Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 17



WikiProject user warnings/Wnote

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject user warnings/Wnote

This is just confusing. Every time I see this it is slapped on the talk page of some IP that has been warned and blocked a bunch of times. We warn users for improper behavior, and then warn them that the warnings they receive should be substituted? That makes no sense at all, and yet the documentation says "This template should precede all User talk warning messages, whether templates or manually entered." I don't believe that is done 99% of the time, and when it is done it serves no purpose. Surely, it is the user leaving the warning not the user receiving it who needs to be properly educated on how to use warning templates? So, it seems to me that this misrepresents policy and serves no discernible purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed header, for whatever reason this page, which clearly is a template, is not in the template namespace... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom — wrong namespace, totally illogical. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not find this template helpful or useful in any way.  I routinely remove it from user talk pages that I edit (generally when warning or leaving a block message).  FWIW, I will often replace it with OW which serves the same purpose as the "Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history" part of WikiProject user warnings/Wnote.  Perhaps this template could simply be redirected to OW as an alternative to deleting it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope this can be settled quickly, since a bot is now subst-ing the TfD notice onto thousands of IP talk pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2012 (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.

Infobox settlement redirects

 * 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 close. Wrong venue, please list at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a clean up request. The following templates are all redirects to Infobox settlement. This has 303883 inclusions. Most of them have only two edits, so no special history is lost.
 * Infobox Administrative division - 0 inclusions
 * Infobox area - 0
 * Infobox Department - 0
 * Infobox division - 14 (but all articles are about entities named Zone!)
 * Infobox Division - 0
 * Infobox governorate - 0
 * Infobox location - 0
 * Infobox parish - 0
 * Infobox place - 0
 * Infobox Place - 0
 * Infobox province - 1
 * Infobox region - 0
 * Infobox subdivision - 0
 * Infobox territory - 0
 * Infobox Vald - 0
 * USA City infobox - 0
 * US City infobox - 0

They add no, absolutely no, functionality, instead they create little problems, small ones, but absolutely unnecessary. There are 303883+ articles to manage, so each streamlining helps. More are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_settlement&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 Remember, this is about a very high profile template 303883 inclusions as of today, that may go up to a million one day. NVanMinh (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Infobox province has been on Tunesian governorate articles, also on municipality and other non province pages
 * 2) On the bottom of an article in edit mode, these templates are shown, and in addition Infobox settlement is listed
 * 3) Using counters one cannot be sure, whether the counter for Infobox settlement includes the redirects or not
 * 4) Using other tools, different templates (with no extra benefit) can cause extra work, e.g. one needs to activate redirect at https://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php - but what if a tool cannot do that?
 * 5) They are all generic templates, "region" does say nothing about the type of entity. Administrative?
 * 6) If entities get new designations, all templates would need to be changed to the new name, a problem that does not exist with Infobox settlement
 * 7) * like the seven divisions of Burma, now named region, would now need Infobox region.
 * 8) * like the departments of Peru, would now need Infobox region.
 * 9) They bloat pages like: Database reports/Indefinitely protected templates without many transclusions/3
 * 10) They may show up in template searches, attracting people, wasting time
 * speedy close as wrong venue, you want WP:Redirects for discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2012 (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.