Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

TfD - fD?

The Templates for deletion page was nominated for deletion. The result was unanimous keep. --cesarb 12:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. It's so easy to say it, but so false. From a community of nearly a quarter of a million registered users, exactly 19 members voted to keep this page. I nominated it for deletion; 2 members expressed the opinion that VfD has no jurisdiction over this page; and 1 member appeared to express total indifference. This is not unanimity. You might honestly say that a majority of those voting, voted to keep -- a tiny minority of the community, most of whom still do not know how the discussion affects them. — Xiong熊talk 22:21, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

So you mean that everyone who actually voted one way or another, voted to keep (nominator excepted obviously) and all the rest gave a de facto keep vote by calling the deletion process invalid and inappropriate. I think that's a very good definition of unanimity, actually. Aris Katsaris 05:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yes but ideally they would all voice a strong NO! rather than rambling on about it being unconstitutional and all. Strong decisive action is better than just laughing it off as if it's not going to be affected; if there had been enough Delete votes, there was a VERY REAL threat that this could have been deleted. People shouldn't sit back and laugh at these "challenges" to seemingly untouchable pages. Oh well... Master Thief Garrett 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

unanimous adj. 1. based on unanimity, complete assent or agreement 2. sharing the same views or opinions, and being in complete harmony or accord [1] (the key word here being "complete")

complete adj. 1. With everything included [2]

Do I have to pull a definition of "everything", or will you concede the point? "Unanimous" is an absolute adjective, like "unique": nothing is "more unique" or "less unique"; it is either unique or it is not. No body of opinion is unanimous if there is any dissent or variety.

I was raised in part by an uncle who literally worshipped Webster's Second Unabridged and the works of William Shakespeare, in that order; I am a professional writer and an obsessive-compulsive who habitually copyedits bound pulp fiction read for pleasure. Perhaps some will still choose to second-guess me, but I shall no longer attempt to win this battle against unarmed opponents. — Xiong熊talk* 12:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • I feel that "unanimous" is misleading, in that it implies that the proposal was rejected, rather than Xiong's method of proposing it. I certainly thought it was a good idea, but I didn't bother to vote because this kind of thing only generates a discussion about WP:POINT making, not the issue in question. Kappa 12:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This page has become almost uneditable

The page has become so big that it poses serious problems:

  1. Edit conflicts happen all the time.
  2. Several edit conflicts lead to contributions being lost. Users in good standing were blamed for deleting them but assured that they only edited an unrelated section.
  3. The page poses a heavy load on our server, so that it takes forever to load.

We need a solution. Does anyone have a good idea? I'll try out template based embedding for the {{history}} stub. (Thanks, Alphax and Fangz, for the idea!) This will minimize the first two problems, but maybe not #3. Let me know if anyone has a better idea. — Sebastian (talk) 02:41, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Copy WP:CFD and split each day off into a seperate, but embedded, article. - SoM 05:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
We could put all days on a separate page and retain only a link to each day here. Would make loading a lot faster probably. -MarSch 11:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • See a couple paragraphs up, for basically the same discussion. I think it's a good idea but Netoholic and Frazzydee think not. Radiant_* 16:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry if i'm blind. I searched the last 10 sections, but none of them seems to discuss simplifying this page. Could you please provide a link? — Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
    • 'Bot automated process' - CFD was recently automated with separate pages per day, for which a bot helps. Radiant_* 16:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I still don't find it. The text "Bot automated process" does not occur anywhere else on this talk page. — Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
      • It is in /Archive 01. DES 21:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I don't think that's exactly the same discussion, I wasn't talking about bots but about embedding. — Sebastian (talk) 05:53, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

What's needed is for some admins to get work work deleting :). I went ahead and archived a few sections (already deleted or kept), but the button needs to be pushed on some more older votes. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that would work :) Radiant_* 16:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oy, this page has definitely become very confusing. ;_; - mako 22:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Certain users have made things very difficult lately. Hopefully they will stop creating templates. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Do you really think that's an appropriate thing to say, Netoholic? I mean, where's the assumption of good intentions in that sentiment? Courtland 02:30, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Page duplication, check your edits

The page was duplicated accidently at 21:31, 2005 May 17. If you made any votes or comments after then, but before this comment, please make sure that they still appear on the page. Yes, this did go for 9 hours without being discovered :| -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

  • Possibly. But to prevent edit conflicts and alleviate loading times, it would seriously help to split this page per day, and transclude the days (just like CFD is handled). It's too hard to edit and contribute this way. I've seen several people object to botting it (not sure why, they didn't give a reason) so I volunteer to do it manually for the time being. I've seen only Netoholic object to splitting by day, and several people supporting it - perhaps Neto could explain why he thinks it's a bad idea? Radiant_* 08:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can explain why you nominate so many templates per day... are you pushing this page to the limit to make your point? This page needs more maintenance, clearing old votes, not more complexity. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
      • No, of course not. And I fail to see how subpages-per-day make the matter more complex, as they're all transcluded anyway so you wouldn't even notice when casting votes. It would mainly prevent edit conflicts. Radiant_* 07:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate fast deletes

There are a number of cases now where templates have been deleted after 1 or even <1 day when they are neither speedy cadidates nor pose a disruption to the functioning of Wikipedia or the editing process. This is not appropriate in my opinion and represents unilateral action on the part of one or more administrators who are, again in my opinion, undermining the credibility of this forum as a place to discuss the merits of templates that some people feel should be deleted.

Am I completely misunderstanding something about the process that this is now acceptable policy? Courtland 02:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

It is not appropriate (except in very few cases where there is agreement that a speedy deletion is best). I've already contacted the admin who's been recently doing this. -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Since you don't mention any specifics... I'm frustrated with a lot of too obvious candidates polluting the list(s), so I'm glad that someone is trying to improve the situation. --MarSch 17:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
oh hell; I was writing something all rational in response but what it boils down to is that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and the administrators can delete or not delete as the whim strikes them. That's the reality, so I just need to shut up and live with it. Courtland 03:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Substub discussion archiving

Hi all - just got the following note from User:Cesarb on my user talk page, and I must say I tend to agree, but am unsure how to continue - anyone else able to help? I don't think undeleting Template talk:Substub's a good idea, but the discussion should be saved.

I just noticed today that Template:Substub was gone, and went looking for why. The deletion log points to TfD, but there is nothing about it anywhere on the TfD archives. I managed to find the WSS discussion, which also mentioned a TfD discussion. Finally, I found on the TfD history that the discussion was in fact at Template talk:Substub#Vote for deletion. While most of the argument was on the WSS talk page (and, after reading it, I agree {{substub}} is not needed anymore), I believe the TfD discussion should not be lost. Could you please either undelete Template talk:Substub or copy the discussion to the TfD archives?

Grutness...wha? 01:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The actual voting is in the history of WP:TFD. They are supposed to be logged to this page's logs, rather than the template talk page alone. I'll see if I can find the vote and log it properly. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
The voting was, yes... but - as with much of the WP:WSS template deletions - there was a vote taken as to whether to proceed with sending the template to tfd in the fiorst place, and that has much of the pro and con argument in it. That was all on Template talk:Substub. (This is yet another reason why having a separate Wikipedia:Stubs for deletion would be a good idea!). Grutness...wha? 14:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I moved the discussion to the talk page while we decided whether to delete or redirect, and then left it at that. Joe D (t) 14:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Massive cleanup

Okay. I've cleaned up all discussions older than five days, and put them in the /log/deleted or /log/not deleted as appropriate, and stuck them in the holding pen. Two were added back to the top for more discussion. Whew! Radiant_* 08:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Great job! --MarSch 12:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Many templates

My personal opinion from a rather randomly look at articles in the Template namespace is that we are probably nominating about half the number of templates that we should be. I was rather surprised to see the number of nonsense and unused templates that exist. It may be worthwhile to start a more organized effort to help clear out the Template namespace (something on the same lines as the Stub-sorting WikiProject. BlankVerse ∅ 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people should use their userspace more. How do we change this? Do you suggest that we tag all templates with some category? I don't see how that would help. --MarSch 12:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, good point. How about this... if a template is only used by User:Foo, how about we speedily userfy it? Simply move it to their userspace, and throw the redir on WP:RFD (which gives them a couple days to get used to it). And stick a msg on their userspace, "template:foo was moved to your userspace". Radiant_* 12:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since there is almost never any reason to rush on the one-user-only templates, how 'bout being very polite and posting a note to the user's Talk page saying something to the effect of "Since you are the only one that is using this template, would you mind if we moved it to a subpage under your User page? TIA - Template namespace janitorial service.". BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My comment wasn't only about the one-user-only templates, but was also referring to the other detritus in the template namespace, such as no longer used templates, never used templates, single-article templates, stuff that should have been in another namespace, ad nauseam. [Single-article templates should probably be added to the rules on the WP:TFD page.] BlankVerse ∅ 12:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Er, yes. By 'speedy' I didn't mean "instantly", but "not requiring a vote per regular *FD procedures". Radiant_* 13:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding detritus... I believe some people are looking into mass-deletion of the old 'vfd discussion' templates. Any template that is used only in one place should be substed and plausibly a CSD. Any template that is not used anywhere and hasn't been edited for, say, the past two months could also plausibly be a CSD. Stuff that is in the wrong namespace can already be moved, and trans-namespace redirects are already a speedy. Sounds like common sense to me, at any rate. Radiant_* 13:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • re:old VFD discussions: As per GFDL, they can't be mass deleted, but need to be mass-moved. That is the main reason that they are still around. Doing a mass-delete would have been fairly easy. BlankVerse ∅ 13:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Is there a canonical list of these that people could work away at quietly, like with WP:WS? --Phil | Talk 16:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • When the Wikipedia Search isn't disabled, search for "!!", and then when it doesn't find anything, tell it to do an Index search of the Template namespace. The Stub-sorting WikiProject had it easier because after they started searching in the Template namespace, they just had to look for templates with "stub" somewhere in the name. If you are going to try this, I would suggest that for one page's worth of template, you should try to keep some statistics on the types of templates that you find (stubs, infoboxes, unused, newbie mistakes, speedy deletion candidates, etc.). Assuming that you get a roughly representative page, those statistics would help give us an idea of how much work needs to be done. BlankVerse ∅ 17:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Here's the link that should get you started at the very beginning of a list of all the articles in the Template namespace: [3] Just looking as the first few templates on that page, it was easy to find templates that were not used, only used in a single article, or only used by a single user. I may have underestimated the number of problem templates, or just run into an unrepresentative sample. BlankVerse ∅ 14:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I seem to have somehow missed that BlankVerse wants to redouble our efforts to seek and destroy templates. I agree that single-use-only should be added as reason for deletion, though some are legitimately used. Eliminate voting for userfyable templates and use polite template message to explain. Maybe we could have a section for requesting user templates to be admitted to template space for really useful ones. We need to look out for templates that are substitute only. They are useful without many links to them.--MarSch 13:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Subst: only templates should at least be documented as such on their Talk page (and also probably documented with a comment section on the main page as added protection). BlankVerse ∅ 13:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I know several of you are regulars at WP:WSS as well, but those of you who aren't may be daunted intrigued to learn that we've discovered over 70 previously unknown stub templates in the last month. A significant number of these are going to need winnowing, so unless someone works out how to get sfd up and running soon, tfd is likely to be inundated with stub templates. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, that sounds like a good reason to give SFD a test run. It was generally considered common sense by most. WP:SFD, here we come! Radiant_* 14:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: five vs. seven days

  • I think it should be a week. --MarSch 17:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we should revert to the seven day rule. Firstly, there was no consensus to change it; secondly, current practice seems to be to have at least that long an interval (perhaps only by default), so if a five day period suddenly started being enforced (especially if it were seen to be selectively) it might well prove controversial. Alai 01:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seven works for me too. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Although TFD has been attracting more participants and most issues are settled in the first few days, as we have seen with some recent surveys there are a few templates that need more time. I think that the recent change to continuing the vote on some of the undecided templates is a good idea. I also think that the time period should be moved back to seven days for now. BlankVerse ∅ 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice this until now because it was in the middle of the page, so I've moved it to the bottom. My apologies for closing TFDs two days early, I was under the impression that (like VFD and IIRC CFD) the time delay was five days. Personally I don't really care either way (except for a small preference for consistency) so I'll just wait two days before the next archive. Radiant_* 11:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    CFD is seven days. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    TfD is 5 days right now, so you were right. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 7 days -Frazzydee|✍ 11:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 7 days, because people don't check this page often. Grue 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seven days, every day of the week. Gene Nygaard 11:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Five days has worked quite well for this page. On the fairly rare occasion where a vote is ambiguous, we extend them already. Considering that this page has safely avoided using daily voting sub-pages (which is a wonderful thing to avoid), forcing votes to linger for longer than five days makes this page that much longer. The "we need to make this consistent with out ?fD pages is poor logic -- use what works on this page. -- Netoholic @ 14:04, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Seven days, because some people might check wikipedia only (for instance) on Sundays. --cesarb 14:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seven days, so that both days of a weekend are always included. Noisy | Talk 14:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seven days. It is hard enough for people to get notice much less synchronize with their weekly schedules. (SEWilco 15:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC))
  • Seven →Vik Reykja 16:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seven days makes sense; this is a lower-traffic page than VfD, and making changes in template space potentially affects many articles wholesale. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, this sounds like an obvious consensus. I've been WP:BOLD and change the main page to read seven days rather than five. If people want this formalized some other way, please tell us here on /talk - but in the meantime, as I'm the present cleaner-upper anyway, I'll just close after seven days rather than five. Radiant_* 20:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Do It Right

  1. The sheer existence of a template does no harm and incurs no measurable cost. Deleting it or even discussing its deletion for the purpose of personal pleasure, a feeling of power, or a feeling of "getting something done" is wrong, overactive, and annoying.
  2. Templates may be used inappropriately. When this happens, then it is time to look at the entire situation and ask if the template can ever be used appropriately; if not, then perhaps deletion is called for. Otherwise, the wrong is in the using, not the template, which should not be considered for deletion. Proper documentation may help stem inappropriate use.
  3. Templates must be created before they are used. Some well-made templates may remain for a time before they are used widely. This is not a black mark against the template.
  4. Templates may be substituted rather than transcluded; in many cases, this is a good idea. A substituted template does not appear to be used at all, if all one does is scan its links.
    • For both reasons above, no template should ever be considered for deletion merely because it appears to be infrequently used.
  5. There is no need to wantonly destroy, simply because you cannot create. If a template's entire purpose is bad, then of course it should be deleted. If it merely does not do its job well, then it is subject to improvement, and should be so flagged on its talk page -- and, if you have the ability, you should indeed try to improve it. Otherwise, ask somebody with more skills.
  6. Don't tag templates on their bodies. The current process is wrong -- it doesn't matter how many ignorant people subscribe to it, it's still wrong. In the several weeks since I began to argue this point, not one single deletionist has managed to confront any of my arguments. If you aspire to be rational beings, you need to admit that you have no grounds for your blind actions.
  7. I have built two templates for the especial purpose of improving the TfD process; both of them are to be substituted:
    • {{tfdnotice}} inserts a neutral notice inviting interested parties to come to the table.Nominators should always use this template to notify the 2 or 3 users who are most heavily involved with a template -- the creator, the last editor perhaps, and any WikiProject that uses it. Don't embarrass yourself by trying to sneak your deletion through without comment.
    • {{doctl}} inserts a documentation framework on any template talk page. Substitute it, then edit it to properly document the template. If you don't know how, that is a good sign that you don't know enough about the template to nominate it for deletion. Contact a few users associated with the template and ask them to document it.
    • These two, by the way, are true metatemplates: templates about templates. They are not instances of double transclusion or templates intended for double transclusion. Avoid Humpty Dumpty definitions.
  8. A slew of templates are not within the purview of TfD. Templates that apply to policy, category templates, and stubs come to mind. Do not even nominate these. We are not the federal police, we do not have the right to sit in judgement of the entire project from our dark little corner. Policy templates are strictly hands-off; templates used by other processes should be managed by those processes and the users who participate in them. They are None Of Our Business.
  9. The current 5-day review period is an insult and a slap in the face to every user who does not log on to this project every single day. Ten days would just about give users an opportunity to comment who only log in once a week -- and believe it or not, less-active users are in the overwhelming majority.
  10. Five days on the calendar often ends up as much less actual time, due to entirely human nature and multiple time zones in use. Right now, a template can be deleted in 73 hours. This is shameful and bad. A longer prescribed review period will do much to redeem our honor.
  11. The review period should be spend in discussion and working toward consensus, not in thoughtless and confrontational voting. The first question to consider is whether the template even belongs here; only then should the question be considered of whether the template can be improved. If there is any room for improvement, we must pass on the template.
  12. TfD is not a playground or a hangout for those who have gotten bored with online gaming. It is not a backdoor forum to permit the undermining of policy and process. It is an administrative job, and a tedious one. If you enjoy working here -- if you get any pleasure from it at all -- then I guarantee you do not belong here. Find something else to do, and leave this to workers.

— Xiong熊talk* 12:09, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

13. Don't forget to assume good faith of other editors who participate in the operation of the TfD process. While some may get off on the thrill of deletion or contribute out of boredom, most are interested in making a useful contribution to the grubby nitty gritty of Wikipedia operation. It's important not to disparage their efforts or impugn their motives just because you might disagree with their honestly-held opinions. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume good faith right up to the point when bad faith is demonstrated. If the shoe does not seem to fit you, perhaps it does not -- perhaps you are on the cause of Right, and oppose the bad elements. Then I welcome you and encourage you to oppose those who would undermine the project from this base. — Xiong熊talk* 14:23, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
My point is that we are building an encyclopedia, not conducting a holy war. There is no "cause of Right", just people who may disagree on how templates should be managed in Wikipedia to produce cleanly laid-out articles and a smoothly functioning work of reference. The best way to bring about change is incrementally, through concise but well-reasoned discussion and open consultation. (See, for example, the straw poll above regarding the length of voting on TfD. There are no page-long angry manifestos and accusations of bad faith, and people are responding helpfully.) Nailing theses to the church door is not usually a strong consensus-building practice. Just a thought. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: 1) Templates can do harm if they cause confusion - e.g., if they make something sound like policy which isn't.

Re: 2) Templates can be conceptually malformed or vandalistic. You appear to not acknowledge this.

Re: 6) If you don't tag them on their bodies, most people will miss that they're up for deletion

Re: 8) WP:WSS does NOT have deletion priviliges, and all stubs must come here for deletion (note that most stubs are nominated by active WSS members). Depreciated policy stubs must come here for deletion. Category templates should be nominated if the category/ies has been, or is, up for deletion. Templates are the business of TFD.

Re: 9) Pointlessly strong language. "an insult and a slap in the face"? Sheesh. - SoM 18:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If a template is unused, in isolation, it does no harm. There are a number of ways in which a template can become a problem, and each emergent case is different. Obviously, inserting the template somewhere includes a number of cases. Templates can be formed not well at all, and may even appear to hold no potential for improvement or good use. But the harm comes from use, and it is rare indeed when the potential for harm is so extreme that immediate prophylactic action is demanded. Instead, it's often the case that templates are nominated simply because they do not appear immediately useful. This process is biased toward deletionism, and I oppose this bias.
"Most people" have no interest in TfD and never will; tagging has not altered that, nor will it ever. I've addressed all these arguments fully at User:Xiong/tagging.
In the strict sense, no working group has deletion privileges. Admins have deletion privileges, and they are expected to exercise them in agreement with consensus. Consensus is just as valid there as here -- more so, because there is where they use that.
TfD's scope has been creeping inexcusably. This is not the place to apply leverage on other issues, a place where -- out of sight of the main community -- the rug can be jerked from under opposition. TfD must confine itself to routine tasks and not imagine itself an arbiter of policy.
You have not yet seen strong language from me. — Xiong熊talk* 14:23, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Stub messages for deletion

After a proposal for a "stub messages for deletion" page was met with generally positive sentiments on the Village Pump, I have written up a draft in my userspace:

User:Grm wnr/SfD draft

Since this infringes on the jurisdiction of this page (Stub messages consist of a template and a category), you might want to leave any comments/praises/flames/general disagreement on the talk page. -- grm_wnr Esc 05:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it. There was some discussion a redesign of this page, including subpages for different days? Has that idea died? If not, then these instructions should go on the front page, and the subpages would contain the listings. -- Ec5618 09:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (WP:SFD) - A process for the deletion of stub templates and stub categories in one go set up by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. This is intended to run alongside CFD and TFD, specifically relating to category:thingy-stubs, and template:thingy-stub. If there are no objections, it will do a test run real soon now. Please comment there, not here. Radiant_* 11:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is the way. — Xiong熊talk* 01:45, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Other pages for deletion

I like the de-centralization, but for me a more important one would be to separate out Wikipedia: and User: pages that appear occasionally appear on VfD from VfD. The issues at hand in those pages are usually entirely different from the regular articles for deletion and a separate page would make sense it terms of load and "separation of concerns". Fancy tackling that one? Pcb21| Pete 14:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No purely administrative process can delete either kind of page; it is a violation of foundation issues. — Xiong熊talk* 01:45, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Precedent proves you wrong. Also, VFD policy proves you wrong. I understand that you intend to change said policy, but at present any Wikipedia namespace page is deletable if VFD consensus so indicates. Radiant_* 07:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

TFD explanation text

I was recently quite helped by the simple, stylish, and colourful table used by WP:VFD. In an effort to create a more useful explatory text for nominating Templates for deletion, I have trief to modify it to fit here. Please take a look: User:Ec5618/Laboratory. Its current wording refers to a simple template, Templates:tfd2. -- Ec5618 11:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...I like the idea, but I really think that the TFD page has too much instruction creep lately. I personally think that the beginning section is way too long. Quite a bit of it is utterly useless for people who already know the process, and people should be able to deduce a lot of it themselves. What if we put a prominent box at the top giving instructions for 'newbies' on how this page works? Once you've gone through the process, it's pretty easy to figure it out just by looking at the template below yours anyways. I've made a little test at User:Frazzydee/TfD Test...you might all hate it, but that's alright ;)
I've tried to use my best judgement to distinguish between what only 'new' people will need and what only regulars will need. Please don't get caught up on what has and hasn't been excluded from the main page, this is just to get a general idea. I don't know how much this really affects anybody else, but it kind of irritates me to have to scroll down so far to get past all the stuff that I've already seen a million times. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would it be better to have a very simple explanation on the TFD page, with a separate, more detailed explanation page of the TFD nomination process for TFD newbies? I think that VFD could also benefit from that approach. All of the how-to-vote explanation, however, should stay on the TFD page. BlankVerse ∅ 14:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Before any attempt is made to shuffle process method out of the spotlight, it must be corrected so that it no longer violates due process, consensus, and foundation issues. — Xiong熊talk* 01:47, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

move bug

This is a rather strange bug... if you move Template:foo to wherever (for instance when userfying a template after WP:TFD discussion), Talk:foo is moved along. Radiant_* 08:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Brion Vibber has informed me that this has been fixed; the fix will be incorporated in the next upgrade. Radiant_* 10:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Presumably if you clear the "move talk page as well" check-box you won't tickle this bug. Yes, it means the talk page (if any) has to be manually moved separately, but that's clearly better than tickling this bug. Noel (talk) 16:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro, et al.

First let me say thanks for all the work being done by MarSch in implementing this deletion. THANKS!

I have some concerns about using the avoid meta-templates instruction to eliminate all sub-templates. There is a huge diference in that a meta template (or a template for templates) has the potential to affect a great number of pages should the meta template be edited causing issues with speed and caching, etc. However a sub template (a template only used on a 1-5 templates for my example) does not have this problem because there is no cascading effect that would cause a bunch of cached pages to have to be regenerated (at least no more difference than for a regular template). (see below)

In this case the original creator of the Intro templates was User:Tom- who is 1) a developer and 2) a not frequent but active contributor. This is relevant because presumably a developer would be careful not to create an undue strain on the servers, and he is available for comment quite easily. I think we should ask him to make sure that in deleting them we are considering all of the reasons that they were created in the first place.

Finally, the vote was 2-1 to delete (3-1 if you include the proposer). I unfortunately missed this template being proposed for deletion, as I don't monitor, but would have voted no unless we got input from the original designer. I think we should be a little more careful in deleting when the consensus is so shaky. Trödel|talk 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is expressly forbidden to cite that opinion page as policy; ArbCom has spoken to this issue. — Xiong熊talk* 01:49, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where did the ArbCom say it is forbidden to cite that page as policy? I recall seeing somewhere something forbidding Netoholic from citing it as policy, but can't find it anywhere now. Also, where did Trödel cite it as policy? From what I understood from the request for clarification on WP:RFAr, it ended up being almost the opposite — they reached the conclusion the opinions presented on that page were valid [4]. --cesarb 02:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A good example of what I am talking about is Template:Infobox pope and Template:Infobox pope/dead Template:Infobox pope/alive where the page for each pope is built using twice as many calls one to get the infobox pope and another the appropriate dead/alive template. However, a change to dead or alive would require the same number of pages to be rebuilt as a change to Infobox pope. However in a meta-template (sorry I don't know examples but am using JamesDay's description) a change to the metatemplate that is used (inserted) in 20 templates would require all pages in which those 20 templates are being used to be regenerated. Potentially a very large number of templates.
This is an example of what seems like a valid difference between a limited use subtemplate for alive/dead formatting versus the meta-template description where a template is used across many templates to enforce a formatting standard, and then gets used in many templates. Most meta template issues can be resolved (IMHO) through the use of something similar to the Template:Start box, Template:Series box where the different formatting are referred to individually in the template in which they are used.
The same is true of the Intro templates. They are of limited scope in how many pages will use the templates. The subtemplates make formatting and editing easier. The danger of cascading pages needing to be updated when a change is made to Intro/1 is non-existent so why apply this rule to this kind of use of subtemplates. Trödel|talk 03:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a gray area. Unless we get hundreds of articles on popes (which seems unlikely) this won't have a serious impact (apart from the fact that it may be somewhat confusing to editors). I think the general idea is that usage of meta-templates (or nested templates) is discouraged, but not forbidden. The attempt to forbid it has failed. However, please note that it's quite possible that the developers, at some point, will simply disable meta-templates entirely. Radiant_* 07:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the developers could disable meta-templates entirely; however, I think that it is extremely unlikely that they would do so. In response to David Gerard's question on whether they could be eliminated mav said (on the wikiteck mailing list):
      >A question: is there any good reason to keep templates in templates working
      > >on the Wikimedia servers?
      Absolutely. All the PayPal donation forms require it. Same for any templates system that has translations (the translations are on one template, and the form/table is on another). Templates within templates are also extensively used by many WikiProject to make translation easier. - ref User:Maveric149
    • With such widespread disruption of existing pages I think that such a change is very unlikely. Trödel|talk 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the most nasty issues with meta templates are remedied by not editing them; ever. This seems to be a good compromise until a more adequate technical solution is found (master templates are a standard part of web page design and it would be absurd to deny our use of that). And there is nothing special about meta templates ; all popular templates have the same cache invalidation issues when edited. The only real difference is that meta template increase the potential number of templates via nesting. --mav 22:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relisting

Why is relisting a Template acceptable? I have seen several comments that a template should not be relisted, but I occasionally see one relisted. If there is not enough interest to have voters vote to delete it should be kept and if some think it really needs to be deleted, listed again after sufficient time has passed. I removed the relisting of Template:Otheruses5 and it got put back pretty quickly. Am I out of touch re this issue? Trödel|talk 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The idea behind TFD (and any other *FD) is to form consensus on an issue. If there is no consensus because a lot of people disagree, then the decision defaults to a keep. If there is no consensus because nobody bothered to respond, it may be useful for some more people to look at it (also, if something has changed that arguably could have convinced people to change their vote, but they were unaware of that, a relisting may be appropriate; that didn't happen in this case, though).
  • Both happen occasionally on VFD. In this particular case, it turned out that the template never had a TFD notice on it, which possibly caused the lack of response. HTH! Radiant_* 08:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • That makes sense in this case - it should have the deletion notice. I guess my main concern is that we should be more careful with deleting templates - why where they originally created, etc; especially if they are being used on more than a couple pages.
    • Additionally, shouldn't we just let it stay on the list rather than moving it back to the top. I know that the backlog on TfD recently was pretty bad; but there is nothing wrong with having a template be considered for 2 weeks or more if there isn't enough votes for consensus. Trödel|talk 12:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

I'm not sure, maybe it's just me, but does anybody else find the holding cell to be a useless step in the TFD process? What's the real purpose of having it there? As an admin, I really don't feel comfortable just blindly deleting things that are in there. I have to go through the logs, and find whatever templates were listed there. Then, I have to read the votes to make sure that I'm not making the wrong decision.

Additionally, there are often templates in the holding cell that have not yet been depopulated. I have to make sure this is done also. So if I still have to check all these things, what's the real purpose of the holding cell? I see some templates being logged after having 1-2 votes. The way I see it, the holding cell only stops people from voting after a strict 7-day limit. Is there really any harm if a template is listed for 10 days just to make sure that a clear consensus has been established? I find that the holding cell simply stops the voting procedure prematurely. I think that templates should go straight from TFD to the log, and they should only be logged after they've been deleted.

If you go through the logs, I think that you'll find that a great deal of the templates logged as deleted actually still exist. I therefore see little reason to believe that the holding cell leads to faster decisions. If there's no admin available to delete it, then why not just leave it on TFD for a day or two? It'll allow more people to vote rather than closing this window of opportunity when there's no harm in keeping it open (besides TFD getting large, but that can be resolved just like it has previously). -Frazzydee|✍ 03:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You have a good point. The reason it's presently like this is that, about two weeks ago, TFD had a backlog of over a month and was getting overly large. When I requested aid at WP:AN/I, the answer was that there's nothing in the holding cell. So I started archiving. I suppose a better solution would be to separate TFD pages per day, just as they do on VFD and CFD. Radiant_* 08:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the "holding cell", and wouldn't help out with the deletions here without it; it also provides a great way for non-admins to help out with the work. If I had to i) count/decide whether consensus had been reached, ii) archive discussions, and only then iii) delete the page, I'd never bother coming here to help with deletes. With the holding cell, other non-admin editors can help out and then I can do the delete bit. I don't check whether things have been properly listed because i) if something is improperly listed, I assume someone will notice and complain (there are a couple of those on the page at the moment), and ii) deleted things can be brought back if a mistake was made. (I do check to make sure things have been properly orphaned, etc., and put ones that haven't back in the appropriate bin for someone else to deal with.) Noel (talk) 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought the holding was the place for a template to go after its discussion has been logged. Then someone has to check for uses and put it under "ready for delete" or "to be orphaned". All these small steps make it easier for different people to take a few steps. --MarSch 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it makes it easier, but I find that sometimes in our quest to keep the TFD page small, template entries are sometimes removed when there are not enough votes to delete the entire template. Other times, there really isn't completely clear consensus, but it is removed from the TFD page anyways. Is there any way that we could make it so that people can vote during the period that it's in the holding cell? -Frazzydee|✍ 15:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about another section for these things which are unclear? This way they would get some more attention=votes for a while. Actually it might not be such a bad idea to have a section for all templates which managed to get a keep vote. These we can discuss, while not having to wade through all the other stuff. If this works it might be a great way to improve vfd. If we really want to ignore nominations with no keep votes, we need to make a horribly obnoxious tfd-template so people notice when it is stuck on a template. Then we would only have to look at the templates for which there is controversy. Okay, where is the viper? Somebody wake me up :) !!! --MarSch 15:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Radiant! and MarSch

I know I have been vocal opposing a few of the recent deletions lately, (and caused them extra work) but I wanted to make sure I publically thanked User:Radiant! and User:MarSch for all the work they are doing to find rarely used templates, process them, and keep this page in a readable shape.

As I have read more about the particular templates I care about, I have seen so much evidence of their dedication to a thankless job and good work. Furthermore, my objection to a couple of things and silence on the many good things you both are doing doesn't reflect my actual gratitude for wikipedians like you that are willing to do the "heavy lifting" and time consuming tasks that needs doing and generally aren't enough people to do them.

So, THANKS to both of you for keeping Wikipedia running smoothly and for helping "take out the trash" regularly in cleaning up forgotten, unused, archived and duplicate templates.

Thanks also to the admins who do alot of the actual deletions: User:Ugen64, User:Frazzydee, User:Grutness, and I am sure I am missing others - User:Netoholic thanks to all!

Now back to your regularly scheduled controversies :) Trödel|talk 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to Trödel for a mature, responsible, and heartfelt display of Wikispirit and Wikicivility. We need more editors like this. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Trödel, I guess you have just shown that Template:Headingstalk is just plain wrong :-) --MarSch 14:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not wrong, just the exception that proves the rule :) Trödel|talk 03:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is orphaning?

I think orphaning should mean, removing from articles. But outside articles templates may also be transcluded, but are mostly just linked to, which shouldn't come as a surprise, since most templates are meant to be used in articlespace. I don't think links to dead templates should be removed. Am I wrong? --MarSch 14:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong, but without looking at the source of each link it's hard to tell whether it's a mention of (with a link to) the template (e.g. on a talk: page) that we can ignore, or what. I don't recall the exact details, but on some of the templates I just deleted I did find some live usages (e.g. on User: pages) that I had to deal with before I could delete the templates. Yes, I could have just deleted them, and let the various users fix things up when they discovered the problem, but I'm not comfortable with that. (OMMV.) And links from actual pages (e.g. in Wikipedia:) I think definitely need to be dealt with. Noel (talk) 16:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tweaked the instructions on the "to orphan" section a bit to try and clarify this; please improve my halting efforts! Noel (talk) 16:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page header transcluded

I've switched to transcluding the header (even though it's slightly more expensive computationally for the servers) because it's relatively lengthy, and we're using a lot of disk space including it in every version of this heavily-modified page. (A complete copy of the page is made every time an edit is done, no matter how minor.) Since disk space is one of the resources we are struggling with, it seemed like a good tradeoff to use a little more of other resources to cut down the amount of disk space used. Noel (talk) 16:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

good thinking --MarSch 15:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a proposal for a different process

Please take a look at a proposal at User:MarSch/deleteproposal for changing the deletion process. --MarSch 14:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea for pages like VFD where there is such a ridiculously high load, but I think that TFD is small enough to manage at this point. There are currently 9 entries on TFD- surely people could find the time to vote on only 9 cases. Maybe if the lag time for stage 1 were smaller there would be a greater benefit for TFD, but I still think that we can manage with the ol'fashioned way for now. If we adopt this approach, then we must also realize that it may translate into less eyeballs, since some people will divert their attention away from stage 1. In summary: Good for big places (VFD), bad for smaller ones (TFD). -Frazzydee|✍ 15:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Frazzydee, I have copied your comment to the corresponding talk page. --MarSch 17:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree - for VFD this is useful, for TFD it's instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 09:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stub types for deletion

WP:SFD is now up and running. I'm adding a template box to the tfd and cfd pages to keep people here informed of what's going on over there (whether this continues or not will mainly depend on how well sfd runs). Grutness...wha? 00:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

otheruses5

Why was this tempalte not deleted? I count 4d and 2k. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/June_2005#Template:Otheruses5 --MarSch 01:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hmm, I've done a bit of "investigation" (*grin*) and it looks like it was pending deletion by an admin at one point, but Cantus voted keep and moved it to the "not deleted" archive[5][6]. Maybe Cantus himself can explain? But please remember that TFD isn't just about counting the votes or else a bot would be doing this. The main purpose is to discuss whether the community thinks a template should be deleted or not. Theoretically, a template could be kept with 100d and 1k (although very unlikely). -Frazzydee|✍ 01:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It has consensus to delete, and similar templates have also been deleted. Note that Cantus's vote appears over a week after the discussion was closed. I've removed the template from the (few) relevant articles, and listed it under 'to be deleted'. Radiant_>|< 09:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Template suddenly gone

What happened to the "history" template? It's OK that it's gone – I had posted it on TfD myself in May, but I can see no decision to delete. Now I'm wondering

Sebastian (talk) 15:55, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Look at the deletion log.
  • 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 Radiant! deleted "Template:History" (Passed TFD two months ago, deletion agreed upon by its creator, not in use)
--cesarb 16:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is in the deleted log, it just wasn't actually deleted by an admin until recently. This means that the decision was made, but nobody has gotten around to deleting it. In general, you should go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted, and search the logs manually by going through the list on the top. In most cases, the template will be listed under the same month that it was deleted. In some cases, it might be in the month before or two months before.
The fact that radiant deleted that disturbs me a little...unless I'm missing something, there seems to be absolutely no consensus to delete. Nobody voted to delete it, and the even nominator said "I am not saying it should be deleted. I only posted this here out of WikiLove." If there was no support for it being deleted, even by the nominator himself, I think it should definitely be restored. Does anybody have any objections to listing it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? -Frazzydee|✍ 21:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your reply – this answers both of my questions.
Log entry: This was certainly wrong. (1) Deletion was not agreed upon by creator (= nominator = me); (2) It was in use. (On my homepage. Imagine my surprise when I looked at my homepage and everything was replaced with "Template:History". It felt like I had "my Wikifly down"[7].)
Undeletion: Thank you for the offer. I don't think this is necessary anymore. I rewrote the template in my user space. (As the creator, I could put it on speedy delete, if that helps.) If you want to do something, it would be great if you could have a serious word with Radiant. Your words will probably be better received because you supported his RfA, while opposed it. — Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Oh, either of you can speak to me, I don't mind. I have no problem with you, Sebastian, and would be happy to work with you on User:SebastianHelm/categorization/combining.
  • Anyway. The way I interpreted it, was that Sebastian said "I'm fine with deleting it" (and anyway, most people don't nominate something for deletion unless they want it deleted). Second, Xiong said it was redundant with a template he was making. And third, there were no objections. It is not uncommon for a template or category to get deleted simply by being nominated. And fourth, it was listed under the TFD section 'to orphan' for quite some time, and nobody objected to that either. Looks like there were a number of confusions about the process, some by me and some by others. Radiant_>|< 09:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed page duplication

This page was duplicated onto itself, so I deleted the redundant half. If you voted in the past couple of hours, please double-check that your comments are still there. Radiant_>|< 19:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete/keep quick tallies in the holding cell

This is a very minor & probably nitpicky thing, but I don't think that we should have those quick "6d 3k" type tallies in the holding cell. It just encourages people to delete the template without reading the discussion. Admins should be reading the entire discussion and getting a feel for consensus rather than jumping to conclusions and voting primarily based on the tallies.

I know it's a tiny thing, but I think that the tallies do more harm than good, and shouldn't be used. Besides, admins would have to double-check them anyways. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'll stop. By the way, we should probably do something about the process here. Presently, someone closes and archives discussion and puts the tl in the holding cell. Then someone else double-checks that and deprecates the template, and puts it in the 'to delete' section. Then someone else again deletes the tl, is that right? Because that seems to be the way we're doing it... 07:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) (this post by radiant --MarSch 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    • I kinda like them. Do admins ever go against the votes?--MarSch 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Rarely. I sometimes relist a nomination if there's no clear outcome. Plus there's the occasional sock vote to discount, and sometimes you get patterns like '*del *del *del *explanation *keep *keep' in which case it's likely that the explanation convinced people and the later votes reflect the situation better. Radiant_>|< 10:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

subst:

Would it be a good idea to facilitate substitution by making it possible to say {{s:sometemplate}}?--MarSch 13:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Slightly, but not by much :) More importantly, it would be useful to tag certain templates as 'auto-subst' so that they are automatically subst'ed by our software. This is an outstanding feature request. Radiant_>|< 14:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that would be VERY bad. But the shortened syntax wouldn't discourage people from using it. I regularly use tl, without subst:, because I'm lazy, but if I could write {{s:tl|sometemplate}} I could be lazy and use substitution. --MarSch 14:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am under the impression that all uses of a template are then retroactively substituted and that would be something which cannot be reversed simply. --MarSch 11:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that's true, but some templates should also be subst'ed. This is already guideline for {{vfd}}, and many talk page templates (e.g. {{test1}} and {{welcome}}) could use the effect. Radiant_>|< 10:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A template that is always substituted should only be substituted on edit. So adding the tag to an existing template wouldn't cause them to be retroactively substituted, but substituted on next edit, which I think would be OK. I'd like to see a template that is substituted on preview, that would be useful too. --ssd 13:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template forks

Given recent series of template forks (in particular, people who created a smaller version of, say, Template:Npov because they didn't like the original's layout) would it be worthwhile to make those speedily deletable? And if so, by what wording? I've heard the suggestion a couple of times, so some feedback would be useful. Radiant_>|< 18:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) (what on earth happened to my ~ key...)

    • Not on these general terms. We just yesterday had a case where a user was working on a template, had something to eat and it was nominated for deletion. If the fork has been unused for 3 months, then yes. (With mention and subst on the main template's talk page, so any good ideas don't get lost in the process.) — Sebastian (talk) 18:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Maybe we should educate people in the create new article screen. --MarSch 14:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a bad idea, but that page is large enough already. If we want to educate people, we should do it elsewhere. Radiant_>|< 18:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there could be a separate one for the template namespace?--MarSch 11:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have the feeling we're talking past each other. I was talking about the message you see when you visit a {{redlink}} (blasted) I mean a {{link that is red}} in the template namespace. I think it is essentially the same as for the article namespace, but most of that stuff is irrelevant for templates. It should say not to create forks and to create experimental templates in userspace. I'm not sure what you want with the links you mentioned though --MarSch 12:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I get it now. You want to have separate texts per namespace, for the screen that appears when you edit an article that doesn't exist yet. Sounds like a good suggestion. Radiant_>|< 21:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this something admins can change or do we need a feature request for it? I thought messages like these were admin editable and located somewhere in meta.--MarSch 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Editable by meta admins, as far as I know :) your best bet for asking this would be the Village Pump. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

{{Copyrightproblem}}

I'm a bit stuck on what to do with {{Copyrightproblem}}. Although there was clearly consensus to delete it, the first two votes were made based on the assumption that it would be used instead of {{copyvio}}. Besides those two votes, the only other vote was to userfy the template. Does anybody else see themselves using this template? There seems to be little harm in keeping it, but if it's only used by one person then maybe it should be userfied. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, see the discussion here. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How about userfying it to JPgordon, who stated that he likes it but nobody else uses it? Radiant_>|< 08:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any keep votes, nor indications of wanting to keep. Since there is no machinery backing it up for new page patrolling cpoyvio should be used for that and no one has expressed interest in using it in other ways. Apparently it was a one-day template or something. Just delete it. --MarSch 11:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I put a notice in the talk page for WP:CP soon after I nominated the template telling them about the nomination for deletion. Apparently nobody came over from that page, so I will assume that none of the most likely users of the template were interested in keeping it. BlankVerse ∅ 13:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've userfied it to User:Jpgordon/Copyrightproblem. Thanks for all your insight, especially to blankverse for putting a notice on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems :) -Frazzydee|✍ 14:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_2&oldid=1144316495"