Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 7 June 9 >

June 8[edit]

England youth squad navboxes[edit]

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 the Under-17's, no consensus to support deletion of the Under-21. JPG-GR (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England Squad 2010 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:England Squad 2011 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:England Squad 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

General consensus at WP:FOOTY is that youth squads are not worthy of navboxes. Only senior squads for global or continental tournaments. – PeeJay 23:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the under-17 templates, Keep the under-21 template - we need to remember point of such templates, which is to aid navigation between articles. The udner-21 template does this by being fully-blue, whereas the under-17 templates don't serve this purpose. GiantSnowman 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whilst they may redlinks now. In a year or so, they will likely be blue links. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you forgetting WP:CRYSTAL? Who says the links will be blue? What if they all suffer career-ending injuries? – PeeJay 11:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per recent 3 years result (e.g this, 2, 3). Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even Olympic, the players may never made his professional debut, for U-17 it roughly 50% for the participant in final round (but less likely for champion). Matthew_hk tc 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (under 21s only) - not really sure why the u21s have been lumped in with the u17s tournaments.Harald the Great (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the consensus at WP:FOOTY is that (typically) no youth teams should have navboxes, and that includes U21s. – PeeJay 10:51, 17 June 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:My talk archives[edit]

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 after substitution. As was pointed out in the discussion, there is no significant difference between the functionality of the two templates, with the "my talk archives" template simply using |title= in the "archives" template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My talk archives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A re-trasnclusion {{archives}}. Receives and passes a useless unnamed parameter. I advice redirect to {{archives}}. Fleet Command (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect per nom, also I don't like hard-coded links (as in the example/doc) and it is only ~200 times used.(although this isn't any argument) mabdul 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it gives a bit of personalization. Better for User talk: namespace too. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tbh, I don't see any "bit of personalization" worth mentioning. Redirect it, I say. --87.78.51.122 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ebe123.--The wikifyer's corner 12:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't it personalized by saying "My talk page archives" instead of just saying "Archives"? I'm assuming that's the difference Ebe123 was talking about. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 7 June 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, JPG-GR (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ebe123. There was really no need for this even to be brought up. The template is fine for user talk use. Orphan Wiki 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ebe123. Would seem like killing a bunny rabbit for dinner when there's a good takeaway place across the road: sure takeaway food aint great, but why kill the bunny? Alan16 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alan16, there's no reason to kill this bunny. Deleting it would serve no purpose and I can't even fully comprehend why it was nominated. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgh. We should not, not not, be encouraging the use of this sort of MySpace-esque frittery if we can help it. A couple of years ago I converted it into a sub-class of {{archives}} in preparation for a TfD, and the time is now. Existing transclusions should be substituted, leaving in place a customised {{archives}} for each user with exactly the same functionality, and we remove yet another pointless bauble to distract people from their task here. And trouts for all the complete non-arguments above in its defense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trouts, bunny rabbits, we're creating quite the menagerie here. But anyway, what confuses me about all this is: why? What about all this requires the time and effort on everyone's part to discuss deleting what is a harmless thing. At the end of the day, this does not get in anyone's way, it doesn't slow anything down, there is quite literaly nothing about this that requires it to be culled. At most this is just providing a platform for people to sound off about "substituting" and "transclusions". Look, the average user doesn't care about any of that stuff, they want something that looks nice on there talk page, and serves a function. So what if there are other more popular ways of doing it, why do we have to tell people which one to choose, which one to use? When all is said and done it doesn't matter to me, it doesn't matter to them, and it doesn't matter to you. And to be perfectly honest Chris, I'm not sure that another pointless bauble to distract people from their task here is the sort of language that Wikipedia needs its users using. Alan16 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What harm it does is that it fills category:archival templates up with pointless forks of the same thing. This wastes the time of template maintainers (who have to try to gather up changes made in these templates and move them to {{archives}} for everyone to benefit from), uses up valuable server resources (I know we shouldn't care, but that does not mean we should do so with gleeful abandon), and confuses new editors who have to spend time trying to figure out which template to use rather than just using the existing, fully flexible piece of code that every other editor manages fine with. Furthermore, user talk pages are a privilege granted to users for the purpose of easing communication between editors: they are not Christmas trees, and time spent on tarting them up is time that would be better spent editing articles. I've done my part to ensure that this template caused as little disruption as possible over the last couple of years, but the time has come to be rid of it before too many people adopt it. As stated, substituting it will result in the existing users getting the exact same output, so the only impact (other than purging yet another pointless subclass from the archive templates category) will be that new editors will have one less thing to distract them when looking for a way to box up their old talk content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appropriately discounting all the pure votes ("per X") which contribute no reasoning of their own whatsoever, this leaves the reasonings of Ebe123 ("gives a bit of personalization", which is obviously counterfactual) vs the multiple valid points by Chris Cunningham.
    Bottomline: This is not a vote, it's a discussion. The users who want this barely used transclusion to be kept have failed to produce any valid reason. Anything that can be done with {{My talk archives}} can be done with the template it transcludes, {{Archives}}. Therefore, the actual and correct result is to redirect. Period. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – The exact same functionality can be achieved by {{archives}} (which this template directly transcludes), and there are only 183 transclusions, which should be an easy task for a bot to replace. —mc10 (t/c) 22:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It's basically a shorter way of using {{archives|title=My talk archives}} --The Σ talkcontribs 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's the same as {{archives|title=My talk archives}} as The Sigma noted just above. Completely redundant to an existing template, no need for the extra fork—the very small difference can be replaced easily. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Reasoning per above "redirect" !voters, especially Sigma. As an aside, any users interested in using a custom template can just make one in their userspace. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, creation of personalised templates shouldn't be encouraged, but one that is already used in several users' pages shouldn't be deleted or redirected to a standard one. Peter E. James (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it should, because nothing of value will be lost. We could even have a bot perform the task and replace the {{My talk archives}} transclusions with {{archives|title=My Talk Archives}}. If we decide to do that, literally nothing will be lost, at all, whatsoever. Face it, you have no argument. --87.78.52.92 (talk)
  • Keep: Fleet Command doesn't appear to know (sorry, Fleet Command) that the one purpose of the template is to be used on talk pages. Now, I don't use it because I needed to be a professor to understand how it works (which I'm not and have no interest in becoming one). Just keep it.--The wikifyer's corner 19:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC) You already !voted on this. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:59, 21 June 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:Cleanup section[edit]

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. JPG-GR (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template with only one transclusion on a page giving examples of template use, Propose deletion as this is now redundant to the {{Cleanup}} template with the param mentioned in the deprecation notice. This TFD also concerns the redirect. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect per nom. mabdul 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Please get rid of this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there needs to be user friendliness here. The XXXX section templates are often preferred to {XXXX|section but not always. This is a cyclical thing when someone says "Wouldn't it be a good ides to .. have a separate template for sections/merge all these templates and only have one." I have proposed elsewhere that all the {XXXX section templates wrap the XXXX templates, setting the parameter "1=section" and passing the rest straight through (as this one does). This is a simple technical problem for the back room folk. On the front end if we wish to deprecate one type or the other, then that's fine, and maybe even useful, and can be supported by the gnome/bot community - but either syntax should work, even if it "needs" fixing tot he preferred variety. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 23 May 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, JPG-GR (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's unused and deprecated. I think cleanup itself should be deleted for being way too vague and too prone to drive-by tagging, but that's another story. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to full function {{cleanup}} has been nominated for deletion, so this should be restored to full function. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:13, 11 June 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:FK SIAD Most squad[edit]

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK SIAD Most squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. Previously top-tier team, now none of the players are at the club. Czech football club templates like this are very few and only in cases of top-flight teams. Cloudz679 (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, current squad with last update in 2009. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 9 June 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:Copy to Wiktionary[edit]

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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copy to Wiktionary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Copy to Wiktionary list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Copy to Wiktionary with Template:Copy to Wiktionary list.

  1. This is the only transwiki template that has another template that is redundant.
  2. This other redundant template (Copy to Wiktionary list) is used on only a few articles.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think that both these templates should be used on few articles, since if they were copied to wiktionary, the template would be removed, so the template should be fairly temporary. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 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) 19:55, 14 May 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, JPG-GR (talk) 06:06, 8 June 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:February29InRecentYears[edit]

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. A histmerge doesn't seem appropriate as this doesn't appear to be a case of two templates being edited in parallel. A redirect preserves the edit history (which everyone seems to agree is desirable) but also takes the template out-of-circulation, so-to-speak. JPG-GR (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:February29InRecentYears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A redesign of {{ThisDateInRecentYears}} has made {{February29InRecentYears}} redundant. It no longer has any transclusions. The page history has been moved to {{ThisDateInRecentYears/doc}}. There's no reason to keep it. JIMp talk·cont 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but tag {{Historical}} a least for a little while. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{ThisDateInRecentYears}}. This will preserve the page history. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mufka has pointed out that {{ThisDateInRecentYears/doc}} is not a very logical place to preserve the history of this old template. Perhaps {{ThisDateInRecentYears/prevleap}} would be better as this is the subtemplate which now does the main part of the old template's job. How about it? On the other hand, if we're keeping it as a redirect or historical thingy (temporarily or indefinitely), it'll still have to be deleted so we can move the history back. JIMp talk·cont 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undo the history move, and just turn into a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I undid the history merge. Now we'll see what consensus is on what to do with it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 30 May 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, JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge to preserve the efforts of previous contributors if feasible, otherwise move and archive to a subpage of {{ThisDateInRecentYears}}. Deryck C. 21:04, 15 June 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:In use[edit]

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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be deleted because it discourages collaboration by creating a sense of ownership of an article. Instead of making beneficial changes to Wikipedia, new users may be scared off by this template telling them they are not allowed to edit a page. This template is unnecessary because edit conflicts are usually minor and can be repaired by using your browser's back feature. This template also runs the risk of being placed on an article for hours or even days if forgotten. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template should remain in place; however, the talk page of the template should be changed to reflect the importance of the template in the DYK section of Wikipedia (In addition to the information on how it is useful in the mainspace). JL-Bot should be reconfigured to remove the template 4 hours after the last edit. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. JamesBWatson also made a good point in a discussion with me about this topic, and I would like to make sure it is brought up. "Only if editors A & B both want to make extensive edits at the same time is there a significant risk of lots of edit conflicts, and in that case I'm not sure that giving to one of them the right to edit to the exclusion of the other is a good idea." Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is quite useful for keeping conflicts from happening when two editors happen to work on the same article at the same time. It does not in any way imply "ownership" -- in fact, an editor unfamiliar with an article is more likely to use it to do a general cleanup than an editor who feels he or she "owns" an article, since they will already have shaped the article to their liking. The template doesn't prevent any other editor from subsquently altering or reverting the edits of the one who used the template, so it ultimately has virtually no effect on article content, being almost entirely functional. What it does do is help to lower the temperature of any collision between two editors, as they will, hopefully, be inhibited from starting a edit/revert cycle.

Nom is also incorrect in stating that edit conflicts are usually "minor" and easily fixed. On more than one occasion I have been in non-confrontational conflict with another editor, with both of us working on improving the same section of an article, but doing it in different, non-compatible ways. ("Non-compatible" in terms of form, not necessarily content.) The confusion this causes is non-trivial and can lead to edit-warring or confrontational behavior that would otherwise have been avoided if one editor's version was allowed to be finished and became the jumping-off point for further alterations by other editors.

In short, this template does absolutely no harm, but instead is useful in a number of ways that improve collegiality and civility. To delete it would, in my opinion, be counter-productive to the project, a "solution" to a non-existant problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template in often used within the DYK project when updating prep queues, where it informs other users that the subpage is in use and avoid edit conflicts where it can take sometime in excise of an hour of moving hooks from one page to another (reviewing, copy editing, etc). One edit conflict with an older browser or some more current browsers that do not allow one to go to their previous edit screen can really cause a mess, and you then need to piece together what has and has not been moved on a heavy edited T:DYK page. I can think of other examples where the template can be useful for these types of edits. Again the template should be used for only the time being used or the under construction template would be more appropriate. Also the template states to be removed if the page has not been recently edited. Calmer Waters 03:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly unfamiliar with the inner workings DYK, but if this is the case I think that the template page should be worded to
  1. State the importance of the template in DYK
  2. State that the template should only be used within the DYK project
I still maintain my belief that the template should not be used in the rest of Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are some examples of the problem I have with this template.
  • If what you're saying is that you came across the "In use" template on articles which haven't been edited in significant amounts of time, then the answer is quite simple: remove the "In use" template as no longer appropriate, exactly as the template says to do. There's no need to delete the template because its very clearly stated instructions haven't been followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Wikiproject:Did You Know discussions. Calmer Waters 05:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If used properly there are no problems. If the article has not been edited in a long time, (as noted on the template) it should be removed without comment. Although edit conflicts on certain articles may not be common, it could happen; I'd hate for a user to lose an hour or two of editing due to an edit conflict, especially if it is to a minor edit like capitalization. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template has legitimate uses, as pointed out by commenters above. It's true that some people abuse this template to try and discourage collaboration, but that's not the template's fault. Those cases can be dealt with by removing the template when it's clear that it wasn't placed in good faith, and by discouraging editors from abusing it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, as Rjanag said, any template can be misused (an easy example is vandalism warning templates) - that is a user-related matter. (ii) This template is essential for the DYK project, and is added when composing DYK sets to avoid edit conflicts. Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' doesn't a bot watch this tag already, and removes it after one day? 65.94.45.185 (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JL-Bot removes them after 7 days without an edit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JL-Bot should remove it after one day (since tagging) regardless of whether there have been edits or not in the last day. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan consulted me before nominating this, and I said something to the effect "I am not happy with this template, but if you do suggest deleting it you will be up against a lot of opposition, and I wouldn't bet on your getting anywhere", and so it turns out. I understand what the various "keep" commentators are saying, but in my experience the template is far more often misused than constructively used. "If used properly there are no problems", is all very well, but not very relevant if, as I believe, it is frequently used incorrectly. It is also not a complete answer to say "remove it if it has been left there for too long", because in the time it has been there how many people, particularly inexperienced users, have been deterred from editing the article? (I believe I have found such templates which have been left in place for many months; perhaps this was before JL-Bot started removing them after a week. However, even a week is a long time for such a template to be in place.) Also, Rjanag says that problems can be dealt with by "removing the template when it's clear that it wasn't placed in good faith", but it is not a easy as that, for several reasons: (1) it is not always clear whether it was done in good faith, (2) I have known many cases where it seemed to me it was done in good faith, where the editor in question sincerely intended and expected to be back soon, but wasn't, perhaps having forgotten, (3) whether done in good faith or not, it frequently isn't removed when it should be, and to say that it could have been is not helpful: what matters is what happens, not what "should" happen. Recently I saw a case where an article created by a new user had been tagged for speedy deletion, and an administrator removed the tag, did a rather quick-and-dirty bit of edit to make the article just about avoid the speedy deletion criteria, and added an "in use" template. He then went away and left the article. Both from what he said in edit summaries and from my knowledge of that admin from previous experience, I am sure it was done in good faith. He was attempting to rescue the article and give the author a breathing space in which to edit the article, but the author was a new user with no other edits who never came back to it. You may think that this was a one-off incident, but in my experience such misuses of the template are far more common than constructive uses. It is also not an answer to say "he shouldn't have done that, and when the template is properly used there are no such problems", because what matters is what actually happens, not what should happen in an ideal world where we would all do things properly. From what has been written above there may be some areas that I am not involved in (such as DYK related work) where the template is very commonly used constructively, but if so it might be worth considering whether there might be a way to tag articles in those particular contexts which would have less risk of causing damage elsewhere. I have to strongly disagree with Beyond My Ken who describes this as "a solution to a non-existent problem". There certainly is a problem, and the question is whether the suggested deletion is a good way to solve the problem or not. In the absence of any better proposals my view is that delete the template in its present form would be the thing to do, and consider whether replacing it with something else for those cases where it is particularly useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would an appropriate WP:TLDR summary be "Delete, because I see it misused too often"? Anomie⚔ 11:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. If you want a one sentence summary of my opinion then better would be "I think this very frequently causes problems, so I am unhappy about it, but not sure how to improve things." I have concentrated on the "misused too often" too often aspect not because that is prominent in my thoughts, but to answer other points made by other people. Also, putting "delete" in the middle of a sentence near the end of my comment rather than prominently at the beginning, and preceding it with "In the absence of any better proposals" was deliberate: I am really not sure that deletion is best. (Also sorry for the "TLDR" aspect: I do sometimes get rather carried away.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful in its intended scope: keeping users (and certain bots) from causing edit conflicts when making a large change or widespread small changes to an article. Edit conflicts are not "minor", merging them can be a PITA if there really is a conflict rather than independent edits to the same section. If it's misused, that's a user education issue. If JL-Bot is applying the wrong timeframe (7 days instead of several hours), the bot should be fixed or replaced. Anomie⚔ 11:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the one who originally created this template. All you have to do is look at the edit history of an article using this template, if the in use template has been there more than an hour or two then it's fair game to remove and do editing. What it is intended to do is cover very short-term blocks of changes and is to alert someone else that another user is doing a lot of changes over this short period. In use is intended to be used the way the sign of the same name is on an airplane restroom, that you're using it for a few minutes to a little bit longer, so that "B" doesn't make a major change while "A" is in the middle of doing something else. I've seen this happen often enough, that's why I created it. Go back to the first or second entry when I first created this template eight years ago:
Can someone tell me why this particular template hasn't had problems for eight years and now all of a sudden someone thinks it should be deleted? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has template has actually been up for deletion three other times. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to (at least in my opinion) show the difference between in use and under construction. Under Construction is for long-term changes over days or longer where the person might be editing every day but stops from time-to-time. In Use is intended to cover continuous ongoing changes; once the user does the last 'save' and is stopping further edits for now, they are supposed to remove the in use tag. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give one very good example. The entry for List of counties in Texas is more than 200 items. If I was adding the photo to each item in the list, I have to make sure it renders correctly. Doing that for 250 separate counties is going to take a while. Or even for 20 or 30 at a time. This is the sort of thing that in use is intended to cover, pages that require a lot of tedious edits which it's easier to do all of them at once then maybe leave the page partially done. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can JL-BOT be reconfigured to remove this template after 2 hours? Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template isnt for your run of the mill edit conflicts. This is for major article revisions where edit conflcits can add hours of checking the new revisions and incorporating changes into the major revamp. There is no "article ownership" as the template isnt intended for long term use; which is why it says the time it was added. Any editor seeing this template on an article for an unreasonable amount of time can simply remove it.--v/r - TP 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, any editor can remove this template; however, an anon or a new user is usually not going to be bold and remove it. That's why I think that JL-bot should remove the template after 2 hours, not 7 days. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)n[reply]
That's fine and I am certainly not opposed to changes in JL-bot, but that's another discussion altogether and deletion is not a solution. I personally think 6-8 hours is more reasonable. Some folks dont like to clutter edit histories or even like to develop in their own article space and copy it back.--v/r - TP 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Anomie. If 7 days is too long, tweak the bot for a shorter timeframe. Also, using the back button to solve edit conflicts works in theory, but keep in mind our Mediawiki software isn't bulletproof; there are times when it should detect an edit conflict, but doesn't, and so the last person to save unintentionally overrides previous changes. Shubinator (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The template is useful when one is rewriting or significantly expanding an existing article, and wishes to be left in peace for a few hours to do this. The use of the template lets other editors know that the article is being worked upon, and is a polite request for them not to edit the article for a while. Agree that the time could probably come down quite a lot (24h?), but there is no good reason to delete this valuable template. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be 2 hours, 24 hours seems much too long and if a user is going to be editing one page for longer than 2 hours, he/she can save the page, re-add the template, and edit again. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours is far too short. In any case, why should an editor have to keep re-adding the template. It can take more than two hours to rewrite an article. I'd say that 24h is a good time. No editor is going to work continuously for 24h on an article, but it gives them time to work in peace. The bot should be able to remove a template 24h after the last edit made by the editor who placed the template on a page (which would give a maximum of 48h). Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were I to be doing the bot, I would have to remove the template if it has been more than 2 hours since the last edit to the page. Not 2 hours since the template was added. Anomie⚔ 10:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie, that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here. If I were to add the template, then spend the next 3 hours or so rewriting, only saving by preview, then the bot would come along and remove the template after two hours, and I'd get an edit conflict at the end, which defeats the purpose of the template, the prevention of edit conflicts. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the nominator's concern. However, as illustrated by User:Calmer Waters, the nominator's argument that "This template is unnecessary because edit conflicts are usually minor and can be repaired by using your browser's back feature" is completely invalid, and I'd like to extend the argument and say that the problem isn't confined to WP:DYK. The problem exists for any long article. Whenever an edit conflict occurs, the "edit conflict" screen comes up and the full source text of the article will be loaded twice. This may not be a problem if you're in the USA (which I observe that the nominator is) where connection to Wikipedia servers are fast; however the consequence of having to load the edit conflict screen can be devastating for those from the other end of the planet, where the edit conflict screen for a long article may itself take minutes to load, thereby crashing the browser (it's took too long and gave up), losing the entire edit's content. I believe that this template is necessary to prevent edit conflicts both in DYK and beyond; to prevent misuse, setting a bot to replace the template with {{underconstruction}} if the article hasn't been edited for 2 hours would be appropriate. Deryck C. 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a critical tool in permitting involved, complex editing over a short time without creating edit conflicts or needlessly complicating the edit history. I agree that two hours is far too short a time and would say that 6-8 hours is about the right time before a bot steps in to strip it out. - Dravecky (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that 2 is too short... but maybe 8 is too long. "In use" should only be used in a continuous editing session (otherwise "under construction" is more appropriate), and I would think that 8 hours of continuous editing of a single article is rare, so it would be safe to remove the template after 6 or 7 hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I have been unhappy about this template for some time, I never thought there was any chance of getting a consensus to delete it, and I would certainly not have nominated it myself. However, if a consensus emerges to have the template bot-removed after a few hours, as seems to be likely, then this discussion will have been useful. (As you will see if you read my comment above starting "Not really", I never saw getting deletion as the main aim.) I do think that 2 hours after the last edit (not after the template was placed) would be reasonable. Beyond My Ken says "In use should only be used in a continuous editing session", but then goes on to suggest a delay of 6 or 7 hours. I find it surprising that an editing session with gaps of 6 hours would be regarded as "continuous". However, since some editors are unhappy with 2, perhaps we could compromise on 4. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JBW: We may just be working from different editing experiences, but I think 6 or 7 hours is on the outside of an article expansion/rewrite which involves considerable research, finding, uploading and adding of images, re-writing and copyediting, checking of previous information etc. Certainly not an ordinary thing, but not impossible or even implausible. I'm pretty sure if I delved back into my own edits, I'd find some sessions that were 4-5+ hours, so 6 or 7 hours as an outside deadline to remove the template seems reasonable to assume that the session is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I've no doubt that an editing session on an article could go on for that amount of time. However, if you leave the article for 7 hours without editing it I don't think it's reasonable to expect that nobody should be allowed to edit the article during that time. That is what is at issue: how long a period without any edits can be before the template is removed, not how long an editing session can be before it is removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If might be helpful to beef up the notices on the template to remind editors that proper use of it means they should remove it when they're finished, and others that they can remove it after X hours from Y (or at timne Z). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, even though there's probably no consensus for this, blocking articles with such a template is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's principle. If you want to avoid edit conflicts, use a sandbox in your user namespace. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately the sandbox solution doesn't work. You set up a userspace copy of the article and make lots of edits to it. Then you go back to the original article to paste your new version in. However, while you have been working in your sandbox other editors have been editing the article, so if you go ahead with pasting your version in then their edits are destroyed. If you don't go ahead and paste it in then all your work is lost. The effect can actually be far worse than the effects of edit conflicts while working directly on the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all the other keeps. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very handy when two people are hacking within minutes of each other. Avoids painful merge sessions. linas (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Before I began using this template, I would sometimes lose sizeable chunks of text I was creating to edit wars or bots tearing through. Since I began using it, I have lost nada. This template keeps my hard-earned work from being accidentally flushed by another editor. I consider it indispensable.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we decide to change the time here will it happen? I am replacing my initial deletion request with a request that JL-Bot be reformatted to remove the template 4 hours after the last edit. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is completely useful to avoid conflicting edits. I use it a lot.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno why this is being proposed for deletion. It's used if a major edit is currently in progress by an editor actively working on an article. If after a few hours no changes are made, remove the template. 99% of the time, it's used to reduce edit conflicts, not to take ownership of articles. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IIRC, before I found this template I made a few large edits which then got edit conflicted causing a notable loss of time, even if the conflicting edit was small. I've since been using it when I'm going to make an edit which will take more than 5 or 10 minutes, and I've only had one edit conflict that I can recall while doing so (and I think the other person started editing the page first in that case). Perhaps this template is abused by some people, but I think that it has plenty of legitimate uses. (Heh, I should have used the template while writing this!). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I almost used the template while posting my own long comment too, only decided against it after taking WP:POINT into consideration. I'm glad I didn't get an edit conflict during the 10 minutes I wrote my comment, which was almost rare for an ongoing discussion... Deryck C. 08:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion: changing the bot[edit]
  • A suggestion I suggest that there is no point in anyone continuing to post comments explaining why they want "keep". There is no question of the template being deleted. There is only one effective "delete" comment. (The nominator has withdrawn his, and mine was not really "delete", but rather "delete unless we can find a better way of dealing with the problems".) The only issue which still seems to be active is the suggestion of asking the Bot owner to change the period before the template is automatically removed. Looking over the discussion, it seems to me that a consensus has been emerging to ask for four hours since the last edit. I suggest that any further comments address that, if anyone has anything to add about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and I've added a section break to facilitate the changed focus of the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To start out this discussion with a proposal, I propose that JL-Bot be reconfigured to remove the In use template four hours after the last edit. I believe there is a template that can surround the discussion above so people understand that they are no longer supposed to say Keep or Delete. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot does not run constantly, but is initiated about once a day. So while the parameter can be set to less than a day, there will probably be a delay between when the parameter value is reached and the template is actually removed. Thus the discussion as to 2 hours/6 hours/4 hours was probably of very little practical significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can the bot just remove the template after 1 day since it was tagged? As "in use" should not really lock an article for more than one day anyways, regardless of last edit (that's what "under construction" is for). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 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.

Unused Username linking templates: Ule, Ulce, Ulte[edit]

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ulce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ulte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three templates are totally unused and there are better replacements, e.g. {{Usertce}}, which is part of a large collection of similar templates. Benwing (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW the same Ul* group has a few others. I redirected {{Ult}}, {{Ulc}}, {{Ultc}}, and {{Ultce}} to {{Usert}}, {{User}}, {{User}}, and {{Usertce}} respectively. {{Ulc}} isn't quite equivalent to {{User}} but the difference isn't very relevant and anyway {{Ulc}} is hardly used.
  • The one remaining is {{Ul}}. It's almost exactly equivalent to {{U}}, except that {{Ul}} lets you specify an optional second parameter that is used as the anchor text in place of the actual username. Both of these are transcluded about 1,600 times. I think we should redirect one to the other and make them both behave like {{Ul}}; however, both of them are protected, so I can't edit them.
  • Possibly we should also nuke the remaining ones that I redirected. None of them are used more than a couple dozen or so times each; we could just fix the pages in question to point to the "approved" versions, and in the process eliminate creeping template-itis. Benwing (talk) 03:33, 11 May 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) 23:33, 21 May 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) 01:15, 8 June 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:Llang[edit]

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Llang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a recreation of a template we deleted as inappropriate several years ago. I don't know exactly why (server load, I think), but it was a bit of a mess, so I figured it's best to nip this in the bud if it's still a problem. Currently used on only one mainspace page. I deleted, but restored at creator's request. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several years is a long time in software land, even more so for Wikipedia. I would certainly hope that this has been fixed in the meantime. In any case, deleting this because of possible concerns about "server load" is a classic example of premature optimization. Optimization that adds to programmer difficulty and increases the chance of error should only be done once it has been verified that performance actually, measurably suffers; programmers (and Wikipedia editors) rarely have a good intuition of where the real slowness is. (There is an exception when there is a difference in big O notation behavior, but this hardly applies here.) Also check out WP:PERF which expresses these same sentiments very well. Benwing (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless in my eyes. mabdul 20:05, 3 June 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) 01:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see how a few characters difference is worth a template. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't save many keystrokes. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we sure this template isn't used more than we think, by being subst'd? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's of little use & could easily encourage overlinking. JIMp talk·cont 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Completely unnecessary, and can be written out manually without many more keystrokes. —mc10 (t/c) 23:12, 20 June 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:Fighter-Bomber[edit]

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fighter-Bomber (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It isn't needed and it only contains three articles. It is better to have this as a bunch of categories but having templates for specific unit types doesn't really make sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is badly named, it's not about the topic of fighter-bombers, it's about USAF squadrons. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nothing to do with the topic of fighter-bombers, instead this is about USAF squadrons. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless, it covers three pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:25, 3 June 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) 01:04, 8 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_8&oldid=1088198953"