Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26

Template:Done

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 SNOW keep. With noone but the nominator supporting deletion and multiple participants in this discussion already, I do not see any potential other outcome than "keep", so in the spirit of WP:SNOW, there is no reason to continue this process. If the nominator wants to urge people to use templates less often, this is the incorrect venue for it. Regards So Why 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Not done (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

Template:Done-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Not done-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thank you (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

First let me start off by saying that these templates discourage people from saying simple things themselves. We can say "done", "not done", "doing", "so-and-so is doing this" and "thank you" with or without these templates, thus making them unnecessary for saying such things. There's a difference between using a template warning to warn a user that they're vandalizing and using a template to say the phrases in question. These templates aren't useful for any sort of ease of use in any way, in fact making it harder as you'll just be typing "done" for example anyway, and with these templates you'll be typing "{{}}" around the template name. These templates are one of many examples of why we shouldn't overly use templates to say things on discussion pages. I urge everyone part of the community to take strong consideration before commenting. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid deletion rationale of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Additionally, none of the templates have been tagged as being nominated here. JPG-GR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I just did that for the one's which aren't protected. Since the others are protected, and since you're an admin, could you please tag the rest? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this templates can be a bit annoying, but can also be very helpful on high-traffic pages like WP:Changing username and WP:Requests for page protection, where they make it easy to scan the page and see quickly which requests have been completed and which haven't. They shouldn't be used as a substitute for discussion on talk pages, though. Robofish (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, {{done}} alone has 11,698 transclusions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if the this gets closed as delete, could you please ask whoever would delete the templates to temporarily re-create them in order for editors to substitute them? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why delete them though? With all due respect, you haven't provided a policy-based reason as to why these templates should be redlinked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have a policy supporting me, as far as I know. It is however stated at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion the following:
      - Reasons to delete a template

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Does "consensus" in this case mean as to what the application of the policies are or just opinion consensus? I thought it was opinion consensus, but now I'm confused. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. Hugely used in maintenance, and is useful. For articles, "usefulness" isn't a criterion for retention; with templates, I believe it is. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We would need a reason to delete. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 May 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.

Template:Infobox User

Template:Infobox User (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 Boldly redirected to Template:Infobox user. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{Infobox user}} (WP:CSD#T3), transcluded in a couple of userpages. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:58, 26 May 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.