Forum:CT Archive/Should there be an overhaul of templates?

To be very clear, this is a discussion on letting a single user, such as myself, start a personal project to make broad-sweeping major changes to templates without notice to the community and as I see fit, having such changes protected and non-revertible without consensus track to reverse them.

There is a current discussion in the Senate Hall that begins with questions on how to name templates. However, shortly after a couple of users answers concerning how to give templates names in the vein of creating new templates, the user began proposing such changes to existing templates. The user also moved a template without any talk page discussion involved in announcing such a proposal to move the template.

The implication, here, is that a proposal is being sought for standardizing templates and doing an overhaul of the template catalog to fit "guidelines." The SH discussion also appears to be a suggested seeking of approval for a single editor to "restructure" existing templates to suit a that editor's personal preferences. Although the editor later insisted that nothing was suggesting restructuring, his comments show that he does "plan on restructuring the entire template section" where he sees "a need," and that he doesn't "plan on restructuring every template in the same way."

Is this community ready for an overhaul of templates based on the personal preferences of a single user without notice of the changes until they are made? Will we allow this overhaul to be done without Talk page discussion, as with the GG template? &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 20:17, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

For a template overhaul without SH, CT, or Talk page discussions

 * 1) I think it's silly to create a binding policy for this kind of thing without having some idea what the proposed "restructuring" is going to actually be. Discussing significant changes on the talk page of any article is never a bad idea, especially if you believe the revisions will be controversial, but, Gethralkin, you seem to be the only person who is taking an issue with this. Nevertheless, since you do seem unable to just let this go, I would recommend, Thunderforge, that you write up a Senate Hall thread and storyboard your proposed template changes so we can see what they are. With perhaps a few minor tweaks from community input, I trust we'll all be fine with the changes without the need for a formal vote of this nature. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Tope, though I don't see the purpose of either option. No need to have a policy, but if something is overhauled, it will get overhauled in whatever way it happens. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  03:01, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:33, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I wish someone had told me about this earlier, I almost didn't see it. Trip391 (talk) 04:01, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Against template overhaul without SH, CT, or Talk page discussions

 * 1) I am against letting templates that have never had any issues for years to be overhauled or moved/deleted/merged or otherwise changed without appropriate Talk page discussions concerning these changes. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave  20:17, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * A proper examination of restructuring templates is already being done. The proposing editor announced at the outset that "actual content doesn't need to change that much," but lists improvements that can be made. Further discussion of such changes are discussed and advice given by an administrator that "any change needs consensus first. While it's fine to be bold here (as we do have a policy), you mustn't assume that you could merge, change, keep, or delete a template without consensus." The proposing editor has agreed with that assessment, suggesting (emphasis mine) "creating a grid or spreadsheet with each page-top template and having a discussion about whether or not it should be: Merged with another template, Refined to be more helpful, Kept as is, Deleted." This is an appropriate and discreet way to go about doing this. The Be Bold policy and move caution strongly advise against "editing a template or moving a highly linked-to page" without letting the community know what is going on through talk page discussion. There shouldn't be any reason to launch a project to overhaul templates without letting the community decide first if and what needs to be done. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 02:53, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Tope's comment above, I realize I might have been suggesting that a community approved major project will need discussion on each page. That is not where this needs to be going. This is about focusing on allowing or preventing a project of this magnitude to continue without community input on if it will be done and, if so, how it will be done. Precedent of such major project receiving community support and guidance is linked in my immediate preceding comment. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:01, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to Cade above, commencing an overhaul project on templates without getting some sort of community approval would be disruptive, especially if it is possibly needless in it's aim. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:28, July 16, 2013 (UTC)