Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Template:Glitchtech[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 debate was delete. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navigation template, associated band article Glitchtech was created and speedily deleted on the same day as the template at hand. AmaltheaTalk 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; not needed if associated band article does not exist. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure it could be recreated at a time when it's more notable (if it ever reaches that stage). But right now it's obsolete. Actually that word doesn't do it justice. It's certainly not "in good working order". In fact it's a bit of an eyesore. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (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:Draft CSD templates[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 debate was Delete. Consent obtained from all contributors of substance; deleted as WP:CSD#G7 and WP:CSD#G6. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Draft CSD templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

41 draft templates, no longer needed now that content has been copied to the real templates. See also previous discussion here, here and here. Coppertwig (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (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:South Yorkshire - Humberside tramways[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 debate was Replace with newer template and delete --delldot ∇. 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Yorkshire - Humberside tramways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Superseeded by {{Historic UK Trams}} that includes all abandoned tramways throughout the United Kingdom, and includes all the tramways included in this template. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the newer template is missing a link to Dearne District Light Railways. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (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:Inuse-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 debate was no consensus to delete. delldot ∇. 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inuse-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sectioninuse was TfD deleted 6 June 2006 and and recreated a month later, on 19 July 2006, as Template:Inuse-section. Inuse-section was and still is redundant to {{Inuse}} and should be deleted. Suntag (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It serves a specific, useful purpose. I created {{inuse-section}} as a way to basically rope off a section of the article as undergoing a major edit while indicating that the rest of the article was not being edited, and okay to work on. After all, editing separate sections of an article at once will not cause an edit conflict. I found that the {{inuse}} tag was too broad for situations when we're only working on a certain part of the article. When working on all different parts of the article, then yes - use the big {{inuse}} tag. But for smaller parts, that's the purpose of {{inuse-section}}, and why it needs to be kept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The message parameter on {{inuse}} seems to offer what you need. Bazj (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bazj (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Delete13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC): Not sure, but I think in 2006 when Sectioninuse was deleted, editing different sections still caused edit conflicts. Now it's a useful template. However, if {{inuse}} is suitably modified to always say "this page or section" or (preferably) to say "this section" when given some parameter, then this template can be deleted. I don't think just using the "message" parameter is adequate if the sentence will still begin "this article is actively..." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: inuse could be easily modified to have a "section" parameter which, if specified, could for example replace the initial word "This" with "A section of this", and perhaps append "Feel free to edit other sections." to the end of the message. (Possibly two different optional wordings could be designed, one if someone wants to put the template at the top of the article indicating that they're editing a named section, and another if they want to put it at the top of the section.) When I said "merge" I only meant that the inuse template would have to be modified in a satisfactory way, not that a redirect is needed. Now that I realize that it wouldn't be complicated to edit inuse, I think deletion is OK, provided a satisfactory modification of inuse can be achieved. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serves a useful purpose, by specifying the relevant part of a long article. I think Coppertwig has the history of it right. DGG (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant and superfluous. Although not completely elegant in its present un-revised form, the original {{inuse}} template has sufficient fuctionality to be placed on a section with an appropriate message. a couple of edits to the template to say "page or section" would remove the inelegance. Here might be an example usage:
{{inuse | an hour or two to revise this History section. Feel free to edit other sections}}
  • Keep until a clean, elegant, simple parameter solution to this problem is developed for the {{inuse}} template. Then 'Delete this template as having redundant functionality. This functionality is very important and needed. I use it a lot. Royalbroil 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and either revise {{inuse}} to always state "this page or section" or add a "section=yes" parameter. Although the parameter option is ideal, the first change can be done immediately, so there's no need to keep inuse-section around. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A spin-off of the template on the same page would surely serve just as well. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the same function can be done with another template, but this one seems to be simpler. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves a useful purpose while allows to bypass a global {{inuse}} that is slammed over the whole article. Thus, an editor requests a courtesy to edit a section for a short time without edit conflicts but does not restrict the whole article. I guess the proponents of the deletion have little experience in extensively editing long and complex articles. --Irpen 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a bit of a straw man (and the last sentence is an ad hominem argument—an inaccurate guess, incidentally). It has already been suggested by the proponents of deletion that revising {{inuse}} to always state "this page or section" or adding a "section=yes" parameter to the template, both of which are solutions that avoid the need to place the template on the whole article, should be a pre-condition to deleting this template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A straw man is invoking ad hominem out of this air. I did not imply any bad intent on anyone's part. If the concept of placing a request of a courtesy hold on a single section does not draw any objection and the whole issue is which template of the two to use, I don't see it as a good justification for deletion. The dedicated template is simply simpler to use and is more convenient for the editors. So, why not keep it for this reason alone? --Irpen 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not mean to suggest that you implied bad intent on anyone's part, and I hope my comment did not come across that way. However, thank you for clarifying your position. Regarding the simplicity of use argument, would I be correct in assuming that it applies only to the solution that involves adding a parameter to {{inuse}}? In the other case, i.e. if the wording of {{inuse}} is revised to always state "this page or section", it should be just as easy to add {{inuse}} to a section as it would be to add {{inuse-section}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would still be much more convenient to be able to clearly define what I am requesting to hold for a short time, an article or a section. I simply don't see a good reason to delete the template that pinpoints the request to the section without any ambiguity in favor of a template with an "OR". --Irpen 17:37, 15 September 2008 (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_deletion/Log/2008_August_31&oldid=1088098479"