Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29 edit

Template:Nrhp source1 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 03:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template that we don't use anywhere in article space. Keeping the template around is misleading, as the site it links is a mirror of official National Park Service data and any links should be to the relevant NPS page instead. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:22, 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:Personal issues 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. ~ RobTalk 03:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to other wikibreak templates. A random sample of its 50 transclusions shows it is used on the pages of editors who last edited, variously, in 2007, 2008, and 2010; and one on the user page of an active editor, who placed it there in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to {{Busy}} per WP:PRIVACY; we should not be encouraging editors, many of whom are very young indeed, to reveal their personal issues publicly, or - even - the mere fact that they are experiencing personal issues, which the assholes of this community are going to have no reservations to use as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I also find the WP:PRIVACY rationale for deletion bizarre. Of all the user page templates, categories, etc. that disclose specific and sometimes very personal information about the user, it's this one -- the one that talks about vague "personal issues" -- that's problematic? I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Busy}} per Alakzi, and also because it's actually somewhat to the {{Busy}} template, anyways. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is a privacy issue since it's quite vague. It gives a particular message that {{Busy}} doesn't. Non-removal by inactive editors should not affect legitimate users of the template; moreover "undefined period of time" technically does include long-term placements. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice: userfy. No reason to delete a template in Template: space which would be wholly inoffensive in user space. BethNaught (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Busy}} can give an identical message, as shown below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not identical, it's a wholly different style. Why are you trying to suck all the variety of of Wikibreak templates et al.? BethNaught (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhodo, I see this template as useful. - 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep please. This is the most appropriate template for me to use right now. Freikorp (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they may want the different style offered by this template, e.g. without a picture. What's it to you, anyway? BethNaught (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture in {{Busy}} can be changed. See below. "What's it to you, anyway" is at best an inappropriate, and at worst an unacceptable, question in TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to start using {{Busy}} in that way, it's effectively redundant to {{tmbox}}. Shall we delete {{Busy}}, then? What could convince you to stop TfDing the living daylights out of the Wikibreak templates? BethNaught (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree here, this is getting to be WP:POINT. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 6 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:No Internet 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 serves a purpose distinct from other wikibreak templates and can be useful. ~ RobTalk 23:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to other wikibreak templates. A random sample of its mere 19 transclusions shows some on archived talk pages, on the pages of editors who have not edited since, variously, 2007, 2008 and 2010, and one on the user page of an active editor, who placed it there in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MIght be worth having USer:Epicgenius'input since he uses these templates for his mammoth switch statement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is distinct from most to all other Wikibreak templates. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is plausible that this could be used as a wikibreak excuse. Epic Genius (talk) 22:59, 1 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:Attempting wikibreak 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. ~ RobTalk 03:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and vague template, A random sample of its 67 transclusions shows it is used on the pages of editors who last edited in 2006 (in one case for an editor blocked since that year), 2010 and 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added this very one to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will be using it for the next two days. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is a more honest wikibreak template for some users and conveys a message others don't. Per I dream of horses, it is in legitimate use and the fact that some old users have not removed it is not relevant. BethNaught (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Users use it and find this template helpful, why delete it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This template is also redundant to {{Busy}}, as shown below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 5 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:User temporarily 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a recent multi-template TfD, which closed as "no consensus". I'm re-nominating it separately so we can have a more focussed discussion.

The template has 422 transclusions, a large number of these are on the pages of editors who have not edited for years (and so hardly temporary). The wording is bizarre ("This does not imply the violation of any Wikipedia policies."). Finally, it is redundant to {{Busy}} and other "away" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, preferably permanently. This has been placed on user and user talk pages by third parties, a little less than ten years ago; {{Not around}} would make a suitable replacement. However, editors would be best served by a "user last edited" gadget or user script or somesuch; placing this or any other similar notice on the pages of people who've parted ways with Wikipedia strikes me as intrusive. Further, these notices have got very limited coverage, and are - therefore - unreliable indicators of users' availability. Alakzi (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into {{Wikibreak}}. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of it somehow, not fussy about a particular way. This is very vague and is redundant to a variety of other templates, both specific and non-specific. Also per Alakzi, if This has been placed on user and user talk pages by third parties is true. BethNaught (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably by substituting those that were placed by the editor themselves and removing those placed by third parties. I agree that it's highly inappropriate for these to be placed by a third party. ~ RobTalk 03:45, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_29&oldid=1064387252"