Hello fellow wikians. I was looking through our templates and I think its time for us to Make Templates Great Again. I'm creating this as a Yew Grove thread grouped together because otherwise it would end up being a lot of RfDs, RfMs and similar proposals, and will have discussions for both sections to make it easier.
These are templates that appear in Category:Maintenance templates
- Delete . It isn't used at all, and if there are any situations where a page would fall into this criteria, our speedy delete template can easily be used and an admin would protect the page if need be at their own discretion. Deleted.
- Merge into . We can easily change text in the main template to say "This article or section" rather than have a dedicated template for a section. Oppose consensus for merging this.
- Delete . We don't use this either, our stub and incomplete templates easily replace this. Nominated for speedy deletion.
- Delete . This template looks super messy, isn't used, and correct me if I'm wrong - can't this be done using Lua or something anyway if it is needed? Deleted.
- Delete . It isn't actually used anywhere notable. If we keep this, why shouldn't we have a notice like that for every page that should adhere by a specific style guide? It is kinda stupid. Nominated for speedy deletion.
- Merge into . They're both the same template but with slightly differing words. Merged.
- Delete . Unused template. Deleted.
DeleteRemoved as this template is used in the Update namespace. . Unused template.
- Add an optional
date=parameter to each maintenance template to allow editors to indicate to future editors when the template was added. Those that have used maintenance templates on Wikipedia will be familiar with this. No consensus.
2, 3, 6, 7, oppose 8, rest neutral - is used, but it only appears when editing Update namespace pages 16:23, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh, I hadn't edited in the Update namespace all too much so wasn't aware of that. I see now. I've put a strike through it in my proposal rather than remove it so that the numbers for each point don't change and confuse people when they look at people opposing #8 jayden 18:03, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Change 2 to oppose - Per Scuzzy. Whilst I see Jayden's point about the similarities, I think given the nature of the condition there should be a warning of some sort at the section where the effects occur 00:25, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose #2 - As an epileptic myself, I'm extremely anal about the usage of those templates, and frankly I think it's best left in two different templates in the same vain asand - Although I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it for the sake of adding spaces. An alternative route I'd like you to consider would be to completely delete the section aspect all together, and just have a bright red header at the top of the page, with maybe a note or something. -- 16:30, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite think it falls into the same vain as the stub templates simply because they're more for the content on the page rather than the content in a quest/minigame/whatever. I like the idea of not having a section template and just having the one that goes at the top of the page as a sort of "blanket" warning for the entire page. jayden 18:03, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- It more particularly refers to the part of, say, the quest, in which you should be cautious. But I'll be willing to do the blanket warning. Hopefully people heed my warnings about merging them, because thats dumb. Also your forum title is terrible. Never ever make that overused joke again. -- 00:07, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Support all but 2 and 8 - per Ciph and Scuzzy16:32, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Support - per others. 18:56, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Talk page is used 278 times. Page was used once in userspace, so I subst'd page and deleted it. As a general point of observation, I think most of these and the ones below could be nominated for speedy deletion or just redirected to the appropriate template. cqm 06:18, 2 Jun 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
- I just figured with how many there were, it'd be better to throw them into a thread than go through and add a RfD or speedy delete for all of them. As seen, some people don't agree with some of them which is good because that's the kind of feedback that shows it was better to ask than just go ahead and do it imo jayden 10:07, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Support all except 2 and 9 - I createdspecifically so the section where it occurs is clear for those people who need to be warned about it. Granted it could be merged and a parameter could be added instead, but a section warning is needed as per Ciph and Scuzzy. 07:32, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Comment on 9 - Not sure what this is about, as all pages have a history. Also no, just no to this kind of title, it's overused and just no.07:33, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
These are templates that appear in Category:Transclusion templates
temporary=parameter. Done and nominated /Temporary for speedy deletion.
into using a simple
- Delete only one "illegal item" in-game. Does that really justify a template like this? I think the opening paragraph of that article is enough. Nominated for speedy deletion. . There is
- Delete sandbox, or including it on your own userspace. Deleted. . The main navbox template can easily be tested by looking at previews while editing, using the
- Move to a sub-page of . Moved.
- Delete RS:PLAYER, this template never really needs to be used. I think it encourages people to make player articles on our players sister wiki and link to them from this one, which isn't really good and leads to increased vandalism if anything. I'm pretty sure we hardly ever link to other wikis anyway? Nominated for speedy deletion. . Per
to . Moved.
- Merge into it. They're both literally the same template bar a few words. A parameter can easily be used on the original template to let players know if poison is safe or not, which seems to be the intent of the second template. Merged and deleted.
text=parameter on the template can easily control whether to state it is a DnD, activity, quest, miniquest, or whatever else. Merged and deleted. and into it. A
Support -16:00, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Support 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, neutral 5 - The RSPlayer template can be used for the exceptions of RS:PLAYER, such as first 99s. Additionally, I think ye mean16:23, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- RS:PLAYER does also state that "Whenever players are mentioned, their usernames should be unformatted and unlinked." too, which is kind of conflicting with having a template that would be used to link player names to external articles jayden 18:03, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Support all -16:28, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Support - Bip.18:56, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- What does polypore dungeon have to do with this? :thinking: -- 00:08, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Support all + Comments -isn't even used. I've merged #4 because why not. I created for the 120s/200m pages, but those have been since removed from those pages, so delete it, it's not used that much either. 07:49, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I've merged thetemplates as well. 10:38, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - If anyone has any last minute additions to the discussion feel free to add them. If nothing changes I'll implement the changes I've described that have support consensus in a few hours. jayden 11:03, June 7, 2017 (UTC)
RfC - I've implemented the changes as necessary. The following templates have been nominated for speedy deletion. If an admin could come along and delete them, that'd be great.
Closed - The nominated templates were deleted.13:57, June 7, 2017 (UTC)