Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25

Template:Catdesc

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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting per DRV discussion. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment what is this for? I don't see the point of it, the way it is now. An infobox with a short category description, I see the use for, this, no. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the same reason as in the previous TFD. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion (g4). We don't need to debate a template that was only deleted six days ago, nor do we need a template to construct simple sentences and add superfluous information. PC78 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion was overturned, so G4 doesn't apply. ÷seresin 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. In which case delete. PC78 (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as previous nominator – To quote Piotrus (talk · contribs), the first comment on the talk page of this relative of Frankenstein:
This monstrosity turns simple categories into a template that's terrifying to new editors and annoys even old hands like me. It should be deleted before it spreads (WP:CREEP).

More than 40 named parameters, with many subparameters. Most are not useful to editors, and seem like they were created by (and are intended for) his User:Kotbot.
Unfortunately, the creator didn't use (or deleted) common templates. Apparently, this is intended to replace {{catmore}}, {{parent category}}, {{distinguished subcategory}}, and other category templates.
Disastrously, the creator removed existing categories, and inserted other categories into the template itself. This makes it incredibly hard to conduct WP:CFD (that was how this template was noticed).
More than half the parameters are related to categories.
I've spent a week putting categories back into the usual form, just before the inter-wiki links, mostly using the categories in the template.
I've removed the most often used 18 parameters that referenced parent categories.

It is now ready for deletion without category side-effects.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too complicated and a definite hindrance to normal editing. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subst (where necessary) and delete. Category references MUST be removed or the CfD bots need to be informed. Unnecessarily complicated. Suggest that the category creator is the only one who understands the template enough to make sure the substitution is done correctly, so give him 2 weeks after close to take care of it. (In other words, I don't fully trust William Allen Simpson's interpretation of effects of deletion; I fell for it once before. I trust his good faith, but not his (or my) competence at tracing complex template transclusions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what/when/where you "fell for once before", but here's what's been done:
1. added each category parameter to a pseudo-category:
2. waited days for the job queue to populate.
3. discussed the subst'ing problem on the wikimedia developer technical list, where I've been a participant for 5 years.
4. worked through each category, subst'ing {{catdesc wipeout parent categories}}. (all subst'ing has been completed.)
5. removed the parameters from the template. The template no longer makes any category.
Unless you know of more to be done, I say it's ready for deletion!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for implying that I don't trust your intentions; it's your ability to trace obscenely convoluted templates that I'm not sure about. I believed that you had implied that reverting out-of-process renames of the categories generated by templates would work in a previous discussion at WP:CfD, but apparently the templates were too complicated for that to work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was WP:ANI, and a matter of minutes, and it turned out he had a robot banging away at pages at the same time that you were trying to revert, repeatedly. An out-of-control administrator. Rather a different situation....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came up against one of those, the first time someone tried to delete this template... Anyway, from what I've seen, you've successfully extracted the categories from the template (though I've no idea what you were doing with all those "do not create!" categories - I'd have had it all done in about half an hour without any such messing about, if you'd only waited), so yeah, go ahead and delete it if you're desperate to do so, though if you leave it a couple of days I'll deal with it and preserve the information it contains, minus any that people think is superfluous - that discussion seems to have stalled at WT:CFD. --Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2009 (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.