Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24 edit

Template:WikiProject Southern United States edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Southern United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The associated Wikiproject went defunct long ago, this template isn't used on anything and WP page has been archived and redirected to Wikiproject United States. If it becomes necessary to have a banner for this in the future I will add a Task Force link to Template:WikiProject United States. Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still looking for comment on this template. If no comments are received I will proceed with deleting this template. --Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only inactive but it looks like the project was never very active in the first place neither the Project page or Talk page received more than a handful of edits[1][2]. Only a handful of links to the template and one transclusion mean there will be little impact with its deletion.--Salix (talk): 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TV5 Programs (Current & Upcoming Shows) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV5 Programs (Current & Upcoming Shows) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nonsense template. Creator copy-pasted almost all of the contents of the List of programs broadcast by TV5 article first then deleted all of them afterwards. -WayKurat (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G7 applies here, as the author and sole contributor blanked the page. Nominated as such. Yoenit (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot --Bsherr (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Metalocalypse edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete WOSlinker (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Metalocalypse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. This project banner template was used for Metalocalypse related articles. Since the Metalocalypse WikiProject is no longer active, I doubt that it will be used for Metalocalypse related articles. JJ98 (Talk) 06:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The project was never very active with less than 50 edits to the project page[3] and no activity on the talk page. Only a handful of links to the template and no transclusions makes this a clear case for deletion.--Salix (talk): 23:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ellomate no Vandal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ellomate no Vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should either be usefied or renamed to something more descriptive (suggestions welcome). WOSlinker (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Name can be discussed on the talk page - there is no policy that this template appears, on its face, to violate. Collect (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from being a substantial reimplementation of the existing user warning templates, inappropriately classed and styled as a block template? WOSlinker doesn't appear to have asked for deletion anyway, but I will. This doesn't serve a useful purpose above the existing uw- framework and the styling is confusing and inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplicates other warning template, unused.--Salix (talk): 06:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris and as redundant to the user warning templates at WP:WARN, in addition to a host of design shortcomings. --Bsherr (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and duplicate, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BQZip01/Not Attack edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename I am going to move it to {{evidence subpage}}, but please feel free to move it to another name if so desired. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BQZip01/Not Attack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should either be usefied or renamed to something more descriptive (suggestions welcome). WOSlinker (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The main argument is that the name is not sufficiently descriptive? That is insufficient - the argument about naming should be raised at the template talk page, not as a deletion discussion. I do not see that the template violates any WP rules or policies, and having a poor choice of name is not actually grounds for much of anything - it is certainly not obscene or the like. If all you want is a different name, suggest it on the talk page - much less of a problem there I suspect. Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't meet a single criteria under Wikipedia:DEL#REASON. Just because you don't like something's name is not a reason for deletion. If you have a suggestion for a name, you can certainly propose it or discuss on my talk page/the template's talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for deletion. Just renaming or moving to userspace if a suitable name connot be found. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm. Seeing as it's already got BQZip01's name attached to it, why would userfying it be at all controversial? Personally I'd just take BQZip01's name off it and rename to {{not attack}}. If I'd seen this template before the TfD I'd have simply assumed it was a mistake on the author's behalf. Incidentally, to the two users above, TfD is about discussion as well as deletion and not everything brought here is implicitly brought with a view to delete it; WOSlinker gave his suggestions in the nom, which didn't include deletion in the first place. Taking things here ensures they get a wide audience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted - the discussion about the name of the template should be on the template talk page first. I, for some reason, did not find such a discussion ever having been attempted. WP works best when folks start at the first level for discussion first - rather than leap instantly to noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh. Taking it here brought more eyes to it. TfD is hardly the bearpit of ANI, nor the permanent battleground of AfD. In the grand scheme of things it hardly makes a difference where the discussion is, except when people get the wrong end of the stick as happened here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Part of the confusion may lie in that {{Tfd}} mentions deletion but the location where it all takes place is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion called discussion. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Respectfully, you could have simply asked on the talk page or my user page first instead of wasting the time of others as Collect stated. I'd be happy to move it. What would work best to satisfy your concerns? — BQZip01 — talk 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy The lack of transclusions suggest to me that this was a template made for a specific set of pages, likely as part of a protracted dispute, which has now passed. --Salix (talk): 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just ask instead of assuming? In fact, it was initially made regarding one specific page about a user who is now deceased. However, it has been used by other people on pages that have since been deleted. It states explicitly that pages using this template should be deleted eventually, so it likely will not be used on active pages for very long. — BQZip01 — talk 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something makes me slightly uneasy about this template. I've seen arbitration cases where on-wiki collections of diffs by editors have caused great problems and resulting in a specific ban on the user keeping such lists. There is a chance he template could be abused with an editor using the template as a preemptive strike to try and avoid a valid deletion. Part of the problem is the template name "Not Attack" is a negative name which immediately makes me think its an attempt to protect an attack page. A better, positive, name like {{evidence draft}} would sum up the template without negative connotations.--Salix (talk): 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy – I've inquired with the creater whether the creater would want it userfied. It cannot stay as is, because it's a subpage without a parent page. It's eligible for speedy deletion as such. --Bsherr (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that WP:CSD#G8 states "This excludes any page that is useful to the project." As it has been used in the past, I submit that it is useful and would not meet such criteria. Of course, it just simply needs to be moved to a better location. — BQZip01 — talk 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's agruable, so maybe we are in the right forum. So, regarding its utility, I'll be very frank: The template is unused. I think this is because it's very difficult for someone coming upon it to understand what it is for. The template's heading, rather than describing what is the page on which it's been placed, states only a conclusion that the page is allowed to exist. The template has effectively no documentation on its purpose. The template's name, in addition to being noncompliant as a subpage, obviously isn't descriptive, either. And, the template is not in any categories. (Now, I understand from the policy quotation what the template is for, but that's after really trying to fathom it's purpose.) So while this template may have the potential to become useful, or may eventually become useful, presently it isn't. Unless these issues can be quickly resolved, I think the best choice is to delete or userfy it, depending on whether someone wants to undertake the work to make it useful. --Bsherr (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The template docs specify that it should be subst:ed and it is explicitly designed for use on pages that will be deleted, so I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that the "template is unused". It has regular albeit very low-frequency pagehits, but even that doesn't indicate the frequency of use of the actual template. And don't take this as snarky, but your own inability to divine the purpose of the template in no way hinders my own understanding. It just means that improvement is needed in the documentation so that it is more accessible to more people. Franamax (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll clarify. Presently, I think the template appears on no pages. This is based on a search of Wikipedia using as a search term a distinctive part of the text of the template. The search returned as a result the template page itself, but no other pages. I believe you misstated your other point. First, one person's ability to understand something has nothing to do with another person's independent ability to understand something; that much is obvious to anyone. Second, I never said, as you state, that I had an inability to divine the purpose of the template. Did you mean to say that the factors I mentioned did not affect your ability to understand the template? If so, that's fine, but it's only relevant if you've ever used the template. If you understand it, but have never used it, the template still isn't useful. --Bsherr (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggestion has been made on template talk page to rename without using username. This would instantly obviate the "it is a subpage" argument, to be sure, obviates the "retitle" arguments, and as I noted, the template talk page is the proper place for renaming discussions. Collect (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is Templates for Discussion, so renaming discussions are appropriate, especially when the alternative is WP:SILENCE (I doubt anyone is watching the talk page currently). The purpose of this noticeboard is to draw attention to issues like this one, not to be a bureaucracy. --NYKevin @828, i.e. 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+rename+improve I'm painfully aware of the genesis of this template and won't be providing any links thereto. It is keep-worthy though, because it serves a general purpose. Editors create sub-pages to collect evidence on other editors all the time. Then someone else discovers the page and starts an AN/I or MFD about keeping attack pages in userspace, then sometimes the creator says "how could you even know about it except that you were prying around my space" (which is a totally bogus defence). Evidence sub-pages are clearly permitted by policy so long as they have a limited lifetime and this is a quite valid method to indicate that the page is meant to be compliant with such policy. I'd argue actually that this template should be mandatory for such pages. Franamax (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to {{evidence subpage}} or {{evidence subpage notice}}. T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It is of note that the page is not labeled "This page is up for discussion", but "This template is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." It is reasonable to assume that the nominator intended for it to be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 11:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:OwnTalkPage edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted by User:Malik Shabazz as wp:CSD#T2, misrepresentation of policy (non-admin closure) Yoenit (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OwnTalkPage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The message in the template as at odds with WP:BLANKING. It could be rewritten to match the guidelines but as it is only used on one talk page deletion might be a possibility.Salix (talk): 00:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_24&oldid=1089034772"