User talk:Zackmann08

User	Talk	Awards	Sources	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox

---

Unused Templates

@Gonnym, Jonesey95, and Tom (LT): if you are interested, I've created my own report... User:Zackmann08/unused templates. Right now I have to run it manually, but it contains the first 1000 templates with no transclusions. Would welcome any assistance XfDing them... Slowly but surely we can knock them down. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I love it. We should be able to narrow it down a bit. I don't know quarry queries, but can you exclude pages that transclude certain templates? We should exclude pages that transclude {{disambig}}, {{require subst}}, {{Template ambiguous}}, or {{subst only}}, and possibly others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

We should also be able to use this list to start tagging subst-only templates, so that they do not appear on the report. I'm looking at {{Afc move}} and its friends, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Template:Attached KML/Alabama State Route 13 is actually being used somehow, but I don't know how those KML things work. They should probably be excluded from your report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I just fixed the subst only stuff, check the report again? If you look at the source code you will see this snippet:

AND t2.tl_title IN ('Require_subst', 'Subst_only', 'Substed', 'Substitute','Substituted', 'Substme', 'Substonly')

That checks for the template using any of those templates. I can easily add to those. Take a bit of time and look over the report, let me know what other narrowing criteria you would like to see and I will update the query in a bit. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Great idea! I was thinking of starting off my own personal quest by date :D. Do you think you could create a list that matches the above of anything created up to and including 2007 that meets the above? I feel like by working from the oldest, we can iron out flaws and also there will be less entries to evaluate so I may get a better idea of what we're dealing with. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Attached KML|display=title,inline}} at Alabama State Route 13 uses Template:Attached KML/Alabama State Route 13. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just modified the query to check the category directly instead of looking at it through a wrapper template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions to refine Zackmann08's query in order to focus in on the real junk that should be deleted and is likely to be uncontroversial. The goal of these refinements is to remove template-space pages from the report that are likely to be seen as "Keep because it's harmless or potentially useful." Let's not waste anyone's time or harm our reputation by nominating those. For example, a page called "Template:Foobar/sandbox2" may be unused, but (a) it should be unused and (b) it's not doing any harm, is unlikely to be placed in an article in error, and could be useful for template development. So in anticipation of those arguments, let's not have it on this report of low-hanging fruit.

• Remove all Attached KML files (on the assumption that they are actually being used somewhere) (this is already done).
• Exclude pages transcluding the following templates: {{Disambiguation}}; {{Link language/Notes}} (xxx icon templates, which will survive deletion attempts).
• Exclude templates created less than x days ago (180? 365? 730?). Let's focus on the old unused stuff first, and work our way forward.
• Exclude pages with these strings in the names, with text before and optionally after: "/sandbox.*" (to get "/sandbox2" and "/sandbox old"); "/testcases.*" (to get things like "/testcases2" and "/testcases/Archive 2")

It would be nice to end up with a "low-hanging fruit" report with a total of a few thousand templates on it. Anything more is too big to handle in a reasonable period of time. Once we get that report down to a smaller size, we can ease up on some of these criteria.

[text moved to "Groups of templates" section below.]

If you run the report again with these modified criteria, I'll take another look to see what other patterns I see. Thanks for doing this. I like a systematic approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sub

@Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: thank you all for the feedback! Lot of information here... I have added a Suggested Improvements section to User:Zackmann08/unused_templates/notes. As you come up with new tips to narrow the scope of the query, please add them in bulletpoint form there. I will strike them as I implement them in the query. That will help keep the conversation organized.

Pppery thanks for the update to the query. Can I make a request tho? In the future, can you suggest the changes to me in the section I mentioned above? This isn't a power trip about editing my user page! The actual query is stored elsewhere, that is just a copy of the code. It just makes it easier for me to update if you suggest the changes. I do really appreciate the suggested change though and plan to implement it!

Jonesey95 love your suggestions to slowly weed things down, particularly the part about older templates. Going to look into that now. Part of my query also filters out pages that already have a pending nomination on them, so that will help prevent duplicated efforts.

--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's my general instinct to boldly do rather than talk, but the comment of suggesting changes makes sense. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: FYI the query returns 28,545 pages in total. Unfortunately that produces too much data. Wikipedia actually won't let me create a page with that big of a table. So for now I'm limiting it to the first 5000. You can look at the full results here, they just aren't in a nice pretty table. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Maybe that's why MZM's report spans multiple pages. Time to poke through the reports to look for groups of templates to either nominate or exclude from the report. I have posted a couple of talk page notes to ask about a few groups, like the ones in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: I am using a script to update the unused templates page (User:Zackmann08/unused_templates). Would any of you like to be pinged when that update occurs? Obviously you can simply watch the page, but if any of you would like, I can add your username to the edit summary so that when I update it you get a pinged notification. Let me know. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Groups of templates to investigate

• It looks like the subtemplates of {{Authority control}} are no longer needed or used, as of five years ago, and should have been deleted long ago. They could be nominated as a batch.
• It looks like there are groups of templates, like the ones that start with Template:Bpsp and maybe some of the AfC templates, that should have {{substituted}} or a similar template added to their documentation. That will make the docs more accurate and drop the templates off of this report.
• I have asked Peter coxhead about Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates (0).
• I posted a note at Template talk:Dts about 40+ apparently unused subpages of that template.
• About 3,000 templates on the report start with "Template:TFA_title". Are these still useful somehow? They should either be deleted or removed from the report.
• There are roughly 1,000 apparently unused "Template:S-line/" templates.
• There are over 3,000 items on the list that start with "Template:POTD". Are these still useful somehow? They should either be deleted or removed from the report.
• There are over 10,000 items on the list that start with "Template:PBB". Are these still useful somehow? They should either be deleted or removed from the report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There is another editor that handles all the "Template:S-line/" templates. I'll ping him into this discussion - @Mackensen. --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jonesey95: all of the Template:PBB templates were used exclusively by a now blocked bot User:ProteinBoxBot. I would say bulk nominated all of them... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Anomie, whose bot creates the TFA title subtemplates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Template:TFA title/ (at least the ones where a date makes up the rest of the title) are for each day's Wikipedia:Today's featured article. I don't think they should be deleted, they're probably useful as machine-readable historical record if nothing else. The ones at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:POTD/ are similar for Wikipedia:Picture of the day. I don't know whether there's use for old Special:PrefixIndex/Template:POTD protected/ (since AFAICT they only exist so Main Page cascading doesn't protect the general-use daily POTD templates), you should probably ask at WT:POTD. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unused S-line templates can happen for a lot of reasons: replacement by Module:Adjacent stations, cancellation of whatever train service they helped display, refactoring. In general they don't get cleaned up. I'm trying to address that now, though migrations to Adjacent stations. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Added a list of Unused documentation templates if anyone wants to focus on those... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Great ideas, and particularly agree with Jonesey95 that we should start by focusing on low-hanging fruit. It may be useful as large exclusion groups appear of templates that are not low-hanging (eg the POTD, TFA templates) that they are excluded from the list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Zackmann08 maybe we can propose a set of the doc pages (let's say 10 - 20, then 20 - 50; then doc pages last edited in 2007, 2008 - 10 or something) as trial runs to see what other editors think. A doc page is here to serve the encyclopedia, I really can't see what the purpose is if it's not used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Regarding doc pages, any doc page of a redirect is a valid deletion (and in my opinion falls under WP:G8, but another editor disagrees), but redirects of actual templates should probably be reconnected. --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I found a few doc pages that were once used, but have been superseded by doc pages that are shared among multiple templates. Those could probably be redirected to the shared doc page without harm, but I would need to think through all of the possible side effects (some of which would be positive). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean those. Those can be deleted. I meant /docs of templates which use the template itself for docs/cats. If those are already created, then connecting them in my opinion is better (and then moving all docs and cats to them). --Gonnym (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: can I encourage you all to get WP:DISCORD setup? It would be great to have a group chat going to coordinate this effort. Obviously not a requirement, we can certainly continue talking here, but if you're willing to give it a shot, would make it easier to chat in real time. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, send me a channel link/invite. --Gonnym (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: for right now, Join Server is the way to go. My username there is the same as here. I'm working on getting ferret (who runs the discord server) to set us up a channel. More info to follow. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For reasons I explained at WT:TfD would prefer if possible to continue discussions on Wiki. I don't see a great need to change the venue based on our productive discussions going on here. On the other hand, happy that other editors are thinking about ways to improve elsewhere as well. Will participate actively on the Wiki :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

More Templates

@Gonnym, Jonesey95, Tom (LT), and Pppery: So there are 1,349 unused {{Userbox}} templates (at least that were created before Jan 1, 2018. see this query. Thoughts on nominating those? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Two notes - the first is that userboxes go to WP:MFD and second, if a userbox is part of a series of levels (1-5) then if any of the userboxes of that series is used, then I think probably all should be kept so the series is complete. --Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gonnym: why MFD if they are templates? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No idea, that's what it says. --Gonnym (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gonnym: Good to know! thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Need your help to review 2019 Bandipur forest fires Page

Dear Zackmann08, As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire i have created a Wikipedia article 2019 Bandipur forest fires, Need your help to review the same. Suggestions to improve the article are most welcome. Looking forward for your response.
--Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

TfD

I think you might be overestimating the community's capabilities if you believe it can handle 140 TfDs a day. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Uanfala: not sure what that is supposed to mean... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Uanfala. It might be a bit of an ask, but if the nominations can be ground (eg 100 nominations about sport squads or train stations or draft picks) that would make it a lot easier, as I can focus on the particular set more speedily than recalibrating for all 140 different templates. That said, liking your work and trying to comment as much as possible. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): yea I'm walking a fine line between needing to keep nominations separate and trying to group them. Part of the problem is that if 1 template is objected to, the entire TFD fails. With templates that are OBVIOUSLY all related, I do try to keep them in bulk. But I appreciate the feedback and your support! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. We had an issue with another user, who is now tbanned from TFD, who was nominating dozens of templates in a day. I highly suggest, if templates cannot be grouped (e.g. "Here are six did not win the championship team navboxes") that you limit yourself to maybe 10-15 per day. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: I think 10-15 is a bit too much. If this was frivolous, I.E. me just going through and willy nilly nominating things I just don't like, then I would 100% agree with you. But this isn't this is a very clear set of unused templates that is being done methodically. That being said, I think I will take a break today and am happy to cut back to a more manageable number in coming days. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, and I hope you didn't take my comment as a threat or anything. I guess I was just mentioning the previous case because there is a precedent for keeping the TFD pages (relatively) short-ish (in a vague hand-wavey sort of way...) since there are so few (relatively speaking) users who keep an eye on it. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Not at all!! I took your comment as a friendly word of caution, NOT a threat. I.E. "Other people have gotten in trouble in this area so just proceed with caution". You have always been kind to me so your feedback is greatly appreciated. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts on deleting unused election templates. It must take an amazing amount of patience! Number 57 22:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers - unknown parameters

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Town AT you provided numbers for unknown parameters. Can such numbers be add to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers? I have no idea how to obtain such numbers. 89.14.48.38 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Yes, I also loved these slightly subversive non-admin closures on Commons (RFCs + CFDs) and Meta (RFCs), and of course they are not really subversive for folks considering "admin time" as scarce resource. But you didn't mention "should be edited wrt WP:STATS as noted below" on this closure, and I fear that nobody will do it because you didn't say so: I watched this TFD from the WP:NUMFRIENDS + WP:TEAHOUSE sideline. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Data in templates

Batch for half of all wrappers (you didn't comment yet) has one opposer that created a data storage for his Cape Verde wrapper and wants to keep that. Since you worked on template data storage you might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers.

It is also a tfd grouping problem, if it fails for 1-4 [4 opposers, each concerned with one template] it may fail for all. 89.14.255.155 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)