Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 22

< September 21	September 23 >

September 22

Template:AFL Players Drafted From Gippsland Power

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 Speedy deleted. Unhelpful navbox created by indef blocked user and sockpuppet. Moondyne (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFL Players Drafted From Gippsland Power (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

over templatisation - not a notable intersection of players drafted from a single junior club. Not actually used on any page. Almost certainly created by a sock of indef banned User:BrianBeahr. The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Templatecruft created by an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who has created a bunch of useless navboxes. I agree with everything said by The-Pope. Jenks24 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2011 (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:AFL Medalists from Latrobe Valley & Gippsland

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 Speedy deleted. Unhelpful navbox created by indef blocked user and sockpuppet. Moondyne (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFL Medalists from Latrobe Valley & Gippsland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

over templatisation - not a notable intersection of awards from a people from an area. Not actually used on any page. Almost certainly created by a sock of indef banned User:BrianBeahr.The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Templatecruft created by an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who has created a bunch of useless navboxes. I agree with everything said by The-Pope. Jenks24 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2011 (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:St Kilda Football Club Leading Disposals

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 Speedy deleted. Unhelpful navbox created by indef blocked user and sockpuppet. Moondyne (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda Football Club Leading Disposals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not an actual award, it is "overnavboxing". Being the leader of a statistical parameter that may be different depending on the source (disposal stats aren't officially kept like goals, different newspapers often have slightly different numbers). Not a useful template. The-Pope (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even clear that unofficial statistics warrant inclusion as a footnote in an article. It certainly doesn't seem to be an appropriate topic for a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different to leading goalkickers, which is a noted distinction for all AFL clubs and in many (if not most) cases an actual award is given, and they get noted on the honour roll. More importantly, there's a league-wide analogue in the Coleman Medal. This, however, is just a stat. What next, a navbox for most tackles in a season? Leading pressure acts for the Gold Coast Suns? Most clangers at the Brisbane Bears? Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the creator is almost certainly a new sock of indef banned User:BrianBeahr. The-Pope (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templatecruft created by an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who has created a bunch of useless navboxes. I agree with everything said above. Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leading disposals, marks & goalkickers are prominently displayed on all AFL website that have stats and are awards at some clubs. The stats are the pfficial AFL stats that have been enterred on a statistics website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.228.6 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2011 (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:PP-coupon

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PP-coupon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Unused and of no obvious utility~~ Used in substituted form on only one page, which looks largely inactive anyway. If Headbomb still wants to retain this is can be userfied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy it for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 22 September 2011 (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:User20

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 redirect to {{user6}}, and make the email link in {{user6}} optional. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep - someone finds it useful. –xeno^talk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all other user template nominations below, per xeno. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in this discussion (Buzz-tardis in particular) may be interested to note that I have created {{user-multi}}, a flexible and easily extensible user link template. {{User20|Example}} Example (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is equivalent to {{user-multi|user=Example|t|c|ct|l|m|bl}} Example (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2011 (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:User22

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 move to {{User-SecurePoll}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep - someone finds it useful. –xeno^talk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, as far as I can tell it is only being used by one user. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Just commenting- this TfD made a mess of Special:SecurePoll/list/130. sonia♫ 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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}}

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.

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)[reply]
Rename to {{user-SecurePoll}} (or possibly substitute its usage in system messages) and remove from {{Signatures}}. It is being used in the SecurePoll interface, and it is apparently scarcely used outside that location. The user who is using it can still use it, but the template won't bother us any more if this is done. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to {{User-SecurePoll}} as suggested by User:This, that and the other. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted this template to a wrapper of {{user-multi}}. If this resolves the concerns of the nominator, perhaps we can close this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 27 September 2011 (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.