| < January 17 | January 19 > |
|---|
- 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. нмŵוτн τ 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This template is obsolete, as its functionality is now available as a user preference (see Special:Preferences > Gadgets > User Interface Gadgets). — Sandstein ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded, rarely used and apparently obsolete. Didn't know about that option, cheers sandstein, hate having to edit a whole page just for the top bit.-- Jac16888 ( talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above. Dreamy § 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As above, obsolete and deprecated. >< Richard Ω6 12 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I didn't know of the trick pointed out by User:Sandstein (thanks, btw), that's really no reason to keep it, so delete as obsolete. It'd be nice if knowledge of that gadget was more widespread (or advertised). JPG-GR ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - to integrate server-side commands into the articles undermines simplicity and clarity. -- 790 ( talk) 11:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the default for the Edit-first-section user option should be toogled so that by default everyone sees the edit first section link. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It has been superseded by the Gadget option but only for registered users. This template allows IP users the capability. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you (or others) believe an edit link for section 0 would generally be useful, it seems more useful to turn it on for all users on all pages (probably suggested through bugzilla or WP:VPT), rather than to rely on a page-by-page basis. – Luna Santin ( talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Fnlayson. Useful to unregistered editors and readers. -- Iamunknown 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not so useful if one has to add the template to individual articles, creating clutter and overhead. If at all, this must be implemented as a general default preference, not as a template workaround. Sandstein ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 20#Template:Edit-top-section. Sandstein ( talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per the previous comments. Such a feature should not be added on a page-by-page basis as there is no real definable criteria for including it and blurs the standard software behaviour. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to get consensus for it being added site-wide, and there is currently an old bug open ( bugzilla:156) for getting it included in the software. matt br 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - a page-by-page template is definitely not the most elegant or even a realistic solution to this problem. Happy‑ melon 12:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely unnecessary given that the reason field in the generic one can be used to specify "privacy", it is not linked from the list of protection templates. (Page is protected, so I had to place this on it's talk page). VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like making this a separate template is likely to attract more trouble rather than less, which is a bad thing for protection templates. Better just to use the generic template. — Gavia immer ( talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Is redundant and rather WP:BEANSy, the standard template handles this just fine. >< Richard Ω6 12 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary detail which can be provided by the "reason" field. Happy‑ melon 12:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was Delete, as these are unused templates which are already starting to snowball. No point in keeping this now-pointless process going. Maxim (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Group of five unused templates meant for season-by-season statistics of ice hockey teams. Templates deprecated by superior Wikitable markup. — Flibirigit ( talk) 09:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Start UHL SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start UHL2 SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start UHL2 SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start FlintGenerals AllTimeRecord ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete per nom. Deprecated. - Djsasso ( talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Per the nom. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaiser matias ( talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was Endorse moves as illustrated by Pompte below. There is no reason to delete non-standard userboxes, and no consensus for that below. Userfying the non-standard userbox is at editorial discretion. IronGargoyle ( talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of Template:User Rochester, that is only being used by the creator.
I am submitting a move requesting for Template:User Rochester to move to Template:User University of Rochester so that Template:User Rochester, New York can move to Template:User Rochester. Dan Leveille TALK 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a duplicate, and both userboxes should be kept separate for differing tastes. Considering all the Rochesters in the word, the disambiguation of ", New York" allows for the creation of future userboxes for those other cities. The only move that seems to be intuitive is Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester2. – Pomte 11:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox isn't even standard sizes. If we decide to keep it, it should be moved to Template:User University of Rochester2 and then Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester. -- Dan Leveille TALK 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support the moves per Dan Leveille Travtim (Talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I thought userboxes went to MfD. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy per nom and WP:UM]. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Education userboxes aren't migrated. – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - nonstandard size - per WP:BOX.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Userboxes can be any size. The only restrictive part of the guidelines is content and categorization. – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear what should be done here. To re-iterate what Dan said, in succession:
- Template:User University of Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester2
- Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester
- Delete Template:User Rochester.
- – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
| < January 17 | January 19 > |
|---|
- 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. нмŵוτн τ 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This template is obsolete, as its functionality is now available as a user preference (see Special:Preferences > Gadgets > User Interface Gadgets). — Sandstein ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded, rarely used and apparently obsolete. Didn't know about that option, cheers sandstein, hate having to edit a whole page just for the top bit.-- Jac16888 ( talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above. Dreamy § 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As above, obsolete and deprecated. >< Richard Ω6 12 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I didn't know of the trick pointed out by User:Sandstein (thanks, btw), that's really no reason to keep it, so delete as obsolete. It'd be nice if knowledge of that gadget was more widespread (or advertised). JPG-GR ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - to integrate server-side commands into the articles undermines simplicity and clarity. -- 790 ( talk) 11:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the default for the Edit-first-section user option should be toogled so that by default everyone sees the edit first section link. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It has been superseded by the Gadget option but only for registered users. This template allows IP users the capability. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you (or others) believe an edit link for section 0 would generally be useful, it seems more useful to turn it on for all users on all pages (probably suggested through bugzilla or WP:VPT), rather than to rely on a page-by-page basis. – Luna Santin ( talk) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Fnlayson. Useful to unregistered editors and readers. -- Iamunknown 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not so useful if one has to add the template to individual articles, creating clutter and overhead. If at all, this must be implemented as a general default preference, not as a template workaround. Sandstein ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 20#Template:Edit-top-section. Sandstein ( talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per the previous comments. Such a feature should not be added on a page-by-page basis as there is no real definable criteria for including it and blurs the standard software behaviour. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to get consensus for it being added site-wide, and there is currently an old bug open ( bugzilla:156) for getting it included in the software. matt br 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - a page-by-page template is definitely not the most elegant or even a realistic solution to this problem. Happy‑ melon 12:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely unnecessary given that the reason field in the generic one can be used to specify "privacy", it is not linked from the list of protection templates. (Page is protected, so I had to place this on it's talk page). VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like making this a separate template is likely to attract more trouble rather than less, which is a bad thing for protection templates. Better just to use the generic template. — Gavia immer ( talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Is redundant and rather WP:BEANSy, the standard template handles this just fine. >< Richard Ω6 12 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary detail which can be provided by the "reason" field. Happy‑ melon 12:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was Delete, as these are unused templates which are already starting to snowball. No point in keeping this now-pointless process going. Maxim (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Group of five unused templates meant for season-by-season statistics of ice hockey teams. Templates deprecated by superior Wikitable markup. — Flibirigit ( talk) 09:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Start UHL SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start UHL2 SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start UHL2 SBS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Start FlintGenerals AllTimeRecord ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete per nom. Deprecated. - Djsasso ( talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Per the nom. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaiser matias ( talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 debate was Endorse moves as illustrated by Pompte below. There is no reason to delete non-standard userboxes, and no consensus for that below. Userfying the non-standard userbox is at editorial discretion. IronGargoyle ( talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of Template:User Rochester, that is only being used by the creator.
I am submitting a move requesting for Template:User Rochester to move to Template:User University of Rochester so that Template:User Rochester, New York can move to Template:User Rochester. Dan Leveille TALK 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a duplicate, and both userboxes should be kept separate for differing tastes. Considering all the Rochesters in the word, the disambiguation of ", New York" allows for the creation of future userboxes for those other cities. The only move that seems to be intuitive is Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester2. – Pomte 11:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox isn't even standard sizes. If we decide to keep it, it should be moved to Template:User University of Rochester2 and then Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester. -- Dan Leveille TALK 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support the moves per Dan Leveille Travtim (Talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I thought userboxes went to MfD. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy per nom and WP:UM]. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Education userboxes aren't migrated. – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - nonstandard size - per WP:BOX.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Userboxes can be any size. The only restrictive part of the guidelines is content and categorization. – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear what should be done here. To re-iterate what Dan said, in succession:
- Template:User University of Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester2
- Template:User Rochester → Template:User University of Rochester
- Delete Template:User Rochester.
- – Pomte 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.