Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod

message: Would anyone have an objection to creating or using a process involving proposed deletions (such as with , or an alternate version for templates) on redundant infoboxes? Then someone (such as me) would check to make sure that there are no problems with the nomination. This does sound somewhat drastic, but I think it would help focus attention on more controversial areas. GracenotesT § 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that would be fine – though I'm not sure people will agree with you checking everything; while I personally trust your judgement with templates, I think it would be best to use the same "any administrator can delete after five days" rule as with prods. This would definitely make it easier to clear out all the old, unused, forgotten templates that are lying around (four of which I submitted to TfD yesterday) – Qxz 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yet may I ask how this is any different than most articles? The very good majority of articles that we prod have few to no eyes on them; what's more, if someone gets overzealous and prods a template that someone wants, it can always be undeleted at WP:DRV. And, the thing is that only non-transcluded templatees can be prodded, which means they are fairly useless anyway. I can say as a regular at WP:TFD that they're almost always deleted, and this can be a problem because once through TFD, they can't be recreated. Patstuarttalk·edits 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, for one thing articles can show up on Special:Randompage. Most of the articles we prod are slamdunk deletions; a badly titled/forked template, on the other hand, should be redirected in most cases to avoid confusion. TFD'ed templates can be recreated through deletion review, same as any other regular deletion. I just don't see the need for an additional process.  -- nae'blis 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary prod process 

message: Templates which appear to be an article mistakenly created in template space should not be prodded. The page should be moved to main space, where it may then be subject to the standard deletion policy for articles.
:I'm not seeing why we have this requirement. If we can prod articles, why shouldn't we be able to prod articles in the wrong namespace (and, at that, malformed articles). Patstuarttalk·edits 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could probably be speedily deleted according to WP:CSD#G6, or boldly moved, or an admin could merge the page history and the content. GracenotesT § 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third requirement

message: I suspect that a better way of "clearing out" the somewhat-messy template namespace is to check which kinds of templates are frequently and non-controersially removed by TFD. In particular, this seems to include redundant templates, such as "yet another" some-television-series-infobox when we already have a generic one for all kinds of series. If we have an idea of that we could (1) inform people and strongly discourage them from (re)creating such, and/or (2) make them speedies. >Radiant< 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatively