< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

Template:Refbegin/TemplateData

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no reason to store TemplateData on a seperate subpage rather than directly on the /doc. Pppery 21:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some functional issue that has changed wrt. TemplateData which now makes transcluding the TemplateData invalid? Is there a policy which these violate? I'm not aware of one. Please provide some valid reason for deleting them, if there is one.
It sounds like this request is "I just don't like the way this was done, so I want them deleted, but I'm not willing to do the work of discussing it first on each template's talk page, then editing the template's documentation to make them redundant and testing to make sure I didn't break anything."
If you really don't like how this was done on each page, then bring it up on the talk page for each template. Develop a plan for testing that you don't break anything. Then edit the appropriate documentation. Don't forget to actually do the testing to verify that nothing broke. Prior to making such edits, make sure that none of these are used on multiple pages, which could be one of the reasons for transcluding them. If you really want these gone, do the work to make them redundant before asking for them to be deleted.
I really don't see why transcluding these is an issue. Maybe it's not the best way to do it, but so what? Even if there is no reason why, in each case, it was done this way, why does it matter sufficiently to justify going out of our way to spend the effort to change it?
Deleting them in mass makes work to move the text from the transcluded page the main documentation for each template and test. It also has the potential to break things. I see no valid reason to expend the time and effort to make it such that these are redundant. Let's use the effort which would be spent on this in some more productive way. — Makyen (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost all". So, for some reason you have grouped all of these, even ones which are used on multiple pages, into one request. By having done so, it is implied that there is some other reason for proposing these deletions. What is your real reason for this request?
Note that these are not templates. They are documentation for templates. While they are subpages in the template namespace, it's not clear to me that the same rule should be applied. There are quite valid reasons that the main template namespace is policed such that it does not include things which don't need to be there. I don't see that most of these reasons are valid for policing sub-pages.
You could make basically the same argument for all template documentation pages. Nearly all are only transcluded into only a single template page. By that logic, they should all be deleted and the documentation included directly into each template page.
I don't, fundamentally, have a problem with changing this (except for that vague memory that there was a reason to do it this way). I just don't see a reason to spend the time and effort to do so. Note that I would also argue against performing this task through normal editing. Doing so will occupy multiple editors to do the work and check it (even if you perform all the work, at least some of the other editors of those pages will want to check it). Frankly, I see making this change as a waste of effort for no apparent reason, and with no actual benefit. So far, you have yet to state any actual reason to do the work other than that you know of no reason to do it the way it is currently being done.
IMO, if this was going to be done, it should have been handled through normal editing, rather than nominating them for deletion. Nominating for deletion is for things that can't be handled through the normal editing process. But, until a reason is supplied why the work should be done, it just looks like a waste of effort to me. — Makyen (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2017 (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).

Template:Selfsubst

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 17. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (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).

Template:Checkip/Preload

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 17. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (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).

Template:Checkuser/Preload

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 17. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (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).

Template:DATEFORMAT:MDY

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template never went into widespread use and it doesn't look like a substed template either Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:Miss World America

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links. No article on the subject either. It is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:User-multi/bls

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to be unused, apparently supplanted by Module:UserLinks Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:ARWelcome

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).

The result of the discussion was move without redirect to Wikipedia:Abuse response/Welcome. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Abuse response process hasn't been active for years and this template has no transclusions Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:Str len/core

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 18. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (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).

Template:Request

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two incorrect transclusions aside, this template is not in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:SPImonth

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on comments on WT:SPI, this template does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:UpdatingDYK

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 138#Template:UpdatingDYK indicates that this template was never in use and not quite suitable in its current form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 8 April 2017 (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).

Template:Single-purpose account

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, per the talk page of Template talk:Single-purpose account#Deletion Request, is the following:

I would like this templated to be nominated for deletion per WP:TFD. It is transcluded on many pages, unfortunate since it is supposed to be subst'ed each time, but many of the pages are exceedingly old. I realize this template has been nominated before, but as a user who was editing way back in 2006 (until really 2010), I do think Wikipedia's culture has significantly changed over these years.

This template inherently violates WP:AGF. Every user who defended it in 2013 said that they could use it as code to tip off others in regards to a certain account. Most of those users said that the template was useful mostly for debates with socks. But either a user is violating Wikipedia's policy against sock puppets (and an investigation should be launched), or they should be judged on the strength of their arguments. This template is not the way to make a legitimate SOCK accusation, yet an accusation is certainly what it fundamentally is. (Even "potential sock" is an accusation.)

We do not punish people for being new users, nor is it against policy to have an exclusive interest in one page (assuming there is no conflict of interest, which is the alternative subtext of this template). Consider a suggestion that each new account's comments on a talk page be text-aligned right so that people could discriminate "new user" comments from others'. Such a suggestion would obviously be rejected; in theory, we don't minimize voices based on Wikipedia resumes. So even if this template was merely the equivalent to that (and that is what it proclaims to be), it wouldn't be acceptable. Even if we stopped here, a TFD would be appropriate.

And yet this template is worse than that proposed scenario. Why worse? Because in practice it invites abuse. At some point we have to recognize how users will functionally use templates like this. Say I am a user participating in a deletion discussion, and I oppose the deletion. Will I tag all new/single-issue focused accounts regardless of whether they agree with me or not? Or will I target the users whose voices I am trying to minimize? This isn't difficult.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this procedurally as the template editor responding to the requested edit. Izno (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I formerly used a Wikipedia account, editing largely from 2006-2009, and now I only make sporadic returns (I also do not use my account anymore; my username was my real name). I'm not totally sure how someone would consider that "ironic," but then again it might fit nicely in an Alanis Morissette song!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By setting up that dichotomy - AGF and "establish editors needing support," you are admitting that you're sacrificing AGF for this. The unfortunate thing is that it's a false dichotomy. The only thing that matters in a discussion is the dichotomy between valid arguments and the kind of page bombardment you're talking about ... or, more broadly, valid arguments and everything else. If the comment falls in the "everything else" category, frankly, it's not difficult to discern, and so this template isn't actually useful. If the comment falls in the valid argument category, then this template has no business demeaning it. This template allows a user to implicitly accuse someone he or she disagrees with of being at best inferior and at worse nefarious, and because its implicit they can make that accusation without any of the formal channels that would usually be required. A good user shouldn't have to use this, which is why they largely don't.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (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).
More