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting is what I've been doing. –Pomte 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • N.B. - Main discussion is at WT:CSD--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd encourage CSD deleters to try to redir. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

...does TfD last for 7 days, whereas everything else (AfD, IfD, MfD, CfD) lasts for 5? Can't all XfD debates just expire after the same time? I was under the wrong impression that they did. - Zeibura ( talk ) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy states that deletion discussion should "last at least five days", in theory then the TfD process is more in keeping with policy than other processes such as AfD which states "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days". Maybe the template discussions last longer because less people work on templates and have them watchlisted so it gives users more time to notice and contribute to the debate. Guest9999 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that 7-8 days is more appropriate, since some people (ie, normal people :) may only check Wikipedia once a week, because they have lives :) or jobs :). I brought this point up at other XfD before, and everyone else said that if they looked at XfD they would see it, because people check everyday... 70.55.88.176 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on speedy deletion criterion T3

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#T3 opposition –Pomte 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Injunction

Several nominations were closed due to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction; however, nothing in the injunction restricts the deletion of templates, only the deletion and undeletion of articles and removal and application of notability templates. So why are we halting the process?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The existence of these templates depends on the existence of those articles. Common sense applies here. –Pomte 03:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they are just a component of the articles, nothing in the injunction says the articles can't be edited - including removing the templates from them (if they are even in any right now.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete?

I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use? If it's a vanity, userbox, etc. template I also understand. In my opinion many other things should be first in line for deletion before informational templates. First to go would be nonsense sub-userpages, images used solely on userpages, etc. I don't think unused free images are deleted, are they? Free templates should be given the same treatment. This is pure bureaucracy just for the heck of it. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples of things you feel were unnecessarily deleted? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

Should {{Remove Vandalism}} be put up for deletion or do some see a purpose in this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should. Though it could have some utility in principle if a) used on a talk page and b) severely revised to point out the potential for subtle vandalism that the person using the template is not able to adequately evaluate due to, for instance, lacking domain knowledge, it would be better to just delete it and start over. Also, though this is not a killer right off the block, it was created by an account that is now blocked indefinitely due to 'abusive editing', which does bring into question the motivation for its initial creation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave it to whoever wants to delete it then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF JS BS?

Okay, I'm really curious what JavaScript funkystuff is going on with subpages of this page. Every time I try to cmd-click ("right-click" for you MS Windows folks) on topical links in daily subpages of this page, so I can select "Open link in new window" or "Open link in new tab" on something I want to look at, I am instead shunted into actually editing what I just clicked on. This happens to me nowhere else on WP (so far), and nowhere else on the entire Internet, just subpages of this one, so something is clearly awry here. I use SeaMonkey 1.1.8 (i.e. Mozilla, same engine as FireFox) on Mac OS X 10.4.11. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format of the page

Looks like User:Vegaswikian tried to change the format of the page so that it looks like {{Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/{{ #time: Y F j | -1 days }}}}. The problem is that I think the bot is getting confused by that. And I think the reason is that the bot is still using the old format. Because of this, the old pages aren't being added once 7 days has passed. Obviously, this needs to be fixed. For now, I put the page back on the old format. Otherwise, we've had 2 straight days where March 30th (which isn't completed yet) isn't being added to the page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm guilty. I made the change after some of the new days were not being added. I have no problem with going back to the old way of doing business. But it would be best in the long run to not depend on the bot adding new days. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I didn't mean this as a bad thing. :) Change is good. And yes, depending on a bot is not the best solution. So if we can get this to work either without the bot or getting the bot to work, great. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates containing unsourced information that is likely to be contested

There are several templates containing unsourced information that is likely to be contested. An example of such a template is the currently nominate Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe, but also the Template:Emotion (classification of emotions is disputed in literature, and several words are added in this template that are not mainstream scientifically accepted as emotions) is another. How to deal with this? Is this a reason for deletion. I think it should be as it opens a backdoor for avoiding core guidlines WP:V and WP:OR. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levels of consensus

Here, as at AFD, the assumption is in favour of keeping the template; it's expected that a clear consensus (generally indicated by something like a 2/3rds majority, I think? - taking into account strength of arguments, of course) should be achieved before an article should be deleted, otherwise it should be kept. I agree with that for articles; but does the same logic apply to templates? Or should templates be viewed like article content, where (although of course it is not a vote) the situation is closer to one in which if the majority of editors believe something should not be there, it gets removed?

I've been pondering this after noticing the TFD for Infobox Pseudoscience, though my point is more general. In that case, most of the editors expressing opinions (15 keep, 25 delete) felt that Wikipedia would be better without this box; but because the same logic as AFD is applied, that's counted as a 'no consensus' and the content stays despite the majority. Isn't it more logical to view templates as article content, meaning that without consensus in their favour (or at least in cases of clear, if not overwhelming, majorities against), they should go? TSP (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format

What is the reason that TfDs do not work the same as AfDs, with each having its own subpage? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automotive templates: Template:Auto hp and others.

I am angry...I am EXCEEDINGLY angry.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles group spent a lot of effort considering how to handle unit conversions and ways to standardize our use of units - we discussed, achieved consensus, wrote guideline papers for automotive article authors and placed those templates into literally HUNDREDS of articles. Now - without ANY notification to our talk page, or on the talk pages of the hundreds of affected articles - just three people decide to remove them and set about destroying hundreds of hours of work on the part of dozens of people.

This is completely unacceptable behavior - this is Wikipedia decisionmaking at it's very worst...this is borderline vandalism. What makes you people think you know better than the people who write and maintain the hundreds of automotive articles you are (as we speak) in the process of wrecking?

The reasons for these articles not using the 'convert' template are many - and exceedingly carefully considered. Most importantly - they do not ONLY convert one unit into another - they embody the preferred choice of units for automotive articles. The "convert" template allows one to convert miles per hour into lightyears per teaspoon - but there is absolutely no constraint to enforce our desire to express miles per UK and US gallon as well as kilometers per liter...to take but one example. This is a non-trivial matter since one major reason for employing these templates was to standardize on the homogeneous use of units across all automotive articles. Many US authors are (for example) completely unaware that gallons come in two sizes. Others are not aware that lengths of cars are expressed in inches and not feet and inches. These templates do FAR more than simply automate unit conversions.

But that's not the point...the point is that we deserved at LEAST a note onto our talk page so that members of our group could make their views known in the discussion. Personally, I don't believe an ad hoc group such as yours has any jurisdiction over well established WikiProject teams of subject matter experts. I absolutely guarantee that if that basic level of politeness had been attempted that this decision would have gone the other way in a heartbeat. The very fact that these templates are used in literally hundreds of articles - many of which are FA's and GA's should have been a red flag to the misguided few who took this high-handed decision without appropriate consultation.

The results of this exceedingly poor decision needs to be reversed immediately - and the systematic robot-assisted destruction of our hard work needs to be stopped and then put right by those who did this.

If any discussion is still needed then let us have the parties who went to the trouble to consider the reasons for these templates in the first place have proper input on the matter...but first let's put things back how they belong.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - two weeks have elapsed - and despite direct requests to all of the people involved, not one of them has had the courage to respond or discuss the matter. Consequently, I feel no compunction in taking this to a higher level and getting this ridiculous decision reversed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I myself hadn't heard a thing about this. The thing is Steve, WP:DRV is designed for stuff such as this. You mention higher levels but I can tell you right now that usually doesn't get people anywhere if you don't start at WP:DRV or RfC or something like that first. Otherwise the higher levels you mention will probably direct you to DRV or WP:AN or whatever. Maybe you've already posted to one of the places I mentioned. But those are the places to start if you feel like an injustice has been done. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to resort to that - a few unthinking people made a stupid decision without spending ANY effort to consult with the entire team of people who achieved consensus and then spent a significant amount of time putting these templates together and carefully inserting them into literally hundreds of articles. The individuals who wrecked all of those articles should either admit it - and fix it - or defend their decision to countermand an established consensus with just three votes! WikiProject Automobiles didn't ask to have our templates reviewed - someone took it upon themselves to do this - and the victims shouldn't have to go to the trouble of cleaning up the resulting ungodly mess. The mess is bot-driven and thus exceedingly difficult for regular editors to undo - and HUNDREDS of articles have been affected putting the possibility of hand-editing them out of reasonable reach. A decision in WP:DRV isn't going to help. I need the people who wrecked several hundred articles to take it upon themselves to fix the bloody things...and to take a hell of a lot more care over these snap decisions in the future. This is institutional vandalism - and it's got to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:1632 series boilerplate templates

Can someone look at Category:1632 series boilerplate templates ? I'm not sure if these things are kosher, it sure as hell makes editing harder. There's also a template that exists only to be transcluded in "noinclude" sections that looks like it's a WikiProject information list. I think much of this is a WikiProject's pages masquerading as templates. (without an actual wikiproject) 70.51.9.170 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zorglbot is malfunctioning

I already let the creator of the bot know. I just now created the page for the 10th and archived May 2nd. However, it wasn't caught for 6 + hours. Could you guys watch out for it? Once 7 pm US Central time hits, the last days page has to be moved under the "last 7 days section" and the oldest in the last 7 days section has to go to the old discussion area so the discussions can be closed. Thanks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember when adding the new day, you have to add the ===Date=== header. Also, you have to remove the bottom day from current discussions and move it to old discussions. Thanks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)