Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 12: Difference between revisions
Plastikspork (talk | contribs) →Template:User17: Closed |
Plastikspork (talk | contribs) →Template:Usertc: Closed |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
==== [[Template:Usertc]] ==== |
==== [[Template:Usertc]] ==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
|||
The result of the discussion was '''Delete'''. A {{para|separator|pipe}} option has now been added to {{tl|user}}, which makes this template fully redundant to {{tl|user}}. [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] [[User talk:Plastikspork|<sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)</sup>]] 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Tfd links|Usertc}} |
:{{Tfd links|Usertc}} |
||
30 tranclusions in total. Fully redundant to {{tl|user}}. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
30 tranclusions in total. Fully redundant to {{tl|user}}. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 168: | Line 172: | ||
* '''Redirect''' to {{tl|user}}. [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
* '''Redirect''' to {{tl|user}}. [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
**While this is obviously a possibility, there are so few transclusions of the template that converting all of the current uses to {{tl|user}} will make the redirect unnecessary. We may as well delete it. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
**While this is obviously a possibility, there are so few transclusions of the template that converting all of the current uses to {{tl|user}} will make the redirect unnecessary. We may as well delete it. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> |
|||
==== [[Template:Currentarc]] ==== |
==== [[Template:Currentarc]] ==== |
Revision as of 01:40, 21 September 2011
September 12
- Template:User20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
18 transclusions total. Fully redundant to {{user6}}, which is marginally longer due to having an email link but has over an order of magnitude more uses. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - someone finds it useful. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this and all other user template nominations below, per xeno. Swarm u | t 22:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. TMTOWTDI is not a good way to run templatespace: at the moment, if an editor wants to link to the contributions of another they have to wade through the boutique which is {{signatures}} and pick from a confusing array of mostly-overlapping templates, several of which have seen less than one tranclusion a month in the years since they were created. This is confusing, adds to the maintenance burden of templatespace, and is of extremely questionable usefulness. This proliferation of heavily overlapping templates has been successfully ended in most other parts of templatespace and this should be uncontroversial cleanup. Even the removal of half of the redundant stuff in {{signatures}} would make it significantly easier to use and have only the most negligible impact on user choice. I understand that Xeno is ideologically opposed to ever removing choice of this type from templatespace, which is his prerogative, but "keep per Xeno" is a new one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete after adding an option to supress the email link from {{user6}}. We need fewer of these, not more with random numeric names. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't want an e-mail-link. (Frietjes' option is second-best, imo.) -- Buzz-tardis (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC) BTW: 198.102.153.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) took it upon himself to preempt the outcome of this discussion, changing to {{User6}} on various user-pages! (I reverted only on my own userpage.)
- We don't need to retain this as a separate general-purpose template if it's only being used in one-shot transclusions on people's own user pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hm. Why remove usable options? Are they in the way? At least a real general-purpose template ought to be created, so one could use
{{User|t|c|n|l|b}}
or something similar to be able to choose what gets displayed, before any of these get removed, imo. -- Buzz-tardis (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- They are in the way. It is abundantly clear that the reason that {{user}} doesn't support all of these switches is simply because people have a look at {{signatures}} and decide to fork rather than improve an existing template. Stopping that from happening will have the knock-on effect of getting people to improve those templates which remain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hm. Why remove usable options? Are they in the way? At least a real general-purpose template ought to be created, so one could use
- We don't need to retain this as a separate general-purpose template if it's only being used in one-shot transclusions on people's own user pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, horrible redundant, if necessary, remove the e-mail link from User6 (what's the sense of an e-mail link anyways?). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Funny, that would turn User6 into User20. Why not just delete User6 and rename User20, if that's what you want? J/K. -- Buzz-tardis (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Template:User3-small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
25 tranclusions total. Fully redundant to {{usertcl}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - is not redundant because the links are smaller. –xenotalk 21:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete after adding a "small" option to {{user3}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, please use small tags. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Template:User2 plus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
5 transclusions total. A less fully-featured fork of {{user1 plus}}, which itself is largely unused and likely to be deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - someone finds it useful. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy, the only actual use is by the author, as far as I can tell. The rest are just demos or uses by blocked socks. Frietjes (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Template:User22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
11 transclusions total. Largely redundant to other user templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - someone finds it useful. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy, as far as I can tell it is only being used by one user. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I guess I'm that one user? what's the point in deleting all these user templates out of curiosity sure WP:NOTHOST and all that, but there's nothing wrong with a little diversity is there? Crazynas t 07:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- That "little diversity" results in the train wreck that is {{signatures}}, where over a dozen practically identical templates are listed, most of which have been used a handful of times in the years since creation, and have to maintained / documented / fixed forever after. Your user page baubles belong in userspace. If you want to userfy this then I'd be happy with that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just commenting- this TfD made a mess of Special:SecurePoll/list/130. sonia♫ 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's because the nominator didn't put the TfD notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. I have done this now, as I have with several other templates listed on this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why not follow the instructions at wp:TFD#Listing a template?
|type=inline
needs to be added to the template.<noinclude></noinclude>
is only for substituted templates. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)- I don't understand that. The relevant section of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion starts "To list a template for deletion or merging...", and Tfm-inline is described as "for merging an inline template", which I took as meaning that listing for deletion and for merging were two different alternatives, with Tfm-inline only for proposals to merge, not to delete. The documentation at Template:Tfm-inline also seemed to me to indicate that it was for merging, not deletion. Have I misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That section says:
- Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
- For deletion:
{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
- For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template:
{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}}
- For deletion of an inline template:
{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}}
- For merging:
{{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}
- For merging an inline template:
{{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}
- For deletion:
- Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
- Farther down it says:
- For templates designed to be substituted, add
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
- For templates designed to be substituted, add
- That appears to be the only case where noinclude should be used. The third item on the first list shows what to do in this case. Does that make more sense? Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That section says:
- I don't understand that. The relevant section of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion starts "To list a template for deletion or merging...", and Tfm-inline is described as "for merging an inline template", which I took as meaning that listing for deletion and for merging were two different alternatives, with Tfm-inline only for proposals to merge, not to delete. The documentation at Template:Tfm-inline also seemed to me to indicate that it was for merging, not deletion. Have I misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why not follow the instructions at wp:TFD#Listing a template?
- That's because the nominator didn't put the TfD notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. I have done this now, as I have with several other templates listed on this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Template:User9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
53 transclusions total. Fully redundant to {{user2}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - someone finds it useful. Different formatting than proffered alternative. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete after adding a <sup> option to {{user2}}. we need fewer of these, not more with random numeric names. Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any documentation on how to transform {{user2}} to <sup> I'm assuming it's a parameter in the template?Crazynas t 16:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that Frietjes's implication was that somebody should add it, if this is really needed (a clue: it almost certainly isn't), rather than that it already exists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any documentation on how to transform {{user2}} to <sup> I'm assuming it's a parameter in the template?Crazynas t 16:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As a user of this template, I think it should be kept. The <sup> makes the useful talk, contribs, and count links less visibly obtrusive while still leaving them present for those who need them. Would support deletion if a parameter were added to {{user2}} to effect <sup>, or maybe even <small>. This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.
Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Missing word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Another instance of template creep, where tagging is more effort than just fixing the problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, wp:missing word and the first section of wt:missing word have a pretty good explanation of why the template exists. In short, it's for when:
- You see an obvious missing word in a sentence.
- You don't know what it is.
- You don't think other editors are likely to notice it.
- Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- One does not have to be a mind reader to fix a missing word. Considering that wording is not set in stone, one can do many things, including completely rewriting the passage in question or simply eliminating it, or (heaven forbid) going back to the cited source and inferring what the missing words should be based on that. We should not be encouraging lazy editing. Half the tags we slap up on articles are unnecessary, and we need to spend more time (heaven forbid) actually fixing things than going around dropping little nag-boxes and nag-by-notes all over the place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Plainly more effort than it's worth. The "essay" linked by cimanyD is really just supporting documentation, by the same author as the template. It is far-fetched to suggest that this is of general use, straw-clutching as to potential uses aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned that because someone could easily go to the template page, see that there was no documentation, and quickly say "delete" without ever seeing the explanation for why the template exists. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I just fixed all instances of this tag in the article namespace, so as of this writing, it is not being used in any articles. All of them were on unsourced statements to begin with, which meant that it wasn't a matter of just adding a missing word, but cutting out an incomplete statement that had no verification in the first place. Another passive-aggressive template effectively died in mainspace today. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The template creator explains that it was created after noticing a problem in Southern American English and the first use of the template appears to be here. I wouldn't have had any idea what to put there either, so the argument that "one does not have to be a mind reader to fix a missing word" doesn't fly in that case. However, I would have been more tempted to use {{clarifyme}} (now just {{clarify}}) to highlight the problem than {{missing word}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- To me, since it was attached to an unsourced statement, that would be a case where one would just simply prune out the statement and mention it on the talk page if it's that crucial. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)