Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9

edit

Template:NFS

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 - uncontested. Alakzi (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only three BLP talk pages. Better methods of dealing with any related problems exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 9 August 2015 (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:List of Serbs notice

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 subst: and delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 9 August 2015 (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:Mediation request

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 22 Sept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Map requested

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 Merge into {{Map requested}}. ~ RobTalk 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Map requested with Template:Map requested from.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 9 August 2015 (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:C&CTF-RfC

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 Subst and delete. ~ RobTalk 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification template, used in 2009. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 9 August 2015 (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.

'Method for consensus building' templates

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A family of templates for formalising discussions, whose use is advocated in the user-essay Wikipedia:Method for consensus building, which does not appear to have secured community adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 August 2015

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:Controversial groups

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used twice. More generic "controversial topic" templates are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 9 August 2015 (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:Other Hoysala temples

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. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template was transcluded to Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire, where it made the article far more complex than necessary. That transclusion has now been removed, meaning that the template is unused. Sitush (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting the template after creating a list is fine, but what is the justification of deleting some 25 temple entries? Just because they do not have underlying article (yet) does not mean they are trivial or non-noteworthy. Each surviving Hoysala temple is a architectural gem and it takes a life time to visit, photograph and write about all of them. Please put back all deleted entries in the list you created. There should be some 36 entires and currently there is only a fraction.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point. There are people trying hard to contribute. Don't get in their way and spoil the show. A monument does not become trivial because it has no article written on it. Indian has 5000 monuments that are protected by the ASI, 5000 more need urgent protection. There are articles on only a fraction of them here in wiki. Get the drift??Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant to whether or not the template exists. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It will be easier to create a list with the full template available. You made a mistake with your deletion of many entries and should be willing to accept/revert it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not required. The list has been created. If you want to expand the list, in accordance with WP:V and WP:NLIST then feel free. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If everything contained in the template is already on the article, then it is pointless to put article information in template space, since template space is used so article information can be used on more than one page.Curb Chain (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2015 (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:Poll

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; and we should not be using such polls. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 9 August 2015 (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:Notahelpdesk

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. Alakzi (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 9 August 2015 (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:OFFICE talk

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. Consensus is that this template should be kept in the event of future OFFICE actions. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment have the WPBureaucrats been informed of this deletion nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When it comes to informing editors of an OFFICE ACTION I think we should not be so hasty to delete, I think this template has a lot of usability unless it's blatantly redundant, which doesn't appear to be the case per the deletion rationale. While Office Actions may not be common, they are something we should be making sure that EVERY EDITOR is BLATANTLY AWARE of it so they do not accidentally end up on the pointy end of an indef block because they were unaware of the action and were trying to be BOLD.  
    ♥ Melody Concerto ♥
    02:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • From the look of it, the template is meant to be placed temporarily on a talk page when the article is subject to an office action; that it is not being used at the moment is not that relevant. Keep pending an official response. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a temporary template; it's meant to be used only as long as there's a relevant office action, and those are rare enough that current non-use isn't relevant. What's more, it's used for office actions, so we ought not make it harder for the office people to perform office actions by deleting one of their templates. If they don't want it, go ahead and delete; if it's redundant to another one, redirect this to the other or vice versa; if they want it, keep it. Please note that Andy notified one of the office people upon nominating this for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note: We would prefer that we keep we this template for now. I know it's unused at the moment but I think there are circumstances where it could be useful (and there have been circumstances in the past) especially for longer term WP:OFFICE issues where ensuring that the message gets across (without slapping as huge a warning as possible on the main page) is important. Jalexander--WMF 07:19, 19 August 2015 (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:Notcontact

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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Template:Notcontact. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 12 transclusions, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 9 August 2015 (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:Nsfocus

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says "This article is the current improvement focus of WikiProject Nova Scotia" Used on three talk pages, to which it was added in 2007, 2010 & 2011, respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Montenegrin Wiki

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. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two user-talk pages. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 9 August 2015 (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:Photoadded

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. 20 days unopposed. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointess. Only 7 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 August 2015 (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:KeptTalk

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 redirected by User:Pigsonthewing. I judge that this action has gained consensus given its standing of over a week and the support of a majority of contributors to the debate. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 9 August 2015 (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:Iwiki-conflict

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions, both relating to a 2009 discussion on Meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Inviteapprentice2

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:IPsign

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:DirectIP

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on ten IP user-pages. Redundant to other IP templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Copied-multi

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).

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to {{Copied multi}}. Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent fork of {{Copied}}. Name confusion with {{Copied multi}}. Only 9 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:British English Oxford spelling

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. Alakzi (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:British English Oxford spelling with Template:British English Oxford spelling editnotice.
Only minor stylistic differences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 August 2015 (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:Citation by contributor

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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Template:Citation by contributor. Alakzi (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mere 11 transclusions indicates a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 August 2015 (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:American English

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. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:American English with Template:American English editnotice.
Minor stylistic differences only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Koavf: It seems to only be deprecated "on paper" at the moment. I also disagree with the sentiment expressed by supporters there. If you wanted to raise the issue for broader consensus at the village pump, which I think would be a good idea, I'd "co-propose" it with you. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: If you propose a venue and ping me, I'll support there. I would also like to point out that the reason why I like these editnotices is because they will appear anytime someone edits a section (which I do frequently). So rather than have one template at the very top or bottom that can easily be overlooked or dozens of HTML comments, we can have one editnotice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 14 August 2015 (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:Albanian Wiki

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 8 transclusions, mostly in archived talk pages or talk pages of inactive users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 9 August 2015 (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:Admin request

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. There is a degree of support for merging with another template but such proposals can/should be made in a new nomination, as one participant has signalled they will do. Moreover one merge supporter has indicated a keep !vote. For now the consensus is against deletion and there has been no suggestion of other outcomes. BethNaught (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @John Vandenberg: That would be a very good point (which I agree with) to bring up in the event that we start an "official" merge discussion to merge the two templates ... which I plan to do after this discussion closes. (I understand the nominator's concerns that led to this nomination, but this discussion is beginning to seem like a WP:SNOW situation, consensus or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2015 (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:AlienCOTMvoter

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Aliencandidate

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Core content policy talk

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 Redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 August 2015 (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:AR talk

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).

The result of the discussion was orphan, mark historical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abuse response is marked as historical, so this template's claim, made on many IP talk pages, that "currently the subject of an open abuse response case" is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Grounded

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).

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:CHILD. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Redundant to {{Busy}}. Only 9 transclusions, some years old. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - Looks like you misunderstand WP:NOTFACEBOOK. NOTFACEBOOK status that users may not host their own websites, blogs, wikis or clouds at Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia pages are not personal web pages, file storage areas, dating services or memoriales. I madre the same mistake with the templates Like and Dislike (bad templates IMO, but still don't qualify for deletion). Plus grounds aren't permanent, so the number or transclusions may change from time to time. If we have to delete this per NOTFACEBOOK, then every other single Wikibreak templates (and userboxes, since they're related) should be deleted. --TL22 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being grounded is not the same as being busy. Therefore {{Grounded}} is not redundant to {{busy}} --TL22 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:WikibreakSwitch

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: There was strong support to keep, it is in use and likely to be used in the future, there was no support for outright deletion except by the nominator, and there were no policy reasons given that would require or strongly suggest deletion. There was some discussion about the possibility of merging this into another template or vice-versa. Therefore, I am not closing this in a way that would prejudice against a future merge discussion on the relevant templates' talk pages or any other appropriate venue, but if that happens in the very near future I strongly recommend that the participants of this discussion be notified so they can participate. Note: non-admin closure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A template whose only parameter is the name of the template to display, Utterly ridiculous. And only 73 transclusions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 9 August 2015 (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.

Not-wikibreak templates

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 all. Alakzi (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Fewer than half of the editors displaying the pointless "Not on Wikibreak" template have edited this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 9 August 2015 (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.

Generic "Busy" templates

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion of any given template functionality or name. There is possibly a consensus to merge subsets of the templates (and perhaps even to delete some of the names currently in use for the set of templates), but the large number of templates mean that many of the commentors have been very vague about what exactly they're supporting or opposing, making consensus hard to determine, and because the TfD has been open for over two months it's time to close it now. This close does not prejudice/disallow: bold merges of these templates that preserve functionality (replacing the merged-from template with a redirect or a wrapper, and any resulting redirects may be immediately nominated at WP:RFD but should not be deleted without discussion); or speedily renominating specific template names or functionality individually. --ais523 23:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

All redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Off and On WikiBreak}}

Tell me again how "there's no reason to delete {{Off and On WikiBreak}}"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion rationale is insufficient.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per following as explained by I dream of horses. I find the deletionism on this board bothersome. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Some users displaying {{Off and On WikiBreak}} haven't edited since 2010 or earlier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because what the heck, I like it, and see no compelling reason to delete it. It's doing no harm to anyone, and I am frankly rather perturbed by the nominator's vendetta against templates for which he does not see use. Yes, I realize I just broke about six rules of what not to do in a deletion discussion, so a closing admin can discount my !vote, but I am going to register my disdain for this ongoing systematic eradication of templates that serves little purpose. Ignore the rules. Go Phightins! 04:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have misunderstood the nomination, which is to discuss whether we meed thirteen very similar templates (not to mention others listed elsewhere), instead of just one which performs the same function perfectly adequately. The harm done is twofold: the additional maintenance overheard (Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation refers), and the confusion through bewildering choice it places in front of editors who need to find a template to use. You advance no argument as to why more than one such template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get why people think a greater variety of choice is "bewildering". When finding a template to use people usually want one that conveys exactly want they want to say. This is the whole reason why people create these multiple types of templates! -- œ™ 08:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All three uses of {{Busy/Exams}} are more than five years old. Neither of people using {{Wikibreak3}} has edited for over two years. The sole instance of {{Busy3}} was applied in 2008. The sole user of {{BusyUniversityStudent}} applied it in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the current state. How can you be certain that the templates have not been used on other pages in the past, or will not be used on other pages in the future? They get added to user pages one day, and get removed at a later time, ranging from hours to years depending upon the circumstances. The very nature of these templates is that they are temporary. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Like Vincent60030 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that it's impossible to prove a negative, and thus unreasonable to ask someone to do so, why don't you show that they have been used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, it is possible to prove whether a template has or has not ever been used in Wikipedia (excluding the earliest days where some edits are missing), but it's extremely labor-intensive to do so and it is, as you say, unreasonable to put that burden on anyone. The "worst-case effort" would be to have a bot with oversight or database-administrator (i.e. a WMF-run) iterate through every edit since the template was created to check for use, including use in deleted and suppressed edits. Not gonna happen except maybe as part of an approved research project (unlikely) or under direction from a court order or the WMF lawyers (which I hope never has to happen, but theoretically it could). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking a wikibreak is different than being busy. I agree with the above, I see no real reason why these need to be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as who really cares? They're templates that people can use to express they are on wikibreak. They take up less than a kilobyte, and provide a useful service to those who might sometimes want it. There aren't that many active users on enwiki as there used to be, and these templates could see future use if we get more contributors. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. And back off. There's nothing wrong with variety. If you delete these people will just recreate their own eventually anyway to suit their specific needs. It's part of being an active community (well, ok, inactive in this case, but my point stands when it comes to other templates that Pigsonawing seems on a warpath to delete just because they seem kind've similar to another template) and it brings vibrance to the project. -- œ™ 08:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Go Phightins and Chess. A variety of Wikibreak templates is useful for expressing a variety of messages. Making everyone use a uniform Busy template is pointless and people would just create other templates again anyway. BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: in the event of consensus to delete any of these templates which is not unused, please userfy to my userspace under User:BethNaught/Templates/TITLEOFTEMPLATE. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (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).

Template:MsgEmail

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 18 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages (and display email links where available) by default, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Leave message

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 67 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages by default, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Useronline

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I'm going to stick my neck out and close this as no consensus. There were several threads of argument which I will summarise.

  1. The nominator said that 58 transclusions is too few. This was generally thought to be reasonable for a userpage template. Pro-deleters argued that the number of users who actually used it properly was small or zero.
  2. Nominator argued that the template breaches WP:COLOUR. This was rejected by others, since WP:COLOUR applies only to articles. Pro-deleters replied that it still breaches the WMF non-discrimination policy; others suggested such for a small template, "nobody suffers" if it is ignored.
  3. Pro-keepers argued that the template could be useful and people who use it correctly should not be penalised. davidwr argued that some users who have edited recently have updated their /Status properly.
  4. Some suggested the template should include automation; others pointed out this wouldn't work with the current software. Several users making this point !voted keep anyway.

In my judgement, point 3 balanced point 1 in the debate. Point 2 was the subject of unresolved debate. The fact that only two editors advocated deletion, compared with 9 explicit keep !votes, and point 4, together lead me to determine there is no consensus. The debate continued for almost a month with wide participation so I don't think relisting would throw any more light on the matter. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 58 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

  • User:Angelus Delapsus has this template, showing them as "online". Setting it so was their very last edit. In September 2012.
  • User:Jmccrory Set their status to "Online in September 2012. Made their last Wikipedia edit the same day.
  • User:Fox Wilson Status has been set continually to "Online" (that's 24/7) since June 2014. Last edit May 2015.
  • User:Earthbillion Template added June 2013‎. Edits sporadically. Status never set.
  • User:Zerbu/Sandbox Added to sandbox in 2011. Unedited since Not on main user pages.
  • User:Lsarun1312 Added in November 2011. Status has been set to "online" ever since.
  • User:Wkacnt Added in 2011. Last edited 2012. Status has been set to "online" ever since.
  • User:Smithw005304 Added the template in February 2011. Only ever made four edits (all in their userspace). All in in that month. Status has been set to "online" ever since.

Can anyone provide counter-examples, of users regularly and accurately updating this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that the reason people are !voting to keep this template is that they don't understand that it doesn't actually work. Alakzi (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Number of people arguing to keep this template: six. Number of people arguing to keep this template and who use this template: Zero. TfD truly is broken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alakzi: When you say "it doesn't actually work", what aspect of it do you believe to be not working? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot function as an online indicator, as it needs to be manually toggled; and nobody's going to edit their user page every time they come online and every time they go offline. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some people don't bother, this is true; but that doesn't mean that nobody bothers. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is so incredibly inefficient, that I simply can't imagine that anybody would bother. See also User:Pigsonthewing/Template:Useronline transclusion statistics. Alakzi (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question was "Can anyone provide counter-examples, of users regularly and accurately updating this template?". It seems not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template but 1) make it even more clear to users that use it that it is up to them to keep the status updated, and 2) call a WP:Requests for comment or WP:Bots/Requests for approval discussion to get community approval to encourage editors to change other users' "online" statuses to "offline" after a certain period of time with no edits and/or creating a bot to do the job automatically (I recommend 30 days for a bot and the same for manual edits, but there are good arguments for much shorter time periods for manual edits). The best solution - which will probably not happen soon due to privacy concerns and there-are-more-important-things-to-do concerns - would be to add code to the core Wikimedia software that tracked all actions of logged-in users including page-loads, and allowed them to define what "logged in" means for them (e.g. "last activity less than 1 hour ago" etc.) and share their "logged in" status publicly. Frankly, I'm not sure I want that code to be implemented due to privacy concerns unless even the tracking itself was opt-in - what isn't recorded can't be recovered later - but it would solve the problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why is lack of use a deletion critera? I'd agree if no one used it, but there are plenty of templates without major use. Samuel Tarling (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be alert for special cases if this is deleted: User:Vacation9 has his status marked "huggle". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be possible merge this with Template:Statustop by adding code to Statustop so it can be made to display like Template:Useronline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several users were using this correctly and updating their /Status sub-page as recently as June and July 2015, but none have done so recently (I may have missed a few so please feel free to re-do my work). I did NOT check for users who use the status= parameter nor did I thoroughly check to see if people who have been "offline" in awhile had made any contributions while "offline." This supports the claim that no active users are using it using the /Status sub-page method of use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep this template as it is a good indicator for me and other user in their talk pages that whether the used is online to help you or answer your talk and it is very easy to install this templlate on your page. Prymshbmg (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not like this template, but that is not a rationale for deletion. I agree with the sentiment that it should include some automation so it presents the _correct_ status. Personally, I've opted for a different approach to reporting whether or not I'm online ... referring people to my last 10 edits as an indicator of whether I have been editing recently (see my user page). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 25 August 2015 (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).

Template:User FullActive

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 9 August 2015 (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:Hidemessages

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. All transclusions appear to have been replaced. Alakzi (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to other "collapse" templates. Only 9 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove or replace existing uses with a similar, more-popular template but only in cases where there is an obvious, non-controversial way of making the page look good. Once all of the obvious cases are dealt with, {{ping}} all participants so the discussion can be "restarted" based on the remaining uses, if any. For use at the top of article talk pages, see Wikipedia:Talk page layout. I WP:BOLDly removed it from Talk:British Museum as part of a larger top-of-the-talk-page cleanup, but it was a borderline case and you could easily argue that a template like this or a similar template is needed on that page. Feel free to add this or a similar template back to that page if you think it's too cluttered. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 22 August 2015 (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:Gibraltarian

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates from 2006 case. Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 9 August 2015 (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:Hipi Zhdripi

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates from 2006 case. Named account is not registered. Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Schooling late messages

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).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use (by creator who last edited in January 2014). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 9 August 2015 (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).

Nohumour

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).

The result of the discussion was 1) Merge to one template; 2) keep the combined template, as there's no point moving it to the userspace of someone who last edited in 2007. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Superbonked

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 merge with {{Bonked}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only six uses. Redundant, if you must, to {{Bonked}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 9 August 2015 (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.

More "Busy" variants

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).

The result of the discussion was keep computer death, merge and redirect the others to {{busy}} as there's little specific support for retaining them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All redundant to {{Busy}}, which has over 1850 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As shown, {{Computer death}} is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing redundant about the LONG form of the Busy template to replicate the other template. Your deletion rationale still fails to be sufficient; particularly when Computer Death is easier to use than the long blurb of code you're using to replicate it. If there were actually a legitimate busy|computerdeath token in the Busy template then you could assert redundancy. Doing things the hard way is not redundant; it's actually counterproductive.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep computer death. Do you seriously think that people are going to use {{Busy|This user |descriptor=temporarily without a computer |image=}} instead of {{Computer death}}? Much much more complicated, especially when you're by definition using someone else's computer: it's not like you've got lots of time to waste on Wikipedia figuring out complicated coding. You should be able to go through Category:Wikibreak templates or {{Wikibreak templates}} and pick a template that sounds relevant. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they're going to use it at all - as noted above, {{Computer death}} is already unused. However in the very unlikely scenario that someone wants to post such a notice, there is as I have demonstrated, an alternative method of doing so. If they prefer, they can just use {{Wikibreak}}, which is just quite simple, easier to remember, and less to type, than {{Computer death}}. We don't need to maintain a separate template for every possible reason that someone might one day not be editing Wikipedia for a short while; nor do other editors care or about or need to know the reason for such absences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've used it before. I've seen it used by others before. Present usage is not an indicator of longterm usage for something that may be used for only a short span of time. And nobody's going to use complicated coding to express this simple message. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note I'm removing {{busy2}} from this nomination: it's been included in two TFDs in today's log. Obviously an accident; I can't imagine someone intentionally including the same template in two concurrent TFDs. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Computer death per Nyttend. Keep busylife as a useful way for editors who need to remind other they have a real life, and for variety of Wikibreak templates. No opinion for Virtuallybusy. BethNaught (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: in the event of consensus to delete, merge or redirect Computer death or busylife, I request userfication to my userspace under User:BethNaught/Templates/TITLEOFTEMPLATE, and to update existing uses accordingly. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I use one but hey, there's no point keeping most of those templates. KieranTribe 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep all per ease of use. Pigsonthewing is correct, they are redundant. However, it is much easier to apply one of these quickly if the need arises, a hasty option is likely preferable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot as they're all useless/redundant (As someone who's had laptop deaths/issues I've simply posted a huge notice which to me is alot better than {{computer death}}. –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Computer death per Nyttend. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 4 October 2015 (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).

Holiday templates

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. There's just too many conflicting opinions about what to do with all the Holiday variants and the other two templates here, though there is a general agreement that "Holiday" should be kept independent from "Busy". There appears to be a lot less opposition to merging the Holiday variants down to one, so I'll boldly redirect Holiday2-4 to "Holiday" to test the waters; I won't object if reverted. It would probably be good to discuss "User temporarily inactive", which has got its own unique set of implications, separately. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Busy}} (e.g. {{busy|Johnny Doe|descriptor=on holiday}}), which has over 1850 transclusions, and to each other; see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 8#Vacation templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also redundant to {{Wikibreak}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This does not imply a violation of policy"? What an odd thing to say. Merge the holiday ones down to one, at the very least, and delete the other two. Alakzi (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Redundant to {{busy}}. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_8#Vacation_templates.Algircal (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same thing I have said here. Datbubblegumdoetalkcontribs 21:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge together Merge all but the last into each other. Merge the last one into {{busy}}. --I dream of horses (T) @ 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know about the other templates, but {{holiday abroad}} was made to indicate where you're traveling to. It accepts the country name and will automatically put the country's flag as the right image, and you can choose what you want as the left image. It also has options for an additional comment and you can change the American-British variations. This makes it distinctly unique in that regard. You could probably use a series of parameters to come up with something similar using {{busy}}, but that undermines the purpose of having a dedicated template.
    From what I can tell the TfD community (or at least some individual nominators) doesn't like templates that can do things that other templates can do – even when it requires more effort to use the original template. This is what I fail to understand. If I can use template A with 4 or 5 params to do the same thing template B can do with zero params, what's wrong with B, given people use it? We're not running out of disk space, the point is purely for convenience which seems rational and with virtually no implications. If the template community inexplicably doesn't like this means of ease of use, then I can just move the template to my userspace, where others could continue to use it as they have been... so again why can't it live in the template namespace?
    Finally, the transclusion count on these templates should carry little weight in this discussion as the templates are by design only temporarily used. This makes it impossible to definitely say how popular they are, so I think we should go off of individual functionality. — MusikAnimal talk 15:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can definitely see the use here; and I'm with Musik on the whole idea that this deletion nominator is not really considering that these templates are actually useful. I see minimal reason for deletion of any of these status templates that are transient. &nbsp♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than merely asserting that these templates are useful, please explain how they benefit the project, in a way that {{Busy}} does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple one-word convenience-templates benefit the project, because 1) content contributors can concentrate on contributing content not on learning template-arg-lists, 2) image uploaders can concentrate on fighting battles over the intricacies of copyright law and/or fighting battles over the aesthetics of the infobox-image rather than learning more template-syntax, and 3) deletion discussions like this one, where people who concentrate on improving the encyclopedia via simplifying template-maintenance-tasks, with any luck will not occur again, once it is understood that a complex user-interface to the templates, is *itself* harmful to the encyclopedia, since it causes content contributors to need to spend some of their precious time fiddling with (re-)learning the latest template-syntax, ditto for image uploaders and other types of valued contributors (admins/wikiPrincesses/etc). In other words, the amount of time and effort being expended in this wiki-battle to delete some rarely used one-word templates, in favor of forcing the people that use those one-word templates to learn nine-word-arglists they can pass to another one-word template which has a significantly different English-language-meaning, could instead have been spent on improving the encyclopedia. I fully appreciate that template-namespace-cruft is annoying and inelegant. I fully appreciate that there are maintenance headaches, associated with a large list of somewhat-overlapping template functionality. But fix it under the hood, where it doesn't screw up one-word-usability, not "fix" it by deleting in-use convenience-templates. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one usually does not go on holiday if they were busy. starship.paint ~ KO 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?

{{Busy}} {{Holiday}}

Tell me again why one of the above templates is not redundant to the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below on false equivalence. You are acting like visual-output-equivalence is all that matters, but user-interface-equivalence is of no consequence. Not the case. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will reiterate; doing things the hard way is counterproductive.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we add nowikis around these (general question)? Also, "away on holiday in real life"? Who's on holiday within Wikipedia? They also don't appear the same, so we'll need to add styling. The code is what differs so greatly, having to write a mess of things to get what you want. It's just convenience, at the cost of what? I can't think of any downsides. — MusikAnimal talk 19:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not redundant because I am lazy, and have no wish to type all of those nonsense (such as specifying descriptors and images) if I am rewarding myself with a holiday soon and if a template can automatically type it for me. Also, the KISS principle. starship.paint ~ KO 01:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With simple userspace templates like these, they're not redundant to stuff like {{busy|Johnny Doe|descriptor=on holiday}}, simply because these are simpler. With article infoboxes and other mainspace templates, someone else can come along and modify the coding later, and people won't object, but it's a bit rude to replace someone's userspace template with another template that's more commonly used but more complicated if it's just to avoid a little redundancy. Let's not force people to use lots of parameters on userspace templates: they're not infoboxes that need to be machine-readable. And finally, they're temporary templates: who cares how much they're being used right now? I've used them in the past, but you won't find them anywhere in my userspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Holiday}} but delete the rest as not needed. 'Busy' and 'on holiday' are not the same, but the numerous holiday ones should all be amalgamated into {{Holiday}} as chooseable options, no need for separate templates. GiantSnowman 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I definitely agree with MusikAnimal's opinion plus other editors just only need to know if this person is on leave or not. We should not just delete other's template unnecessarily when it is not for public use. Public use in this case means for all readers to know as it does not affect an article. It is just a freaking template for other ppl to know why r u inactive or something. If you think it is redundant, just don't use it. You can just use some other templates. Just don't bother other's masterpiece. It is their on user box template NOT YOURS. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The templates all serve their own purposes, and {{busy}} is the sort of thing I would expect someone to permanently use. {{Vacation}} would only be used temporarily, however, and it is more obvious that it is temporary. If people use any of the templates you are suggesting be deleted, it would be counterproductive in my opinion to just go ahead and delete them. Wikipedia is not realistically going to be affected in terms of space by having some additional templates. Dustin (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added some usage stats to the nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per above, being on a holiday is different than being busy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I became aware for this because a notification popped up when I added one of these to my talk pages to let people know I would be away for a few weeks. Not busy, quite opposite, I'm going to be out in middle of nowhere relaxing, maybe catching a fish or two. Not the same thing as "busy" or a "wikibreak" at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox has {{Vacation}}, thus:

but could have:

The redundancy is thus, again, demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are demonstrating output-equivalence, not user-interface-complexity-equivalence. We could also, theoretically, convert all the PHP and Lua code used in mediawiki to COBOL and FORTRAN, since they are all Turing-complete languages, and thus could be 'proven' to have output-equivalence. But if you've ever actually used FORTRAN and COBOL, you know full well that the interface complexity is incredibly obtuse by comparison to PHP and Lua. If you want to make your case, then make it fairly, not by saying, hey look we can generate almost-equivalent-visual-output... but eliding the small but crucial factoid, which is that the visual equivalency is achieved at the small expense of forcing all the people that use the existing one-word-template to retrain their brains to using this nine-word-alternative syntax... assuming that the new super-template syntax is not *also* later tweaked, in which case they'll have to re-learn the new syntax again in the future. We don't change from PHP to COBOL, just because theoretically the visual look of http://wikipedia.org would not be much different, since it would require retraining the brains of all the people that already work on mediawiki using PHP. For the exact same reasons, we ought not change from one-word-convenience-template, into a nine-word-and-likely-to-get-tweaked-later-super-template. Just fix the problem under the hood, without forcing existing endusers to retrain their brains. If there are templates for which there *are* no existing endusers (and haven't been any such endusers for at least a year), then sure, go ahead and delete those, but no need to ask permission first, it's obviously the right thing to do. By contrast, this false equivalence of visual output, which ignores the nine-fold dichotomy in user-interface-complexity, is NOT obviously the right thing to do. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consolidate. Redirects are cheap. meta transclusions are cheap. Typing complex stuff is annoying, Having 8 templates which are almost identical is a maintenance burden. One core template, with 4 different shortcuts creating different 'variants' is just fine. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatantly Obvious Keep of all actually-in-use-templates, and why do I get the funny feeling that this apparently-a-long-ongoing-series-of-in-use-template-deletions was called to 'save time and effort' yet here we all are wasting time and effort? If the template is obviously redundant and unused then just merge it into some other template without asking anybody, because WP:IAR. If the template is IN USE BY EVEN ONE REAL EDITOR, or has been recently (in the past year or two) used by even one editor, like the {{Holiday}} template which is being proposed for merger into the 'simpler' and more user-friendly and easier to understand {{Busy|descriptor=away on [[Vacation|holiday]]|image=Avion silhouette.svg}} which is CLEARLY NOT EVEN CLOSE to being equivalent, from the enduser's perspective? Sigh. Okay. Enough with the allcaps shouting. But to me, this is a case where the template-hackers, in order to 'save time' for themselves, in doing the absolutely-no-question-about-it important work of maintaining wikipedia's vast array of often-redundant templates, have decided to 'simplify' the template-API-universe... by deleting the lesser-used templates. And raising RfC's to get local consensus for these deletions. Now of course, if one really wanted to "simplify template-dev maintenance" (as a goal), as opposed to "deleting a bunch of templatecruft" (a very-much distinct goal), then one could relatively simply implement the {{Holiday}} functionality, so that under the hood it actually just calls {{Busy|descriptor=away on [[Vacation|holiday]]|image=Avion silhouette.svg}}, and thus presents little in the way of a maintenance-headache. Most existing users of {{holiday}} would not even *notice* such an under-the-hood change. But suggesting that we delete an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand, one-word-template... that is ACTUALLY, erhmmm, sorry, avoiding the allcaps, that is actually in use right this second by real editors, and was helpful to me just this very day, since now I know that the person I'm contacting via usertalk is on holiday... that deletion-proposal is putting the desires of template-devs for namespace-elegance, over the desires of endusers for convenience. The templates exist, because they improve the encyclopedia indirectly, by making editing-tasks more pleasing and convenient for the editors-aka-endusers. Specifically, templates exist to make experience long-haul high-edit-count editors happy. Beginners never use templates, because they don't know templates exist. Thus the argument here, at the core, is whether wikipedia consensus should tilt towards making life more convenient for long-haul high-edit-count people that improve the encyclopedia by editing it, or instead, tilt towards making life less namespace-crufty for long-haul high-edit-count people that improve the encyclopedia by hacking the templates. I don't see why we cannot have both, but we ought to have a balance here, and in this case, the correct balance is pretty blatantly that any in-use templates, that are convenient for long-haul editors, should NOT be deleted, and that the correct way to simplify template-maintenance is to make changes under the hood, rather than make changes that force those long-haul editors to re-learn the syntax for putting up a talkpage-notice that they are going on {{holiday}}. Hopes this helps, apologies for the allcaps, but I've seen this phenomena many times in real life situations, and it irks me to see it on wikipedia where we ought to know better, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2015 (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 longterm inactive

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).

The result of the discussion was there is a clear option to keep with many of those arguing for merging with {{not around}}. So I am redirecting it. If someone is able and willing to merge, please do so. - Nabla (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have many thousands of inactive editors. This is used for only 55 of them, and thus the community has not adopted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Architecture Barnstar

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 Redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and duplicating the much older Template:Architecture star. Suggest keeping the older one and redirect this template. ELEKHHT 03:08, 9 August 2015 (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:Emporis

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 merge {{Emporis complex}} into {{Emporis}}. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Emporis with Template:Emporis complex.
Could easily be merged into the main template with a simple complex parameter. SounderBruce 00:00, 9 August 2015 (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/2015_August_9&oldid=1142562592"