Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 3

message: Could people take a look at the disposition of this template?  It is marked as Convert to Category with the description: "(7 catify, 1d, 8k but most keep-voters didn't object to catify, one explicitly stated he wouldn't mind, and at any rate catify is not a form of deletion)"
I don't know how other's feel, but my "keep" vote certainly wasn't intended as "keep, but catify would be okay too" vote.  It doesn't seem reasonable to treat the failure to object to an option as some sort of implicit endorsement of that option.  Reading the log, I also am not sure which keep vote the closing admin is reading as saying it would be okay to catify.  None of them seem explicit in that way to me.  JPS's vote is perhaps closest, but I read his comments as saying he wants both a category and a template.
I would say this looks more like failure to reach consensus to me, in which case, I believe the appropriate action should be to do nothing and let it stay by default.  Dragons flight July 8, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
:It is very clear that there was no consensus to delete the template. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
*I concur that there was no consensus to delete. However, there was a majority to categorify. Converting to a category does not cause information to be lost, and therefore (like merging an article, for instance) is not a form of deletion. Even if I assumed that all 'keep' votes were objecting to categorify, there still would be a majority to categorify (it would be wrong to assume that they were not objecting, but it would be equally wrong to assume that they were objecting).
*What I believe to be the general issue here is that many voters do not take the larger picture into account. People want information kept, and care less whether it's a list, category, series box, or all three of them. A good example is the recent debates on Exploding animals. The list, template and category were each nominated for deletion, and each was kept. Arguably, they're all equally informative, and two of the three are redundant. A special vote section for deciding what to do with obvious redundancy may be useful, but may also be overly bureaucratic.
*Anyway. WP:CFD can do deletes and renames, and tends to label the latter very explicitly to prevent people from voting to oppose the deletion when that wasn't proposed in the first place. As such, I think it would be appropriate to start a new vote on this template, making it clear that it is proposed to be converted to a category, rather than deleted outright. That way, when people vote on it, we will know for sure what they are supporting or opposing. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 06:15 (UTC)
*I agree with Radiant. We may also consider either adding it to this Tfd, or closing that one, are doing all three together, as they are all were listed on Tfd, for the same reasons. <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
*Converting to a category AND deleting the template is DELETING THE TEMPLATE. If you do that, you are making the assumption that most of the people who voted "keep" were really saying "keep or convert to a category",  but if that is what they wanted, they would have said that. There was no consensus to delete the template, so it should not be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
**That's exactly why I suggested relisting it. You are assuming that "keep" really means "keep and do not convert to a category". It's possible to make a case for either. Radiant_>|< 08:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
*I agree with <>Who?¿? that all three templates should be discussed alongside each other. It should not be relisted separately: that sounds to me that it will be relisted until voters get bored and it's deleted. If it's not added to Hitch and Kubrick, then, spin aside, no consensus to delete means leave it alone. The JPS 11:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Steven Spielberg's films]] 

message: The TfD instructions have not been followed for the following. (SEWilco 16:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like this: User_talk:500LL#Tfd_instructions.  This time I happened to notice the TfD early despite the lack of notice.  But he's done nothing.  The previous event was complicated by delays which are now becoming similar to this one.  And I won't nominate for deletion when I don't want to nominate for deletion; I don't yet want to keep all but I also don't want to nominate for deletion.  (SEWilco 22:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that you are suggesting that the community consensus is in some way irrelevant if you were not personally informed of proceedings. Seeing as you have come across and participated in the proceedings, I'm wondering what your point is. If you are trying to tell a consensus community that, because you think the letter of a non-law was not followed in one particular talk-page's case, they are all invalid, I think you may be stretching things a bit. To be explicit: are you requesting that the developing consensus should be abandoned and the TfD closed to keep because of this? If that is your desire, you should get in touch with an administrator, perhaps at WP:AN/I and let them know. If the TfD is closed in this way, I will shortly after renominate them all, properly, myself. -Splash 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not hearing from those who did not stumble across the TfD, so of course you're hearing from someone who did stumble across it.  In my case you're hearing from me only because the edit of the TfD page happened to appear in my watchlist before someone hid it with an edit on another topic.  (SEWilco 06:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD instructions not followed 

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

message: The following have no TfD notification in the template nor talk pages. (SEWilco 05:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. —Cryptic (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No notifications, June 17 

message: I think it might be a good idea to add the following text to the nomination instructions:
:It is sometimes courteous to inform the creator of the template about the nomination, particularly if it was recently made.
I think this should be on all deletion pages, such as TfD, CfD, etc. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inform the creator 

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

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

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

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

message: No TFD template notice for the following:
* seemain2
* seemain3
* seemain4
* seemain5
* seemain6
* seemain7
* seemain8
* seemain9
* seemain10
* seemain20
* Npov-intro
* POV-intro
* ccm
* Infobox SoftwareProduct
(SEWilco 03:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No TfD notifications, August 19 

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

message: Items changed:
* Urged use of  if not similar to nav box.
* Changed "page" to "template" in heavy-usage sentence (probably an edit error).
* Made voting action easier to cut-and-paste.
(SEWilco 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD instruction discussion 

message: I wanted to use a template instead of a hard-coded disambiguation message. So I went to Wikipedia:Template_messages/General and found that it recommends otherusers1. Then I tried to use otheruses1 but it said it has been submitted for deletion. So I went to this page, but it's not listed.
Does anyone know the correct template to use when you want something of the form:
:This article is about XXX, for other topics with a similar name see YYY.
Ben Arnold 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they still exist, and are not mentioned or logged,  and  both must have survived TfD, and are therefore unexceptionable. Closers should be careful. Septentrionalis 20:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otheruses1 

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

message: === deletion proposal for Template:Tfd ===
This template violates WP:POINT.  If used, it generates needless clutter in article space on every page including a template proposed for deletion, where the notice does not belong, and it surely adds to server load.  Delete.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep but make much smaller, like . I think this template is useful, as otherwise TFD would get very little attention. ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: This template violates WP:POINT.  If used, it generates needless clutter in article space on every page including a template proposed for deletion, where the notice does not belong, and it surely adds to server load.  Delete.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 01:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep but make much smaller, like . I think this template is useful, as otherwise TFD would get very little attention. ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Like . ~~ N (t/c) 20:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Make it smaller

message: continuing conversation from the Holding Cell
Perhaps this template should be moved out of the Deletion Log and to a "Special cases log" (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Special cases) in a section labeled "protected from re-creation"?  Am I right in assuming that such a template should neither be deleted nor used? Courtland 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be listed at WP:PP. I think leaving the Deletion Log as it is and adding it there is enough — the "what links here" for the protection template also documents it. That way is approximately analagous to how AfD does things: we don't remove the AfD subpage to somewhere special, it just gets listed at WP:PP. -Splash 03:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:DecencyWikiProject 

message: continuing conversation from the Holding Cell
Like template:DecencyWikiProject, maybe this template should be moved out of the Deletion Log into a "special cases" log, this time in a section labeled "consensus to delete: action delayed"? Courtland 02:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do. Simpler might be to quarantine it in the holding cell so that, if you/me aren't around when it comes time to do something with it, they haven't got to guess where it went. What do you reckon?-Splash 03:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: responding down a long corridor of time ... Agreed; sounds reasonable. Courtland 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Block 

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

message: It doesn't seem to be a good idea to replace the content of a deleted template with . In articles in which the template appears, the  template is simply substituted into the article, making it appear that the article has been deleted, rather than the template.
You might think this isn't a problem if you've gotten rid of all references to the template in question, but you'd be wrong; it's still there in article histories. I got bitten by this problem with the  template in the history of Projective set. I've fixed up :Template:Substub to address this problem. My fix was kind of ad hoc; maybe someone can figure out a more automatic solution. --Trovatore 07:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we create  which contains the same information as  with <noinclude> tags around it, so that the notice only appears if you look directly at the template itself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to the noinclude feature (having only discovered it 12 hours ago), but unless I am misunderstanding you, there would seem to be a logical problem with putting noinclude tags around a message and then trying to include that message on another template.  Dragons flight 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to a problem! I suppose the correct solution is to put noinclude tags around the deleted message in the template itself. We could use making  anyway, since the phrasing in  isn't quite right for a template. -Splashtalk 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it calls for a software update.  I would strongly support being able to use "<includeonce>Foo</includeonce>" in template T1 so that if template T2 contains  then T2 renders as Foo but if article A contains  it would not show anything.  Would that solve the problem? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "deleted page" in deleted templates

message: In a post a few sections up, I mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. That proposal received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review.
There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splashtalk 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review proposal 

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

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

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

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

message: I like the idea of a single template for political office holders.
You do lose the successor/predecessor information, but overall the suggested template is an improvement. I like that it lists all of the offices held.
:You don't lose them if you have succession boxes at the foot of the article. Chris talk back 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree