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]

  • Delete. Tired joke. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand, what's the joke? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 17 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]

  • Oppose. 'very' is not enough. Prove it. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {{image requested}} has a better implementation for "from", can we take the "from" coding from that as the base code for "from" any merged template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Alakzi (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator; add a toggle to {{Map requested}} to show the second line if a value for it is given. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. "Requested" is just a slightly simpler form of "Requested from", but the latter should work if given only the parameters that work in the former. The coding from {{image requested}} might be useful, as noted above. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and previous comments — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and do what Jc86035 said. Eman235/talk 06:51, 21 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]

  • Keep - I get that it's not really used at the moment (or for the last few years) but it's a valid template should the wikiproject pick up again at some point in the future. Seems no real reason other than 'it's not used much' to delete. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and delete - serves no purpose. Alakzi (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TF no longer exists, so delete. Suggest substing rather than delinking. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst: and delete. Unneeded but past uses ought to be preserved so as not to change talk page archives, IMO. BethNaught (talk) 12:55, 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.

'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

  • Delete all This isn't how we do things on wikipedia. When discussions don't proceed in a linear fashion, such templates will just interfere with the more organic debate.Algircal (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Rather bizarre and definitely not how we do things here; we normally just offer a vote in bold at the start of a sentence, and that's quite sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 12 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: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]

  • Delete; the generic ones are fine for Talk:PETA and Talk:Huntingdon Life Sciences. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nyttend. Alakzi (talk) 01:12, 12 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]
  • You do not have to visit them to write an article. That is a non-argument. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 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]

  • Delete as per nom. ~ RobTalk 00:06, 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). 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]

  • Delete as per nom. ~ RobTalk 00:06, 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). 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]

  • Comment wouldn't this only be used after repeated attempts to contact the person in question, thus not be widely used? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Rationale for deletion is extremely weak, much like the rest of the noms on this page and the last by this user. 'Lack of Community Uptake' is not a reason for deletion. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no grounds for a speedy keep; please read WP:SPEEDYKEEP. And yes, lack of significant use is very much a reason for deletion. I note that you make no case that the template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after removing from articles. This doesn't warrant substitution. It's an entirely unnecessary template. ~ RobTalk 00:05, 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). 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]

  • Delete. Simply remove {{Image requested}} when supplying a photo; there's no need to litter the talk page with yet another banner. Alakzi (talk) 01:10, 12 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]

  • comment from creator Rationale for creation = for use in cases where an article has been deleted but the talk page should be retained; there is a CSD criteria which allows deletion of a talk page if an article has been deleted, and this was meant to provide some protection against such. The low usage (one use) might be due to the template's existence not being known, or it might be because it is considered useless. I have no strong opinion on whether the template should be retained or deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creation of this template was not well thought out. Thousands of pages have been redirected and it would be excessive to tag each talk page with this tag.Algircal (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-userfy as a failed test per the authors' edit summary when he moved it from userspace several years ago. Subst. existing use. No objections to de-userfying if it gains more than minor use levels in the future and is used by more than one contributor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{G8-exempt}}. There's no need to tag the talk page of a redirected article (those should never be speedy deleted under G8), and it's otherwise redundant to G8-exempt. But it's a good idea; if the other template didn't exist, we would do well to start using this one extensively. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to {{Talk page of redirect}}. Alakzi (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually not redundant to {{Talk page of redirect}} since redirects exist in the non-talk space, and this template is intended to be used on talk pages of titles that no longer exist due to deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is redundant to it in practice. Or it was, before it was orphaned. Alakzi (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at the edit history of Template:KeptTalk; I see what you are saying now, thanks to that "is a redirect" wording being there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{G8-exempt}} without prejudice to treating existing use differently, e.g. changing it to {{Talk page of redirect}} or something else entirely. Thanks to Nyttend for bringing this to my attention. Struck earlier suggestion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good call. Boldly redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nobody undoes your bold redirect within 7 days and there is no further meaningful discussion, I think that will constitute consensus. At that time, any non-involved editor in good standing who is familiar with how to do a WP:Non-admin closure of a Template-for-discussion discussion should close this if an admin doesn't close it first. Previous comment null and void if your bold edit is reverted by anyone for any reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:G8-exempt per above. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ripe for closure - see discussions surrounding the "bold redirect" above. A WP:Non-admin closure would be appropriate here. I would do it myself but I'm clearly WP:INVOLVED. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:20, 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: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]

  • Comment it's a substitution template, it's supposed to be untranscluded. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, However, the creator last edited in 2009, and the template is not linked to from any project page for similar documentation, so it's unlikely anyone knows about or uses it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 13 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]

  • Comment perhaps you haven't read the code, but they are not two templates, there is only one template here. The other is an intermediate transclusion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close there is nothing to do here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an edit notice template which can be called by other edit notice templates; or used directly, by being called by MediaWiki settings, so may appear as it isn't being transcluded. It is patently not regular editor content, as most editors do not edit edit notices. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 11 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]

  • Don't merge - Both templates are deprecated and merging them could potentially compromise historical reference. Plus, {{American English}} is for talk pages and the editnotice is an editnotice. --TL22 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps you haven't read the code, but they are not two templates, there is only one template here. The other is an intermediate transclusion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the latter template should be Subst: and deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an edit notice template called by other edit notice templates. There's no need to substitute it. It is patently not regular editor content, as most editors do not edit edit notices. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close there is nothing to do here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Template:American English was designed for talk pages, while Template:American English editnotice was designed for edit notices. Both are deprecated. One follows the perceived style of edit notice pages, while the other follows that of talk pages. Unless both styles are kept, either will look out of place in there respective proper locations.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can anyone show me the discussion that deprecated these? (And please use {{Ping}} when you respond so I can see it. Thanks.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: Thanks. I disagree with the nominator for that discussion but it's long since been archived. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 14 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]

  • Delete Of no comprehensible use.Algircal (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from technical disclaimers like {{Contains Hebrew text}}, we don't need to warn people about the presence of other languages; languages written in other Latin scripts, such as Albanian, don't need disclaimers of any sort. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 10 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.
  • Comment I don't think it's a good idea for you to close your own nominations, especially, since you can't delete the templates yourself, so it is still a bluelink -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Keep It's "unused" because there are no open requests. Unlike e.g. {{edit protected}}, there is no |answered= parameter (or an equivalent), so when an admin completes (or refuses) the request, they either remove the template, wrap it in <nowiki>...</nowiki> or escape the template with {{tl}} (see e.g. Template talk:!#Restore protection). Hence no transclusions. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you mention {{edit protected}}, which is widely used (4,199 transclusions at time of writing), the nominated template is also redundant to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not redundant to 'edit protected'. 'Admin request' is intended to be broader than 'edit protected'. It is closer to {{Admin help}}, however quite different in how it would be used. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you could persuade us by giving examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Talk:Princess Maria of Romania. But please, surely you can appreciate that there are times users need admin assistance on pages which are not locked. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no reason why {{edit protected}} could not have been used in that case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You should, if you honestly cared when you asked for an example, be able to answer that yourself here. That example page wasnt protected. The requester was wondering if it should be reverted, possibly protected, and shouldnt didnt take long to figure out that they are also implicitly asking about socks and blocks. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Gosh, perhaps we should have a noticeboard where people can contact admins..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ...Or maybe give new editors as many options to ask for help as possible, especially if they have no idea how to navigate Wikipedia, and whenever they find their first productive route, they will take it. No one can accurately state that every new editor will figure out a certain namespace before another (in this case, "Wikipedia:" (the AN board) vs. "Template:" (the nominated template). Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "...if they have no idea how to navigate Wikipedia..." So why confuse them with multiple, near identical templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has WP:AN been informed of this request? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Redrose and John Vandenberg. This isn't the kind of thing that lingers on a page: it should be removed once it's gotten a response, so WhatLinksHere isn't helpful. It can also be used by individuals asking for admin attention in situations other than full protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not have it work like {{Edit fully-protected}} and {{Admin help}}? What's the benefit to commenting it out? And why does it need to kept separate from {{Admin help}}? Alakzi (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you don't actively need help, but you want an experienced person's advice, and you know that admins are experienced. Someone needs to comment it out because it transcludes a category; once the request has been answered, it needs to be un-transcluded so the page doesn't stay in the category forever. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a logical disconnect to me. Why would all requests for admin help be only about editing protected pages? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, overzealous template purge. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If {{Admin help}} were changed to allow its placement on any talk page, the nominated template would be redundant. Also, on a related note, the terms "admin help" and "admin request" are not too different on context. I think the two templates Template:Admin help and Template:Admin request should be merged. (That, and as a new user, my first thought was to use the term "help" on any page rather that "request" because help was what I needed.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection to {{Admin help}} and {{Admin request}} being merged is that each has quite different language, and usages. However a well thought out merge of the two would be possible and a good outcome. The eventual merged template would need to use language which is less specific/leading in nature, and be more aware of the usage context, specifically the talk namespace it is used in, but it should be doable. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:16, 20 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]
  • Keep per my comments above. Unless it is merged with another truly similar template (such as {{Admin help}}), it is helpful and needs to remain as a standalone template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 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]

  • Orphan and mark as historical. Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 12 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]
  • Keep At times, being grounded is the opposite of being busy. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entire page of deletion noms seems fishy to me; I don't see any reason to delete something that all young wikipedians are likely to go through at some point in their childhood editing.  
    ♥ Melody Concerto ♥
    01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CHILD seems to indicate an underaged individual -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is always personal information that should be removed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP 67. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP 67 - While we shouldn't necessarily prohibit under-aged editors from self-identifying, we should not be going out of our way to encourage it. Recommend existing uses be subst'd unless there is a clear reason to remove it from that particular page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 67. Existing uses should not substituted, but removed. Alakzi (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- other users don't need to know whether one has been grounded. User:67.70.32.190 also raises a very good point: being grounded implies that the person is a child. -- Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CHILD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Moreover, if a kid got grounded from the computer, how are they going to access the computer to put up this notice? BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 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).

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]

  • Keep I use this template, on several pages in my user and user talk space, and have done for several years. These instances determine which message to display by reading a value from a configuration page. By making one edit to that config page like this, I can affect what is displayed by {{WikibreakSwitch}} in all the places that I use it. By saying "whose only parameter is the name of the template to display", it is clear that the nominator has not looked at the template's source. To be exact, it has fourteen parameters, not just one. There are two positional parameters, also the following named params: |backsoon= |end= |family= |from= |holiday= |imagesize= |may not= |msg= |reason= |small= |type= |until=. The first positional parameter is only a template name in a few cases: "busy", "exams", "grounded", "holiday", "retired" - in fifteen cases, it's not. For example, {{WikibreakSwitch|on}} displays the {{Wikibreak}} template; {{WikibreakSwitch|off-on}} displays the {{Off and On WikiBreak}} template, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need a seaparate template to do that; just redirect your configuration page to the template of choice. The template's documentation clearly refers to "the only parameter" (emphasis added). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incomplete, poor or missing documentation is not a valid rationale for deletion. We have hundreds of templates where the documentation doesn't match the template behaviour - {{WikiProject Pink Floyd}}, for instance - should we delete them all? I cannot "just redirect your configuration page to the template of choice" because that's not how it works. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{semi-wikibreak}}. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Placing this template makes things simpler and easier to handle. Deleting it would be a bad idea. --TL22 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Strongly against deletion of this template; I use it and I find any rationale for deleting this template to be weak at best. If anything we should be merging OTHER templates UP INTO this one so they all occupy one page in the template space. Sure it could use a little updating, a few more arguments would be nice indeed, a little bit of docs updating. Basically I could say people should be BOLD and just fix it instead of being deletionist. Were there actually nobody using this or transcluding it on their userpages; then it might be a different story.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use it, it's fun, and creative. That, and it is for the user space only, so those 73 (or less) users who use it, including myself, really don't appreciate this nomination ... Ha. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, templates are cheap. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Useful and used template. BethNaught (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep I am not seeing one delete rationale here other than the nom's. This template is being used functionally by active users, that alone counts for something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 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.

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]

  • Delete Pointless. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete {{not on Wikibreak}}, Weak delete on the other two. I first considered voting Keep on the first 2 but giving that one can just put "I'm back from a wikibreak" in giant, bold text, or simply remove the wikibreak template they are using, these could be pointless. --TL22 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Not on Wikibreak as wiki-humor, and Delete the rest. I can see the last one being made into something good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 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.

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]

  • I dream of horses's proposal seems the best, here, so put me down as merge as per I dream of horses. Also, keep {{Off and On WikiBreak}} as per others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per following - No reason to completely kill these, and I'm against deleting any of the Wikibreak templates that actually see use. There's no reason to delete Template:Off and On WikiBreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), it has 146 transclusions, hardly something we should delete. Merging it into busy is fine though. Busy 2-4 can merge into busy, as well as Email and Weekend. The rest can be merged as above.&nbsp♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:43, 11 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]
        • No; they create templates for a selfish, personal need, disregarding the larger picture, and the availability of generic templates into which the same messages could be inserted. That's why most of those listed have single-figure uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 26 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]
  • Keep All Maddiethepolarbear (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I have used {{BusyUniversityStudent}} in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to oppose the merges, but I can understand the reasons for wanting to do so according to I dream of Horses' guidelines. I don't think any of them should be deleted, and frankly I could really use the medical wiki-break one combined with a semi-wiki-beak one right now. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Each template created is unique and should not be deleted. It just depends whether other users want to use it or not. We have no rights to delete others' work unless it is for main page, file or article purposes. Also, it might just be their first masterpiece of userboxes. You can't control their freedom like that. It is just BAD to delete without a sufficient rationale where the templates are just used on their user or talk pages. Vincent60030 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong opinions on whether these should be kept, but the above is arguably the single worst keep vote I have ever seen at XFD. ‑ iridescent 22:18, 30 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]

  • Delete. Redundant to the standard "New section" link. Alakzi (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at User:SaxTeacher (the userpage, not the human who operates it), where it's placed prominently. It makes leaving a message simpler, especially for new users who might think that they should contact SaxTeacher by leaving a note on his userpage instead of his talk page. 32 different userspace pages transclude this template, compared to 34 usertalkspace pages; SaxTeacher isn't some aberration. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unnecessary template purge. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. This is useful for editors who wish to facilitate receiving messages from newbies who may not understand Wikipedia's messaging system. BethNaught (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This suggests that of our 25,975,218 current registered users, only 67 "wish to facilitate receiving messages from newbies". If so, that needs to be fixed. This template is not the answer. Given the number of editors who take care to welcome newbies, it is also patent nonsense. The template is also used by editors who have not edited for the best part of a decade; how does it help in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to newbies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a user space template that allows editors to customize their page as they see fit. Deletion will only cause harm and confusion to several. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's handy. SLBedit (talk) 23:36, 11 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: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]

  • Keep I don't think that "lacks community take-up" is a deletion criteria. Also, 58 is not bad, IMHO, for a user template. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: The template adds no apparent value to user pages. In several examples, such as 'User:Fox Wilson', it shows the user as online, even though in that case, he hasn't edited since May. It links to a non-existent user page. 'User:Britannic124' set his to "offline" on 1 June 2015‎, but has edited on at least 6 different days since then. It uses icons, differentiated only by colour, to indicate the user's status - this is a breach of WP:COLOUR. What exactly is its use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COLOUR is for encyclopedic content, not templates intended for use in userpages. --TL22 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colour contrast advice in WP:COLOUR is part of WCAG 2.0, the ISO international standard for web accessibility. The WMF requires us not to discriminate against readers or editors on the grounds of disability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but automatize the template by using some API that tracks the status of the account (with "loggedin" and "loggedout", maybe a bit shorter). If for technical reasons that's not posible, then I don't know what to say. --TL22 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TL22: That's not possible without a software change. If you happen to convince the MediaWiki developers to implement a user status keyword, then by all means; but do not put the cart before the horse. As it stands, this template is useless at best, misleading at worst. Alakzi (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why all of these status templates are being considered for deletion; there are probably more important things to worry about than this.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You not seeing the reason, is not a reason to keep this, nor any of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My 'not seeing the reason' should be very well indicative of a very weak deletion rationale that doesn't further the project, merely aiming to remove non-intrusive templates that do not actually adversely affect the project.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed! What I'm seeing is User:Pigsonthewing wanting delete anything that has any slight reason whatsover in guideline or policy to delete! Useful or not useful. He's looking for things to delete just for the sake of deleting stuff! Again, there's nothing wrong with having CHOICE. VARIETY. THAT'S the main rationale for keeping these community templates! -- œ™ 08:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let users do what they want in userspace, as long as it's not against some policy: if some users think this template adds value to their userspaces, don't tell them that they're wrong. And please read WP:COLOUR again: This section is about the use of colors in articles. Yes, it's relevant to templates, too, but that's because they appear in articles. It's thoroughly irrelevant to userspace, especially because there's no good reason to object to an editor's employment of colours in his own userspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common courtesy doesn't magically vanish in userspace. No, people can't decorate their user pages in whatever manner they please, just like they can't have signatures that blink. Alakzi (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone claims that this template adds value to any userspace, they are wrong. And please read my comment above, about WP:COLOUR, posted 20:27 UTC, 9 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What part of This section is about the use of colors in articles makes you think that it applies to userpages? Exquisite detail would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The WMF requires us not to discriminate against readers or editors on the grounds of disability. Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • A simple userspace template is not discrimination (did it occur to you that people can ignore this template if they feel like it, and nobody suffers?), and the difference between this and blinky signatures is that policy prohibits the latter and doesn't address this. Final reminder: userspace is not an article and not subject to article-specific policy. Further insistence to the contrary will be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't put up with passive-aggressive nonsense. Ignore me all you want. Alakzi (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • [ec] A user-space template that some users cannot read most certainly is discriminatory and WMF policy prohibits such discrimination. However, thanks for confirming that if this template is done away with "nobody suffers". Also, please keep the snark out of your edits summaries and mystery-meat links. Of course our WP:SIGAPP policy doesn't address this - the template is not used in sigs; and Wikipedia:Deny recognition is for "vandals and trolls", not people who understand web accessibility and WMF policy better than you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really see no reason for it to be deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Knowing when users are online or not is in some cases important to know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As explained above, this template does not tell us whether or not a user is online. I also note that t was not on either your user or talk page when you made the above comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 20 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]
    • The point that has been made above, clearly and repeatedly, is that while this templates may litter a few user pages, no one has been identified as using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 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]
    • Which users? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't keep a list, but there were 3 or 4. If you want to re-create the list, go to the template, go to "what links here," exclude the "links" and "redirects," then check the edit history of every listed user's /status and /Status sub-page. You will find 3 or 4 who were keeping it up-to-date as recently as June or July 2015. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:05, 25 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]
    • On which user page does this happen? And if it's so useful, how come you weren't using it when you made that comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 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]

  • Delete as redundant to {{Sockpuppet}}. It's been nine years, so all the talk pages should be blanked per the relevant policy. Alakzi (talk) 10:18, 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]

  • I highly agree with you. I do not think we should have that template because the template is giving trouble to our users --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's quite a claim. Can one of you two please cite an instance where it caused trouble? — Sebastian 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. It's just banter. Alakzi (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not unused; I've used it several times since it was used on me. — Sebastian 18:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy both but do not delete: There appear to be 17 WP:SUBSTitutions of the "humor" spelling or of a very similar template in these search results. Remember, these kinds of templates are designed to be substituted and therefore have zero transclusions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the result is "keep both" then I recommend a merge to {{Nohumor}} as it is the only one that is in use, with the simple addition of a parameter to change "humor" to "humour" in the displayed text as the primary change needed to effect the merge. There is really no justification for having both page exist in Template: space when one has, as far as I can tell without checking historical edits and deleted pages, never been used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#Template talk:Nohumor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: uses are irrelevant because this is a substitution template. Userfy if you must, but do not delete, because this would be appropriate if hosted in userspace and there is no just reason to delete a template simply because the author put it in Template: space. BethNaught (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single template --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:29, 16 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: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]

  • Delete all and add an |email= parameter to {{Busy}} to replace transclusions of {{Busy2}}. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - {{Computer death}} is actually usted sometimes, but only temporarily. For example, if you look at my my talk page history, you'll see I added that template since the PC I used was broken, but then I removed it because I had managed to fix it myself. --TL22 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but computer death into {{busy}}. Keep computer death --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but computer death into {{busy}}. Keep computer death I don't mind merging duplicate templates into one useful one; I like consolidating; just don't see the need to delete them.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:02, 11 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]
    • Why would we care which country people are visiting on holiday? Or to see its flag? Wikipedia is not Facebook. What next - "Template:I'm having chicken for dinner?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, {{holiday abroad}} is currently unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's just for fun. These things go on user pages, where we have considerable leniency in that regard. And again I don't think transclusion count should be a factor when it's intentionally only temporarily used. I know I've seen others use it a few times. — MusikAnimal talk 19:51, 11 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]
    • Your comment does not address the fact that seven templates are nominated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only consider Template:Holiday2 and Template:Holiday abroad to be redundant with respect to the others. starship.paint ~ KO 13:51, 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]
      • If you're lazy, you can use {{Wikibreak}}. The KISS principle applies to maintaining templates too: we're making more work for ourselves, when we don't need to, and making life more confusing for our fellow editors, by having lots of unnecessary templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 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]
    • No one has to use the more verbose method of entry; they can just type {{Busy}} or {{Wikibreak}} (or, as has been suggested, a merged {{holiday}}). My other example simply shows that for people who insist on little-used variant wording, or alternative icon images (really?!?) other methods are available, that do not require us to maintain a plethora of redundant templates, which serve to bewilder editors with a variety of unnecessary options. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 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]
    • Your comment cannot be understood, because you refer to "a... template" and "it", when we are discussing a set of eight in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. This applies to the used templates only. For the unused ones, I think we should discuss with the creator. Vincent60030 (talk) 13:15, 18 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]
    • This !vote is based on two false premises; {{Busy}} is not intended to be (nor is it in practice) used permanently; and the rationale for deletion is not related to server space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:34, 17 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]
    • I've found instances of {{User temporarily inactive}} in place since 2008 and 2009 and, in one case, it has been saying that a user is "temporarily inactive" for ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 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]

  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)' Unnecessary special treatment for noneditors.Algircal (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - not being used in all circumstances is not a valid reason for deletion. Just add it to the other inactive editor user pages rather than nominating it for deletion. --TL22 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with your earlier !Vote in another section, there are no grounds for a speedy keep; please read WP:SPEEDYKEEP. The likelihood of this being added to the pages of all (or even most) inactive editors is zero. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't add it to any "inactive" editor. Should we make a separate committee to tag users who are deemed inactive for a week?Algircal (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with toonlucas, except that I think we need to have a discussion on this. All because the community hasn't adopted it doesn't mean it isn't needed. It may mean that people are unaware that the template even exists to begin with. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I note we have overlap with {{Not around}}, it is a useful template. There are some people whose time on Wikipedia touched many hundreds, if not thousands, of pages and editors, and who have left their mark in Wiki history. A brief note, especially to newcomers who are not aware of the intricacies of contribution lists is not unduly harmful to the project or the infrastructure, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of use for this template; especially for editors who do not choose to be bothered by other editors that may be unaware they may be no longer contributing for a long term period of time. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and then redirect to {{Not around}}. Their purposes are identical. The only difference is that the wording's slightly different, but both pieces of text mean the same thing. Not here is a bit more versatile, so it should be the target, not vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should it be orphaned? Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to assume that only 55 uses is too small. We do have many absent editors but comparatively few of them will be asked enough questions to warrant a message such as this. BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Not around}} --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to {{Not around}} — While I agree that this template is useful, it is redundant to {{Not around}}, which conveys essentially the same information and has 887 transclusions. Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 26 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: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"