Difference between revisions of "Template talk:HoverTOC"

Revision as of 15:43, 3 June 2007

If there are no objections in 24 hours I will delete :) --Zoey 18:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Why do you insist on deleting all the convenience templates?

AphidPerson I get, it's been replaced by Person - fine. But why delete this one? It's not gonna free up space, and all it does is require a re-code if the functionality is needed again...

I mean, wtf kind of argument is "This template is no longer used anywhere." - how many people are going to use it if it's deleted? AphidPerson has been replaced. It is now worthless and will never ever ever be used again. Fine. Understood. But this template is the only one providing this functionality, so the number of people using this particular "feature" will not increase if it's deleted. Deleting a superceded template does not take away functionality. Deleting a unique template does. Just because this template isn't needed now doesn't mean somebody might not like it in the future.

This template consists of 638 characters. If you add up all the revisions you needed for placing the deletion template, starting this discussion, replying to me, deleting, and logging the deletion, you use up at least thrice as much as space as if you had just ignored it.

Deleting this template serves no purpose at all and is a waste of resources.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:33, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Again, she didn't insist on deleting anything. And we don't delete unused stuff for reasons of server space. Renegade, it's nothing personal that Zoey nominated these templates. She merely pointed out that these templates were not being used -- it's a fair point. She was just trying to clean up Special:Unusedtemplates. The reason special:unusedtemplates exists is to help with this sort of clean-up. --JayHenry 22:38, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I didn't assume it was anything personal (I was kidding in the rev comment) - I am questioning the way and form this is handled. As said a above - deleting a superceded template, that is definitely never going to be used again, is one thing - deleting a template that serves a unique purpose, simply because it's not used at a certain point in time, is a whole different issue.

You said it yourself: It has nothing to do with space. It is purely listed as currently unused, so it gets marked for deletion. It is that practice I have a problem with, and the fact that this is being sped up this much. If it really wasn't about space or anything like that, it wouldn't have hurt anyone to give a week of time for objection...or even three days. 24h to save a template that might very well be unused because nobody knows about it are just violently short, and look like she'd rather delete it right away, but couldn't due to policy.

I have no problem with deleting useless stuff. I have a problem with deleting useful stuff, just because it's currently unused. It doesn't hurt anyone to keep it. So putting it up for deletion just because it appears on some system page is a more than questionable practice, in my opinion. And honestly, I'm now wondering how many pages have silently vanished while I slept.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Again, this page had a deletion tag up on it for 6 days before I put the 24 hour notice on it. No one had said anything, so I put the 24 hour notice up. This is hardly unreasonable. Perhaps if you want to keep a closer eye on pages marked for deletion you should "watch" Category:Articles marked for deletion. Sorry for the confusion. --Zoey 10:15, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

If you're wondering what's been deleted, you can check out the Deletion log. If you see something in there that you think should be restored, I'd be more than happy to do that so we can discuss it's deletion. Oh, and remember, we're all working toward the same goal here.--Jonpro 10:43, 3 June 2007 (CDT)