Knowledge (XXG) talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 1

2820:"Polish steam locomotive engineer family tree" templates: monstrosities that loom larger on the hundreds of pages on which they appear than any actual page content. These must be dragged through TfD and might discover some support from Polish steam locomotive enthusiasts. These single-minded users haunt Polish steam locomotive pages to the exclusion of all else, and if we notice the deletion on one Talk page within the set -- the template page itself being the natural place for this -- it will show up on every Polish engineer's watchlist and -- with the proper edit summary -- appear as a great red flag. Nobody will be left out; if only one or two Polish engineers take note, they will sound the alarm and every Polish engineer in the project will caucus at length before descending on TfD in mass. 868:

will have no idea what it was for, especially if it is non-trivial. Hence, my preferred ""policy"": no removals (or additions, come to that) after a template has been WP:TFD'd; if removing a template requires extensive understanding of its background, which is beyond the scope of WP:TFD (likely to burden it), discuss it on a Talk: page (in which case it can be orphaned temporarily, restored for a trial run, and the like, there being no time limit), eventually orphan or keep it accordingly, and only afterward list it on WP:TFD. Of course, there is nothing wrong with favoring a different policy, but a policy should be decided upon. --

1825:" - Snowspinner, you amaze me sometimes. Ok, you wrote the initial page, and it's worked pretty well, but no portion of this process has ever been voted on, so you cannot say the whole thing is policy by your decree. The way I count the templates on this page, I see about half which should be immediately orphaned (if they haven't already), and half that shouldn't. It is harmful to make any blanket statement saying the all should not be orphaned. -- 4713:}} et al.) are usually protected anyway. Also, weigh the impact of immediately visible, slow-to-update vandalism to a template shared by hundreds of articles against the impact of vandalism to articles newly using a subt'ed template this way. The latter is impossible to clean up in a coordinated fashion, but it lends itself very well to distributed cleanup, which usually works fine. The problem is real, but I don't think it would be crippling. 31: 1932:. I guess my only concern was that the template itself has been replaced by a deletion notice, which means that any page which uses this template appears to have a notice to be deleted. Saying that, I checked the backlinks of the page to see what's using it, and few topics are.. so I stepped in to remove uses of this template where appropriate. As i generally approve, I am now stepping away from involvement. Thanks again. -- 218:, and I'm thoroughly mystified by it. Clearly there are circumstances where a template needs deleting because it is unnecessary or undesirable, but to say delete the template but replicate the text surely suggests that the template is doing something useful. And quantities of replicated text are clearly a hostage to fortune in terms of future consistency, maintenance load and translation overhead. Our own article on 1852:" and edit the template during the voting period (but please note that you've edited the template). If the template is redundant, the one-week period during voting on the template shouldn't make any difference. If there are ever any egregious templates, people can vote "speedy delete" and "speedy orphan" and generate consensus that way. The orphaning of a template should not be a unilateral act by a single editor. 4767:, which doesn't have the subst flag. Someone comes along and vandalizes the template, and also sets the subst flag. Stub is used a lot. Stub gets put on pages while it's vandalized. (Or, worse, depending on how it's implemented, all uses of the template suddenly go to subst as soon as the page is loaded) Now we have a bunch of vandalized pages, and no way of tracking what they were easily. That would be bad. 3220:. And the only keywords the user must remember are simple mnemonics, like "blue" and "amber". If the naive user copies an instance of {divbox} from one place and uses it elsewhere, and foolishly changes the color style parameter without looking at the template documentation -- say, from "amber" to "green" -- he may not get the exact result he expects, but it will be pretty damn close, and 2865:. If they work, these highly technical templates may be of great interest to many users; if not, nobody will weep over their deletion. The trouble is that placing a tag -- any additional code at all -- within the body of such templates may cause them to break -- in unexpected ways, perhaps. Even if they do not fail outright, their usability is so immediately degraded as to 495:

clicking edit gives a huge confusing crunch. And I'm not sure how the sectioned way causes more edit conflicts than the other way. Sections cut down teh code to wade through even more than just dates, but you can still edit by date or whole page for mass commenting. Having a few "extra" sections doesn't hurt anybody, and it streamlines the whoel process. --

4275:. TfD manages deletions in the Template namespace, period -- and the process probably should not exist at all. It was created to take some of the load off the more formal VfD. The assumption was that since most Template namespace pages are fairly short, they could be deleted with less formal discussion. But we have seen that is not always the case. — 840:, for instance.) Have a look at the page histories to see what this is about. A resolution would also be useful, as Netoholic and me have been banned for 24 hours for waging an edit war on this very subject. What is it to be: never remove after listing (my preference), remove under certain criteria, only remove if a consensus is building up on 4486: 2430: 1995: 1955: 668: 3299:"May I at least suggest that when templates that others may want to reinstate are voted deleted, that some sort of flag appears to that effect if someone tries to rewrite it. It was the first time I'd set up a template, and I wasted a good 90 minutes organizing that thing, only to have it blanked within hours." 906:), I will always migrate to the more common usage and list the duplicate for deletion. Actually, I first tried to redirect Picp to Commons, a pretty reasonable compromise, but Itai reverted that, so I listed it for deletion. We need less complexity in the Template space, not more. As soon as people like 93:

orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing." Wouldn't this result in the {{tfd}} text appearing on every page linked to the template? I think that could be quite confusing (especially as many users may even be completely oblivious to the existence of templates).

4147:

How about this...if there are no votes for or against a nomination, then it is deleted if it is not used (i.e., nobody cares), but if it is being used, it is left alone. If there are no votes, at the very least, notes should be placed on one or more of the talk pages that uses the template before it

3834:

I would be very bad for templates to be handled differently from other deletions. Talk pages should be removed so that someone who recreates under that title isn't confused by old discussion, and, in general, because it keeps the database "clean". My suggestion is not to do things at all different

3542:

came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the

3064:

This last case is difficult to explain and I thank sincerely anyone who has read this far. I hope you will all agree than anyone bold enough to create Frankenstein Kitbash-type technical templates is able to take care of himself; you do not need to tag his templates in order to ensure he comes to the

2715:

I fixed both of these issues; Netoholic reverted both fixes. Netoholic is actually rather useful, in a way; he consistently finds technicalities with which to justify vandalism and disruption of the project, thus encourages us to fix these loopholes. Unfortunately, he goes past this point and reverts

2466:

Unfortunately, there is no way to make this kind of change gradually. I intend to refactor the workflow and stick it in for comment. We can always go back to the old way if the new does not work. This is like a haircut, not like surgery -- no matter what the barber does, it'll all grow out again in a

2409:

Nobody objected to the last major overhaul of the TfD page -- granted it was mostly cosmetic. Nobody has objected to this upgrade, either -- though it is mostly structural. Absent comment, I'm going to work up an improved page and substitute it. Note that all discussions will remain intact during the

2312:

Now I'm thinking the whole process should be done over. Instead of moving templates through process sections, just leave them where they are and add notes to the bottom of discussions that indicate at what stage of the process they are. For the convenience of admins who come to do actual deletions, a

2011:

Also, usually there will be stuff between the completed stuff someone is removing, and the holding pen - most items are non-contentious, and they all get removed before the contentious ones, which stay on the list longer. So you're always mostly pulling stuff out of the middle anyway, no matter which

1987:

Any particular reason? Reversing the page has many advantages over the current system - new items appear at the top (and are thus more easily accessed) - older items sink down the page until they are right next to the holding cell - which is their next logical stop - and (as I pointed out) most other

1905:

Basically.. I saw nothing official surrounding these mysterious edits, so I was bold and made changes that I thought were appropriate. If I end up learning that there was vandalism involved, I've got no problems escalating the abuse. If I learn that I'm wrong to have done this, then I could help to

805:

I agree with Netoholic on this one. In some cases it should be removed, in other cases not, but the decision should be left in userland, not stated as policy at WP:TFD. I'd support language to the effect of "Listing a template here is not a reason to remove the template from its pages, though there

754:

Take the case of a template which the community agrees should be changed or removed, perhaps when a WikiProject changes something. It makes sense to clear the template first, then list here after the transition. Also, when the software got upgraded last, many changes happened and required templates

2990:

On another level, I want to be sure that users at a slightly higher level of technical competency can create new styles and extend the set, not be limited by the first dozen things that popped into my head. So, all the style information is contained in one or another subtemplate. But I don't want to

2422:

Hate to bring this up again, but I still favour the reverse sequence used on other similar pages - new entries at the top where they're easier to spot straight away, older ones further down, holding pen at the bottom for admins. Or better still, the same sort of system as on vfd, where each template

2007:

Partially it's habit - you get used to things being a certain way. And for some reason I can't put my finger on, I really like date order. But there is also a rational reason, which is that if old stuff is at the top, it's more likely to intrude on your conciousness and get itself dealt with than if

1947:

Every time I visit tfd, I head to the wrong end of the page. All the other similar pages (or most of them, anyway - cfd, vfd, cleanup, move to wiktionary, and the like) have the most recent articles at the top and the oldest ones at the bottom. I'd like to suggest the same is done here. Any comments

1835:

Unless the template is posing some clear danger, it should not be orphaned. In the case where it is posing some clear danger, it should instead be blanked. That way, should the consensus be to keep it, it is much, much easier to deal with, because one doesn't have to put it back on a bunch of pages.

1813:

Let me make clear, (A) is the policy. I say this with certainty because I wrote this policy. Do not remove templates from use when you list them on TfD. Any reading of the policy that says otherwise is a misreading, and I support any attempts to clarify it. Templates should not be orphaned to be put

1781:

In some cases you are right. Are you suggesting we keep using a template that is either 1) disruptive/offensive, or 2) redundant, just to satisfy this desire? If the use is obvious from the template's design, it's easy to see without a live example. Also, page histories can be viewed if one really

1687:

TFD is not VFD. This is a backwater area in the Knowledge (XXG) decision-making process. If people do check to see if there are templates that are nominated for deletion, it is probably only once or twice a week. In almost all cases there is no reason to rush to delete any of the templates, so there

1486:

Anyway, it makes great sense to me -- enormous. I had only one quibble. I imagine you intend that all voters will confine themselves to sigs only under the "Delete" and "Keep" sections, and confine their discussions to the "Discussion" section. This will never happen and may not be desirable anyway.

1211:

I'm still of the opinion that detaching use from existence would merely mean that everything has to be discussed twice, and would result in the awkward position of templates being neither deleted nor used, but apparently I'm the only one who thinks so. Let it not be said I am a sore loser. Add away.

4669:

I guess it isn't technically possible to make templates "subst: only".... but could we come up with some social convention that indicates that templates are for subst: only. (E.g. have all such templates start with the name "s:". This would give us a useful extra tool in TfD. Keep, delete, category

4602:

I know from experience that there are a certain number of editors who frequently create one-off or bad templates, which seem to inevitably end up here. I'd like some ideas on how to handle these "frequent flyers", because their creations tend to clutter up this process. Is there a nice way we can

4478:

I'm as bad a culprit as anyone for this, I know, but the main page has god a bit out of hand as regards people entering new candidates under the right date. I was trying to work out where to move the "five day" bar to, and most of the entries under April 22 are from April 23, and the only one under

4458:

There currently are no criteria set for the speedy deletion of templates. This makes it difficult for me to process templates marked with the delete tag, unless they meet some of the general criteria (recreation of previously tfd'd content, pure nonsense, etc.). If you're interested, can you join

3524:

thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and

2158:

That was a good idea, though maybe more than you had to do. I occasionally trawl through the list for red-ink (I did this a couple days ago I think .. or maybe that was on the categories-for-deletion) and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Have you found that deleted templates sit for a long time in

1754:

Personally, I favor (A). I believe that: (I) you cannot vote out of context (that is, without seeing how a template was used); (II) allowing editors to orphan templates at will renders WP:TFD meaningless (it is already not very powerful now that keeping a template is not linked to using it, and the

1125:

Despite what a vote implies, in the interest of keeping discussion managable it is wise to keep the discussion of seperate issues in seperate areas. The appropriate place to discuss whether to delete a template is Templates for deletion and the appropriate place to discuss whether to use a template

867:

A discussion on a Talk: page, such as we both know that I have asked for a myriad times. The advantage of discussing this on Talk: pages is that people participating in the discussion will most likely know what is going on. Orphaning a template means that the general audience which frequents WP:TFD

92:

The instructions state: "When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template. This will add the following text to the template:". Should the notice be placed instead on the template's talk page? Especially since it also says: "Templates listed on this page do not need to be

4550:

I agree with the current process of five days. Considering TFD's traffic rate and backlog, I think it works well. Most votes are well decided in the first 2-3 days anyway. VfD needs to be longer because articles are our main product here, and the decision is important; images are listed for one

4518:

When did the main page get edited to say five days instead of one week? There was a suggestion to change from 7 to 5 days (see the Voting time section above), but there was barely any discussion, and certainly no consensus. So many of the TFD decisions are being made with fewer than ten votes, and

3797:

When should template talk pages be deleted along with the template themselves? I think that we should always keep them for historical purposes, but I'm not entirely sure of the process. What happens when there's no discussion? What about when the talk page only serves to instruct users how to use

2679:

I think Netoholic has demonstrated clearly that this is a mistake when applied to templates. Templates are used on many pages, and if {tfd} is attached to the template itself, it is replicated on every instance of its use, disrupting pages which have nothing to do with the nomination for deletion.

1695:

Templates are also of a more transient and trivial content than articles going through VFD. Like I said, my reasoning is from observing this page, and noting that there is a large backlog (with the page size encroaches 100kb regularly) and also that discussion for the vast majority of templates is

1031:

Then, every instance of the template should be removed, and finally, the template itself deleted. This is a sane, rational, reasonable way to do it; it is the method prescribed on the cited page. Please do not advance a discussion attempting to undermine the procedure. I'd hate to have to spend my

494:

I didn't mean putting anything on subpages. CFD has a section for each category; we have a section for each template. It organizes the page, makes reading easier, and stops comments from ending up in teh wrong place - I've seen comments for a template mixed into a nother on teh same date because

482:

The sections at CFD are not templated on subpages like at VFD and nor are they here. Can you please clarify what you mean by voting on template? Your votes and comments stay together either way. It's pointless to have the one-entry date sections we're dealing with here. We shouldnt use these extra

4492:

You're going to get a one-count bobble -- one day, actually -- unless you stand over everyone and insist we all stick to UTC. Another reason not to shorten the comment period to 5 days -- some nominations might only get a bare 4, or even 3 day review, if the bobble at each end stacks up the wrong

3105:

is a current, real-world example. It appears on hundreds of pages, and was placed by nearly as many editors, very few of which will have the template on their watchlist. Deletion of the template will have a major impact on those pages and to do so without giving those editors a chance for input

2437:

I'm glad to see some interest in an upgraded workflow. I'm going to take your comments to imply that you agree the existing system is cumbersome. I'm afraid I can't agree with subpages -- tfd's are too trivial, for the most part. Templates are pages too, and if their nomination occasions lengthy

2170:

I don't drop in here often enough to tell, actually. (I'm usually too busy with archiving WP:AN!) As for moving the entries, I don't mind doing that, it keeps things organized. Yes, yes, I know, I'm being silly - if I go to that much work, it's probably just a few clicks more to actually archive

391:

page has a "holding area" at the bottom of the page. That is where templates, which have been decided to be deleted, are listed. The "owner" or anyone else, then goes through an pulls the template out of the related pages. Immediate deletion of a template without cleaning the pages is incorrect

1299:

is a place that most Wikipedians do not monitor, I would like to suggest that there should be a policy that when a template is listed for deletion, then there should be some attempt to notify the Knowledge (XXG) interest group that would be most affected by the change, or the talk page for the

185:

Here's basically where we stand on this. I was taking care of this. I asked for permission to run a bot to make it more efficient. Multiple people objected to this. I decided that, if multiple people are going to object to this task taking less than an hour for some of the more frequently used

367:

Netoholic, I was getting around to this. Stop attacking me. Also, try reading up on deletion policy. Firstly, I get some leeway as an admin on these deletes. Also, a simple majority is not necessarily required. It needs rough consensus. Some of those templates for deletion didn't have this. -

2986:

way for a user to be able to choose colors for a box; that's harder than it looks, because both box border and box background must be set individually, and one cannot be specified as a tint of the other. Besides, that might not be wise, even if technically feasible -- I think one of the most

3581:

I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my

4859:

I think that, given the length of TFD, that is an excellent idea. CFD was recently refactored into transcluded sections by day, with AllyUnion's bot NekoDaemon for archiving and stuff. Would anyone object if we did the same on TFD? As an added bonus, there could be a page 'Templates for

717:

I removed a phrase from the intro which stated templates "should not" be removed from pages prior to listing. Certainly, this is not always the case, and each template has its own circumstances. If one template replaces another or a template is damaging on some level, it almost surely

4792:

Well I've signed to say I approve of that feature, but what do you think of my interim solution - templates of the form Template:s:XYZ, should always be used as subst:s:XYZ. Not that pretty I suppose, but nothing better springs to mind. It would be enforced only by social convention.

4735:

candidates for automatic subst'ing. The text of the basic stub message hasn't changed, and stub notices are a bit of a throw-away -- uniformity of look, wording, etc. is not so critical, really. The related stubs have the additional feature of being linked via the stub category. --

3550:

Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page

4945:

would be applied to the article page. The problem is, like in the case of images or other rarely edited pages, that categorization doesn't update until the article itself is edited. It's been months since we used a category in the TFD template, and still there are these

1798:

2) Redundancy is in the eye of the beholder. Minor differences in wording can make a big difference in what the template could apply to. So even if another template should be used in some cases where the one in question is being used, there are cases where that is not

109:

TFD is a very small text template, designed to not be distracting on a template. I would put it on the template talk page, but part of the purpose of those headers is to attract attention to the debate, and so they need to balance the concerns of brevity and visibility.

4039:

follow the same principle as VFD. Doing this will make it follow the same principle as VFD. I think that you might be misunderstood about what this change is about- the deletion policy regarding VFD explicitly states that there must be a rough consensus. No votes is

2987:

successful styles is "amber", which is a light yellow background and a brown border. I actually expect some user to demand that all boxes, of whatever background color, be bordered in black. Nor will I interfere with the change. I built that robustness into the model.

2680:

This use of {tfd}, when intentional, is actually hostile: it begs the question, anticipates the outcome of debate, by trashing every appearance of the template, possibly rendering it useless. Thus, it's an attempt to bypass the TfD process itself and usurp consensus.

4701:

A nice feature, though I would hope that the flag can only be set by admins - way too much bad vandalism potential here. (Vandalize a template, set it to subst, and watch as a bunch of articles get suddenly vandalized with no easy way of tracking which ones they are)

4561:

When I set the page at 7 days originally, it was because the other auxilliary deletion pages were also 7 days, which made sense - VfD is high traffic and can generate a good discussion quickly. This page, being smaller, gets an extra few days to come to a resolution.

2816:. Only a single user is likely ever to make any defense of such, and can probably be reasoned with directly, leading to immediate speedy of the template in question and sparing us the drudgery of nomination, tagging, debate, request for admin attention, and logging. 2237:

With a distinct lack of corresponding policy on other deletion pages, I think this amounts to instruction creep. Users who serially relist templates should be aware that they are being disruptive, and that being disruptive rarely has long term positive consequences.

2102:

nomination to the log? I thought it was only necessary to log the ones that got significant discussion; i.e. the ones with a nominator and maybe one concurring vote could be just ditched, and the name noted in the edit summary for their removal from the page. If so,

3528:

Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones.

773:

an orphaned. The template at the root of this problem does not belong on WP:TFD; listing it here merely creates here a poll concerning its validity (for a poll on its deletion can be interpreted as nothing short of this) which should have been placed elsewhere. --

2445:

work, it's a little easier for me to add new matter at the bottom of a page. No system will please everyone. My main motive for boosting top-to-down process is that individual comments are added top-to-down, so this keeps everything moving in the same direction.

2070:

none of which require being an admin, that will really help. I don't mind dropping in to delete things, but I have enough janitor work elsewhere that I don't have the energy to do all the above here; I would imagine quite a few other admins are in the same boat.

173:

The page says that a template can be deleted if it is listed for more than a week if consensus has been reached. What about removing a template from the list? How long should we wait to do that? There are some templates that have been listed for up to six weeks.

186:

templates, those multiple people can clear the damn templates off of pages themselves, because I'm not going to spend an hour hunting them down and taking them out. I'll sort it a bit, though, and make it a bit easier for people to see the work that needs done.

3618:

come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. —

4442:

I think it provides a bit too much information (principals photo and email) and most of the school articles that I see on the VfD can just be stuck on this template, so we can just see articles with just the template and information plugged in place.

2146:

Since I didn't know what the proper procedure is for logging, I created a "done, ready to be logged" section at the back, and moved the entries for all the ones I just deleted there. Y'all can do whatever logging is proper from there, I assume, yeah?

4572:

I suggest it be changed back until such time as there's an established consensus for any change in policy. I don't see the past month of status quo as being much of an argument: did anyone even notice the change, much less start to operate it?

819:

Because a lot of people don't watchpage templates, the "don't remove or blank" rule exists to make sure that people notice that the template is up for deletion. If there's a persuasive case for why this template should be removed, feel free to

4873:

I would object strongly. We aren't at all to the point where we need any voting subpages, and handling archival, etc. is not that easy as there may be lots of work needed to orphan templates. Things are working pretty well on this page. --

1111:(a random selection from ongoing votes), I'm pretty certain in all cases it is understood that if the template is not deleted, it will be used. Then again, Netoholic and me can go on like this forever, so we could really use a tiebreaker. -- 1592:

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done

1759:; (IV) “unorphaning” a template is very difficult (and often cannot be done) – orphaning it once the vote has concluded is very easy; and most importantly, (V) no harm will come to Knowledge (XXG) if a template is kept for five more days. 1458:

I've removed this. On a regular basis, this page and the votes are very easy to determine. Yes, we get a couple contentious ones, but they are not too often. Please be bold and re-order confusing discussions, but we don't need the extra

3303:

Bad ideas will get recreated, but they don't constitute a reason to discourage the editors in question. I can't think of an easy solution - except leaving the template marked "Deleted, see discussion, do not include" and locked. Ideas? -

3970:

That's hardly instruction creep, the template in question would be listed on both TFD and on the other page, if I'm interpreting thryduulf correctly. That would just bring more traffic to templates that aren't getting enough attention.

2647:

This organization was kludgy, and there was far too much instruction creep in it to be really useful. More worrysome was that you introduced significant procedure changes which weren't discussed. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --

2634:

a template from existence is when the material remaining in its history simply cannot be kept. I'm sure such a thing can happen, but I can't think of a likely case just now. In most cases, I don't think admin attention is required. —

3685:

of this, and considers this appropriate action, then I will feel free to edit all kinds of process and guideline pages, do weird things that serve my ends, and cite my newly-edited page in justification. I like to think the community

2835:

s. You may rest assured that the slightest dummy edit to one of their babies will startle them from their dazed counting and re-counting of places within the project where split infinitives fester. I cannot promise they will deign to

2757:

Leave it on the template itself. It's mildly disruptive for a short time, sure. Having the template mysteriously deleted with no one the wiser beforehand, except those who religiously follow TFD, is a heck of a lot more disruptive.

3478:

Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views.

418:

Firstly, I wasn't insulting you. Secondly, OK, fair enough. It really wasn't that big a deal, however. What is a big deal is that you fail to understand how the deletion vote count works. We don't delete based on majority, we need a

4551:

week because one cannot undelete them once gone. Templates aren't quite so unrecoverable. That being said, I have no problem if a vote has low participation or is still undecided, to allow it to remain active for a couple days. --

1814:

on here. And I'll extend this one step further - a template that survives TfD probably has something resembling consensus to use. Repeated removal of it from pages is, while not against any policy, extraordinarily bad wikiquette.

466:

Date sections make for very messy editing. It's ungainly and difficult to deal with voting on a template when you have to sort through the wikicode of others to find where you are. It's easier to have by-template sections, like

4949:

I've developed a script to handle these situations. I'm running it now. What it does is make a "null edit" to each page, which is enough to refresh the categorization. The category should not be used because this is a PITA. --

5136:

I wouldn't mind, but if you do, please explain on the relevant talk pages what these things are for. Also you may want to consider renaming two of the three templates so that their names are identical, but that's just a detail.

2216:

vote yet, since the text of this proposal might change. If it's obvious that nobody wants this proposal, then voting won't take place. You can feel free to make alternative proposals, new exceptions, etc. Voting will start on

2393:

New tfd's to be added at the bottom of the workflow; tfd's removed as their discussions are logged. (Note that "Foo bar template" is not shown; as soon as its discussion was logged, it was removed entirely from the workflow.)

1881:

took it upon himself to alter the template to mark it for deletion. Because I couldn't find an archived conversation, nor a reference to the deletion of this template being either approved or denied, I reverted his changes.

3773:

You have all the time in the world to stalk me throughout the project, but no time in which to answer any of my questions. If you cannot be bothered to review objections to your conduct, I suggest you cease to raise them. —

966:

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphaned (removed from pages) prior to listing – each case is different. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done

3940:

page that would host templates, categories, articles, images, etc. that have all received no votes after the relevant period. This page should be listed (weekly?) on the recent changes page in the current surveys section.

2397:

By keeping discussion and process stage together in chronological order within a single subsection for each template, I think we'll have a more straightforward process, less prone to error, and easier to operate. —

2969:

itself, which is all the nominated template generates. Further, it damages the appearance, which -- since a colored box is all about appearance anyway -- is again tantamount to strangling the baby in the cradle and

2438:

debate, I think we should just kick them to VfD, which is by nature a combat zone. Ordinary malformed and foolish templates should move through the TfD workflow without so much hassle, and subpages mean more work.

3260:

I can't imagine any longer why I am wasting my time here. I can't make up my mind whether the completely open community model self-selects for small minds, or whether I have been wrong all along, and my faith that

2955:

Perhaps {divbox} stinks and should be carted off with the rest of the rubbish, but the text within the {tfd} tag appears to point to "Lorem ipsum...". FWIW, I copied and pasted that text; it came from no template.

1445:

that links to instructions on how to nominate new templates for deletion. I think that this way is a lot easier, and should keep things more organized, but nobody's going to shoot you if you use the old method ;)

3076:

to destroy them to prove a point. To force this premature destruction upon anyone wishing to nominate a questionable template is clerk-mind, the hum of the worker bees. To do so in order to deprecate a comment on

3655:

There are inclusionists; there are deletionists. There are em-dashers and double-dashers. There are boxers and there are anti-boxers. I'm not a One-Thing person; I like a little variety. I wrote {divbox} so that

2615:, I start to wonder why we have to demand admin attention at all. Storage is not at a premium. A fully orphaned template bothers nobody, incurs no overhead. Why can't we just blank it? And insert an instance of 856:

discussion. So now you say someone with a different opionion should be prevented from undoing your actions? If I had not listed it here on TFD, what would you then use as a "policy" to prevent its removal? --

1676:

A major change in policy is to say "all templates beginning with the letter "A" should be deleted immediately". This is a simple change in process which is easily reversed if there are any real objections. --

245:

I agree. Although it is important to remember that some of those votes may be due to disputes over what is considered a 'quantity'. We don't really have any sort of guideline at the moment, as far as I know.

2960:

is not up for deletion. And while you may say "that's obvious", it is only obvious if you have already been over the battleground. A naive user who sees this notice will naturally think {tfd} applies to the

1603:. There is no consensus that templates should or should not be orphaned prior to listing or completion of the discussion. I don't even agree with the current phrasing, but yours is certainly far off. -- 1412:

and establish a protocol for adding pages here. I've made a template that automatically puts in the delete/keep/discussion sections in, and I will add instructions on how to nominate a template shortly.

988:

is the ground for debate over whether templates ought be deleted. It is obvious (to me, at any rate) that no editor should methodically go and remove a template from every place in which it appears until:

3150:. He maintains there is no flexibilty in policy, that all templates must be tagged in Template space. Maybe he saw that if he adhered too closely to his interpretation of policy, it would be easier for 2313:

simple list up front, "Admin attention please: templates ready to delete", with each entry linked into the main work area, just in case the visiting fireman has questions. Thus, new overall structure:

4021:

I don't like it but I'm not a regular here. If you do this, please find some way to make it obvious to TFD newcomers/non-regulars who may otherwise assume that TFD follows the same principle as VFD.

3607:

the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement

1962:

I agree, and have been wanting to do this for a while. I've been waiting until the admins catch up with the maintenance of the page (currently about 15 days behind), to make it less of a chore. --

765:

The "community agrees" part is something with which I agree, and which was allowed under the old rules as well. In other words: a template listed on this page should not to be removed from articles.

790:

that templates "should not be removed from pages prior to listing". I have already given a couple example where it is not true, and in fact the opposite course is preferable. If it is not true in

2507:

if that had not already existed, but there is no reason to move it. There are numerous deletion templates (and numerous things that require deletion), and that all have an equal claim to the name

661:

has gone from the tfd page, with (IIRC) 7 keeps and 1 delete. Yet the discussion wasn't archived on the template's talk page, and the tfd message is still at the top of the template. What gives?

2773:

You know, we needn't tag templates, debate them, and remove them with a blare of trumpets nor under shade of night. It's perfectly possible that we tag templates on their Talk pages, and make a

3316:

the same as the previous version? Seems hard to imagine someone would re-create it with the same content. Can an admin please check and do a comparison, restoring if they are different ? --

1523:

I don't care one way or the other whether this gets used, but if it *does* get used, it might make more sense to use it as {{subst:New TFD}} so the headers, etc get inserted into the source.

914:

stop making bad templates, and especially ones that duplicate existing ones, this issue will get making to being one of normal maintenance, rather than the debate/battle it currently is. --

1617:

Very well. I'm restoring my changes minus the ones to that paragraph. I changed them because I though my version was more concise and was semantically equivalent to the previous directions.

1477:

What red box? Who removed what? When I looked, I saw three versions, all by the same editor (Frazzydee), none with red boxes. Has somebody fooled with the Talk here? If so, that's a no-no.

1721:

Generally speaking, the discussion is of whether templates listed for deletion should or should not be orphaned prior to their deletion. There appears to be a consensus on the following:

2292:

This is a real bucket of worms. We should be able to move more smoothly from discussion → to preparation → to deletion and log. The discussion content itself should only ever be moved

1655:

I am also going to change the voting time from 7 to 5 days. I think template votes seem to be lingering here a little too long, and 5 days syncs up with other deletion activities. --

138:

small. (And exists to be a template that looks like text - presumably to allow lots of medical articles to have their text apparently altered without it showing on an edit summary.) -

4625:

Heh! FWIW, I've used a form letter for inappropriately created stub templates, but it doesn't always go down well - I've had at least one Wikipedian complain about "The stub police".

1496:

I've changed the third section to "Other". I expect both votes and arguments to occupy all three sections. At least this will clearly divide the discussion into yes-no-abstain groups.

3677:

a few pages to make it any clearer. I've been pretty clear: I think it is wrong to alter process guidelines in order to justify what one is doing -- especially suspect to alter them

483:

sections until we get a greater influx of entries per day. They're so few so that we can edit them all by date and not have to wade through much code or run into an edit conflict. --

2672:

is up for VfD (because, say, waterskiing is "non-notable"), then this is something we all want to see and know about, right away. The {vfd} appears in only one place: at the top of

935:

Itai, I suggest you start re-evaluating the way you are speaking to your fellow editor. Difference of opinion is one thing, but taking that disrespectful tone is inappropriate. --

852:

What you're saying is a complete double-standard. You created that template, and implemented it on a couple dozen other templates (affecting hundreds of articles) without testing

2196:

The template can be listed again if there is, for one reason or another, more reason to delete it now than there was before. This should be done on a mostly case-by-case basis.

4569:

To answer the first question: on the 7th of April, with the edit summary "refactor. header information, and reverse the date order per talk and similar pages", by Netoholic.

2459:

tag really should be sufficient. Admins have enough to do. Another advantage is that we can move both more swiftly and more decisively, knowing that templates we so delete are

79: 71: 66: 4941:

The technical reason is that the categorization is applied during the page save. If the page is saved, and incorporates a template which was TFD'd, Any category resident on

3878: 2588:

Having thought about it a bit, I think this might not be correct; speedy deletion is not available for things with histories. But we could cook up a similar template, say

924:

Thus spake King Netoholic. Humble ole' me, however, would like to wait until the community decides, and only then orphan (or keep) a template. Unilateral action is bad. —

1165:

Mine's shorter. Nicely phrased, however. Now, same question as above - in case two polls (deletion and usage) are necessary - which do you reckon should be done first? —

3891:

If there are no votes, a template should not be deleted. I propose that if there are no objections to deletion (usually meaning no votes), that the template is either:

455:

Why are we creating separate sections for each entry if we average only one or two entries per day? This is a lot more trouble. Editing by date sections will suffice. --

193:

Nice cleanup, although there's a slight problem. I agree that the templates that you removed from the list should have been taken off, but many, if not all of them have

4189:

The TfD space says it's for things in the Template namespace. However, a number of templates are found in other namespaces, particularly Userspace. Does this mean that

1755:

question is asked: what if a template orphaned is voted to be kept?); (III) allowing editors to orphan templates gives them the ability to present the community with a

1053:

What is your opinion: if it is decided that a template listed on this page is to be kept, does this mean that it should also be used? This is hotly contested regarding

2825:"Rain Man" templates, created by obsessive-compulsive semi-autistics (like me) for the purpose of categorizing different shapes of pinto beans, or marking articles as 4545:

I'm not sure. I remember somebody changing it a while ago, IIRC to maintain consistency with other pages. I concur with you; the voting time should be 7 days again.

3189:

sucks; with all respect to its creator, it was written by somebody with little experience writing code for naive users, and no experience in graphic design. It gives

2189:

I propose that we establish a rule stating that the same template should not be posted twice within a given timeframe if consensus has been reached, and it was kept.

1154:

How about "A decision to keep a template is not an endorsement of that template, and users are encouraged to fix whatever problems got it listed in the first place."

3728:

are silent. If the group active on TfD supports their underhanded activities, it is time to speak up. Otherwise, I shall consider silence an admission not merely of

3123:

above. As an example of why {{tfd}} shouldn't be applied directly to templates, it falls rather flat. Netoholic did exactly the right thing in putting tfd only on

2881:

Since it was a certain user's adamant insistence on tagging {divbox} that moved me to this debate, an example of this template is appropriate. For all examples, the

3373:{{NAMESPACEE}}%3A{{PAGENAMEE}} in the MediaWiki messages. (On further reflection, and inspection of their talk pages, though, this probably isn't such a hot idea; 1906:

put things back where they are supposed to be. Either way the lack of a paper trail surrounding these edits, reports of vandalism and such are is really annoying.

4418: 1929: 1408:

I've been trying to clean up this page, and I've deleted quite a few templates. However, it's often quite hard for me to count the votes; therefore, I'm going to

4460: 3212:-- unless he substs it in and edits the code by hand, which is always available -- or he writes a new style subtemplate, which is also always available. It puts 5150:

Done. Let me know (or just fix it) if the explanations are inadequate. The templates need to have different names because they need to have different contents.

1078:

Ah. But deleting does have a certain "not use" tinge to it; and it is unlikely that someone will vote for keeping a template unless he wishes it to be used. --

613:

I am trying to clean up the page and move nominations that are expired to the archive or the deletion queue, but I am not sure what to do with the listings for

4244:

Everything in Userspace is essentially untouchable. If someone puts something in his user pseudospace that is so offensive to one principle or another that it

2698:

the series box. This makes it clear what is being considered for deletion; and brings the matter to the attention of those most likely to care to discuss it.

1325: 1356:

already notified; the tfd tag is placed at the top of every article that might be affected. Interested parties, almost by definition, watch those pages. Done.

3818:

that in many cases, they should be retained -- especially when controversy surrounds the deletion. This is just another case of deletionists running riot. —

2033:

was put up on TFD at somepoint and disappeared at a later point. I can't find the discussion, where would that be, and if possible, could it be copied to :

3494:

for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP.

634:

templating method of subpaging for each discussion start to be used? (that would be somewhat ironic, using tons of templates to discuss template deletion)

1065:

Of course not. This page is for considering deletion only. It is not a policy page nor a content dispute resolution process. There is no reason to draw

5060:

I agree. A significant proportion of the category/template pairs are stub related. Perhaps this move should be tied in with the planned sfd in some way?

4334: 2770:

We tag templates within their bodies so people will know they've been nominated for deletion? That is the reason? It's a service to interested parties?

642:

No, we just don't have any admins that regularly monitor it and take action. We also have some very involved votes running, which will be gone soon. --

47: 17: 5018: 2780:

This is not nearly so hard or burdensome as it appears. I see which kinds of templates come up here frequently. They fall into four general groups:

769:, it is, of course, permissible to hold a vote elsewhere as to whether a template is required, keep or remove it accordingly, and eventually list at 693:(cur) (last) 02:19, 2005 Jan 29 Netoholic (rmv ", and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing" - that point is not always correct) 4897:

I've got an approved bot to help with depopulating/moving templates, just let me know when you need some help or put them in the "Holding Cell". --

3635:

Colored boxen considered harmful. See recent discussion on VfD. I don't quite get your point, are you going to 'work' on Jimbo's homepage to make a

3573:

Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page.

1300:

Knowledge (XXG) article(s) that would be most affected by the change. For example, when any stubs are submitted for deletion (recent ones include

346: 3921:

think that it should be this way. It's taking a deletionist approach, and presuming that templates are always useless unless proven otherwise. -

3078: 3475:

I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here?

3425:

If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. —

2441:

I have no strong opinion on the direction of the workflow -- new nominations at the top, or new nominations at the bottom. Because of the way

5096: 2098:

Sorry if I got slightly confused about current procedure, I may have misunderstood the latest state of things. Are you copying the votes for

3872:"At the end of five days, if a rough consensus...has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." 3445:

It is just as easy to make me look foolish by altering history as to eliminate all reference to the complaint. But perhaps I misfiled it --

2829: 1885:

There appear to be other controversies surrounding this user, which may point to attempts at vandalism, but I don't particularly care. See

1774:

Agree. Seeing how the template is used helps in deciding on whether or not the template can be editted to be more distinctive or useful. —

1313: 3486:

page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions.

2712:

The actual text of the {tfd} tag just makes the matter worse; it refers to "text below", although some templates generate no text at all.

3755:

Please don't cause trouble. I suspect that others, like me, don't have the patience to read your less-than-succenct comments above. --

4519:

even fewer than five votes, that I think that we should be trying to allow for as much time as possible before a final decision is made.

3591:

This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work

2598:, and manually place it in to-be-deleted templates. This would allow admins so inclined to check out the Special:Whatlinkshere page for 2268:. It said that discussions should be logged before moving to this subsection. On the other hand, the whole purpose of the major section 2106:

In any event, I do stand by my comment that it's much easier if there's just a *-list of templates (with no additional text for each)at

2030: 4709:

As the originator of the feature proposal: good catch, thanks. However, I think those templates for which it pays to vandalize them ({{

3483: 3035: 3023: 2941: 2914:

Here is a use of the template as it is intended; obviously, it will render the same way whether it is tagged on its Talk page or not:

1506: 1333: 1329: 985: 618: 614: 1255:

keep. Also, don't keep does mean don't create again, at least not this month; so, by implication, yes, don't use, because use creates.

3413: 1718:

The discussion above has stagnated, and no consensus has been reached. I shall try to provide an outline of what is being discussed:

3065:

table for discussion of the deletion. You might drop him a line on his Talk page; he'll drag in all the friends he needs or wants.

3056:

for a vote; let's just tie the creator to a stake and burn him in public square. As I said, I'm glad he didn't do it, but I suppose

3052:

Clearly, this is a sort of government-sanctioned vandalism, utterly destroying any usefulness the template might have had. There is

1337: 4746:

Yes, and an un-substed stub template is going to cause chaos if it gets vandalized and then set to subst. Which was my main point.

3851:"Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached 4197: 2978:

Still, this is not the worst unintended -- or maliciously intended -- consequence possible when fooling with technical templates.

2503:

could have been theoretically moved (just as you would move articles - redirects work in the Template: namespace just as well) to

3625: 3455: 3431: 3313: 3294: 3275: 3087: 3081:-- which is what led us here -- well, it is beyond my understanding why anyone else would tolerate this, much less endorse it. — 2725: 2557:

means "candidate for speedy deletion". I suggested that, when a fully orphaned page is completely ready for admin attention, the

2473: 1393: 4753:

Honestly, then, I'm missing your point. Give an example of "un-substed stub template" and a scenario describing the problem. --

1988:

similar pages are done that way. Why don't you like the idea - are there any advantages this method has that I haven't noticed?

1635:

I've further refined that, combining some verbage and removing some links that are redundant with the "Deletion tools" box. --

4920: 573:

I agree. It was much more difficult to look at the history before each template had its own section. The sections should stay.

2110:

to delete that someone can just march down, as opposed to having to look through the by-dates lists, copy stuff to logs, etc.

2082:

The above recommendations seem to have been quite misunderstood. I will try and return this page to proper working order. --

2034: 3937: 1897:

I agree! this user has been vandalizing a lot of my edits lately. And, I would this user to STOP his obvious vandalism. --

5092: 4396:. However, I cannot find the latter. Was it deleted? If so, why? And should the same reasoning be applied to this template? 3031: 3019: 2937: 2516: 2449:

As I note below, I'm no longer sure we really need admin attention on most templates. Blanking a template and inserting the

1197: 1886: 1537:

to do it as a "subst", otherwise the edit links don't work - they try and edit the template. So I'll fix the instructions.

984:

Now I know what it is like to be locked in a phone booth with seven angry rabbis. How is it possible to debate this point?

5088: 3449:-- in any case, as usual, one act of ill will cloaks another. I only wish Someone would address the substantive issues. — 2810: 302:

No, it's five days long, at least in theory, and anything that's been on the vfd pages for 120 hours can be closed. (See

4814: 3701:

Is it acceptable to edit a process and so justify your actions within that same process, at the same time as that action?

3175:

anywhere anyone wants a ready-made, color-coordinated, fully appreciated specification for colors, margins, and padding.

821: 5118:

If there are no objections here I am going to remove this template from listing since there is a point that was missed.

4351:

If you're trying to transclude a normal article, you have to add a colon before the page title, thus: {{:Elvis Presley}}

3369:

I think you're misunderstanding what I was suggesting - not to place these where the template was, but to add a link to

1670: 1621: 1583: 3860: 303: 3008:

Now, we should all be glad that a certain user was too lazy to go and tag the template bodies of all 13 subtemplates.

1134:

Okay. (Which is to say, I disagree, but I understand what you're saying.) Which do you think should be done first? --

833: 291:

Why is VfD 5 days and TFD 7 days for voting? Would it help to standardise these to similar waiting periods and rules?

5111: 5107: 4422: 4410: 2511:, so there's nothing wrong with {{tfd}}. For information on how templates work, I suppose the best place to begin is 4652:

It is increasingly difficult to take the complaints of Wikipedians as evidence that you're doing anything wrong. :)

4096:

consensus is to delete -- that excepts bare majority vote, by the way -- and anything that passes into this process

4009:

Does anybody have any problems if I remove the part that says "or no objections to its deletion have been raised"? -

3664:

boxes. That's all. Some boxes okay; no boxes boring; too many boxes ugly; boxes in a variety of styles worst of all.

3603:, please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which 1142:

Right. So, if there are no more comments, and seeing as I am outnumbered, should I add a note to the guidelines at

38: 2877:. Or the tag inappropriately points to something that has little to do with the template itself, sowing confusion. 4467: 4372: 4341: 2845:"Frankenstein's Kitbash" templates, which I illustrate (vainly, for which I apologize) again from my own stable: 2487:

And -- oh, hell -- change {{tfd}} tag itself to {{delete}} or not? Where is the user's manual for this thing? —

1890: 439:

No. Follow procedure. Remove instances, then remove the template. Or wield your admin powers in another area. —

5103: 733:

I disagree. Ofcourse vandalism and such should be removed immediately, but that's not relevant to TfD anyway. --

5157: 5130: 5074: 5025: 4892: 4853: 4836: 4800: 4677: 4639: 4577: 4539: 4179: 3374: 3329: 963:

I've proposed this wording. I think it captures the fact that no one rule regarding orphaning templates exists:

4329:

Xiong, wait is that true? How come {{Elvis Presley}} is not replaced by the entire content of the article at

4089:

biased in favor of deletionism. I am an inclusionist, and I feel conspired against. Nothing should be deleted

3351:

Using those is extremely confusing to good faith editors, especially new ones unaware of our "cleverness". --

4927:, since it contained 91 articles, 85 images, and only five templates. Clearly it isn't working as intended. 4497: 4104: 3822: 3778: 3736: 3333: 2282: 2269: 2265: 1973:

I really dislike the reverse order, so I'll probably give up on doing deletes here if the order is changed.

1104: 500: 476: 4603:

say "please stop creating templates"? I'm sure other areas have had similar experiences... any wisdom? --

3416:

10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure

3205:

is exposed, making it more likely for a naive user to break something. The documentation is impenetrable.

3120: 2995: 621:. It looks like there is consensus that something should be done with them, but I am not sure exactly what. 3290: 1666:

I don't disagree with you, but you should wait to obtain consensus before making major changes to policy.

1597:

Please do not remove templates from pages until their listing here has expired with a consensus to delete.

1054: 219: 119:

I have slightly altered the directions t at least make the message always appear in the box when applied.

4310:

Userspace is not an experiment in anarchy - it just has somewhat lower standards than the article space.

1201: 266:

Who voted in such a way? I strive to find moderate language to describe my opinion about this, but fail.

5154: 4974: 4813:

Seems like there would be a learning curve with that. I think a better solution is to revive the use of

4067: 4025: 3799: 3097:

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Not every editor religiously watches every page he edits, and

2888:{{divbox|navy|Lorem ipsum|Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...}} 2038: 1874: 1848:

Definitely (A), mostly because of points (II) and (III). If a template is "disruptive/offensive", then "

1305: 879: 635: 335:

I forgot to count Netoholic's implicit delete vote. It's 4 to delete, 3 to keep. It shall be deleted. -

4978: 2602: 2592: 2056:

making sure templates have no users (and fix any pages that refer to ones that are about to be deleted)

562:

In the first case, you have to read the whole diff, in the second only the parts that interest you. --

423:

majority. Also, administrators are given some leeway in making decision. Read the policy page again. -

325: 4768: 4747: 4725: 4703: 4653: 4615: 4563: 4311: 2285:

to each template's talk page itself -- in one case, to delete; in another, to keep. I'm not even sure

2242: 1918: 1878: 1837: 1815: 1426: 1185: 1155: 825: 187: 131: 120: 111: 4884:

I agree with netoholic. We don't need a bot at this time, except maybe for depopulating templates. -

4534: 4464: 4369: 4338: 3544: 3521: 3514: 3504: 3186: 3111: 2687:

appear on a template page. When the template to be deleted is a series box, {tfd} should be inserted

2668:

Indeed, it's common practice to place similar tags on pages themselves. If, for example, the page on

2619: 471:- that way votes and coments stay together and summaries automatically include teh template name. -- 424: 369: 336: 4219:

imho, I think that TfD should be modified so that it can deal with templates wherever they are put.

2859: 2128:

Netoholic has not provided the context for his statement. Please see the following discussions ...

806:

other reasons for doing so in certain cases." (Though hopefully something more concise than that.

5162:

Oops, I meant 'similar', not 'identical'. (e.g. "Please dont' edit #1" and "Please don't edit #2")

5124: 4954: 4901: 4889: 4878: 4850: 4821: 4757: 4740: 4691: 4607: 4587: 4555: 4505: 4393: 4279: 4165: 4134: 4049: 4014: 4000: 3976: 3964: 3926: 3910: 3839: 3807: 3759: 3707: 3399: 3355: 3320: 2751: 2652: 2230: 2133: 2086: 1966: 1829: 1786: 1700: 1681: 1659: 1639: 1607: 1467: 1451: 1434: 1418: 1321: 1309: 1301: 1108: 1093: 1085:

Deleting means "it's gone so you can't use it". Voting keep can mean many things, but usually that

1073: 973: 939: 918: 899: 861: 837: 798: 759: 726: 658: 646: 396: 353: 3996:" from the text. If that wasn't there, I'd just go through and second a lot more nominations. -- 3555:

simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines.

1100: 5166: 5141: 5067: 5034: 5008: 4931: 4864: 4632: 4433: 4399: 4297: 4229: 4209: 3642: 3265:

may be exactly backwards. I do know that if I had spent the time I've wasted here on the work my

3241:

and they actually want it fixed good when they invite me aboard. Knowledge (XXG) asked me aboard

3139:

What's wrong with it? Too dark? Too light? Or just susceptible to vandalism, like any template?

3003:

the calling template, divbox, supplies the first, pseudo-namespacing part of the subtemplate name

2788: 2129: 1803: 1775: 811: 496: 472: 3636: 2899:

something on a substantive page -- possibly a template, possibly a sidebar, with or without the

2171:

them; I'm just not 100% on the archiving process, so I thought I'd leave it for someone who is.

4965:

To counter instruction creep and repetitive discussion, I would like to propose the following:

2991:

create a template named "blue" or "navy"; that's too general. The subtemplates have names like

2903:

atom. The only thing that varies among these examples is how {divbox} is tagged for deletion.

1460: 1146:

along the lines of: "Note deciding to keep a template does not mean that it will be used."? --

542:(cur) (last) 21:45, 22 Dec 2004 65.37.109.158 (→:Mediawiki:Christianity/:Template:Christianity) 4860:

Deletion/Log/Today' that people could watch to have a short daily list of things to consider.

3902:

If a decision is not made in a certain period of time, I believe the template should be kept.

3305: 2744: 2544:. I'm not suggesting changing the name, or the tag itself (which amounts to the same thing). 2531:

I failed to make myself clear. It's hard when there's so much metadiscussion of metaobjects.

227: 154: 139: 102: 4684: 1270:

I abhor the stench of a template deliberately kept, yet labled not to be used. Such worn-out

349:. Perhaps we should let someone else handle TfD, since you've made a few mistakes today. -- 5151: 4064: 4022: 3957: 3382: 3341: 3132: 2763: 2453: 903: 563: 311: 5050: 5001: 4986: 4924: 4291: 3864: 3072:

been deleted; since templates, as humans and dogs, are innocent until proven guilty; it is

2107: 2063: 1442: 1296: 1143: 883: 841: 770: 631: 468: 388: 4797: 4674: 4520: 4502: 4463:

so we can come up with some ideas for the types of templates we feel should be deleted? --

4386: 4284: 4176: 4160:

if we just said keep for all templates with no votes, but this would probably work well. -

4109: 3827: 3783: 3741: 3712: 3628: 3582:

misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must

3536: 3458: 3434: 3278: 3165: 3124: 3107: 3090: 2930: 2849: 2728: 2640: 2579: 2551: 2508: 2504: 2492: 2476: 2415: 2403: 2301: 1898: 1866:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:cdF6Kxt5Z0gJ:en.wikipedia.org/TfD+CamNotice&hl=en

1853: 1689: 1688:

is no reason to shorten the number of days. I think that qualifies as a "real" objection.

1561: 1514: 1396: 1363: 1341: 1317: 1279: 1037: 679: 596: 487: 459: 444: 275: 5004:, but first I'd like to garner some feedback here as to its appropriateness and wording. 3835:

from other deletions, and to take this suggestion to a wider audience than just here. --

3482:

If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the

3041:

background-color: #AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em": -->

1865: 1849: 1751:

If (B), the question is also asked of the criteria under which this should this be done.

345:

Hmm... but you forgot to fix the pages which were using this (now deleted) template. See

234:

I'll second that (note that my only template was voted that way so I'm a partisan here).

5021:. To avoid a fractured discussion, perhaps all comments would be more apropriate there? 4257:

For the record, there is no such thing as a User Template namespace. Strictly speaking,

2251:

What is the reason for this rule, have there been recent cases to which it would apply?

1379:

comment. Since it is disruptive to tag the template body, and tagging the template Talk

1204:. I like Snowspinner's language. Perhaps "not an endorsement of that current template"? 5120: 5022: 4951: 4898: 4885: 4875: 4847: 4818: 4754: 4737: 4688: 4604: 4584: 4552: 4444: 4220: 4161: 4130: 4045: 4010: 3997: 3972: 3961: 3942: 3922: 3906: 3836: 3803: 3756: 3395: 3371:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=

3352: 3317: 3114:

like they should be, they should know immediately that the template is up for deletion.

3102: 2748: 2649: 2524: 2226: 2083: 1963: 1826: 1792:

1a) Itai's summary notes that " agrees that vandalisms should be removed immediately".

1783: 1767: 1697: 1678: 1656: 1636: 1604: 1464: 1447: 1430: 1414: 1217: 1170: 1090: 1070: 970: 950: 936: 929: 915: 891: 858: 795: 756: 723: 643: 393: 350: 296: 235: 161: 3917:

It's also essentially saying "If nobody says keep, then it's an automatic delete". I

619:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_deletion#Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_4x100_m_Women

5163: 5138: 5061: 5054: 5031: 5005: 4928: 4861: 4764: 4718: 4626: 4480: 4429: 4397: 4330: 4295: 4227: 4207: 3640: 3576:("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept." 2735:

Shall tfd tags be placed on the template page itself, or on the template's Talk page?

2664:

Shall tfd tags be placed on the template page itself, or on the template's Talk page?

2512: 2424: 2252: 2205: 2175: 2160: 2151: 2137: 2114: 2075: 2016: 1989: 1977: 1949: 1541: 1527: 1205: 1127: 807: 737: 702: 662: 4583:

Maybe we need a quick straw poll to see how many days people think it should be. --

4479:

April 23 was (just) from April 24. We all need to take a bit more care, methinks...

3859:

I disagree with the latter part of this rule. Firstly, it directly contravenes the

2199:

a) Templates that fulfill this criteria should have a relatively high voter turnout.

4942: 4710: 2798: 2704: 2673: 2669: 2565: 2538: 2500: 1271: 911: 194: 94: 4248:

be removed, I think that comes under the heading of a personal discipline problem.

3814:

Unfortunately, Talk pages are routinely deleted when their referents are deleted.

3171:. I don't write junky code if I can help it. The color style templates are usable 2053:

counting votes and making sure there is rough consensus to delete (i.e. not 50%+1)

4203:

We should modify TfD so that it can affect templates no matter where they're put?

1747:

B. Templates up for deletion should sometimes be orphaned prior to their listing.

4833: 4832:

I think it would be a better idea to not parse templates, see comment for bug. -

3936:

I think that templates that have had no votes should be moved to or listed on a

3417: 3378: 3337: 3230:

people pick up the phone and dial my number when they need something fixed, and

3128: 2957: 2759: 1870:

I can also dig through the history of this page to learn more.. but it's rough.

1667: 1618: 1580: 307: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4290:

Yes, I'm already aware that people can get away with everything in user space.

2159:

the holding cell or the main list before being taken off the page and logged?

4794: 4671: 4494: 4276: 4173: 4101: 3881:. The first rule in the "Deciding when to delete" section explicitly states: 3819: 3775: 3733: 3704: 3620: 3450: 3426: 3270: 3237: 3082: 3012:, then every call to {divbox} -- no matter where it appeared -- would lead to 2720: 2636: 2488: 2468: 2411: 2399: 2297: 1557: 1510: 1505:

The next step is to alter the template which appears at the top of the actual

1388: 1359: 1275: 1033: 676: 592: 574: 484: 456: 440: 271: 247: 198: 175: 3543:

end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on

2534:

I'm not suggesting mucking around with the content of the template, found at

4574: 3269:

have given me to do, I'd have a fatter bank account and much less stress. —

2520: 1933: 1910: 1763: 1213: 1166: 1147: 1135: 1112: 1079: 1058: 946: 925: 907: 887: 869: 845: 832:

For those not familiar with the case, this is about the templates listed at

775: 748: 158: 5169: 5144: 5037: 5011: 4934: 4867: 4402: 4300: 4232: 4212: 3645: 3297:

was recreated and I zapped it, and its author quite reasonably points out:

3179:

if {divbox} were somehow taken away, the subtemplates would become all the

3394:

How about leaving a note on the talk page of the template upon deletion? -

1032:

nightly editing time reverting dozens of prematurely removed tfd tags. —

4714: 4149: 2571:

tag, inserted at the top of the to-be-deleted template, be changed to an

2218: 2172: 2148: 2111: 2072: 2013: 1974: 1917:

My bad. I forgot to archive that debate. Done now. It was 4-1 to delete.

1795:

1b) If the template is offensive, maybe you should try doing a NPOV edit

1538: 1524: 734: 699: 4817:

under it's original purpose - to provide easy "copy and paste" text. --

4156:

Fine by me, although this might be a bit of instruction creep. I would

3724:

Nobody has spoken to this issue since I posted it over 10 days ago. The

554:(cur) (last) 10:54, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:TempUndelete - vote:keep) 3624: 3454: 3447:

just because Somebody's out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid

3430: 3274: 3086: 3049:

Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

2840:

to us, but they will read the notice and have the opportunity to do so.

2724: 2472: 2204:

Violations of this rule that have already been listed on TFD should be

1392: 3106:

would be a grave disservice. Likewise, if anyone were actually using

2952:

Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

2922:

Dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...

1732:

templates listed on WP:TFD should be orphaned prior to their deletion.

551:(cur) (last) 10:58, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:Past-vfd - vote:delete) 539:(cur) (last) 22:08, 22 Dec 2004 Dante Alighieri (→Template:Ugly math) 88:

TFD template on top of the template itself, or the template talk page?

1328:

should have been notified. The Knowledge (XXG) has a large number of

4485: 3699:

Once more, for the record: Will you reply to the substantive issue?

3563:

TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions

3557:

Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?

2429: 1994: 1954: 1387:

the general concept of direct notification of interested parties. —

667: 3441:

I'm striking my accusations of this complaint being "disappeared".

1575:

Could Netoholic please post an explanation of why he reverted this

392:

procedure, and really "I'll get to it later" is not acceptable. --

4614:

Perhaps we could create a boilerplate template to this effect. ;)

4063:

You're right. I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

3732:, but of guilt unsupported even by the tyranny of the majority. — 2134:

User_talk:Netoholic#My_Unhelpful_activities_on_listed-delete_pages

1069:

further conclusion from this page other than "Delete, or not". --

557:(cur) (last) 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 Dpbsmith (→Template:TempUndelete) 2980:{divbox} does some tricky things to make life easier for humans. 1441:

It's done. You should see a red box reminiscient to the one at

794:

circumstance, then the phrase should be removed or replaced. --

786:

So anyway... back to the main discussion point. It is not true

3595:

we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do?

3127:, since the subtemplates are by nature useless outside of it. — 1725:

Everybody agrees that vandalisms should be removed immediately.

548:(cur) (last) 11:00, 22 Dec 2004 Jni (→Template:D - vote:delete) 3034:

which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on

3022:

which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on

2940:

which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on

2222: 1228:

No. Keep does not mean use. But, keep does not mean don't use.

507:

Separate sections make history browsing much easier. Compare:

329: 306:.) In practice, it's been varying up to three weeks lately. — 25: 4263:-- not even in Template space! The template inclusion markup 3673:

If you don't get my point, I don't think it would help me to

3005:, allowing users to merely type the style code word "navy". 3285:

Any reasonable way to mark templates that have been deleted?

3119:

You provide an excellent example above of what's wrong with

1599:". That instruction is incorrect, as already discussed on 4461:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates

4415:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)#A_schools_template

3886:"Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)" 882:. Orphaning pages before a vote concluded made the vote on 698:

This seems sensible to me, why do you want to remove it? --

1340:, but they often do not get used to their best advantage. 626:

Large Page! as of 04:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) it is over 55kB

615:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_deletion#Template:Otheruses1

528:(cur) (last) 07:52, 4 Dec 2004 Whosyourjudas (→December 3) 522:(cur) (last) 08:05, 4 Dec 2004 Whosyourjudas (→December 4) 3570:"It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. 2910:

source of these examples was created by substitution.)

4570: 4426: 4414: 4294:

an experiment in anarchy, but apparently userspace is.

3681:

as one is doing something underhanded. That's all. But

3562: 3370: 2515:. For a list of templates used in Knowledge (XXG), see 2059:

archive the debate for ones that had significant debate

1576: 531:(cur) (last) 04:02, 4 Dec 2004 Neutrality (→December 3) 222:

is relevant here. I'd like to propose that we document

4333:

then? I'm trying to set up something similar for the

3879:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators

3525:

El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then?

3255:

nobody appreciates anything they don't have to pay for

3101:

from every user of a template edits those templates.

2743:

Older discussion at the top of this page, and also at

1782:

needs to see how the template appears in context. --

1196:

Agreed, we should poll only when consensus fails, see

722:

be removed ASAP. Good judgement is the rule here. --

525:(cur) (last) 08:02, 4 Dec 2004 Netoholic (→December 3) 510:(cur) (last) 17:44, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum m (→November 21) 2212:

Voting hasn't officially started yet, and you should

3183:useful to editors thus forced to "roll their own". 1126:(with what changes) is on that templates talk page. 516:(cur) (last) 17:36, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum (→November 26) 513:(cur) (last) 17:43, 4 Dec 2004 Vacuum (→November 27) 226:

as a deprecated action up front on the TfD page. --

4846:

Please notify me if there needs to be a TfD bot. --

545:(cur) (last) 11:05, 22 Dec 2004 Jni m (→Template:D) 3854:or no objections to its deletion have been raised. 2608:to find instances of it, and go there to delete. 2320:Admin attention please: templates ready to delete 1930:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted 519:(cur) (last) 11:30, 4 Dec 2004 Earth (→December 1) 4100:pass out again at the end of a defined period. — 3994:or no objections to its deletion have been raised 3599:If we have come to the point where everything is 902:(which is a poorly-named functional duplicate of 5114:. Or is there a point to this that I'm missing?" 4337:page, but I can't get this notation to work. -- 3154:to see how destructive that interpretation is. 675:Well, I've dealt with this particular one... — 2885:source code insertion of {divbox} is assumed: 2264:I've fixed the note introducing the subsection 1016:The template has been moved to the Holding tank 945:Sorry. I am but a a fool and a troublemaker. — 3216:around the range of possible box styles. It's 2784:Foolish or vanity templates, such as mine own 2281:I have temporarily removed 2 discussions from 1873:That there was some discussion about deleting 1600: 4226:I'd agree, but apparently consensus says #1. 2830:rainforest-endangered-wildlife-film-star-stub 2278:be logged until after deletion of template. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Templates for discussion 8: 5019:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Categories for deletion 4198:Knowledge (XXG):User templates for deleteion 3798:the now-deleted template? Is it deleted then 2891:This is the way the template is meant to be 387:How about you stop being so insulting? The 4670:only, talk page only, subst only, etc....? 3468:Following process on Templates for deletion 3291:User talk:David Gerard#Scientology template 1877:. I'm not sure what became of things, but 878:For an example of Netoholic's actions, see 214:I've noticed quite a common vote on TfD is 4687:and hope that a developer takes it on. -- 4454:Criteria for speedy deletion of templates? 4335:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions 3029:<div class="db-Ym9pbGVycGxhdA"vfd": --> 224:delete the template and replicate the text 216:delete the template and replicate the text 210:Delete the template and replicate the text 2049:If people (i.e. non-admins) can help by: 1762:Of course, other opinions are welcome. — 5049:This should be put up for discussion at 5000:I would like to put this up for vote at 3867:, it should apply for its equivalents): 3249:and fix anything I saw that was broken. 2035:Template talk:Gundam Seed mobile weapons 630:The page is getting large... should the 3938:Knowledge (XXG):Debates requiring votes 3898:Postponed until there is some consensus 2933:forces every instance to appear thus: 347:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:OoP_mess 5093:Template:Please don't change this page 3484:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 3377:in particular is pretty long as is.) — 3068:Meanwhile, though, since the template 3036:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 3024:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 2942:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 2719:I ask for discussion on the matter. — 2270:Templates for deletion#Listings to log 1507:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 986:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5097:Template:Please leave this line alone 3863:(although that part is talking about 3846:Disagree with deletion policy for TFD 3703:Please answer directly. Thank you. — 3414:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 3208:In contrast, {divbox} gives the user 3193:to the user, demands the user master 2683:There are times, I agree, that {tfd} 1887:talk:Wikiproject Alternative Medicine 1696:done by the fifth day of listing. -- 7: 5089:Template:Please don't edit this page 4985:that template is deleted by regular 4724:My concern would be stub templates. 4392:This template claims to be based on 3683:if the community as a whole approves 3420:, and not by a common user, either. 3412:This comment originally appeared in 2628:The only time we absolutely need to 2132:(where the conversation starts) and 1928:Thanks for adding the discussion to 1864:I can see in the google cache here: 1836:Also, one doesn't start edit wars. 1823:I wrote this policy, so it is policy 1740:A. Templates up for deletion should 1714:Orphaning templates prior to listing 197:references that need to be removed. 5100:were listed with this explanation: 4193:Those templates are untouchable, or 3336:to the entry in the deletion log? — 2031:Template:Gundam Seed mobile weapons 2026:Template:Gundam Seed mobile weapons 1744:be orphaned prior to their listing. 1274:should be burned and forgotten. — 1247:mean don't use -- don't keep means 3545:the nominated template's Talk page 2716:the repairs to process, as well. 2317:Process (explanation/instructions) 1860:Missing conversation for CamNotice 1089:it is better not to delete it. -- 24: 4973:used as part of a template (e.g. 3532:Recently, the nominated template 3030:The text below is generated by a 3018:The text below is generated by a 2936:The text below is generated by a 2517:Knowledge (XXG):Template messages 2283:Templates for deletion#Discussion 2008:it's in some swamp at the bottom. 1736:This leaves us with two options: 1198:Knowledge (XXG):Survey guidelines 1184:I think we shouldn't poll usage. 4815:Knowledge (XXG):Boilerplate text 4731:I think stub templates would be 4484: 3623: 3453: 3429: 3314:Template:WikiProject Scientology 3295:Template:WikiProject Scientology 3273: 3085: 2723: 2471: 2428: 2359:Some discussion (no outcome yet) 2272:implies that discussions should 1993: 1953: 1391: 1383:not be sufficient notice, I now 1326:Evolutionary biology WikiProject 1003:The template has been marked tfd 822:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules 666: 29: 4921:Category:Templates for deletion 4535: 4532: 4526: 4506: 4498: 4423:Template:University information 4411:Template:University information 4280: 4105: 3895:Kept and logged to /Not deleted 3823: 3779: 3737: 3708: 3660:, it should be consistent with 3157:Actually, the subtemplates are 3146:do exactly the right thing, by 2108:WP:TfD#Ready to remove entirely 2064:WP:TfD#Ready to remove entirely 1487:I do understand your rationale. 304:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy 5112:Knowledge (XXG):Introduction 3 5108:Knowledge (XXG):Introduction 2 2370:Outcome: keep (log discussion) 1: 4521: 3793:Deleting template talk pages? 295:VfD is also seven days long. 5104:Knowledge (XXG):Introduction 5053:and not decided here alone. 3877:It also does not follow the 3473:Who are we? Why are we here? 2308:Streamline process structure 2266:Holding Cell:Ready to delete 1913:/ 23:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1334:Regional notification boards 2643:) 06:03, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC) 2495:) 01:07, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC) 2418:) 04:00, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC) 2406:) 01:07, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC) 2304:) 00:40, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC) 2066:once all the above are done 1936:/ 03:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) 834:Template talk:Sisterproject 447:) 02:58, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 314:) 17:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 5191: 5147:17:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC) 5017:I've commented on this at 5014:07:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC) 4937:21:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC) 4870:09:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC) 4750:18:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC) 4728:17:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC) 4706:17:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC) 4470:15:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 4405:13:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 4215:12:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 3385:) 09:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) 3344:) 07:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) 3210:freedom, but not unlimited 3135:) 12:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) 2766:) 22:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) 2527:) 16:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2381:Outcome: flagged for admin 2351:Outcome: flagged for admin 2340:Outcome: flagged for admin 1770:) 12:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1564:) 00:27, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC) 1366:) 03:44, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 1282:) 03:39, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 1220:) 14:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1040:) 03:12, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 1006:Discussion has taken place 932:) 15:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 894:) 14:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 755:to be cleared quickly. -- 599:) 03:00, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 278:) 02:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 190:20:56, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) 5172:16:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC) 5057:02:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC) 5040:11:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC) 4881:16:59, 2005 May 12 (UTC) 4771:20:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC) 4760:20:27, 2005 May 12 (UTC) 4743:18:10, 2005 May 12 (UTC) 4721:17:50, 2005 May 11 (UTC) 4656:15:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC) 4618:19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC) 4610:18:38, 2005 May 10 (UTC) 4566:17:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC) 4489:08:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4436:14:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4375:13:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) 4344:22:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) 4314:23:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) 4303:14:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 4287:01:23, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC) 4235:16:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 4223:14:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4152:00:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4017:03:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3967:15:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC) 3913:14:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3842:03:32, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) 3648:12:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 3461:06:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) 3201:to achieve a simple end. 2982:In particular, I want an 2364:And yet another template 2154:23:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1921:01:21, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) 1891:Talk:Alternative medicine 1840:21:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) 1818:15:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) 1673:00:54, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) 1586:15:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1544:14:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1530:13:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1202:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 1173:) 15:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1130:20:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1096:19:50, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC) 1082:17:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1061:16:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 953:) 18:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 864:16:57, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC) 848:16:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 828:13:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) 801:02:57, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) 762:02:26, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) 751:02:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 729:02:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) 713:removing prior to listing 709:02:23, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) 682:12:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) 671:11:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 638:04:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 490:05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 462:00:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 339:15:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) 299:14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 250:23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) 230:14:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) 201:22:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) 178:20:42, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) 164:06:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 149:This same issue revisited 123:04:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) 114:04:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) 105:14:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) 5158:14:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) 5131:16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC) 5075:04:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 5026:08:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) 4961:Speedy category deletion 4904:02:20, 2005 May 14 (UTC) 4893:23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC) 4854:02:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC) 4837:15:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) 4824:16:36, 2005 May 11 (UTC) 4801:15:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 4694:15:26, 2005 May 11 (UTC) 4678:12:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 4640:01:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 4590:18:37, 2005 May 10 (UTC) 4558:17:03, 2005 May 8 (UTC) 4510:13:24, 2005 May 1 (UTC) 4447:14:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4196:We need a new page like 4172:Does this happen often? 4168:20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4137:20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4112:20:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) 4070:14:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4052:17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4028:17:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 4003:15:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC) 3979:23:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3945:14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3929:14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3830:03:22, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) 3810:00:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3786:07:42, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC) 3762:03:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) 3744:03:15, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) 3715:01:04, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC) 3631:10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) 3605:manage the way we manage 3437:03:13, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) 3375:MediaWiki:newarticletext 3330:MediaWiki:newarticletext 3308:19:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3281:05:15, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) 3195:too much technical stuff 3093:11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) 3060:will give him an Idea. 3038:for comments and voting. 3026:for comments and voting. 2944:for comments and voting. 2731:17:04, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) 2655:07:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) 2625:? And forget about it? 2479:10:30, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC) 2433:05:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2375:Bork bork bork template 2255:14:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) 2233:02:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2178:13:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2163:00:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) 2140:03:42, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) 2117:19:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2089:03:34, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC) 2078:04:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2041:04:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2019:13:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1998:07:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1958:07:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1901:03:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1893:for discussion on that. 1856:05:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1832:15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 1789:15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 1778:15:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1692:04:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1684:03:08, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 1662:00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 1624:19:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) 1579:? Comments are welcome. 1454:02:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1421:22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1344:09:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1316:should be notified. For 1314:Stub sorting WikiProject 1251:use wherever used, then 1208:18:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1188:17:08, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) 1158:14:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) 1150:12:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1138:20:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1115:19:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 976:00:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) 942:18:01, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC) 921:15:16, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC) 872:17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) 844:, or something else? -- 814:03:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 778:02:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 744:02:23, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC) 649:04:56, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) 577:04:53, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 566:13:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 502:23:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 478:03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) 427:08:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 399:16:17, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC) 372:16:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) 356:15:45, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC) 238:15:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) 142:17:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) 4578:21:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC) 4540:01:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC) 4474:Main page a little skew 4409:It was really based on 4267:can be used to include 4180:13:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC) 3992:I wouldn't mind it if " 3658:if there is to be a box 3407:Up from the memory hole 3402:11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3358:08:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) 3334:MediaWiki:noarticletext 3323:20:50, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) 2754:18:08, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) 2694:the template page, but 2356:Still another template 2045:Admin attention message 1980:04:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1806:23:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1703:05:26, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC) 1642:19:47, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC) 1610:17:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC) 1470:03:48, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC) 1437:22:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1425:BTW the template is at 1399:06:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) 1105:Template:Tetragrammaton 1049:Does "keep" mean "use"? 321:Mistake in edit summary 5083:Introduction templates 4260:there are no templates 3565:-- here is an excerpt: 2659:Tag location (process) 2423:has its own sub-page. 2225:(subject to change). - 2130:User_talk:Ceyockey#TFD 1590:You changed the text " 1571:Proposed header change 1352:-- Interested parties 1055:Template:Sisterproject 330:referring to this edit 287:vfd / tfd equalisation 220:database normalisation 4842:Bot automated process 4665:Subst: only templates 4428:with no consensus. -- 3197:, and makes the user 3121:Template:divstylenavy 2611:Having thought about 2260:Logging clarification 1728:Nobody's saying that 1338:weekly collaborations 687:Not removing removed? 42:of past discussions. 5102:"Duplicated text of 4993:the category can be 4035:Currently, TFD does 3418:Orwellian censorship 3263:Good drives out Evil 3234:. But then, they're 3187:Template:Message_box 3112:Template:Message box 2965:of the box, not the 2777:to affected users. 2499:It's all templates. 2241:The above remark by 1601:this talk page above 788:in all circumstances 4977:to correspond with 4394:Template:University 4271:page in any other. 3593:at the same time as 3443:I am not convinced! 3312:Was the content of 3161:useless outside of 2873:before nomination: 1404:Hard to count votes 1336:, plus the various 1322:talk:Charles Darwin 1310:template:actor-stub 1302:template:nauru-stub 1109:Template:Actor-stub 838:Template:Wikisource 659:Template:Nauru-stub 130:I didn't add it to 4975:Category:Foo Stubs 4459:the discussion at 4425:was taken off TFD 3586:be destroyed. (!?) 3047: 2951: 2921: 2012:way you order it. 1875:Template:CamNotice 1306:template:bush-stub 880:Template talk:Picp 5129: 5073: 4979:Template:Foo Stub 4969:if a category is 4638: 3958:instruction creep 3498:But it is not so. 3328:Perhaps links in 3043: 2947: 2917: 2745:Template talk:Tfd 2345:Another template 747:I'm with Fvw. -- 742: 707: 326:Template:OoP mess 155:Template talk:tfd 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5182: 5127: 5119: 5070: 5065: 4635: 4630: 4537: 4533: 4530: 4525: 4508: 4500: 4488: 4413:as explained in 4368:Sou desu nee. -- 4282: 4266: 4265:{{somepagename}} 4107: 4085:This process is 3825: 3781: 3739: 3710: 3679:at the same time 3627: 3541: 3535: 3519: 3513: 3510:should stay and 3509: 3503: 3457: 3433: 3277: 3253:But, of course, 3191:too much freedom 3170: 3164: 3089: 3000: 2994: 2929:adding {tfd} to 2902: 2864: 2858: 2854: 2848: 2834: 2828: 2803: 2797: 2793: 2787: 2727: 2709: 2703: 2624: 2618: 2607: 2601: 2597: 2591: 2584: 2578: 2570: 2564: 2556: 2550: 2543: 2537: 2475: 2458: 2452: 2432: 2326:Another template 2243:User:Snowspinner 1997: 1957: 1879:User:Snowspinner 1427:Template:New TFD 1395: 1371:I'm changing my 904:Template:Commons 741: 738: 706: 703: 670: 608:Unsure consensus 132:Template:CamTiny 101: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5190: 5189: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5125: 5085: 5068: 4963: 4917: 4844: 4683:Keep an eye on 4667: 4633: 4600: 4598:Frequent flyers 4516: 4476: 4465:DropDeadGorgias 4456: 4419:full discussion 4390: 4387:Template:School 4370:DropDeadGorgias 4339:DropDeadGorgias 4264: 4187: 4129:No problem :D - 3861:deletion policy 3848: 3795: 3539: 3533: 3517: 3511: 3507: 3501: 3470: 3409: 3287: 3245:, begged me to 3222:nothing breaks. 3168: 3162: 3125:Template:Divbox 3108:Template:divbox 3039: 3027: 2998: 2992: 2953: 2945: 2931:Template:Divbox 2923: 2900: 2889: 2862: 2856: 2852: 2846: 2832: 2826: 2801: 2795: 2791: 2785: 2707: 2701: 2661: 2622: 2616: 2605: 2599: 2595: 2589: 2582: 2576: 2568: 2562: 2554: 2548: 2541: 2535: 2509:Template:Delete 2505:Template:Delete 2485: 2463:utterly gone. 2456: 2450: 2378:Some discussion 2367:Some discussion 2348:Some discussion 2337:Some discussion 2310: 2262: 2187: 2047: 2028: 1945: 1862: 1716: 1653: 1573: 1406: 1318:template:darwin 1293: 1051: 898:In the case of 886:meaningless. — 739: 715: 704: 689: 656: 628: 610: 453: 451:Section editing 425:Ta bu shi da yu 370:Ta bu shi da yu 337:Ta bu shi da yu 323: 289: 212: 170: 151: 97: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5188: 5186: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5084: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 4998: 4962: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4947: 4916: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4843: 4840: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4696: 4695: 4666: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4620: 4619: 4599: 4596: 4594: 4592: 4591: 4549: 4547: 4546: 4515: 4512: 4475: 4472: 4455: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4389: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4346: 4345: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4305: 4304: 4273:Think about it 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4205: 4204: 4201: 4194: 4186: 4185:User templates 4183: 4170: 4169: 4148:is deleted. -- 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4030: 4029: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3931: 3930: 3900: 3899: 3896: 3889: 3888: 3875: 3874: 3847: 3844: 3832: 3831: 3794: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3650: 3649: 3597: 3596: 3588: 3587: 3578: 3577: 3567: 3566: 3469: 3466: 3464: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3346: 3345: 3325: 3324: 3286: 3283: 3267:paying clients 3148:his own lights 3142:Netoholic did 3137: 3136: 3116: 3115: 3103:Template:Manga 3062: 3017: 2976: 2946: 2935: 2924: 2916: 2912: 2887: 2879: 2878: 2842: 2841: 2822: 2821: 2811:zeros and ones 2809:It's all just 2805: 2804: 2768: 2767: 2755: 2739: 2660: 2657: 2646: 2529: 2528: 2484: 2481: 2435: 2434: 2392: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384:Admin: deleted 2382: 2379: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2318: 2309: 2306: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2210: 2209: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2165: 2164: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2104: 2091: 2090: 2068: 2067: 2062:list items in 2060: 2057: 2054: 2046: 2043: 2027: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2009: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1982: 1981: 1970: 1969: 1944: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1923: 1922: 1903: 1902: 1861: 1858: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1734: 1733: 1726: 1715: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1652: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1612: 1611: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1472: 1471: 1439: 1438: 1405: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1377:ill-considered 1368: 1367: 1320:, then either 1292: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1160: 1159: 1140: 1139: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1007: 1004: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 964: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 876: 875: 874: 873: 830: 829: 816: 815: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 745: 714: 711: 696: 695: 688: 685: 684: 683: 655: 652: 651: 650: 627: 624: 623: 622: 609: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 581: 580: 579: 578: 568: 567: 560: 559: 558: 555: 552: 549: 546: 543: 540: 534: 533: 532: 529: 526: 523: 520: 517: 514: 511: 504: 503: 480: 479: 452: 449: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 360: 359: 358: 357: 322: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 288: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 254: 253: 252: 251: 240: 239: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 180: 179: 169: 168:Waiting Period 166: 150: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 125: 124: 116: 115: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5187: 5171: 5168: 5165: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5156: 5153: 5149: 5148: 5146: 5143: 5140: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5128: 5122: 5116: 5115: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5099: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5082: 5076: 5072: 5071: 5063: 5059: 5058: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5047: 5039: 5036: 5033: 5030:Sounds good. 5029: 5028: 5027: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5015: 5013: 5010: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4960: 4956: 4953: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4936: 4933: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4914: 4903: 4900: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4882: 4880: 4877: 4872: 4871: 4869: 4866: 4863: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4852: 4849: 4841: 4839: 4838: 4835: 4823: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4802: 4799: 4796: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4770: 4766: 4765:Template:Stub 4762: 4761: 4759: 4756: 4752: 4751: 4749: 4745: 4744: 4742: 4739: 4734: 4730: 4729: 4727: 4723: 4722: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4705: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4693: 4690: 4686: 4685:bugzilla:2003 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4676: 4673: 4664: 4655: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4628: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4609: 4606: 4597: 4595: 4589: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4576: 4571: 4567: 4565: 4559: 4557: 4554: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4538: 4531: 4529: 4524: 4513: 4511: 4509: 4504: 4501: 4496: 4490: 4487: 4482: 4473: 4471: 4469: 4466: 4462: 4453: 4446: 4441: 4438: 4437: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4404: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4388: 4385: 4374: 4371: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4331:Elvis Presley 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4313: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4293: 4289: 4288: 4286: 4283: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4262: 4261: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4234: 4231: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4222: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4214: 4211: 4208: 4202: 4199: 4195: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4184: 4182: 4181: 4178: 4175: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4151: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4111: 4108: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4069: 4066: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4027: 4024: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4016: 4012: 4002: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3968: 3966: 3963: 3960:, please. -- 3959: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3944: 3939: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3897: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3887: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3880: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3866: 3862: 3857: 3855: 3852: 3845: 3843: 3841: 3838: 3829: 3826: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3792: 3785: 3782: 3777: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3743: 3740: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3714: 3711: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3689: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3617: 3612: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3554: 3548: 3546: 3538: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3516: 3506: 3499: 3495: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3476: 3474: 3467: 3465: 3462: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3422: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3406: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3357: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3307: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3284: 3282: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3258: 3256: 3252: 3251:I tried hard. 3248: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3206: 3204: 3203:Too much hair 3200: 3199:work too hard 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3167: 3160: 3155: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3140: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079:a debate page 3075: 3071: 3066: 3061: 3059: 3055: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3006: 3004: 2997: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2975: 2973: 2972:fait accompli 2968: 2964: 2959: 2950: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2932: 2928: 2920: 2915: 2911: 2909: 2904: 2898: 2895:by a user to 2894: 2886: 2884: 2876: 2875:fait accompli 2872: 2868: 2861: 2851: 2844: 2843: 2839: 2831: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2815: 2814: 2812: 2800: 2790: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2776: 2775:polite notice 2771: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2706: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2658: 2656: 2654: 2651: 2644: 2642: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2626: 2621: 2614: 2609: 2604: 2594: 2586: 2581: 2574: 2567: 2560: 2553: 2545: 2540: 2532: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2513:Help:Template 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2494: 2490: 2482: 2480: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2467:few days. — 2464: 2462: 2455: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2431: 2426: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2417: 2413: 2407: 2405: 2401: 2395: 2383: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2374: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2363: 2358: 2357: 2355: 2350: 2347: 2346: 2344: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2333: 2332: 2330: 2325: 2322: 2321: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2307: 2305: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2289:is correct. 2288: 2284: 2279: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2259: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2207: 2206:grandfathered 2203: 2198: 2197: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2184: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2065: 2061: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2044: 2042: 2040: 2039:132.205.15.43 2036: 2032: 2025: 2018: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1951: 1942: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1912: 1907: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1859: 1857: 1855: 1851: 1839: 1834: 1833: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1817: 1812: 1805: 1804:UTSRelativity 1801: 1797: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1788: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1777: 1776:UTSRelativity 1773: 1772: 1771: 1769: 1765: 1760: 1758: 1757:fait accompli 1752: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1713: 1702: 1699: 1694: 1693: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1661: 1658: 1650: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1570: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1533:In fact, you 1531: 1529: 1526: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1403: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1298: 1291:Notification? 1290: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1219: 1215: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1149: 1145: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1129: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1048: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 987: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 975: 972: 968: 952: 948: 944: 943: 941: 938: 934: 933: 931: 927: 923: 922: 920: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900:Template:Picp 897: 896: 895: 893: 889: 885: 881: 871: 866: 865: 863: 860: 855: 851: 850: 849: 847: 843: 839: 835: 827: 823: 818: 817: 813: 809: 804: 803: 802: 800: 797: 793: 789: 777: 772: 768: 764: 763: 761: 758: 753: 752: 750: 746: 743: 736: 732: 731: 730: 728: 725: 721: 712: 710: 708: 701: 694: 691: 690: 686: 681: 678: 674: 673: 672: 669: 664: 660: 653: 648: 645: 641: 640: 639: 637: 636:132.205.15.43 633: 625: 620: 616: 612: 611: 607: 598: 594: 590: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 556: 553: 550: 547: 544: 541: 538: 537: 535: 530: 527: 524: 521: 518: 515: 512: 509: 508: 506: 505: 501: 498: 497:Whosyourjudas 493: 492: 491: 489: 486: 477: 474: 473:Whosyourjudas 470: 465: 464: 463: 461: 458: 450: 448: 446: 442: 426: 422: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 398: 395: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 371: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 355: 352: 348: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 338: 333: 331: 327: 320: 313: 309: 305: 301: 300: 298: 294: 293: 292: 286: 277: 273: 269: 265: 264: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 249: 244: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 229: 225: 221: 217: 209: 200: 196: 192: 191: 189: 184: 183: 182: 181: 177: 172: 171: 167: 165: 163: 160: 156: 148: 141: 137: 133: 129: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 117: 113: 108: 107: 106: 104: 100: 96: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5117: 5101: 5087: 5086: 5066: 4994: 4990: 4982: 4970: 4964: 4943:Template:Tfd 4918: 4845: 4831: 4732: 4668: 4631: 4601: 4593: 4568: 4560: 4548: 4527: 4522: 4517: 4491: 4477: 4457: 4439: 4391: 4272: 4268: 4259: 4258: 4245: 4206: 4188: 4171: 4157: 4146: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4086: 4044:consensus. - 4041: 4036: 4008: 3993: 3918: 3904: 3901: 3890: 3885: 3876: 3871: 3858: 3853: 3850: 3849: 3833: 3815: 3796: 3729: 3725: 3700: 3687: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3661: 3657: 3615: 3613: 3608: 3604: 3601:up for grabs 3600: 3598: 3592: 3583: 3572: 3571: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3531: 3527: 3497: 3496: 3491: 3490:for debate, 3487: 3481: 3477: 3472: 3471: 3463: 3446: 3442: 3440: 3424: 3423: 3411: 3410: 3306:David Gerard 3302: 3298: 3288: 3266: 3262: 3259: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3207: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3185: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3158: 3156: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3141: 3138: 3098: 3073: 3069: 3067: 3063: 3058:this comment 3057: 3053: 3051: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3028: 3013: 3009: 3007: 3002: 2996:divstylenavy 2989: 2983: 2979: 2977: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2954: 2948: 2926: 2925: 2918: 2913: 2907: 2905: 2896: 2892: 2890: 2882: 2880: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2837: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2779: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2700: 2695: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2682: 2678: 2674:Water skiing 2670:Water skiing 2667: 2663: 2662: 2645: 2630: 2629: 2627: 2612: 2610: 2587: 2572: 2558: 2547:The current 2546: 2533: 2530: 2501:Template:Tfd 2486: 2465: 2460: 2448: 2442: 2440: 2436: 2410:upgrade. — 2408: 2396: 2391: 2311: 2293: 2291: 2286: 2280: 2274: 2273: 2263: 2213: 2211: 2192:Exceptions: 2191: 2188: 2145: 2099: 2069: 2048: 2029: 1946: 1908: 1904: 1884: 1872: 1869: 1863: 1847: 1822: 1761: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1741: 1735: 1729: 1720: 1717: 1654: 1596: 1591: 1574: 1552: 1551: 1534: 1532: 1522: 1461:instructions 1440: 1409: 1407: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1330:WikiProjects 1312:), then the 1294: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1210: 1195: 1141: 1124: 1101:Template:Gay 1087:at this time 1086: 1066: 1052: 1011:for deletion 1010: 965: 962: 877: 853: 831: 791: 787: 785: 766: 719: 716: 697: 692: 657: 629: 588: 481: 454: 438: 420: 334: 324: 290: 267: 262: 261: 228:Chris j wood 223: 215: 213: 195:Template:tfd 152: 140:David Gerard 135: 98: 91: 60: 43: 37: 5152:FreplySpang 4769:Snowspinner 4763:So we have 4748:Snowspinner 4726:Snowspinner 4704:Snowspinner 4654:Snowspinner 4616:Snowspinner 4564:Snowspinner 4312:Snowspinner 4065:FreplySpang 4023:FreplySpang 3726:malefactors 3614:If we have 3520:should go; 3247:look around 3226:There is a 3218:easy to use 3214:soft limits 3152:other users 3110:instead of 3045:Lorem ipsum 2958:Lorem ipsum 2949:Lorem ipsum 2919:Lorem ipsum 2871:were broken 2620:deletedpage 2483:Change tag? 2334:A template 1948:yes or no? 1919:Snowspinner 1838:Snowspinner 1816:Snowspinner 1651:Voting time 1243:Don't keep 1186:Snowspinner 1156:Snowspinner 826:Snowspinner 589:Status quo. 564:Naive cynic 188:Snowspinner 134:cos that's 121:Snowspinner 112:Snowspinner 36:This is an 4514:Five days? 3522:El Supremo 3238:Cash Money 3232:fixed good 3177:Especially 2869:that they 2323:A template 1899:John Gohde 1854:BlankVerse 1690:BlankVerse 1342:BlankVerse 1013:has formed 1009:Consensus 654:Nauru-stub 268:Deprecate. 5055:Courtland 5023:Thryduulf 4989:process, 4952:Netoholic 4899:Netoholic 4886:Frazzydee 4876:Netoholic 4848:AllyUnion 4819:Netoholic 4755:Netoholic 4738:Netoholic 4689:Netoholic 4605:Netoholic 4585:Netoholic 4553:Netoholic 4445:Zscout370 4221:Thryduulf 4162:Frazzydee 4131:Frazzydee 4087:currently 4046:Frazzydee 4011:Frazzydee 3998:Netoholic 3973:Frazzydee 3962:Netoholic 3943:Thryduulf 3923:Frazzydee 3907:Frazzydee 3837:Netoholic 3804:Frazzydee 3757:Netoholic 3396:Frazzydee 3353:Netoholic 3318:Netoholic 3010:If he had 2749:Netoholic 2650:Netoholic 2331:Workflow 2227:Frazzydee 2161:Courtland 2138:Courtland 2084:Netoholic 1964:Netoholic 1827:Netoholic 1784:Netoholic 1698:Netoholic 1679:Netoholic 1657:Netoholic 1637:Netoholic 1605:Netoholic 1593:manually. 1509:page. — 1465:Netoholic 1448:Frazzydee 1431:Frazzydee 1415:Frazzydee 1091:Netoholic 1071:Netoholic 971:Netoholic 967:manually. 937:Netoholic 916:Netoholic 859:Netoholic 796:Netoholic 757:Netoholic 724:Netoholic 644:Netoholic 394:Netoholic 351:Netoholic 297:Zscout370 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5062:Grutness 4997:deleted. 4995:speedily 4627:Grutness 4481:Grutness 3956:No more 3688:does not 3675:carve up 3500:I think 3293:- where 3243:for free 3074:criminal 3032:template 3020:template 2963:contents 2938:template 2689:not only 2603:tfd-done 2593:tfd-done 2573:instance 2559:instance 2425:Grutness 2253:Radiant! 2219:March 14 2185:PROPOSAL 2103:sorry... 1990:Grutness 1950:Grutness 1943:Reverso? 1556:Jnc! — 1206:Hyacinth 1128:Hyacinth 808:dbenbenn 663:Grutness 4923:up for 4915:Cat:TFD 4493:way. — 4400:Radiant 4298:Radiant 4230:Radiant 4210:Radiant 3816:I agree 3643:Radiant 3609:illegal 3492:no need 3488:No need 3236:paying 3070:has not 3054:no need 2867:suggest 2561:of the 2525:f&t 2454:deleted 1850:Be bold 1768:f&t 1595:" to " 1410:be bold 1385:support 1324:and/or 1218:f&t 1171:f&t 951:f&t 930:f&t 912:Patrick 892:f&t 767:However 39:archive 5167:adiant 5155:(talk) 5142:adiant 5121:Trödel 5051:WP:WSS 5035:adiant 5009:adiant 5002:WP:CSD 4987:WP:TFD 4946:pages. 4932:adiant 4925:WP:CFD 4919:I put 4865:adiant 4851:(talk) 4834:MarSch 4795:Pcb21| 4672:Pcb21| 4468:(talk) 4440:Delete 4373:(talk) 4342:(talk) 4292:WP:WIN 4174:Pcb21| 4158:prefer 4091:unless 4068:(talk) 4026:(talk) 3537:divbox 3515:blivet 3505:widget 3379:Korath 3338:Korath 3228:reason 3166:divbox 3129:Korath 2908:actual 2901:subst: 2850:divbox 2760:Korath 2696:within 2685:should 2580:delete 2552:delete 2176:(talk) 2152:(talk) 2115:(talk) 2076:(talk) 2017:(talk) 1978:(talk) 1668:Vacuum 1619:Vacuum 1581:Vacuum 1553:Thanks 1542:(talk) 1528:(talk) 1443:WP:VFD 1308:, and 1297:WP:TFD 1295:Since 1272:Torahs 1144:WP:TFD 1099:Be it 884:WP:TFD 842:WP:TFD 771:WP:TFD 720:should 680:(talk) 632:WP:VFD 536:with: 469:WP:CFD 389:WP:TFD 308:Korath 159:• Benc 136:really 4733:ideal 4528:Verse 4523:Blank 4495:Xiong 4421:). 4277:Xiong 4102:Xiong 4094:clear 3919:don't 3820:Xiong 3776:Xiong 3734:Xiong 3730:guilt 3705:Xiong 3662:other 3637:point 3621:Xiong 3451:Xiong 3427:Xiong 3271:Xiong 3173:as is 3083:Xiong 3014:this: 2906:(The 2860:doctl 2838:speak 2747:. -- 2721:Xiong 2637:Xiong 2631:erase 2489:Xiong 2469:Xiong 2412:Xiong 2400:Xiong 2298:Xiong 2296:. — 2221:0:00 2100:every 1799:true. 1742:never 1558:Xiong 1550:Hey, 1511:Xiong 1463:. -- 1389:Xiong 1373:hasty 1360:Xiong 1276:Xiong 1057:. -- 1034:Xiong 677:MikeX 593:Xiong 441:Xiong 421:clear 272:Xiong 263:What? 103:wiser 95:older 16:< 5126:talk 5069:wha? 4991:then 4971:only 4798:Pete 4719:Talk 4675:Pete 4634:wha? 4575:Alai 4503:talk 4434:Meow 4285:talk 4246:must 4200:, or 4177:Pete 4110:talk 4098:must 3828:talk 3784:talk 3742:talk 3713:talk 3629:talk 3459:talk 3435:talk 3383:Talk 3342:Talk 3332:and 3289:See 3279:talk 3181:more 3133:Talk 3091:talk 3001:and 2984:easy 2893:used 2883:same 2855:and 2764:Talk 2729:talk 2641:talk 2613:that 2521:Itai 2519:. — 2493:talk 2477:talk 2416:talk 2404:talk 2302:talk 2294:once 2287:this 2173:Noel 2149:Noel 2112:Noel 2073:Noel 2014:Noel 1975:Noel 1889:and 1764:Itai 1577:edit 1562:talk 1539:Noel 1535:have 1525:Noel 1515:talk 1397:talk 1375:and 1364:talk 1332:and 1280:talk 1245:does 1214:Itai 1200:and 1167:Itai 1148:Itai 1136:Itai 1113:Itai 1080:Itai 1059:Itai 1038:talk 947:Itai 926:Itai 910:and 908:Itai 888:Itai 870:Itai 846:Itai 812:talk 776:Itai 749:Itai 617:and 597:talk 575:Josh 445:talk 312:Talk 276:talk 248:Josh 236:Gady 199:Josh 176:Josh 153:See 5064:... 4983:and 4981:), 4715:JRM 4711:Vfd 4629:... 4430:iMb 4269:any 4150:ssd 4042:not 4037:not 3865:VfD 3616:not 3611:? 3584:all 3553:and 3547:. 3257:. 3159:not 3144:not 3099:far 2974:. 2967:box 2927:But 2799:tfd 2705:tfd 2676:. 2585:. 2575:of 2566:tfd 2539:tfd 2461:not 2275:not 2223:UTC 2214:not 1909:-- 1730:all 1429:. - 1381:may 1354:are 1350:No. 1107:or 1067:any 969:-- 836:. ( 792:all 735:fvw 700:fvw 485:Jia 457:Jia 5170:_* 5145:_* 5110:, 5106:, 5095:, 5091:, 5038:_* 5012:_* 4935:_* 4868:_* 4717:· 4483:| 4403:_* 4301:_* 4233:_* 4213:_* 3856:" 3646:_* 3639:? 3540:}} 3534:{{ 3518:}} 3512:{{ 3508:}} 3502:{{ 3169:}} 3163:{{ 2999:}} 2993:{{ 2897:do 2863:}} 2857:{{ 2853:}} 2847:{{ 2833:}} 2827:{{ 2802:}} 2796:{{ 2794:: 2792:}} 2789:01 2786:{{ 2708:}} 2702:{{ 2692:on 2623:}} 2617:{{ 2606:}} 2600:{{ 2596:}} 2590:{{ 2583:}} 2577:{{ 2569:}} 2563:{{ 2555:}} 2549:{{ 2542:}} 2536:{{ 2457:}} 2451:{{ 2427:| 2136:. 2037:? 1992:| 1952:| 1934:Sy 1911:Sy 1802:— 1358:— 1304:, 1253:un 1249:un 1212:— 1103:, 854:or 824:. 810:| 665:| 591:— 488:ng 460:ng 332:) 270:— 157:. 76:→ 5164:R 5139:R 5123:| 5032:R 5006:R 4955:@ 4929:R 4902:@ 4890:✍ 4888:| 4879:@ 4862:R 4822:@ 4758:@ 4741:@ 4692:@ 4608:@ 4588:@ 4556:@ 4536:∅ 4507:* 4499:熊 4432:~ 4417:( 4281:熊 4166:✍ 4164:| 4135:✍ 4133:| 4106:熊 4050:✍ 4048:| 4015:✍ 4013:| 4001:@ 3977:✍ 3975:| 3971:- 3965:@ 3927:✍ 3925:| 3911:✍ 3909:| 3905:- 3840:@ 3824:熊 3808:✍ 3806:| 3802:- 3800:? 3780:熊 3760:@ 3738:熊 3709:熊 3690:. 3400:✍ 3398:| 3381:( 3356:@ 3340:( 3321:@ 3131:( 2813:! 2762:( 2758:— 2752:@ 2653:@ 2639:( 2523:( 2491:( 2443:I 2414:( 2402:( 2300:( 2231:✍ 2229:| 2208:. 2087:@ 1967:@ 1830:@ 1821:" 1787:@ 1766:( 1701:@ 1682:@ 1671:c 1660:@ 1640:@ 1622:c 1608:@ 1584:c 1560:( 1517:) 1513:( 1468:@ 1452:✍ 1450:| 1446:- 1435:✍ 1433:| 1419:✍ 1417:| 1413:- 1362:( 1278:( 1216:( 1169:( 1094:@ 1074:@ 1036:( 974:@ 949:( 940:@ 928:( 919:@ 890:( 862:@ 799:@ 760:@ 740:* 727:@ 705:* 647:@ 595:( 499:\ 475:\ 443:( 397:@ 354:@ 328:( 310:( 274:( 162:• 99:≠ 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index