Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 31



Template:Glitchtech

 * 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 debate was delete. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)



Unused navigation template, associated band article Glitchtech was created and speedily deleted on the same day as the template at hand. Amalthea Talk 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; not needed if associated band article does not exist. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure it could be recreated at a time when it's more notable (if it ever reaches that stage). But right now it's obsolete. Actually that word doesn't do it justice. It's certainly not "in good working order". In fact it's a bit of an eyesore. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:Draft CSD templates

 * 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 debate was Delete. Consent obtained from all contributors of substance; deleted as WP:CSD and WP:CSD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

41 draft templates, no longer needed now that content has been copied to the real templates. See also previous discussion here, here and here. Coppertwig (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * db-g2/new
 * db-g3/new
 * db-g4/new
 * db-g5/new
 * db-g6/new
 * db-g7/new
 * db-g8/new
 * db-g12/new
 * db-a1/new
 * db-a7/new
 * db-i1/new
 * db-i2/new
 * db-i3/new
 * db-i4/new
 * db-i5/new
 * db-i6/new
 * db-i7/new
 * db-i8/new
 * db-i9/new
 * db-r1/new
 * db-r2/new
 * db-r3/new
 * db-u1/new
 * db-u2/new
 * db-u3/new
 * db-t1/new
 * db-t2/new
 * db-t3/new
 * db-p2/new
 * db/new
 * db-xfd/new
 * db-empty/new
 * db-disambig/new
 * db-copypaste/new
 * db-move/new
 * db-movedab/new
 * db-ccnoncom/new
 * Badname/new
 * Cfr-speedy/new
 * Duplicate/new
 * Comment: Bah. This nomination is entirely absurd. These should be speedily deleted if they're no longer needed. If you had just asked Happy-melon, he probably would've been happy to do so himself. Instead, each page was individually tagged; quite the waste of resources. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this TfD absurd, but MZM is right that these could be speedy deleted as housekeeping, per the cited discussions. I'm assuming no significant change to the prose was made, so there's no GDFL issue. (but I might be thinking too hard) -- Ned Scott 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did start going through and G7'ing the ones where all the contributors had explicitly endorsed deletion; I didn't manage to finish, unfortunately. Certainly I've no objection to deletion. (also) Happy‑melon 09:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just use G6. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When Coppertwig went the "no longer needed, please delete" route, he was advised to bring them to TfD, here. The first admin to respond to that request, wrote "At first blush, these don't look like good speedy-deletion candidates to me." That would make G6 inappropriate, as G6 is only for uncontroversial deletions. Some of them, like this one, could easily be deleted as G7, as Coppertwig was the only substantial contributor. Others, perhaps not. I'll take a look at the individual listings to see which can be handled in that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted as G7 all those to which only Coppertwig contributed substantially (that is, sufficient to warrant necessary retention for GFDL concerns). I have deleted as G6 all those to which only Coppertwig, Happy-melon and/or I have substantially contributed, since Happy-melon consents here. That leaves just a few which have had input from others. Or other. As far as I can see, that would be User:Od Mishehu. I'll check with him to see if he has any objections to the deletion of his contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection on my part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:South Yorkshire - Humberside tramways

 * 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 debate was Replace with newer template and delete -- delldot  &nabla;.  21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant template. Superseeded by Historic UK Trams that includes all abandoned tramways throughout the United Kingdom, and includes all the tramways included in this template. Arsenikk (talk)  14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the newer template is missing a link to Dearne District Light Railways. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that could be sorted and one template used? :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:Inuse-section

 * 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 debate was no consensus to delete. delldot  &nabla;.  17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sectioninuse was TfD deleted 6 June 2006 and and recreated a month later, on 19 July 2006, as Template:Inuse-section. Inuse-section was and still is redundant to and should be deleted. Suntag (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It serves a specific, useful purpose.  I created inuse-section as a way to basically rope off a section of the article as undergoing a major edit while indicating that the rest of the article was not being edited, and okay to work on.  After all, editing separate sections of an article at once will not cause an edit conflict.  I found that the inuse tag was too broad for situations when we're only working on a certain part of the article.  When working on all different parts of the article, then yes - use the big inuse tag.  But for smaller parts, that's the purpose of inuse-section, and why it needs to be kept.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The message parameter on inuse seems to offer what you need. Bazj (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Bazj (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Delete13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC): Not sure, but I think in 2006 when Sectioninuse was deleted, editing different sections still caused edit conflicts. Now it's a useful template. However, if inuse is suitably modified to always say "this page or section" or (preferably) to say "this section" when given some parameter, then this template can be deleted. I don't think  just using the "message" parameter is adequate if the sentence will still begin "this article is actively..." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: inuse could be easily modified to have a "section" parameter which, if specified, could for example replace the initial word "This" with "A section of this", and perhaps append "Feel free to edit other sections." to the end of the message. (Possibly two different optional wordings could be designed, one if someone wants to put the template at the top of the article indicating that they're editing a named section, and another if they want to put it at the top of the section.) When I said "merge" I only meant that the inuse template would have to be modified in a satisfactory way, not that a redirect is needed. Now that I realize that it wouldn't be complicated to edit inuse, I think deletion is OK, provided a satisfactory modification of inuse can be achieved. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Serves a useful purpose, by specifying the relevant part of a long article. I think Coppertwig has the history of it right. DGG (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant and superfluous. Although not completely elegant in its present un-revised form, the original inuse template has sufficient fuctionality to be placed on a section with an appropriate message. a couple of edits to the template to say "page or section" would remove the inelegance. Here might be an example usage:


 * Keep until a clean, elegant, simple parameter solution to this problem is developed for the inuse template. Then 'Delete this template as having redundant functionality. This functionality is very important and needed. I use it a lot.  Royal broil  02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and either revise inuse to always state "this page or section" or add a "section=yes" parameter. Although the parameter option is ideal, the first change can be done immediately, so there's no need to keep inuse-section around. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A spin-off of the template on the same page would surely serve just as well. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the same function can be done with another template, but this one seems to be simpler. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Serves a useful purpose while allows to bypass a global inuse that is slammed over the whole article. Thus, an editor requests a courtesy to edit a section for a short time without edit conflicts but does not restrict the whole article. I guess the proponents of the deletion have little experience in extensively editing long and complex articles. --Irpen 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a straw man (and the last sentence is an ad hominem argument—an inaccurate guess, incidentally). It has already been suggested by the proponents of deletion that revising inuse to always state "this page or section" or adding a "section=yes" parameter to the template, both of which are solutions that avoid the need to place the template on the whole article, should be a pre-condition to deleting this template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A straw man is invoking ad hominem out of this air. I did not imply any bad intent on anyone's part. If the concept of placing a request of a courtesy hold on a single section does not draw any objection and the whole issue is which template of the two to use, I don't see it as a good justification for deletion. The dedicated template is simply simpler to use and is more convenient for the editors. So, why not keep it for this reason alone? --Irpen 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest that you implied bad intent on anyone's part, and I hope my comment did not come across that way. However, thank you for clarifying your position. Regarding the simplicity of use argument, would I be correct in assuming that it applies only to the solution that involves adding a parameter to inuse? In the other case, i.e. if the wording of inuse is revised to always state "this page or section", it should be just as easy to add inuse to a section as it would be to add inuse-section. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would still be much more convenient to be able to clearly define what I am requesting to hold for a short time, an article or a section. I simply don't see a good reason to delete the template that pinpoints the request to the section without any ambiguity in favor of a template with an "OR". --Irpen 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.