Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9

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.

• Template:NFS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only three BLP talk pages. Better methods of dealing with any related problems exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 9 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:List of Serbs notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete.
  talk) 01:13, 12 August 2015 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 22 Sept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mediation request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tired joke.
  talk) 01:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't understand, what's the joke? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2015 (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

).

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 into {{Map requested}}. ~ Rob^Talk 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Map requested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Map requested from (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

• Oppose. 'very' is not enough. Prove it. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave it to readers to judge for themselves, trusting their intelligence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment {{image requested}} has a better implementation for "from", can we take the "from" coding from that as the base code for "from" any merged template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.
  talk) 09:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per nominator; add a toggle to {{Map requested}} to show the second line if a value for it is given. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. "Requested" is just a slightly simpler form of "Requested from", but the latter should work if given only the parameters that work in the former. The coding from {{image requested}} might be useful, as noted above. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and previous comments — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and do what Jc86035 said. Eman235/talk 06:51, 21 August 2015 (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.

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 Subst and delete. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:C&CTF-RfC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Notification template, used in 2009. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I get that it's not really used at the moment (or for the last few years) but it's a valid template should the wikiproject pick up again at some point in the future. Seems no real reason other than 'it's not used much' to delete. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProjet does not exist. Its page has been redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphan and delete - serves no purpose.
  talk) 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The TF no longer exists, so delete. Suggest substing rather than delinking. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• subst: and delete. Unneeded but past uses ought to be preserved so as not to change talk page archives, IMO. BethNaught (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (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.

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CB-deadlock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Used only once, on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements, in 2010.
• Template:CB-majority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Unused.
• Template:CB-consensus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Used only once, on Talk:American colonial architecture, in 2011.
• Template:CB-position (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Used only three times - two instances now archived, the other on a user talk in 2010.
• Template:CB-postpone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Used once, in a now-archived 2010 discussion. Redundant to simple hatting.
• Template:CB-proposal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Used in only six discussions; four archived; the others from 2011 and 2013.
• Template:CB-refer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Unused.
• Template:CB-supermajority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Unused.

A family of templates for formalising discussions, whose use is advocated in the user-essay Wikipedia:Method for consensus building, which does not appear to have secured community adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 August 2015

• Delete all This isn't how we do things on wikipedia. When discussions don't proceed in a linear fashion, such templates will just interfere with the more organic debate.Algircal (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Rather bizarre and definitely not how we do things here; we normally just offer a vote in bold at the start of a sentence, and that's quite sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (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.

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Controversial groups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used twice. More generic "controversial topic" templates are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the generic ones are fine for Talk:PETA and Talk:Huntingdon Life Sciences. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nyttend.
  talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:KeptTalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from creator Rationale for creation = for use in cases where an article has been deleted but the talk page should be retained; there is a CSD criteria which allows deletion of a talk page if an article has been deleted, and this was meant to provide some protection against such. The low usage (one use) might be due to the template's existence not being known, or it might be because it is considered useless. I have no strong opinion on whether the template should be retained or deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The creation of this template was not well thought out. Thousands of pages have been redirected and it would be excessive to tag each talk page with this tag.Algircal (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-userfy as a failed test per the authors' edit summary when he moved it from userspace several years ago. Subst. existing use. No objections to de-userfying if it gains more than minor use levels in the future and is used by more than one contributor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator, who made the first !vote in this section, has not asked for userfication. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{G8-exempt}}. There's no need to tag the talk page of a redirected article (those should never be speedy deleted under G8), and it's otherwise redundant to G8-exempt. But it's a good idea; if the other template didn't exist, we would do well to start using this one extensively. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to {{
  talk) 01:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's actually not redundant to {{Talk page of redirect}} since redirects exist in the non-talk space, and this template is intended to be used on talk pages of titles that no longer exist due to deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is redundant to it in practice. Or it was, before it was orphaned.
      talk) 19:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• I just looked at the edit history of
  Template:KeptTalk; I see what you are saying now, thanks to that "is a redirect" wording being there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to {{G8-exempt}} without prejudice to treating existing use differently, e.g. changing it to {{Talk page of redirect}} or something else entirely. Thanks to Nyttend for bringing this to my attention. Struck earlier suggestion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. Boldly redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If nobody undoes your bold redirect within 7 days and there is no further meaningful discussion, I think that will constitute consensus. At that time, any non-involved editor in good standing who is familiar with how to do a WP:Non-admin closure of a Template-for-discussion discussion should close this if an admin doesn't close it first. Previous comment null and void if your bold edit is reverted by anyone for any reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:G8-exempt per above. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ripe for closure - see discussions surrounding the "bold redirect" above. A
  WP:INVOLVED. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Iwiki-conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions, both relating to a 2009 discussion on Meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 9 August 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Inviteapprentice2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's a substitution template, it's supposed to be untranscluded. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, However, the creator last edited in 2009, and the template is not linked to from any project page for similar documentation, so it's unlikely anyone knows about or uses it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 13 August 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was redirect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IPsign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Unused. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Unsigned IP. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DirectIP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on ten IP user-pages. Redundant to other IP templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 9 August 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Copied-multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent fork of {{Copied}}. Name confusion with {{Copied multi}}. Only 9 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 9 August 2015 (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

).

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.

• Template:British English Oxford spelling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:British English Oxford spelling editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:British English Oxford spelling with Template:British English Oxford spelling editnotice.
Only minor stylistic differences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps you haven't read the code, but they are not two templates, there is only one template here. The other is an intermediate transclusion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. The latter template, which has no transclusions, should be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close there is nothing to do here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an edit notice template which can be called by other edit notice templates; or used directly, by being called by MediaWiki settings, so may appear as it isn't being transcluded. It is patently not regular editor content, as most editors do not edit edit notices. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:Citation by contributor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A mere 11 transclusions indicates a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:American English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:American English editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:American English with Template:American English editnotice.
Minor stylistic differences only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge - Both templates are deprecated and merging them could potentially compromise historical reference. Plus, {{
  talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment perhaps you haven't read the code, but they are not two templates, there is only one template here. The other is an intermediate transclusion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the latter template should be Subst: and deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an edit notice template called by other edit notice templates. There's no need to substitute it. It is patently not regular editor content, as most editors do not edit edit notices. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close there is nothing to do here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -
  talk pages, while Template:American English editnotice was designed for edit notices. Both are deprecated. One follows the perceived style of edit notice pages, while the other follows that of talk pages. Unless both styles are kept, either will look out of place in there respective proper locations.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question Can anyone show me the discussion that deprecated these? (And please use {{
  Ping}} when you respond so I can see it. Thanks.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Koavf: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice, I believe. It doesn't look like the discussion had very much participation, nor was it officially closed. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Godsy: Thanks. I disagree with the nominator for that discussion but it's long since been archived. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Koavf: It seems to only be deprecated "on paper" at the moment. I also disagree with the sentiment expressed by supporters there. If you wanted to raise the issue for broader consensus at the village pump, which I think would be a good idea, I'd "co-propose" it with you. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Godsy: If you propose a venue and ping me, I'll support there. I would also like to point out that the reason why I like these editnotices is because they will appear anytime someone edits a section (which I do frequently). So rather than have one template at the very top or bottom that can easily be overlooked or dozens of HTML comments, we can have one editnotice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding deprecation a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated? closed as "oppose depreciation". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close the templates are effectively merged, or if you disagree with that statement, oppose further merge as the convenience of having a wrapper-template named "Template:American English editnotice" for use in article-space editnotices outweighs any benefit to having only a single page for this functionality. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - did the Template:British English have the same merge as what you are proposing the merge of the Template:American English? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge - these templates appear to be intended for different pages: the former for use on article talk pages and other talk namespaces (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:American English + Backlinks list excluding talk namespace transclusions); the latter is almost exclusively used on editnotice pages though (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:American English editnotice). While these could be merged, it wouldn't really accomplish anything IMO.
  @Closing admin: please close this soon; the obligatory transcluded discussion notice for this thread clutters talk pages. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:29, 4 September 2015 (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.

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Albanian Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 8 transclusions, mostly in archived talk pages or talk pages of inactive users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of no comprehensible use.Algircal (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from technical disclaimers like {{Contains Hebrew text}}, we don't need to warn people about the presence of other languages; languages written in other Latin scripts, such as Albanian, don't need disclaimers of any sort. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (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.

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. There is a degree of support for merging with another template but such proposals can/should be made in a new nomination, as one participant has signalled they will do. Moreover one merge supporter has indicated a keep !vote. For now the consensus is against deletion and there has been no suggestion of other outcomes. BethNaught (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Admin request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's "unused" because there are no open requests. Unlike e.g. {{
  tl}} (see e.g. Template talk:!#Restore protection). Hence no transclusions. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Since you mention {{
    edit protected}}, which is widely used (4,199 transclusions at time of writing), the nominated template is also redundant to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is not redundant to 'edit protected'. 'Admin request' is intended to be broader than 'edit protected'. It is closer to {{Admin help}}, however quite different in how it would be used. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could persuade us by giving examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Talk:Princess Maria of Romania. But please, surely you can appreciate that there are times users need admin assistance on pages which are not locked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no reason why {{edit protected}} could not have been used in that case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should, if you honestly cared when you asked for an example, be able to answer that yourself here. That example page wasnt protected. The requester was wondering if it should be reverted, possibly protected, and shouldnt didnt take long to figure out that they are also implicitly asking about socks and blocks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Gosh, perhaps we should have a noticeboard where people can contact admins..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...Or maybe give new editors as many options to ask for help as possible, especially if they have no idea how to navigate Wikipedia, and whenever they find their first productive route, they will take it. No one can accurately state that every new editor will figure out a certain namespace before another (in this case, "Wikipedia:" (the AN board) vs. "Template:" (the nominated template). Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "...if they have no idea how to navigate Wikipedia..." So why confuse them with multiple, near identical templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Pigsonthewing: Agreed. (Look at my vote below, currently at the end of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has
  WP:AN been informed of this request? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Redrose and John Vandenberg. This isn't the kind of thing that lingers on a page: it should be removed once it's gotten a response, so WhatLinksHere isn't helpful. It can also be used by individuals asking for admin attention in situations other than full protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not have it work like {{
  talk) 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Perhaps you don't actively need help, but you want an experienced person's advice, and you know that admins are experienced. Someone needs to comment it out because it transcludes a category; once the request has been answered, it needs to be un-transcluded so the page doesn't stay in the category forever. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For that, we have {{help me}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know how it works; I was questioning why it works that way.
      talk) 01:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • That seems like a logical disconnect to me. Why would all requests for admin help be only about editing protected pages? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did I ever say that? {{
      talk) 01:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Sorry, I misread the comment string -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, overzealous template purge. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If {{
  Template:Admin request should be merged. (That, and as a new user, my first thought was to use the term "help" on any page rather that "request" because help was what I needed.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  My objection to {{

  Admin request}} being merged is that each has quite different language, and usages. However a well thought out merge of the two would be possible and a good outcome. The eventual merged template would need to use language which is less specific/leading in nature, and be more aware of the usage context, specifically the talk namespace it is used in, but it should be doable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• @
  WP:SNOW situation, consensus or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per my comments above. Unless it is merged with another truly similar template (such as {{Admin help}}), it is helpful and needs to remain as a standalone template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AlienCOTMvoter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 August 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aliencandidate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 August 2015 (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

).

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 Redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Core content policy talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to {{
  talk) 01:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Good catch. Boldly redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 12 August 2015 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was orphan, mark historical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AR talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:Abuse response is marked as historical, so this template's claim, made on many IP talk pages, that "currently the subject of an open abuse response case" is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Orphan and mark as historical.
  talk) 01:03, 12 August 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Grounded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Speedy keep - Looks like you misunderstand
  talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You comment does not justify a speedy keep. Looks like you misunderstood
    WP:SPEEDYKEEP. And "Redundant to {{Busy}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Being grounded is not the same as being busy. Therefore {{

talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep At times, being grounded is the opposite of being busy. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This entire page of deletion noms seems fishy to me; I don't see any reason to delete something that all young wikipedians are likely to go through at some point in their childhood editing.  
  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥
  01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete
  WP:CHILD seems to indicate an underaged individual -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is always personal information that should be removed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP 67. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP 67 - While we shouldn't necessarily prohibit under-aged editors from self-identifying, we should not be going out of our way to encourage it. Recommend existing uses be subst'd unless there is a clear reason to remove it from that particular page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 67. Existing uses should not substituted, but removed.
  talk) 01:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- other users don't need to know whether one has been grounded.
  What's wrong? 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:CHILD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all above. Moreover, if a kid got grounded from the computer, how are they going to access the computer to put up this notice? BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phones? Tablets? You can edit Wikipedia from several places.
    talk) 00:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The fictional Ignatius Reilly uses a tablet to compose his ramblings, so I guess User:Ignatius Reilly can do the same. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (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

).

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: There was strong support to keep, it is in use and likely to be used in the future, there was no support for outright deletion except by the nominator, and there were no policy reasons given that would require or strongly suggest deletion. There was some discussion about the possibility of merging this into another template or vice-versa. Therefore, I am not closing this in a way that would prejudice against a future merge discussion on the relevant templates' talk pages or any other appropriate venue, but if that happens in the very near future I strongly recommend that the participants of this discussion be notified so they can participate. Note: non-admin closure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

A template whose only parameter is the name of the template to display, Utterly ridiculous. And only 73 transclusions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I use this template, on several pages in my user and user talk space, and have done for several years. These instances determine which message to display by reading a value from a configuration page. By making one edit to that config page like this, I can affect what is displayed by {{
  WikibreakSwitch|off-on}} displays the {{Off and On WikiBreak}} template, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You don't need a seaparate template to do that; just redirect your configuration page to the template of choice. The template's documentation clearly refers to "the only parameter" (emphasis added). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incomplete, poor or missing documentation is not a valid rationale for deletion. We have hundreds of templates where the documentation doesn't match the template behaviour - {{WikiProject Pink Floyd}}, for instance - should we delete them all? I cannot "just redirect your configuration page to the template of choice" because that's not how it works. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into {{semi-wikibreak}}. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{
    WikibreakSwitch}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Placing this template makes things simpler and easier to handle. Deleting it would be a bad idea. --
  talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    ToonLucas22: In what way is changing, say, {{WikibreakSwitch|OFF}} to {{WikibreakSwitch|BUSY}} easier than hanging nothing to {{Busy}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Strongly against deletion of this template; I use it and I find any rationale for deleting this template to be weak at best. If anything we should be merging OTHER templates UP INTO this one so they all occupy one page in the template space. Sure it could use a little updating, a few more arguments would be nice indeed, a little bit of docs updating. Basically I could say people should be BOLD and just fix it instead of being deletionist. Were there actually nobody using this or transcluding it on their userpages; then it might be a different story.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I use it, it's fun, and creative. That, and it is for the user space only, so those 73 (or less) users who use it, including myself, really don't appreciate this nomination ... Ha. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, templates are cheap. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason to delete. Useful and used template. BethNaught (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep I am not seeing one delete rationale here other than the nom's. This template is being used functionally by active users, that alone counts for something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:Back from short wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 6 transclusions.
• Template:Back from long wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 8 transclusions.
• Template:Not on Wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 10 transclusions.

• Delete Pointless. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete {{
  talk) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Template:Not on Wikibreak as wiki-humor, and Delete the rest. I can see the last one being made into something good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (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.

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

).

• Template:Busy2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 32 transclusions
• Template:Busy3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Single use
• Template:Busy4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 4 transclusions
• Template:BusyEmail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 7 transclusions
• Template:Busy weekend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  ) - Unused.
• Template:Off and On WikiBreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 146 translusions
• Template:Semi-wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 46 translusions
• Template:Semi-wikibreak (simple) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Single use
• Template:BusyUniversityStudent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  ) - Used by only one editor outside of archives/ sandbox
• Template:Busy/Exams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Used by only three editors
• Template:Lazy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 8 transclusions
• Template:Wikibreak3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Only 2 transclusions

All redundant to {{Busy}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom; userfy on request.
  talk) 17:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per following:
  • First six "busy" templates into {{busy}}
  • {{semi-wikibreak}}, and {{semi-wikibreak (simple)}} into each other.
  • {{
    Atschool
    }}
  • {{Lazy}} into {{Bonked}}
  • {{wikibreak3}} into {{wikibreak}} --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I dream of horses's proposal seems the best, here, so put me down as merge as per I dream of horses. Also, keep {{Off and On WikiBreak}} as per others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. There's really no need to kill these templates forever. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per following - No reason to completely kill these, and I'm against deleting any of the Wikibreak templates that actually see use. There's no reason to delete Template:Off and On WikiBreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), it has 146 transclusions, hardly something we should delete. Merging it into busy is fine though. Busy 2-4 can merge into busy, as well as Email and Weekend. The rest can be merged as above.&nbsp♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Off and On WikiBreak}}

This user is busy in off-and-on doses and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Tell me again how "there's no reason to delete {{Off and On WikiBreak}}"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion rationale is insufficient.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per following as explained by I dream of horses. I find the deletionism on this board bothersome. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Some users displaying {{Off and On WikiBreak}} haven't edited since 2010 or earlier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because what the heck,
  Ignore the rules. Go Phightins! 04:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You appear to have misunderstood the nomination, which is to discuss whether we meed thirteen very similar templates (not to mention others listed elsewhere), instead of just one which performs the same function perfectly adequately. The harm done is twofold: the additional maintenance overheard (Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation refers), and the confusion through bewildering choice it places in front of editors who need to find a template to use. You advance no argument as to why more than one such template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get why people think a greater variety of choice is "bewildering". When finding a template to use people usually want one that conveys exactly want they want to say. This is the whole reason why people create these multiple types of templates! -- œ^™ 08:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; they create templates for a selfish, personal need, disregarding the larger picture, and the availability of generic templates into which the same messages could be inserted. That's why most of those listed have single-figure uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: All three uses of {{
  BusyUniversityStudent}} applied it in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's the current state. How can you be certain that the templates have not been used on other pages in the past, or will not be used on other pages in the future? They get added to user pages one day, and get removed at a later time, ranging from hours to years depending upon the circumstances. The very nature of these templates is that they are temporary. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Vincent60030 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it's impossible to prove a negative, and thus unreasonable to ask someone to do so, why don't you show that they have been used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, it is possible to prove whether a template has or has not ever been used in Wikipedia (excluding the earliest days where some edits are missing), but it's extremely labor-intensive to do so and it is, as you say, unreasonable to put that burden on anyone. The "worst-case effort" would be to have a bot with oversight or database-administrator (i.e. a WMF-run) iterate through every edit since the template was created to check for use, including use in deleted and suppressed edits. Not gonna happen except maybe as part of an approved research project (unlikely) or under direction from a court order or the WMF lawyers (which I hope never has to happen, but theoretically it could). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taking a wikibreak is different than being busy. I agree with the above, I see no real reason why these need to be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as who really cares? They're templates that people can use to express they are on wikibreak. They take up less than a kilobyte, and provide a useful service to those who might sometimes want it. There aren't that many active users on enwiki as there used to be, and these templates could see future use if we get more contributors. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. And back off. There's nothing wrong with variety. If you delete these people will just recreate their own eventually anyway to suit their specific needs. It's part of being an active
  community (well, ok, inactive in this case, but my point stands when it comes to other templates that Pigsonawing seems on a warpath to delete just because they seem kind've similar to another template) and it brings vibrance to the project. -- œ^™ 08:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all per Go Phightins and Chess. A variety of Wikibreak templates is useful for expressing a variety of messages. Making everyone use a uniform Busy template is pointless and people would just create other templates again anyway. BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closing admin: in the event of consensus to delete any of these templates which is not unused, please userfy to my userspace under User:BethNaught/Templates/TITLEOFTEMPLATE. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All

  talk) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep all I have used {{
  BusyUniversityStudent}} in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I was going to oppose the merges, but I can understand the reasons for wanting to do so according to I dream of Horses' guidelines. I don't think any of them should be deleted, and frankly I could really use the medical wiki-break one combined with a semi-wiki-beak one right now. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Each template created is unique and should not be deleted. It just depends whether other users want to use it or not. We have no rights to delete others' work unless it is for main page, file or article purposes. Also, it might just be their first masterpiece of userboxes. You can't control their freedom like that. It is just BAD to delete without a sufficient rationale where the templates are just used on their user or talk pages. Vincent60030 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong opinions on whether these should be kept, but the above is arguably the single worst keep vote I have ever seen at XFD. ‑ 
  iridescent 22:18, 30 September 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MsgEmail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 18 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages (and display email links where available) by default, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to the standard sidebar link.
  talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Look at User:Syed Atif Nazir (the userpage, not the human who operates it), where it's placed prominently. It makes leaving a message simpler, especially for new users who might think that they should contact Syed by leaving a note on his userpage instead of his talk page, and its link to Special:Emailuser is much more prominent than the little sidebar thing that might not even get noticed. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then raise a ticket to have that message in the chrome of user pages, 18 transclusions for over 25.9 million users makes this template as good as unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just out of curiosity if 18 people want to use it, why the heck do we care? It's not like we're running out of server space. Go Phightins! 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For reasons explained at
        Wikipedia:Template consolidation and (in draft) User:Pigsonthewing/Harmful interface templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep your reason is a non reason --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, same resons as
  Template:Leave message below. BethNaught (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I do not see why this is needs to be deleted if it is in use by a number of editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Only 67 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Used on talk pages, which accept messages by default, so redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to the standard "New section" link.
  talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Look at User:SaxTeacher (the userpage, not the human who operates it), where it's placed prominently. It makes leaving a message simpler, especially for new users who might think that they should contact SaxTeacher by leaving a note on his userpage instead of his talk page. 32 different userspace pages transclude this template, compared to 34 usertalkspace pages; SaxTeacher isn't some aberration. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of 67 aberrations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unnecessary template purge. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed the purging of an unnecessary template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nyttend. This is useful for editors who wish to facilitate receiving messages from newbies who may not understand Wikipedia's messaging system. BethNaught (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This suggests that of our 25,975,218 current registered users, only 67 "wish to facilitate receiving messages from newbies". If so, that needs to be fixed. This template is not the answer. Given the number of editors who take care to welcome newbies, it is also patent nonsense. The template is also used by editors who have not edited for the best part of a decade; how does it help in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helpful to newbies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not help newbies; the percentage of newbies who are ever likely to see it is effectively zero. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a user space template that allows editors to customize their page as they see fit. Deletion will only cause harm and confusion to several. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: What "harm and confusion"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's handy. SLBedit (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Useronline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 58 transclusions, so lacks community take-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think that "lacks community take-up" is a deletion criteria. Also, 58 is not bad, IMHO, for a user template. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Further note: The template adds no apparent value to user pages. In several examples, such as 'User:Fox Wilson', it shows the user as online, even though in that case, he hasn't edited since May. It links to a non-existent user page. 'User:Britannic124' set his to "offline" on 1 June 2015‎, but has edited on at least 6 different days since then. It uses icons, differentiated only by colour, to indicate the user's status - this is a breach of
  WP:COLOUR. What exactly is its use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • talk) 20:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The colour contrast advice in
      WCAG 2.0, the ISO international standard for web accessibility. The WMF requires us not to discriminate against readers or editors on the grounds of disability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep, but automatize the template by using some API that tracks the status of the account (with "loggedin" and "loggedout", maybe a bit shorter). If for technical reasons that's not posible, then I don't know what to say. --
  talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    talk) 17:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • In that case, I decided to add "or forgot to chante their status" in both the online and offline statuses. That should address the problem. --
      talk) 18:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • So we now have a template that tells us "this user is online or maybe not"? Just what Wikipedia needs! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @
          talk) 20:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • @
            ToonLucas22: Yeah I agree with you. I think 58 isn't that bad, I believe that we should keep the template for other userpages. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • @
              ToonLucas22 and EurovisionNim: What exactly is its use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Keep I see no reason why all of these status templates are being considered for deletion; there are probably more important things to worry about than this.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 01:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You not seeing the reason, is not a reason to keep this, nor any of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My 'not seeing the reason' should be very well indicative of a very weak deletion rationale that doesn't further the project, merely aiming to remove non-intrusive templates that do not actually adversely affect the project.  ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 22:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed! What I'm seeing is User:Pigsonthewing wanting delete anything that has any slight reason whatsover in guideline or policy to delete! Useful or not useful. He's looking for things to delete just for the sake of deleting stuff! Again, there's nothing wrong with having CHOICE. VARIETY. THAT'S the main rationale for keeping these community templates! -- œ^™ 08:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Let users do what they want in userspace, as long as it's not against some policy: if some users think this template adds value to their userspaces, don't tell them that they're wrong. And please read
  WP:COLOUR again: This section is about the use of colors in articles. Yes, it's relevant to templates, too, but that's because they appear in articles. It's thoroughly irrelevant to userspace, especially because there's no good reason to object to an editor's employment of colours in his own userspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Common courtesy doesn't magically vanish in userspace. No, people can't decorate their user pages in whatever manner they please, just like they can't have signatures that blink.
    talk) 00:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If anyone claims that this template adds value to any userspace, they are wrong. And please read my comment above, about
    WP:COLOUR, posted 20:27 UTC, 9 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What part of This section is about the use of colors in articles makes you think that it applies to userpages? Exquisite detail would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WMF requires us not to discriminate against readers or editors on the grounds of disability.
        talk) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • A simple userspace template is not discrimination (did it occur to you that people can ignore this template if they feel like it, and nobody suffers?), and the difference between this and blinky signatures is that
          policy prohibits the latter and doesn't address this. Final reminder: userspace is not an article and not subject to article-specific policy. Further insistence to the contrary will be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I don't put up with passive-aggressive nonsense. Ignore me all you want.
            talk) 14:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • [ec] A user-space template that some users cannot read most certainly is discriminatory and WMF policy prohibits such discrimination. However, thanks for confirming that if this template is done away with "nobody suffers". Also, please keep the snark out of your edits summaries and mystery-meat links. Of course our
            WP:SIGAPP policy doesn't address this - the template is not used in sigs; and Wikipedia:Deny recognition is for "vandals and trolls", not people who understand web accessibility and WMF policy better than you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Keep I really see no reason for it to be deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Knowing when users are online or not is in some cases important to know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained above, this template does not tell us whether or not a user is online. I also note that t was not on either your user or talk page when you made the above comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

• User:Angelus Delapsus has this template, showing them as "online". Setting it so was their very last edit. In September 2012.
• User:Jmccrory Set their status to "Online in September 2012. Made their last Wikipedia edit the same day.
• User:Fox Wilson
  Status has been set continually to "Online" (that's 24/7) since June 2014. Last edit May 2015.
• User:Earthbillion Template added June 2013‎. Edits sporadically. Status never set.
• User:Zerbu/Sandbox
  Added to sandbox in 2011. Unedited since Not on main user pages.
• User:Lsarun1312 Added in November 2011. Status has been set to "online" ever since.
• User:Wkacnt Added in 2011. Last edited 2012. Status has been set to "online" ever since.
• User:Smithw005304 Added the template in February 2011. Only ever made four edits (all in their userspace). All in in that month. Status has been set to "online" ever since.

Can anyone provide counter-examples, of users regularly and accurately updating this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that the reason people are !voting to keep this template is that they don't understand that it doesn't actually work.

talk) 13:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Number of people arguing to keep this template: six. Number of people arguing to keep this template and who use this template: Zero. TfD truly is broken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: When you say "it doesn't actually work", what aspect of it do you believe to be not working? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot function as an online indicator, as it needs to be manually toggled; and nobody's going to edit their user page every time they come online and every time they go offline.

talk) 18:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Some people don't bother, this is true; but that doesn't mean that nobody bothers. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is so incredibly inefficient, that I simply can't imagine that anybody would bother. See also

talk) 18:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The question was "Can anyone provide counter-examples, of users regularly and accurately updating this template?". It seems not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep template but 1) make it even more clear to users that use it that it is up to them to keep the status updated, and 2) call a
  what isn't recorded can't be recovered later - but it would solve the problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - why is lack of use a deletion critera? I'd agree if no one used it, but there are plenty of templates without major use. Samuel Tarling (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point that has been made above, clearly and repeatedly, is that while this templates may litter a few user pages, no one has been identified as using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Be alert for special cases if this is deleted: User:Vacation9 has his status marked "huggle". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And has done continuously, since 11 May 2015‎. Whatever does "status = huggle" mean? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It may be possible merge this with Template:Statustop by adding code to Statustop so it can be made to display like Template:Useronline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several users were using this correctly and updating their /Status sub-page as recently as June and July 2015, but none have done so recently (I may have missed a few so please feel free to re-do my work). I did NOT check for users who use the status= parameter nor did I thoroughly check to see if people who have been "offline" in awhile had made any contributions while "offline." This supports the claim that no active users are using it using the /Status sub-page method of use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which users? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't keep a list, but there were 3 or 4. If you want to re-create the list, go to the template, go to "what links here," exclude the "links" and "redirects," then check the edit history of every listed user's /status and /Status sub-page. You will find 3 or 4 who were keeping it up-to-date as recently as June or July 2015. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please keep this template as it is a good indicator for me and other user in their talk pages that whether the used is online to help you or answer your talk and it is very easy to install this templlate on your page. Prymshbmg (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On which user page does this happen? And if it's so useful, how come you weren't using it when you made that comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do not like this template, but that is not a rationale for deletion. I agree with the sentiment that it should include some automation so it presents the _correct_ status. Personally, I've opted for a different approach to reporting whether or not I'm online ... referring people to my last 10 edits as an indicator of whether I have been editing recently (see my user page). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 25 August 2015 (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

).

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User FullActive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary.Algircal (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you want to know if I'm fully active, not having a wikibreak template would be a clue. So would my contributions page. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not used and not necessary --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:29, 11 August 2015 (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.

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.

• Template:Hidemessages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other "collapse" templates. Only 9 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove or replace existing uses with a similar, more-popular template but only in cases where there is an obvious, non-controversial way of making the page look good. Once all of the obvious cases are dealt with, {{
  WP:BOLDly removed it from Talk:British Museum as part of a larger top-of-the-talk-page cleanup, but it was a borderline case and you could easily argue that a template like this or a similar template is needed on that page. Feel free to add this or a similar template back to that page if you think it's too cluttered. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 22 August 2015 (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.

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gibraltarian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Dates from 2006 case. Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to {{
  talk) 10:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per my statement at
  talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hipi Zhdripi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Dates from 2006 case. Named account is not registered. Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to {{
  talk) 10:18, 9 August 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Schooling late messages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use (by creator who last edited in January 2014). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into {{
  atschool}}, or other, "I'm at school" template. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What's to merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete.
  talk) 00:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Virtually unused template.
  talk!) 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Userfy. No reason to delete a template from Template: space when it would be wholly inoffensive in user space. BethNaught (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (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

).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The result of the discussion was 1) Merge to one template; 2) keep the combined template, as there's no point moving it to the userspace of someone who last edited in 2007. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nohumor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nohumour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Unused. Inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I highly agree with you. I do not think we should have that template because the template is giving trouble to our users --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite a claim. Can one of you two please cite an instance where it caused trouble? — Sebastian 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. It's just banter.
  talk) 00:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The editor who created both templates has not edited since May 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not unused; I've used it several times since it was used on me. — Sebastian 18:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing two templates; one has zero transclusions, the other has just one, and that in an archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy both but do not delete: There appear to be 17
  WP:SUBSTitutions of the "humor" spelling or of a very similar template in these search results. Remember, these kinds of templates are designed to be substituted and therefore have zero transclusions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: If the result is "keep both" then I recommend a merge to {{Nohumor}} as it is the only one that is in use, with the simple addition of a parameter to change "humor" to "humour" in the displayed text as the primary change needed to effect the merge. There is really no justification for having both page exist in Template: space when one has, as far as I can tell without checking historical edits and deleted pages, never been used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice: I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#Template talk:Nohumor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: uses are irrelevant because this is a substitution template. Userfy if you must, but do not delete, because this would be appropriate if hosted in userspace and there is no just reason to delete a template simply because the author put it in Template: space. BethNaught (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a single template --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:29, 16 September 2015 (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

).

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.