Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9 edit

Template:User Aion 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 Transferred to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Aion Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) jcgoble3 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Aion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes go on WP:MFD. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. userfiy if someone objects as it does not belong on publicspace.Curb Chain (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2011 (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:WTA Tour Tournaments 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) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WTA Tour Tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and unused (replaced by subtemplates, see articles linked by this one). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Never saw this template before, and I don't think it is useful.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 19:54, 15 September 2011 (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:Wikisocion 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) 00:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:21, 9 September 2011 (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:Wikipediatoc-main 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) 00:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipediatoc-main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused frontend to {{Wikipediatoc}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2011 (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:Wikipediaintro 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 moving to User:Lexor/Wikipediaintro, which is in the author's userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused welcome template. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very, very old, and {{w}} (and variants) are much better at welcoming new users. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for historical purposes simply because it's so old. Perhaps we could move it into Wikipedia space, which is where we typically keep old pages for historical purposes. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2011 (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:Wikipedia ads single 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) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia ads single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused frontend for {{Wikipedia ads}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you can accomplish the exact (and only) function of this template, with less typing, by using {{wp ads}}. Also, where are you getting all these templates? :) Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question, see the No. 28 of the RussBot series. Not all of these are still orphaned, but the ones that are, are almost certainly orphaned for years. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2011 (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:Wikigraphism 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) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unsed graphics lab sidebar. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2011 (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:Wiki-atlas 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) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki-atlas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unsed, and redundant to other transfer to commons templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (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:WideCommonsWallpaper 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) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, unused and kind of pointless - does anyone really care if a picture can be used as a wallpaper, especially if it's only for widescreen monitors? Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a media service. We don't advertise our products for it's good use.Curb Chain (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the same template exists on Commons, where all free images should be moved anyway (and non-free ones shouldn't have a high resolution). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also {{Commons wallpaper}}, {{non-featured wallpaper}} and {{Commons non-featured wallpaper}}, which should be co-noms on the same grounds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Curb Chain and particularly The Evil IP address. Also, the other three mentioned by Chris have been nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_15#Wallpaper_templates. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2011 (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:Webcomics Project Member 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) 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Webcomics Project Member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and unused. Project is now a workgroup in a larger project. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (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:West Midlands railway stations (disused) 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) 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Midlands railway stations (disused) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by a section in {{West Midlands railway stations}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2011 (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:New! 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) 00:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and (probably) useless template Bulwersator (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete --Flyguy33 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all it is is File:New.png made not to link. Plus it's unused. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and unforeseeable useCurb Chain (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (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:Six Flags in 2011 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) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Six Flags in 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Are we going to have a new template every year for the amusement park? This is something best conveyed in the article, not in the navbox (see Cedar Fair 2012 Additions discussion). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons laid out in the TfD for the similar Cedar Fair template linked in the discussion, this is unnecessary. If this is kept, eventually we'll have templates for every year that will be cluttering up the articles; better to nip this in the bud while we only have two. It's just not worth collecting in a navbox, and it belongs in the company's article. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I created the template last year and nothing has happen until now. So, I don't know why are we talking about it now. To me it will help people navigate better, to know what Six Flags parks where getting that year faster than going through each thread to find out about them.--Jpp858 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2011 (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:Hoax 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 no consensus. I don't count votes, since it is WP:NOTAVOTE. I felt as though the arguments for keeping it and the arguments for deleting it were roughly equal, hence, no consensus. The rationale for deletion is pretty strong here, given that (a) an article which is clearly a hoax should be speedy deleted and (b) an article which is suspected to be a hoax should be taken to AFD. For small passages which are a "hoax" we have the {{dubious}} tag. Having a suspected hoax article sit around as a suspected hoax is problematic. So, if this tag is used, it should not sit on an article for a long period of time, which appears to be happening. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used and really surplus to requirements. Hoaxes should be deleted: if a hoax is notable for being a hoax then an article which presents it as fact is going to need a complete rewrite and we've already got tags for that. In most deployments, however, this is flat-out redundant to {{db-hoax}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this looks like it's for articles that might be hoaxes, while {{db-hoax}} says on the template: "This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism." Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 13:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In practice, though, an article which cannot plainly be established as not being a hoax should be treated the same as one where the hoax is obvious. In most cases they are tagged for deletion or PROD under the likes of WP:MADEUP anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see my comment above. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cimanyD is correct, that this template is for articles that look like they are possibly hoaxes. And this template obviously is not in use on many articles at a given time, which might actually be an indication that it fulfills it's function, as tagged articles are either determined to be legitimate or indeed hoaxes and subsequently deleted. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful in borderline cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 26th Battalion, CEF has been tagged for two months (through this template's analogue in {{multiple issues}}) and Avner Shats three. How long as "possible" hoaxes supposed to be given? Hoax content is a very serious matter, and having a simple cleanup tag for it seems to encourage tag-and-forget workflows which leave these things in place for considerable periods of time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep db-hoax is for blatant hit you in the eye hoaxes (like someone born in 1996 claiming to have invented sliced bread...). In practice, what is obvious to one editor may not be to another, so some checking is usually done. This tag covers the area beyond db-hoax and prod - the area where you have the feeling something's wrong but you can't immediately prove it (like someone born in 1986 - in Accra - claiming to be the original of Ron Weasley). There should be an improvement to the listing and rechecking of this and other categories - advert, refimprove and so on. I agree that many of them just take root and get regarded as part of the furniture. I like mixed metaphors. Peridon (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2011 (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:Cleanup Red Link 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup Red Link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While WP:REDNOT does indeed suggest that some redlinks are unsuitable, this is usually fixed trivially (i.e. in roughly the time it would take to tag a page). It's not obvious that we need a specific cleanup template for it. The template also misrepresents itself as being used in default Twinkle installations, which it isn't as far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this template, I thought it would be useful for pages editors come across that have an unhealthy amount of red links that need attention that editors don't have knowledge or time to deal with. In regards to the misrepresentations of Twinkle, I don't fully understand Twinkle so if someone else could clean that up that would be great. I believe this is a useful template that we should allow to catch on more. Keep --Flyguy33 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the creator. It's best used when redlink misuse is so severe that the tagger doesn't have the time to clean up or when the tagger doesn't have the knowledge to determine for each individual redlink whether it should be there or not. Also, I removed the {{Twinkle standard installation}} tag from the /doc to address the last concern in the nomination. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tags are for when editors don't want to or don't have time to fix problems they see, for any reason. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've turned a lot of red links blue, removed others. But sometimes there's so many - a red sea. There needs to be a tag for this issue. Also users will see these tags and hopefully get the messgae not to get carried away with reds. I find red links ugly and it looks like dead links to the readers - disorganized. Slight Smile 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template fails to address the only issue that would ever make it useful: tell un-proficient editors which red link to keep or clean and under which logic. Red links help Wikipedia and are not bad per se, although the template seems to imply precisely that. From such edits I take it that the template does not encourage users to create the missing page, it only however encourages users to tag pages that are fine and do not need to be fixed. (The guideline precisely states that red links part of a series or a whole set are fine, and one red link as of today is far from a "red sea") Place Clichy (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC) sorry about the signing glitch[reply]
If the problem is with the way the template is worded (and I do agree with you on that point), then suggest improvements or better yet, be bold and improve it yourself. Poor wording is cause for improvement, not deletion. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is based on the principle of this template, not its current form. Place Clichy (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get some suggestions then for ways it could be reworded to see if people like a new rewording better? --Flyguy33 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's kept I'll be happy to rework it myself (it needs retitled in lowercase, for a start). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:21, 16 September 2011 (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:Physics navigation 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 after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Physics navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} with different field titles. Recommend substitution of existing templates so that they pikc up on the more commonly-used parameter names and will thus be more maintainable in future; these templates currently (mostly) lie within category:physics templates and category:sidebar templates, but there are enough of them to warrant a new category:physics sidebar templates to match category:physics infobox templates. I've temporarily added this new cat to the meta-template so that when substitution occurs all pages will be added to it, including those which currently aren't categorised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating this template for deletion, please tell how are you planning to substitute this template and modify the templates which are including PhysicsNavigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheliak (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 September 2011
- The substitution will automatically turn instances of {{physics navigation}} into instances of {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. As an example, I've done this in the sandbox for {{electromagnetism}}: have a look at {{electromagnetism/sandbox}} for the resultant code. There will be absolutely no change to the output of the templates, just the implementation. I'm happy to clean up the categories and any other fallout myself once it's been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine. When I was making {{Thermoelectric effect}} I just used "physics navigation" because I didn't know about "sidebar with collapsible lists". I copied the formatting from {{Electromagnetism}}. If it will look exactly the same, there's no point in redundant templates. :-) --Steve (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix first, then delete, not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The substitution will ba carried out once the discussion is closed and moved to the holding pen. There is no need to worry about that happening. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} does not open the "section" where the article is, as {{Physics navigation}} did before it became some kind of a redirect to {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. And why remove the colours? Christian75 (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding the {{{cTopic}}} section is just a bug. I've now fixed that bug. I hope that resolves this particular oppose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:59, 15 September 2011 (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:Utah Flash 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) 00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utah Flash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Roster for Utah Flash, a team which no longer exists; the final roster is preserved at Utah_Flash#Final_roster. This template is old and no longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2011 (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:User prince 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 restored to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User prince, the proper venue for discussing userboxes. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User prince (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Original reason: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User prince. -Porch corpter (contribs) 05:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: "Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)" Bulwersator (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this should have remained at MFD. Let's leave it, though; we may as well discuss it here to avoid yet another change of venue. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Userfy if the creator wishes it. He seems inactive though. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 05:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy to narrow to be appropriate for public spaceCurb Chain (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2011 (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:User1 plus 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 userfy, is currently not in wide spread use, but is of use to the author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User1 plus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is one of a huge number of user templates (helpfully listed at the template's documentation) that tend to be virtually unused. The number of transclusions in various template lists makes it hard to tell, but it seems like this template isn't in actual use anywhere. Ucucha (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated {{User information templates}} to substitute the transclusions, which should drive transclusions to near-zero and give us a better picture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has now been completed. The only transclusions of this template are on userspace in people's utility pages. It is unused for the purpose for which it was designed, at least unsubstituted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending actual info on whether and where it is used, which may provide a sounder reason than belonging to an undefined class. Except for this sentence inserted in the process of cleanly resolving an edit conflict, this response reflects my pre-ed-conf attempted save. (Is it all "user...."-titled templates, all templates providing for info on a user specified by the parameter, the intersection between one of those and an unnamed class, or the templates -- in one of those two classes -- that nominator has a certain gut feeling about?) If it's "hard to tell [if] this template [is] in actual use anywhere", then it's impossible to validly weigh deletion, and there is a technical problem waiting for a solution that might support a nomination based on more than guesswork. (I recall facing a related problem, and being wrong about what it would take to solve it: IIRC, i decided that my idea, along the lines of removing a template's mention(s) in the template(s) that mention it w/o transcluding it, was fruitless bcz cached mentions keep the what-links-here list overwhelmed with them for too long to tolerate the effects of such a change.)
A further issue is that many templates, like IRCC {{unused}} (and definitely some of its variants) are normally used, or even require use (for correct functioning), via subst rather than transclusion, so the uses far outnumber what will be exposed by what-links-here.
For the record, the history shows i created (but others worked on) this particular instance of the phenomenon the nominator complains about. It seems to now do more than i said, but in any case i don't know why i thot, 6 years ago, that my effort on it was worthwhile.
--Jerzy•t 07:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the changes others made to the template after i finished (and thus knowing what my contribution was) suggests that
1. I added display of 2 more links after describing the first two,
2. others' later efforts were (in part, and perhaps entirely) more sophisticated coding of the same functions (including providing portability to other wiki servers),
3. my intention was probably to support response to suspected repeat vandals, partly by aiding triage, and
4. the template likely would be used mostly or solely without being included in saved markup: e.g., entered into a window where the pre-vandal content was being previewed, used to open its lks to relevant display and/or edit windows/tabs, but removed before saving that vandalized page.
I don't know how widely things like the slash-dotting re monkeypox are recalled today, nor have i tried to be aware of the degree to which the vandalism-to-patrolling ratio has changed. But the shift in my own mix of tasks -- and the introduction of the editing pop-ups! -- certainly has made the template less relevant for me than it presumably was then. (YMMV.)
--Jerzy•t 08:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are way too many of those user link templates, and unless there's a real good reason, they should be deleted to ease usage and maintenance of them. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be one of many user info templates that would let you need one less click to message a user on their talk page. LikeLakers2 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have over 16 of these (way too many), and the links don't work for Secure Server users. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - it is useful and can be substituted. It helps to have variety for templates rather than this delete fest. In addition, these templates are often substituted and are still useful. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, we have too many of these, but if the author finds it useful, then let him/her use it in his/her own user space. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2011 (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:Move and semi protected 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move and semi protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly unused protection template with no additional value. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, serves a purpose. Not designed to be used much. fish&karate 06:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a double template really needed over and above just using the two separately, though? And if so, wouldn't it be easier to implement it just by calling those templates, rather than reimplementing them? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you use the two separately, they overlap on most browsers. fish&karate 11:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's unused because it should be rarely used, as stated on the /doc. It specifies that it should be used on pages protected due to a dispute, rather than vandalism. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for basically the same reason as Σ's keep. It does have a use. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments --Flyguy33 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2011 (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.