Difference between revisions of "Template talk:HoverTOC"

Revision as of 17:25, 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AphidPerson I get, it's been replaced by Person - fine.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 Deleting a superceded template does not take away functionality.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 As said a above - deleting a superceded template, that is definitely never going to be used again, is one thing - deleting a template that serves a unique purpose, simply because it's not used at a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)

That was not my point, and you know it.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:25, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

One shouldn't have to actively prevent perfectly fine pages from deletion. This page should never have been marked for deletion in the first place.

The fact that it has been for six days and I only noticed now only reveals more flaws in the system - I noticed the pages on recent changes because I created them myself - and that apparently only after six days. If a page's own creator needs almost a week and a whole lot of pure luck to notice a page is about to get killed, how is a normal visitor going to get involved?

Had a new video been posted last night, and we'd have had the usual rush of episode page, main page, list of videos and character page revisions on recent changes, I would have never known there even was a process going on. And that's just impossible. It can't be that pages silently vanish in the background simply because the markings drown among the other revisions, just as much as it can't be that one apparently has to check the deletion lists daily only to make sure the deletions are reasonable.

Hell, actually, this very template is only a toy, anyway. I think it doesn't even work with IE. Fuck it. But what reason in the universe did you have to nominate Template:Clr? Half the people here don't even know HTML, and you want to kill shortcuts to obscure attributes, just because they're, at a certain period, unused? What kind of logic is that? With that logic, no one could ever write a template pre-emptively. We'd only be allowed to write a template if it was, right now, at that very moment, needed. 'cause otherwise, it'd be unused and would have to be killed. That's ridiculous.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:25, 3 June 2007 (CDT)