Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod

Would anyone have an objection to creating or using a process involving proposed deletions (such as with {{

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)[reply

]

• One problem I see is with a template which is always subst'd. Nobody would notice the prod and the person nominating deletion would not know the template was unused. Also, I think a prod would need to have the notice be placed to be visible in all transclusions, just like is sometimes done in a regular TfD or otherwise interested parties would not notice. Perhaps there should also be a guideline that you shouldn't prod something transcluded over X times since that means it implicitly has supporters. —dgies^t_c 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was thinking more of other templates, such as redundant infoboxes or navigational templates, that are meant to be transcluded. This would not refer to functional templates, which are often meant to be substituted.
    Gracenotes^T § 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I know, but if we are going to have template prod be a formal policy we need to define exactly when it can and cannot be used. —dgies^t_c 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not support this. TfD is in no way overloaded, and it seems the risk of a normally subst'd template slipping past, for example, would outweigh any savings in effort. If a template isn't in use, no one's going to see the prod notice unless they know to regularly check the prod list too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you think of any additional safeguards against subst'd templates getting tossed? Perhaps making a new {{prod template}} notice which produces an alert about the prod if the template gets used? —dgies^t_c 18:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also won't support - TfD is a better option. Overall, I believe the credibility of the encyclopedia is compromised by poor articles, and removing these would be prudent. However, there isn't any benefit to rationing the use of templates.
  Addhoc 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • At TfD our main concern was with wasting time on abandoned templates not being used in any articles. These are sort of analogous to orphan articles except nobody would search for them. —dgies^t_c 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could either do this, or snowball delete redundant templates more (at
      Gracenotes^T § 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Many worthwhile templates, for example {{
        Addhoc 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Your example has 7 transclusions and 9 incoming links and would not be eligible for prod under the proposed policy. —dgies^t_c 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The example was nominated for TfD last year on the grounds that it wasn't being used. Nominating templates just because they aren't being used is bad practice. Your proposal would encourage this.
            Addhoc 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • OK, can you help think of a test to distinguish between unused but useful templates and unused abandoned ones, like unused navboxes and obsolete superseded infoboxes? Perhaps exclude templates which could be classified as maintenance templates? —dgies^t_c 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need for speedy. They show up on TfD, a couple of people concur, and they get deleted in a week. no rush. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support this proceadure. First of all, TFD dosn't have nearly the same of volume as AFD. Secondly, templates often have very few eyes watching them, so the PROD could be abused without anyone noticing. ---
  WRE) 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There may not be that many eyes, but they are viligant. Now, I was not thinking not-used templates, so much as redundant templates. Templates that have been subsumed. Templates that could qualify for
    Gracenotes^T § 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I must say I do support this procedure. Per both of J. Smith's concerns: 1) the amount of volume on tfd is not relevant, and 2) the "few eyes" concern can be taken care of by the fact that this procedure is fairly strict: it only allows non-transcluded templates. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose this at this time, simply because prod requires eyes to be effective (I disagreed with the expansion to user pages as well, and feel this is even worse precedent). -- nae'blis 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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:TFD that they're almost always deleted, and this can be a problem because once through TFD, they can't be recreated. Patstuart^talk·edits 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

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). Patstuart^talk·edits 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be speedily deleted according to

Gracenotes^T § 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I put it in because I've seen new users do this before. To assume good faith in the new user means assuming they intended it to be an article. So it seems a bit unfair to say "ah-ha, this is an unused template" when it really should be treated like a misplaced article. If people feel it is instruction creep we can take it out. —dgies^t_c 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]