Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 6

Ready to delete log
Templates for deletion says
 * Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Since the closing is now on the daily log, and I've noticed that few are added to the /Log/Deleted, couldn't this step be eliminated?
 * --William Allen Simpson 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion
Should we make Userboxes for deletion to deal with all that rubbish so that we can focus again on templates outside of userspace? No wonder there's a backlog here. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see why this is attractive, the problem is that if you do it, it will mean that with fewer 'normal' participants seeing it, the userbox fanatics will find it all the easier to block any deletions. --Doc ask?  19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed...That could be a serious issue. Michael 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere appears fixed
The recent problems surround Special:Whatlinkshere for templates appears to be fixed. I've come across several templates that have plainly had their links fixed between nomination and closure, and 4549 indicates that Tim Starling added a patch and reran the relevant script recently. This message is an advertisement for willing victims in the Holding cell, which is desirous of your ministrations. In exchange, you will find that your edit count goes up in a satisfying manner Note that this can be fatal as usual. -Splash talk 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. And thanks to Tim Starling, of course. This is very good news. If I'm enough bored (and have time) I will continue to help at the holding cell. Sadly, I've been recently very busy in re WP:AUM, which is (was?) a tremendous wikipedian-hours resource hog. BTW I'm not interested in high edit counts (to the contrary - Re "recent changes spam" by my bot and accusations for running it too fast). --Adrian Buehlmann 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now if I could only get the dev's to fix the inaccurate (doubled) Whatlinkshere information I reported in 4428. On a page that uses a template redirect (like Template:US City infobox), the "Templates used on this page" shows a link to the redirect AND to the redirect target. Also, the article shows up twice in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City (once normally, and once through the redirect). This is nonintuitive, and redundant. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I would also like to know why it is not possible to have links created through a transclusion shown as such, like those created through a REDIRECT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This does seem a little bit weird to me. I suppose, from a maintenance point-of-view, the 'remedy' is to always orphan any redirects first so that you're actually looking for the name of the redirect rather than of the actual template. I imagine a bot not doing redirects-first would get confused. -Splash talk 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Criteria T1
User:Angr has been voting to speedy delete articles under T1 on the basis that argument on the template talk page "proves" that the template is "divisive". This seems preposterous to me, because it means that any time I want to get a template deleted, all I have to do is troll the talk page and the resulting argument will make it speedyable under T1. Can we get a clarification of what "divisive" means? --causa sui talk 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Divisive" in this context means that there are one or more admins willing to delete the item in question. T1 can only be applied to templates, however, not to articles.  --Dschor 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously...
Hey guys, why are like half the things being suggested for deletion, because wikipedia is no place for advertisements or whatnot? I mean come on, there have to be other, more important things to be worried about then this...--TheOneCalledA1 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request admin assistance
Remember the templates AnarchismDildo and AnarchismDef? The user who created those, Hogeye, has been banned for a month. Now, however, he is even more belligerent as an anonymous user and sockpuppet, User:AnarChrist. He recently vandalized Template:Primarysources by wiping the page and replacing everything with the same thing from AnarchismDildo/Def. I'm not sure what bureaucratic practice I'm supposed to follow in order to help put a stop to the disruptiveness, so I was wondering if any admins wanted to take a look at the situation (evidence). Thanks! --AaronS 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 03:51, 16 February 2006 Sarge Baldy blocked "AnarChrist (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of banned user) --causa sui talk 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Justification for my removal
I removed my own nomination of three templates because I have changed my mind. These should be keep. Since I nominated them, I think removing it should be fine. The other votes were only keep. Sorry for the mess.--Adam (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

tfd-inline
Please use tfd-inline when proposing the deletion of userboxes. Just paste in into the body text and it will not break anyone's page. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No archives for TFD?
The archives seem to be incomplete, or at least muddled. For instance, though Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 exists, I can find absolutely nothing explaining or documenting the vote to delete Template:User Lutheran: there's not even any TfD page that links to it, and the deletion debate only happened a week or so ago and is directly relevant to discussions about userboxes on the main TFD page now. --Saforrest 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. There's no link because there was no discussion.  See User_talk:Improv and Deletion_review/Userbox_debates. --Saforrest 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Useless
Could someone del Template:Useless? J. D. Redding 11:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You should have put it on Speedy deletion as nonsense. But I'm deleting it.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

tfdend
There are a plethora of ending templates. I've found:
 * (badly redirected with different parameters),
 * for 2004 and 2005 Logs,
 * , and
 * (confusingly, different parameters than oldafdfull).

Meanwhile, I've developed: At least for me, that will help for remembering the syntax.
 * to match the practices of
 * (that is, just date and optional result, with bolding supplied).

I'm going to spend the evening fixing all the tfd-keep and tfd-kept. What should we do about oldtfd and oldtfdfull?
 * --William Allen Simpson 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect them, that way you don't have to go through and update every single instance of them. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Each has radically different parameters, as the way that TfD was Logged changed over time. I've just finished hand replacing all the remaining tfd-keep with valid tfd-kept (often searching for the log entry), but those are for 2004 and 2005 Logs. Oldtfd was probably subst'd, as it has no remaining inclusions.


 * For new logs, it's down to oldtfdfull or tfdend. The former requires the date in 3 parameters, the latter a single parameter date (like cfdend), and has a default result (keep, like tfd-kept) for the lazy among us.
 * --William Allen Simpson 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in having a template to affix to talk pages for templates about to be deleted. John Reid 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. Templates that are deleted can on occaision have the talk page remain.  The result parameter is required to describe any conditions.  It defaults to "Keep", just like cfdend.
 * --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Noticed that the Deletion process still had references to moving to the old log, so I updated it to match the current process, using this template. Note that the Talk discussion there has decided not to subst: the keep templates anymore.
 * --William Allen Simpson 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much value in tagging talk pages of deleted templates but I won't argue against it. I don't care which template is used to tag talk pages after closing so long as only one is used and it is mentioned in the TfD instructions. All other template names should rd to the preferred choice or be deleted. Failure to preview and pay attention to parameter use is punishable by ten lashes in public square. John Reid 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, of course! Anyway, the Deletion process and the Templates for deletion/Header were diverging, so I merged this into Templates for deletion/Closing.  And I've listed the obsolete templates for speedy deletion, pointing to this discussion.
 * --William Allen Simpson 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Tdeprecated be affixed to tfd-keep and oldtfd? User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They're redirects, that won't show up. There are no known references to them anymore, but they might show up in edit histories.  I spent a fair amount of time converting them.  They had different incompatibile parameters, so it took a lot more than just a redirect.
 * --William Allen Simpson 01:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)