The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per
SmokeyJoe. This is not "unused," with nearly 20 transclusions. No real reason for deletion here, and I note the nominator has been active at
TfD of late in their nominations of long-standing user templates like {{education wikibreak}} for deletion or merging.
Doug MehusT·C13:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Those are transclusions in documentation, not "uses" and not reasons to keep. The vast majority of my recent TfD nominations have resulted in deletion, or otherwise merges or redirections, so your point in raising the subject of my activity is not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits18:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. You appear to confuse infoboxes with userboxes. Infoboxes are used across a variety of articles, and consistency, and workability of options is important. That is completely non-applicable to a userbox displaying membership of a WikiProject subgroup. Userboxes are best kept simple so that ANU user can use and adapt them. There is no burden with this template, nothing for maintainers to have to maintain. Instead, you are creating work with the mfd nomination, and trying to do damage to a WikiProject/workgroup by deleting its resources and records. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I confuse nothing. The page I link to has a paragraph, near the top, saying "Several of the principles apply to other types of template, equally.". Did you not read it? your "trying to do damage" allegation is utter poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
It was used by its author, and possibly others. “Not needed” can be said about many things in WikiProjects, and many good things are not needed. The principle of simpler maintenance for a few expert template writers is not relevant to isolated workgroup userboxes. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:08, 22 February 2020 (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 page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per
SmokeyJoe. This is not "unused," with nearly 20 transclusions. No real reason for deletion here, and I note the nominator has been active at
TfD of late in their nominations of long-standing user templates like {{education wikibreak}} for deletion or merging.
Doug MehusT·C13:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Those are transclusions in documentation, not "uses" and not reasons to keep. The vast majority of my recent TfD nominations have resulted in deletion, or otherwise merges or redirections, so your point in raising the subject of my activity is not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits18:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. You appear to confuse infoboxes with userboxes. Infoboxes are used across a variety of articles, and consistency, and workability of options is important. That is completely non-applicable to a userbox displaying membership of a WikiProject subgroup. Userboxes are best kept simple so that ANU user can use and adapt them. There is no burden with this template, nothing for maintainers to have to maintain. Instead, you are creating work with the mfd nomination, and trying to do damage to a WikiProject/workgroup by deleting its resources and records. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I confuse nothing. The page I link to has a paragraph, near the top, saying "Several of the principles apply to other types of template, equally.". Did you not read it? your "trying to do damage" allegation is utter poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
It was used by its author, and possibly others. “Not needed” can be said about many things in WikiProjects, and many good things are not needed. The principle of simpler maintenance for a few expert template writers is not relevant to isolated workgroup userboxes. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:08, 22 February 2020 (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 page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.