Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Totally redundant to Module:Unsubst, since typing {{subst:cn}} gives the same result as {{subst:dated|cn}} and is shorter. Ppp ery 02:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Does every dated maintenance template have Module:Unsubst? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, plus it is fairly trivial to add it to one. Ppp ery 13:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template to deal with a need which existed at the time; I have no oposition to delete this once it's verified that all dated maintenance templates:

Are set up as stated above;
Their documentation has been updated accordingly

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of that task has been done and will be done for new templates by a bot. Ppp ery 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even when the "Module:Unsubst" would make dating easier, it applies to just probably mainspace maintenance tags. I tried {{subst:archive me}}, used for talk pages, but it doesn't automatically date. Attempts to modify the module would require more time to add more coding to make this temples less necessary. Also, this template may not be as redundant or useless as claimed to be, even when the template creator may have no objections to deletion. It's also a good alternative to those not wanting to rely on bots automatically dating the tags. Even it can be useful, especially when a bot malfunctions. --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AnomieBOT is one of the least-likely-to-malfunction bots around, and I'll grant for the sake of argument that this template is redundant to unsubst - but so what? {{subst:citation needed}}, not to mention all its redirects, are also longer to type than {{subst:cn}}; this template does what it says on the tin, is harmless and (with only 7 edits and 13 to its doc page in the ten years between the days after their creations and the day before its tfd) low-maintenance, and there's no benefit to forcing the people who are used to using it, however few you assume them to be, into changing their habits. Keep. —Cryptic 19:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. KMF (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Ppp ery 02:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For articles. Which you would know if you read that instead of just throwing the pithy shortcut around. Templates aren't content; their only purpose is to be useful in making or maintaining content. —Cryptic 02:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cryptic, and because there is no reason to force those who are used to this to change pattern. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:54, 15 June 2017 (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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Administrator review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused: wikipedia:Administrator review is inactive Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was no consensus to mark ADREV as historical, just one editor doing so not even two months ago. Removing the template without consensus to retire the process itself seems a bit hasty. Regards So Why 06:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: There have been <10 admin reviews since 2015, none of which got more than a single response. I think it's pretty clear the project is dead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it has been slow there, however I believe the fate of the template should be coupled to the fate of the process. I have proposed reviving ADREV at VPPR. If there is consensus against it, I'll happily G7 the template. Regards So Why 12:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing gained from deletion. N.B. My attention was directed here by SoWhy (Special:Diff/784458583). –xeno^talk 15:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]