Thumperward (talk | contribs) |
Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
*'''Keep''' Addresses a problem I have noticed. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]]) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Addresses a problem I have noticed. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]]) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
*''' Delete''' them all. (I've no objection to userfying them if salted and Wikid77 agrees to keep them there). It is utterly inappropriate to fork the standard templates this way. These are faster because they have reduced functionality and parameters. The effort should properly be on identifying improvements and optimisations that can be made to the standard templates. Such discussions ''are'' under way at venues such as [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Aliases]]. Further the discussions at VPT have clarified that most of this 'fast' effort is moot due to the impending deployment of [[mw:Extension:Scribunto]] and [[Lua (programming language)]]-based versions of citation mechanisms ([[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Scribunto to fix the ~30 second page loading time problem for logged-in users?|see here]]). Allowing these to remain around presents GF users with an [[attractive nuisance]]. [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]) 05:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
*''' Delete''' them all. (I've no objection to userfying them if salted and Wikid77 agrees to keep them there). It is utterly inappropriate to fork the standard templates this way. These are faster because they have reduced functionality and parameters. The effort should properly be on identifying improvements and optimisations that can be made to the standard templates. Such discussions ''are'' under way at venues such as [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#Aliases]]. Further the discussions at VPT have clarified that most of this 'fast' effort is moot due to the impending deployment of [[mw:Extension:Scribunto]] and [[Lua (programming language)]]-based versions of citation mechanisms ([[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Scribunto to fix the ~30 second page loading time problem for logged-in users?|see here]]). Allowing these to remain around presents GF users with an [[attractive nuisance]]. [[User:Br'er Rabbit|Br'er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br'er Rabbit|talk]]) 05:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' as useful and harmless experiment. Use sparingly where traffic is high and standard templates causing significant issues.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 07:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Template:Wlink]] ==== |
==== [[Template:Wlink]] ==== |
Revision as of 07:38, 16 July 2012
July 15
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909
- Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
empty template (policy is that only entries with an independent article are listed). Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nominator is correct. TF policy is to only have links in templates to aviation accidents and incidents with their own article, not to notable people who died in crashes, redirects, or to non-existent pages aka redlinks. 1900-09 was early in the history of aviation. Articles that would meet TF criteria don't exist at the moment and unlikely to do so at some point in the future....William 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Lebaudy République (1909) is a relevant article that could be included in this template just like the French airship Dixmude (1923) or the USS Shenandoah (ZR-1) (1925) in their respective templates. However, it is also possible to give 1909 its own template back and delete this one.--Countakeshi (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and restore entries As WilliamJE pointed out, this was very early in the history of aviation. Incidents which would not be notable today were notable in regards to aviation history at the time. Because of this, there should be an exception to only include links to incidents with their own article. There were very notable subjects in this template, such as the Langley Aerodrome which was a flying machine which failed days before the Wright Brothers did it. Thomas Etholen Selfridge who was the first person to die in a crash of a powered airplane (which also was being flown by Orville Wright). Eugène Lefebvre was the first person to die while piloting a powered plane. Ferdinand Ferber was a major influence on the development of aviation. The airship Lebaudy République crashed and killed 4 crew, likely one of the deadliest aviation accidents at the time.Michael5046 (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It isn't the policy of the TF on accidents and incidents to put persons in the templates, whether they are aviators or persons killed in plane crashes. Here are two posts on what are supposed[1] to be in the templates including one[2] on this very issue. When accident articles are made into redirects to the type of aircraft, the accident is taken out of the template. The template isn't for aircraft for either.
- These templates are must like this list where independent articles are required and where links to lists of accidents by type of aircraft aren't allowed. Again the criteria were set[3]
- If you disagree with the criteria of the task force, bring it up for debate. At this moment your opinion isn't the task force's policy....William 15:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any "criteria of the task force" or "task force policy", just posts by you. Like I already said, aviation accidents from the 1900s can't be compared to what would be newsworthy or applicable today. The examples of persons I listed are not about them, but the accidents they died in. Michael5046 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment 1) I don't see a clear expression of the Aviation accident task force - or WPAviation project - policy in the given links to discussion on the matter. 2) Wikipedia wide consensus is generally considered to overule project-specific policies. 3) If the navbox serves the purpose of moving the reader between related content, what good does deletion do. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reply Here is another TFD[4] from early 2012 where the policy did come up....William 22:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Game rationale
- Template:Game rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover. WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates identifies it as "older style". It was substituted, not transcluded, so there is no need to merge. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I note that the similar {{Logo rationale}} was nominated last year (2011 May 15) without consensus; some editors preferred to keep the template which requires substitution, as this allows the wording to be easily customised. I am not persuaded by this, as there is always the option to substitute a template even if it does not require it, after which the text can be customised in just the same way. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a newer, not an older style, so I've modified WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates, and left a note on the talk page. Otherwise, this is a useful template, which isn't especially complex, so when substituted, it's straightforward to customize. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Not all games are video games. Are you suggesting that board game covers or computer game covers should use a video game rationale? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- No; like other templates for video games which used to be named just "game…", this template has always been for video games. This template transcludes {{Non-free game cover}}, which has just been moved to {{Non-free video game cover}} but was always about video games. If the nominated template is kept, I would move it to "Video game rationale" anyway. I have no objection to creating a new template for board games; in fact I would favour this. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Selket Talk 19:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NewRFAvote
- Template:NewRFAvote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
appears unrelated to WP:RFA. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ongoing conflicts image updates
- Template:Ongoing conflicts image updates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
probably used to post messages on user talk pages at one point in time. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Post
- Template:Post (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{edit}} with |section=new
. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Convert to intermediate translcude (re-implement using {{edit}}, with "section=new", while passing all the other parameters that "edit" uses. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's unused. There is no point in that effort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused. Superseded by other templates, such as {{edit}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Offnic
- Template:Offnic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused and most likely replaced by a different template. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Pd image
- Template:Pd image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Tlold
- Template:Tlold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{oldid}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is similar to the {{tl}} series of templates, so should be documented into {{tl-nav}} as the oldid form of template:tl -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keeping multiple implementations of the same template around is counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Polyhedra 2001
- Template:Polyhedra 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete boilerplate text -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Red bib athl
- Template:Red bib athl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
not used in any articles, and we already have many {{colorbox}}/{{legend}} templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:If interwiki link
- Template:If interwiki link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is now documented, and is a counterpart to {{ifurl}}, useful for testing parameters -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not used; no foreseeable use. Should be copied to meta: if not already there, as there is a vast library of clever template stuff like this living over there. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Templatespace is not a sandbox for any old bit of potentially useful code. We have parser functions for this kind of thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Prarticle
- Template:Prarticle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:MultiMapLink
- Template:MultiMapLink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused outside of userspace. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Rfact
- Template:Rfact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{fact}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Rtl-lang test
- Template:Rtl-lang test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
old template test. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this is the sandbox for {{rtl-lang}}, so should be moved to the standard sandbox location, {{rtl-lang/sandbox}} and tagged with {{template sandbox notice}} -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Update page is now correctly located for a template sandbox. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Template talk:Rtl-lang test is the test cases page for the sandbox, so should be moved to {{rtl-lang/testcases}} and tagged with {{template test cases notice}} -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Update page is now correctly located for a template testcases page. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Neweuc
- Template:Neweuc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
no longer used since Wikipedia:European Union collaboration is inactive. could move to a subpage of that project. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Leadquote
- Template:Leadquote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to one of the many other quotation templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:RD-best
- Template:RD-best (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
old and could be replaced by {{icon|fp}}
or just add a new item to {{icon}} if you really need it. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Mirror thread
- Template:Mirror thread (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Mirror no bot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Mirror box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Reflect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
appears to be part of an "expired" bot proposal (see also Wikipedia:Mirror threads). given that the op has been indefinitely prohibited from using automation tools (e.g., see block of User:Femto Bot), it seems as though this will not be used for an indefinite period of time. we could userfy them in case the restrictions are lifted. see also prior deletion of mirror me. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Other Hazardous Materials Labels
- Template:Other Hazardous Materials Labels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template provides a table used in a single article. The table has been easily replicated there. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the related template {{Hazardous Material Placards}} suffers from the same problem -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil
- Template:Chamber of Deputies of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Another Maxtremus-template with all relevant links still in Portugese. By now, a useless template. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NK Primorje squad
- Template:NK Primorje squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
NK Primorje was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NK Drava Ptuj squad
- Template:NK Drava Ptuj squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
NK Drava Ptuj was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:İZBAN color
- Template:İZBAN color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Žerar Grize
Template:Barnstar of National Merit
- Template:Barnstar of National Merit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Should be deleted and Template:The Barnstar of National Merit should be moved. The latter is advertised at WP:* and thus this template is obsolete/redundant. mabdul 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards informed. mabdul 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't hurt anything to have it, and I, for one, like options. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about providing editors with the warm, fuzzy glow of "having options". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Big Brother (U.S.)-Manual of Style
- Template:Big Brother (U.S.)-Manual of Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Insanely garish documentation which should be placed in projectspace and linked to rather than transcluded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Big Brother UK sidebar
Quasi-infoboxes used on only one article each. Should be reformatted as a proper {{infobox}}, stripped of cruft and substituted into the respective articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Fcite
- Template:Fcite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cite fast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcitation needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite press release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fcite web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Vcitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates and the associated ANI thread. Fork of the existing citation system to optimise it, based on the author's personal research into page load times. Consensus is that the author should instead attempt to optimse the existing templates, rather than trying to boil the ocean by "fixing" individual articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep from author: This TfD is for a group of templates, loosely unrelated, except it suggests to delete all various citation templates which I have created in the past 11 days. Specifically, the outsider Template:Vcitation is a separate issue, intended to expand the family of Template:Vcite (Vancouver-style citations) to always set "ref=harv" to link author names to book/journal cites, as similar to Template:Citation. Most of the above templates (with prefix "Fcite-") are fast-cite versions of the Template:Cite_web or Template:Cite_book (etc.), created as add-on templates which allow showing the same output as them, but 5-6x times faster, for use primarily in large articles where reformat speed (>7 seconds) is an issue (due to 200-400 Cite_web templates using 12-24 seconds to reformat). There is no consensus to "instead attempt to optimse the existing templates" because logically, the Fcite templates are already so much faster than the others could be improved. This effort has been a long road, and after 3 years of discussing Template:Citation/core, it is clear that major speed improvements have been hindered by all the alias parameters piled into there (and used by various groups of "3,000" or "9,000" articles choosing one alias over another). Meanwhile, the current Fcite templates are absolutely "lightning fast" and better than the early release versions, which met with some opposition because the templates were "too lite" in omitting 2nd author-name parameters which disabled author-name links for related footnote Template:Harvnb. The early versions also had format glitches, but have been fixed to better match the older {Cite_web} templates. Hence, at this point, others have suggested 2 options:
- Improve Fcite templates (with more options) for use mainly in slow articles.
- Expand the Fcite templates to totally replace Cite_web or Cite_book as 4-5x faster.
- Currently, the 2nd option (totally replace Cite_web, etc. by redirecting them) seems unlikely because expanding the Fcite templates to handle all options would very likely slow them towards a snail's pace as well. Another danger, noted by several users, is the problem of "wp:Avoid template creep", which over the years, has added numerous minor features into Template:Citation/core, year after year, trending toward slower template operation. By keeping the Fcite templates as, primarily, fast "lite templates" then they would be more resistant to the 'creeping featurism' of ever-more slower options being added. Thus, by defining "Fcite" as always "fast-citation" then those templates can be maintained, long-term, as extremely fast, while allowing the basic older Template:Citation/core to still add rare, exotic options which might slow use. However, there is overall hope, because each week, as the Fcite templates are refined, then small improvements are discovered to apply to Template:Citation/core, to run a little faster, but never 5-6x faster as with Fcite. Anyway, people now, finally, have a choice: fast and lite with fewer options, or numerous options while slower. That is the status in the young 11-day life of these new, promising fast templates. That is why I advise "Strong keep". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- delete or userfy, we should strive to improve existing the templates rather than forking them. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete we should not be forking existing templates and confusing users with which ones to use. If there is a problem with the existing templates then we should be modifying these templates and providing the speed of operation for all usages. Keith D (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- delete per above and the VP discussion, a fork of these complex & essential templates would cause no end of problems. If they can be improved without breaking their functionality then improve the existing templates. If it can only be done by chopping features then it should not be done, as that would force users time and again to work out which is best, the old 'slow' and the smaller 'fast'. These templates are hard enough to use as it is. We don't need something to make them an order of magnitude harder.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. And close early for bad procedure I'd say. Nom is throwing this TfD in while the discussion at VPT is running. Nom already announced this TfD at VPT when it was only a few days in discussion and way before any conclusion was in sight (not even now). Why not wait for a result? Nom does not communicate there: Between their TfD announcement (08:03, 12 July 2012) and this TfD 11:11, 15 July 2012, three full days, nom has "contributed" nothing (but another TfD announcement/threat).
- I note that a TfD threat, as we are talking here, is demotivating editors. I find this behaviour unhelpfull, and not constructive, from the nom.
- Chris Cunningham/Thumperward is too formalistic again. We should wait for the discussion outcome, and editors improvements (especially User:wikid77). I still do not get why nom Chris Cunningham//Thumperward is behaving this way. Not constructive it is, why am I to AGF? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring the very odd personal attacks, the reason I took this to TfD was actually as a good-faith measure to ensure the community agreed. My original intention was simply to userfy them directly, given the overwhelming consensus that their deployment was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now. While it is true that they are a fork, they have been forked for specific technical reasons. They should be kept until such time as the extra speed that they bring can be merged into the main citation templates (perhaps incorporated is a better term), but this long-term goal will take time. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Further, it does not worry me to see a mess of different citation templates while we are awaiting mw:Extension:Scribunto, which will resolve said problems. Until then, hacks such as this are necessary and should be tolerated. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I said in the VPT discussion, userfication is fine with me. However, I thought it best to take the matter to TfD rather than move them myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Further, it does not worry me to see a mess of different citation templates while we are awaiting mw:Extension:Scribunto, which will resolve said problems. Until then, hacks such as this are necessary and should be tolerated. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: the problem here is with users breaking WP:CITEVAR by changing citation templates to Fcite. The problem isn't with Fcite existing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keeping a template but prohibiting its use is not a sensible outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Addresses a problem I have noticed. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete them all. (I've no objection to userfying them if salted and Wikid77 agrees to keep them there). It is utterly inappropriate to fork the standard templates this way. These are faster because they have reduced functionality and parameters. The effort should properly be on identifying improvements and optimisations that can be made to the standard templates. Such discussions are under way at venues such as Help talk:Citation Style 1#Aliases. Further the discussions at VPT have clarified that most of this 'fast' effort is moot due to the impending deployment of mw:Extension:Scribunto and Lua (programming language)-based versions of citation mechanisms (see here). Allowing these to remain around presents GF users with an attractive nuisance. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as useful and harmless experiment. Use sparingly where traffic is high and standard templates causing significant issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Wlink
- Template:Wlink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Broken utility template, used only in a couple of old welcome notices. The intended functionality is to allow for simple inclusion of a "new section" link to a user's talk page, but it doesn't work, and presumably there is some more broadly-deployed alternative out there now since this one has been abandoned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Str case title word
- Template:Str case title word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fixcaps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused utility templates with no obvious productive purpose. If text needs to be reformatted in a certain case, the wikitext should simply be altered, rather than calling some convoluted parser function. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep from author: The Template:Fixcaps is an edit-preview template, to be used daily (such as by WP:GOCE editors), to format ALL-CAPS text into typical sentences or book/film titles. The basic example:
- {{fixcaps |/GOnE wiTH tHE /winD}} → Result: Template:Fixcaps
- The reason those templates appear "unused" is due to the recommended wp:Subst'ing of the results back into an article, and so Special:WhatLinksHere will not know the template was used, during editing, in those numerous articles. The GOCE editors (in wp:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) often find large tracts of ALL-CAPS text, perhaps from 3rd-world users with cultures based on capital-letter English (as used in foreign-travel visas where lowercase letters are "forbidden" in passport documents). Anyway, those templates have been used, daily, since created in May 2012. They were created especially for WP:GOCE editors, to help inspire them to see easier ways to fix tedious text, such as "LONG TRACTS OF UPPERCASE TEXT WITH UNUSUAL /ADAGYNTHDEPRA NAMES."
- Result: "Template:Fixcaps"
- The ALL-CAPS text can be seen as tedious, depressing busywork to rewrite and respell those names. The results have been great. That is why I advise Strong keep to not demoralize those hard-working editors. Meanwhile, I have updated those templates to note "non-transcluded" to explain why so few pages link there. That was a good catch by User:Thumperward to notice those valuable templates previously had no explanation for having few links and appearing "unused". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:26, revised 17:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't change anything. Editors who require case normalisation should use the requisite function in their text editors rather than some MediaWiki hack. I'm unconvinced that the GOCE has some great need for this given that it was only created a couple of months ago, but could be convinced if there's evidence of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- what about {{title case}}? Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not subst-friendly, and nowhere near as powerful, it seems. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikid77, now that they are tagged correctly. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Turner Theory of Color
- Template:Turner Theory of Color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not a template, but an article created in the template namespace (as opposed to WP:AfC, which would have been a much better place to start a draft). My own impressions are that the content is well-sourced, that the page would stand a reasonably good chance if it were an article nominated at WP:AfD, and that a move to the main namespace may be appropriate; however, I would be interested to know other editors' thoughts on this. SuperMarioMan 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: see template talk. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I wonder if the article content (visible in history) is worth salvaging, per nom: it might well be. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It plainly makes sense to give it a go in mainspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I wonder if the article content (visible in history) is worth salvaging, per nom: it might well be. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Pakistan Intelligence
- Template:Pakistan Intelligence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not a template, but an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. Non-notable company. SuperMarioMan 01:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)