Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 4

message: This page has steadily grown in size and is now over 300 kb long. I propose that we split it into subpages per day (transcluded on the main page) just like it's done on WP:CFD. Radiant_>|< 13:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might be better served by simply closing the discussions that are really old; as of now it's got discussions dating from October 29, and seven days ago was November 11.  I'm also a little concerned about the unwieldyness of doing it the transclusion way - it's very confusing until you've nominated 5 or 6 articles (templates) and have the pattern down, and newer users will tend to not bother to nominate things for deletion because it's too much effort. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 14:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD reorganization 

message: Currently there seem to be no rules regarding templates that, while potentially useful, are far too large to be practical. I'm thinking specifically of the Template:Navarre, which lists municipalities in Navarre. There are 272 such municipalities in Navarre, and the Template dwarfs the articles in which it is placed.  So, is this already covered under current deletion criteria, or is this an acceptable template, or should it be nominated for deletion? Ziggurat 03:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overlarge templates do often get deleted. Sometimes what is really needed is a standalone list, with a link in each article's "See also" section and/or a category. -Splashtalk 04:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Deleting a useful template because it is designed badly sounds like lunacy (yes admittedly us Wikipedians are prone to that sometimes). TfD determines usefullness (and appropriateness), but design improvements should not be centralized at this location. Pcb21 Pete 10:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now to to enhance the usefullness of a 272 entry template by design changes. There are categories, lists, and portals to serve the need of having 272 links. --Pjacobi 10:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversized Templates and Deletion Criteria 

message: I've made the template  for templates which may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Perhaps someone might find this useful. --Ixfd64 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no spesific critereas for speedy deleting templates. You can only speedy templates that are patent nonsense, tests, pure vandalism or or if you created it yourself and no one else have edited it. Templates fiting those critereas are generaly not used in a lot of articles so there is no need for such a notice, just remove it from any articles that might be using it and slap a regular speedy template on it. --Sherool (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates for speedy deletion 

message: I'm just wondering, where do any redirect templates for deletion go?  I want to create a template regarding this, but I need to know where it should point to. --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They could go on TfD or RfD, but redirects are cheap, and unles the redirected name is actively misleading, should usually not be nominated. i don't see a reason for a special template. DES (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. Thanks. --Wcquidditch | Talk 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Am I the only one who read that as Where do all the calculators go? :)? - SoM 23:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's related to my question! (that means yes) --Wcquidditch | Talk 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do redirect templates go? 

message: It's pretty well-known that sister project boxes for sites that aren't actually sister projects nearly always get deleted here, and those that survive get reduced to a -like external link template; so it was only a matter of time before people started trying to sneak them in by pasting the code directly into articles  instead of providing a convenient template for us to shoot.  Has a prohibition on such boxes ever been formalized anywhere, or am I going to be stuck playing whack-a-mole with these?  I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Sister projects or Wikipedia:External links or their talk pages, but there's always been a very strong consensus against them here. —Cryptic (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be tough to convince me that any Wikicities project should ever be linked from one of our articles.  They aren't authoritative and verifiability is extremely difficult.  It's probably reasonable to allow them on Talk pages, but not main articles.  Treat it like other forms of spamming... warning, then a block. -- Netoholic @ 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't disagree with you, this is kind of dodging the point I was getting at.  What if the boxes were instead to IMDB, or some other legitimately linkable site? —Cryptic (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The authors at WikiMac would probably be disappointed to hear your opinion.  Those sites should be treated like any other, and if they have good valuable information, links (not boxes) should be allowed. —Mike 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are treated like any other; that is, they are not considered reliable, because anyone can edit them. Using one wiki to verify another is rapidly converging on circular logic. The idea of sources on Wikipedia is not simply to say "don't blame us if this is wrong, we got it from them" - the idea is to find sources (including websites) with some special authority on a subject, and reference those. Wikicities is not such a site. If their articles reference authoritative sites then we can reference those directly ourselves. Soo 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another (non-)sisterproject box 

message: I don't know if this might help anyone, but I made a template  that will format a standard comment for a tfd. It will also add your signatore so you don't need to type your four tildes. →AzaToth 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a template to vote is BAD. You may say it's intended to be used as a subst:, but are you going to be the one that perodically checks up on it and replaces active uses?  Similar templates have been deleted before. Save us the trouble and mark it for deletion yourself.  Please, people, not every damn thing on WP needs to be done using a template.  I'd venture to say this template is even more complicated and involved than typing it yourself.  -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please no. I know you intended well, but this is overcomplicated and dangerous, in that if anyone ever forgets to sub, or the template is changed, people will have their opinions changed w/o knowing it. It takes more time to use the template than to type it out manually, IMO. Someone speedy this (or do we have to take it to tfd, horror of horrors?)? -- nae'blis (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template for use as comment 

message: I would like to put up Template:Middle-earth portal for deletion, but I think that adding the TfD template will cause display problems on pages.
:I made a new template that might help you here, it's :

:→AzaToth 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah that is perfect! Thank you AzaToth :) --Qirex 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can clearly tell,  now has regular  on it, as the "small" variety has been listed for deletion.  Besides, I thought there was  for these types of things?  It existed last time I checked... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice sought 

message: I've edited the holding cell template Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell to include a text that it is transcluded (see diff). The new link is helpful to edit the whole section at once for example to move templates between subcells. My edit seems to work but I'm not shure if it is elegant. I'm asking myself if it would not be better just to include the section title as well in the template such that clicking on the section edit button on the right of the whole Holding cell section just opens the whole Holding section (the template) for edit. Opinions? Adrian Buehlmann 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding cell