This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Plastikspork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cite NRO[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure I understand this close. Sure, two editors !voted "delete" and I was the only one explicitly arguing for keeping, but it's not raw vote count that matters, is it? I'd expect a discussion leading to consensus, and I wouldn't have minded if any of the other two participants had addressed my arguments. Is there some policy that I'm missing which says that templates should be deleted simply on the grounds of being unused? Uanfala (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(tps) Uanfala, item 3 in Reasons to delete a template was addressed by User:BU Rob13 with the comment "The evidence that this isn't likely to be used is obvious here". Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was obviously involved in this discussion, but I also close discussions at TfD with frequency. This outcome was well-within the norms of typical TfD outcomes. In cases where templates have existed for a long time but were never transcluded more than a couple times, the burden of proof is firmly on someone wishing to keep the template to demonstrate evidence that some editors would find the template useful and want to use it. Obviously, it's impossible to prove any template could never be used, but a lack of usage for many months is strong evidence that the probability is quite low in the absence of further evidence. ~ Rob13Talk 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
BU Rob13, thank you for the explanation. This does appear to be an implicit rule at TfD. I haven't been able to find it in policy, so I was wondering: has that been discussed anywhere? I don't remember seeing anything immediately relevant when browsing the TfD talk archives. Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD:2016 September 4#Single-use_weatherbox_templates[edit]

Why did you wait a full week after closing to address to deal with the formerly doubly transcluded templates? The unanimous opinion only applied to those templates with single transclusion. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(tps) and they were singly transcluded before you unilaterally decided to start adding them to other articles. if you really need them in multiple articles, you should use LST, but please check the references section when you do so. I spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up reference name collisions. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Again, a sky-high pile of nonsense. The discussion did not pertain to usage of LST, and if it did, templates such as ({{New York City weatherbox}}) would have been fair game for that discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
they were singly transcluded before you unilaterally decided to start adding them to other articles in the middle of the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
And yet none of the additional transclusions were challenged via reversion. I should note that some titles at the list I linked to above were left untouched by Plastikspork (e.g. {{Islip, New York weatherbox}}), which leaves me dumbstruck at the seeming arbitrary mergers and deletions from yesterday. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)