Wikipedia:TFD
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:TFD".

Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review.

Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Deprecated and orphaned templates can be listed here.

What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)

Speedy deletion

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Stub templates

List, normally with the corresponding stub category, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Policy or guideline template

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it cannot be listed at TfD separately. It should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline takes place.

Userboxes

List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

Template redirects

List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Renaming a template

List at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So what's left for TfD?

Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
4. The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

How to use this page

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

Administrator instructions

Current discussions

July 26

Template:History of photography-related articles

Template:History of photography-related articles (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Complete misuse of template space. I wasn't sure what to do with this. Userfy? Delete? Redirect somewhere? Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union

Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union

Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Generally template is erroneous classification and form a non NPOV. The template includes air forces belonging to countries of the former USSR. These air forces where, in themselves, never part of the USSR military, nor under their control, simply not existing in Soviet times. The template gives the impression they were. Some users have cited equipment origin in defense of template, but these are in a minority, and regardless, for example, purchasing equipment from the USA does not make that air forces part of the USA's. So purchasing Russian equipment does not make... you get the idea... illogical argument. No proper reason has been given on the template's talk page. — Artlondon (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Carmen Rasmusen

Template:Carmen Rasmusen (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Overly narrow template. Only two albums (one of which I've just prodded), neither single is notable, everything else is already linked from Carmen's main page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 06:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Turkishrock

Template:Turkishrock (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Turkish Pop (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Macedonian female musicians (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No need for a template, this is what categories are made for. See also precedent at related TFD here which closed as delete. Garion96 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete --joseph ^msg 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC

July 25

Template:British songs

Template:British songs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Delete as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_28#Template:American_songs . Is inherently WP:NPOV with no way to fix (previous nom) . — Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--S_RX 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently PoV, and dang huge to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this nominator obviously has a problem with this template, but IMHO under 2 months is too soon to nominate it again, suggesting bad faith on the part of Gnevin - it was a "no consensus" last time. The other templates he has cited as precedents have been similarly two-sided debates - in the case of the Irish songs template, he even appears to have somehow overuled the "no consensus" result. It's probably best if it waits at least a few more months and for a nomination from another user. Bob talk 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Accusing someone of bad faith is hardly WP:AGF is it now but I'll assume you've a good faith reason for that comment. The Irish template was renominated and deleted when Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_patriotic_songs got deleted. Waiting will not change the WP:POV nature of this template or shall we all prove a point and start adding the likes of Say Hello to the Provos,A Nation Once Again,Boys of the Old Brigade,The Sash or Come Out Ye Black And Tans? Gnevin (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:OpenAustralia

Template:OpenAustralia (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

as per this discussion template was created to facilitate the spamming of Wikipedia by representative of the site contrary to WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Gnangarra 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

note: Official governments sites for Hansard in each state as well as the Federal government are at Australian Hansard,Victoria, Australia Hansard,Australia Capital Territory, Australia, Hansard,Northern Territory, Australia Hansard,South Australia, Australia Hansard,Queensland, Australia Hansard,Tasmania, Australia Hansard,Western Australia, Australia,New South Wales, Australia Hansard

• Keep: the official sites are notoriously difficult to use. A broad majority of commenters on the OpenAustralia.org spam thread agree that the OpenAustralia links are useful. Moreover, I disagree with Gnangarra's claim that “the template was created to facilitate the spamming of Wikipedia”. From my reading, the template was created to ensure consistent and proper linking from Wikipedia to OpenAustralia. There have been five contributors to the template. MLandauer, the alleged spammer, is not one of them. Garthrk (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

comment Yep - the template was my idea (and I'm the one who originally raised the spam question), and was implemented mainly by Moondyne. It seemed silly to have these hand coded links all over the place. -- Mark Chovain 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't think the COI is necessarily relevant here, as there are quite a number of editors that think the links are a good idea (if someone were to revert them solely for being COI, someone else without a COI would put them back in). Your copyright claims are unfounded, as we are linking it, not incorporating it. These conform perfectly with WP:EL - the links do a really good job of augmenting the articles. If you think we can do just as well by linking to Hansard, then I'd like to know who would be maintaining the links. -- Mark Chovain 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

to quote WP:EL Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors, but copyright is a concern about the site and whether we should even be using it as a source not about this template who's purpose was to facilitate spamming links to OpenAustralia.org a site which only started on 16th June 2008. Gnangarra 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. In hindsight someone other than the SPA should have added the template into the articles: I did think about suggesting that at the time the issue was first discussed a couple of days ago, but was too caught up in something else at the time. But I believe the site is good and adds a useful link for Wikipedia readers. The OpenAustralia pages appear to be ad-free and non-partisan, and they link back to Wikipedia. I imagine it could be a useful resource for a researcher. I think that copyright is a non-issue for the reason Chovain said: "we are linking it, not incorporating it". Moondyne 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but rename for the same reasons as given by Chovain: even though the links were added the wrong way, they add useful extra information so are useful WP:External Links, and quite a few regular WP editors have expressed support for them. They access Hansard, but in a far more user-friendly format. Comment My only concern is the name. I'd prefer it to be renamed to something like "AustHansard", so that we are not locked into using OpenAustralia.org; and if and when a better resource comes along we can link to that instead by simply altering the template. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree pretty much with Moondyne's expressed views - yes, there are some issues with COI with the site owner adding them, but I think the site itself is in line with our own goals as a project - it's not a source of opinion or a blog or anything else, and I think the "blatant copyright violation" is *way* overstated (it appears the site may comply with Australian copyright law, but not GFDL/CC, and plenty of other pages - for example just about every Obama site we have linked - have similar issues.). Orderinchaos 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have issues with the co-owner of the site adding the links himself, but i don't see any reason to delete this template. The template is helpful for the editors of these political pages who may wish to use the site as an EL themselves. Sarah 12:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• comment if the template was intended to be useful to editors it would be constructed to enable use as an inline citation, its not it was constructed to spam articles solely because a representative of the site is trying to advertise that site. Gnangarra 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, useful template. Bob talk 13:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ViennaCrossSection

Template:ViennaCrossSection (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This applies both to this item, and the entries below, except the USC links, which are now dead. Under links normally to be avoided, #1 is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and #13 is "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." Neither one of these applies. For #1 - these are links to images where no internal substitute is available. For #13 - I can only assume that this is a typo on your part, and you must have meant a different criteria, because the relationship between the article and the links should be self-evident. To test this, click here, and pick several at random, and see if they relate directly to the article in question. If you did mean #13, please provide an example. These links are clearly not promotional, unless you think I'm trying to promote the Medical University of Vienna, University of Iowa, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University of California, Davis, University of Michigan, Boston University, University of Kansas, and University of Oklahoma. --Arcadian (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact mean 13. Criterion 13 has typically been used to distinguish between the cases where the target of the EL is significant to the subject of the article (Britney Spears' official website: acceptable) and cases when the subject of the article is significant to the EL but not the other way around (Any of the thousands of Britney Spears fan sites: normally to be avoided). As for criteria 1, the deep links to images appears to be a tail run around WP:NFCC. The images are not free and are certainly replaceable (in many cases there are already better images in the article), so we deep link them rather than finding a free alternative.

While I am not withdrawing my nomination for deletion, do you agree that the links should be removed from articles in which a free image already exists? --Selket ^Talk 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your non-free argument. There is nothing inherently unfree about deep-linking. WP:NFCC has nothing to do with images not hosted on the project. --- RockMFR 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If the articles were of Featured Article quality they would contain free images that would replace these images that are present only as external links. Many already do contain replacement images. Look at [Vomer]] it has six external links all containing information that is redundant with what is already in the article. The thing is there are just so many anatomy sites (probably every med school in the world will have one at some point) that it's just inviting link farming. We could go through each article and remove all of the redundant ones, but this seemed like a better way to have the discussion. Here's another example from Vomer: the link to this image. The image is functionally identical to Image:Gray854.png, which is already in the article. So what purpose does it serve other than for the sake of having an external link? --Selket ^Talk 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket's reasoning under WP:EL is very -- limited, not to say wrong. Even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with this than without this. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this serves an important purpose. Since Selket objects, then I invite him to solve the real problem by acquiring the needed images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. --Selket ^Talk 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. --Selket ^Talk 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:IowaHistologyInteractive

Template:IowaHistologyInteractive (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs

Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:UCDavisOrganology

Template:UCDavisOrganology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. --Selket ^Talk 01:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:SUNYAnatomyImage

Template:SUNYAnatomyImage (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Deep link to non-free image. A free replacement should be found, and in many cases is already present in the article. Selket ^Talk 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:SUNYAnatomyFigs

Template:SUNYAnatomyFigs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:UMichAtlas

Template:UMichAtlas (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

External link template. All information there should be redundant with a well written Wikipedia article. Therefore the template serves only to promote external links that fall under links normally to be avoided 1 and 13. Selket ^Talk 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Selket makes two claims: First, that a featured-class article would already have some images and that therefore links to any images would be inappropriate. However, even a "perfect" article could justify have external links to additional images. Selket's second claim is that linking to a medical image is "only indirectly related to the article's subject" when the subject of the article is exactly what's in the linked image. This is so absurd as to suggest a complete misunderstanding of this guidelines; I suggest Selkat chat up the editors at WT:EL (a group that includes me) for more information. Also, looking at the big picture, Wikipedia is better off with these links than without these links. Perhaps in a dozen years, we'll have so many high-quality images that this is moot, but, right now, this provides unique information that we can't currently access any other way. Selket is invited to remedy the deficiencies in our image collection, but in the meantime we should not throw out a partial solution simply because it's imperfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:BUHistology

Template:BUHistology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Deep link to non-free image (with small caption). Should be replaced with a free image. Selket ^Talk 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:KansasHistology

Template:KansasHistology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Deep link to non-free image (with small caption). Should be replaced with a free image. Selket ^Talk 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:OklahomaHistology

Template:OklahomaHistology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template is a deep-link to a non-free image database. Many images are already replaced (often with better ones) in the article. Others should be replaced with free images. Selket ^Talk 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:USCHistology

Template:USCHistology (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template is an external link to a site that requires a login. Selket ^Talk 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24

Template:Kings of Media

Template:Kings of Media (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

5-item template, all included in {{Median topics}} template. — Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Coord named

Template:Coord named (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Nominating template "Coord named" which is:

• not referenced by any real Wiki articles Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Coord_named, and
• is just a redirect to template "Hcard-geo". LeheckaG (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be part of some past campaign which has wilted since its main invested contributor copped a one-year ban for behaviour in and around this area. Orderinchaos 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The template is a redirect because it was recently moved to a new title (only a few hours before this TfD). Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha, except I missed the part where the move happened last year. I still support keeping this, however, since redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I am not sure whether I am "allowed" to vote since I nominated it? WP:GEO would like to reduce the complexity and number of "Coordinate" templates, and the {{Coord named}} redirect is not used by any Wiki article (see the WhatLinksHere above, at least when I nominated it). As no Wiki articles or templates use it, it only serves to "mislead" people searching for a "Coor" or "Coord" template family to the {{Hcard-geo}} template instead, which is a member of the "Hcard" family of templates and not the "Coor" or "Coord" family of templates. While the redirect is "cheap" in terms of system resources, it is "expensive" in terms of time, "misleading" people looking for a Coor/Coord template to Hcard, and then any future/potential "clean-up" WP:GEO has to do to update "non-standard" coordinate templates to the "appropriate" ones. LeheckaG (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Background

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates and User:Pie4all88/Templates mention: "Hcard-geo a.k.a. Coord named" as "out-of-scope" for WP:ILT

• Template talk:Hcard-geo says:

• "{{Hcard-geo}} was already merged into {{Coord named}}; no reason no to merge {{Hcard-geo-title}}, which appears to be only different by two caracters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) There's a proposal at Template talk:Coord#Moving_microformat_markup_from_articles_to_coord to merge the functionality of this template into {{coord}}, so that both {{Coord named}} and {{Hcard-geo-title}} will become redundant. The only opposition comes from the creator of this template. --Para 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) "

• "Coord named" History says:

• (cur) (last) 2007-07-24T11:52:55 Pigsonthewing (Talk | contribs) (32 bytes) (moved Template:Coord named to Template:Hcard-geo over redirect: consistency)

• Template talk:Hcard-bday says:

• "As a temporary solution to a similar geekyness problem I renamed {{Hcard-geo}} to {{Coord named}}, but was reverted without explanation. That would only have solved the naming issue of the template though; the template usage itself would still have been repetitive ({{coord named|...|coord}} instead of just {{coord|...}}). --Para 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)"

• Template talk:Coord/Archive 4 says:

• "I have just moved Template:Hcard-geo to Template:Coord named. The syntax is however still unnecessarily complex to be used more widely, when everything could be done in coord with a single added parameter. --Para 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"
• "I tried once to rename {{Hcard-geo}} to {{Coord named}}, but the creator's ownership issues made him keep the naming of all templates that exist only to generate a microformat as Template:Hcard-something. It wouldn't have been an ideal solution anyway though, with its unnecessary template wrapping. When editors surround a piece of information with something to tag it, the use of those tags (or templates in most Wikipedia cases) should be readable to all editors. Any consequent