Template talk:HoverTOC

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AphidPerson I get, it's been replaced by Person - fine.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 Deleting a superceded template does not take away functionality.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 As said a above - deleting a superceded template, that is definitely never going to be used again, is one thing - deleting a template that serves a unique purpose, simply because it's not used at a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

I realize that was not your point, and I never implied that it was. I was simply trying to be helpful by pointing out a resource that you might not have known about.--Jonpro 17:25, 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)

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure luck". As Zoey said above, there is a Category:Articles marked for deletion for a reason. It's not that hard to check it once a week. Also, as I said, pages can be restored after they've been deleted. If you create a template that you think would be useful, but don't use it right away, and it happens to be deleted, you can just re-create it when you want to use it or ask an admin to restore the page. No admin would refuse a request to restore a template that you are going to use. There's absolutely nothing wrong, however, with trying to keep things cleaned up. That's why we have pages like Special:Unusedtemplates, so that things around here don't get too cluttered. As I said above, we're all working toward the same goal. There's no reason to get hostile.--Jonpro 17:25, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

But that is not the point - that's like saying "No need to be careful with the glasses, we can always buy new ones!". wtf kind of argument is "it can always be restored" if something shouldn't have been deleted in the first place? Yes, the damage can be undone. But that doesn't change the fact that damage was done before.

Why is it so hard to just accept that a template is currently unused, and leave it alone for somebody to use it in the future? Why does it have to be killed, forcing somebody to resurrect or recode it, might it be needed again?

If it's not really gone anyway, why pretend to make it go in the first place?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:02, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

And by "pure luck" I mean, had I not been there the very hour Zoey updated the notices, the revisions would have been pushed down from recent changes, and I would have never noticed there was something going on. The only reason I even got the chance to object a deletion was that I happened to come by at that point in time. By chance. Out of pure luck. And the fate of the pages here should not depend on who accidently happens to skim recent changes at any given point in time.

But my whole point is that it did not have to be by pure luck. There are more pages that give information about what is happening than just recent changes. There is the Category:Articles marked for deletion (which has been mentioned multiple times) which provides you with the articles up for deletion so you don't have to see it on recent changes. If you didn't know about that category before, then I can see your frustration, but you know about it now so I don't see the problem. And the analogy about the glasses doesn't make sense: buying new glasses costs money, but restoring a deleted template costs nothing. And just so you know, I'm not arguing that this template be deleted. Since it does have a purpose, I see no reason to. Zoey simply added the delete tag because it was not being used, so there didn't seem to be a reason to keep it around. Since you have provided a reason, I think it should be kept. Oh, and "If it's not really gone anyway, why pretend to make it go in the first place?" Well, considering nothing is ever really gone from a wiki (with the exception of deleted images I believe), why delete anything at all? That logic doesn't make any sense. We delete things to keep everything uncluttered and running smoothly. One way to find some of these things that might be extra "clutter" is pages like Special:Unusedtemplates. Obviously, not everything listed there should automatically be deleted, and that's why we have a deletion process. If you don't like the process for deletion, perhaps you have a suggestion for a way we could do it better.--Jonpro 20:23, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

FUCK. Lost three pages of text due to a stupid misclick -_-

This version will be less elaborate, as I can't be arsed to type it all again.

But my whole point is that it did not have to be by pure luck. There are more pages that give information about what is happening than just recent changes. There is the Category:Articles marked for deletion (which has been mentioned multiple times) which provides you with the articles up for deletion so you don't have to see it on recent changes. If you didn't know about that category before, then I can see your frustration, but you know about it now so I don't see the problem.

People shouldn't have to fear perfectly fine pages get deleted if they don't constantly invest the extra effort of checking the deletion lists to make sure that doesn't happen.

And the analogy about the glasses doesn't make sense: buying new glasses costs money, but restoring a deleted template costs nothing.

Ignoring the page: Nothing.

Deleting/Undeleting: Tag, wait, wait, wait, delete, find page missing, search, search, search, realize it's deleted, request undeletion, wait, wait, wait, undelete, use.

There's a reason they say "time is money". Deleting/Undeleting may cost no money, but it costs a whole lot of user effort and involvement. If I, on a weekday and night, realize I need a page restored, it could very well take another 18 hours until an admin is done with sleeping, working, and back at home. That's a big a fucking difference against "oh, how neat! *uses*".

And just so you know, I'm not arguing that this template be deleted. Since it does have a purpose, I see no reason to. Zoey simply added the delete tag because it was not being used, so there didn't seem to be a reason to keep it around. Since you have provided a reason, I think it should be kept.

Actually, one might successfully argue this template should be deleted unless it's updated - due to lacking Internet Explorer support, it is virtually useless and unlikely it will ever be used in this form, if nobody fixes it (which, I think, is impossible, thanks to Microsoft) - the point is not that this particular template has to be kept; the point is that it shouldn't be deleted just because at a certain point in time nobody is using it. (You can see the subtle difference in my stance in the lack of the word "objection" in my original response.)

Oh, and "If it's not really gone anyway, why pretend to make it go in the first place?" Well, considering nothing is ever really gone from a wiki (with the exception of deleted images I believe), why delete anything at all? That logic doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does, it's an entirely different mindset if you say "this page is useless and no one will ever use it, let's delete it!" or "hmm, nobody is currently using this...maybe we should delete it until somebody does".

Deleting is useless if it is not with the intention to kill a page permanently. I'm not saying you shouldn't undelete, definitely not. I'm saying it's useless to delete if you're only doing it as a temporary solution anyway. It just doesn't make sense to talk about deletion on one hand, but to revive the page on first request. In one situation, the page lay dormant in the database and nobody cared for it, in the other, it was deleted, lay dormant in the database and nobody cared for it, and was then undeleted. Either way, it uses up the same space, and it's available if the user needs it. So why delete the page in the first place? The outcome is the same, and deleting/undeleting only takes extra effort and time from all sides.

A deletion should happen with the intention to permanently remove the page, using undelete only if it turns out to be a mistake to delete it. Not a way to temporarily park the page out of sight.

We delete things to keep everything uncluttered and running smoothly. One way to find some of these things that might be extra "clutter" is pages like Special:Unusedtemplates. Obviously, not everything listed there should automatically be deleted, and that's why we have a deletion process. If you don't like the process for deletion, perhaps you have a suggestion for a way we could do it better.

I obviously don't like the process, but I can't be arsed to re-type five paragraphs. Suggestion: Add

Pages currently marked for deletion: Template:AphidPerson, Template:Fan blog, Template:NewOpVid, Template:OpVid, Template:PageHeader to the footer. It's hard to not notice something that's on every page you look at. That apparently requires hard-editing Monobook.php, but if you simply add a call to a system page, it'll be easy to update.

The previous version was a dozen times better and twice as long, but I'm unable to reproduce it right now.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 06:51, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

P.S.: We need a block quote template.

Okay, here's the deal. What's done is done. I could continue arguing, but I don't feel as though that would be productive. Instead, let's work toward a resolution. I'd like to ask for others' opinions on the issue of our deletion process. It is clear that Renegade thinks that what we have now makes it too easy for pages to be deleted without people noticing. But I'm not sure we have to go so far as to display the proposed deletions on the footer of every page. I really don't think it's too unreasonable to check the Category:Articles marked for deletion every so often or scan recent changes for deletion proposals, but perhaps I'm wrong. Also, someone could add the pages that they create to their watchlist so that they see the deletion proposal when it's added (if it ever is). Part of helping out on a wiki is being aware of what's going on. Far bigger things than a template being deleted happen with no notice other than a discussion at Lucy's Balcony, for example. Of course, time is given for people to add their input before a decision is made, but if someone is not paying attention, they could miss it. In fact, some people will probably not respond to this discussion here because they don't realize that it's even happening. It bugs me too, but there's only so much that can be done to make people aware of things. And please, if anyone disagrees with anything I'm saying, please say something. I promise you won't hurt my feelings. :)--Jonpro 16:19, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

But the thing with Recent changes is that there are often editing mayhems that drown anything else - mass category addings, for example, or dozens of people editing new video pages. Using Category:Articles marked for deletion as the main broadcasting page is bad because it forces every single user to invest extra effort just to make sure there are no stupid deletion proposals that might go through if nobody opposes. For an admin, it might be normal procedure to check that category - the normal user will only care if he wants to look something up that's suddenly gone. The goal should not be to involve everybody in every deletion process. The goal should be to make sure they don't have to fear they'll miss something important if they don't do anything. Hence my suggestion to place the list at a public place - that way, normal users can behave as usual, rather than having to visit extra pages, but are still alerted if a page has wrongly been targeted.

Since you yourself note big things are regularly missed by the general public, and you don't like the footer idea, how about adding an Administrative Information or Internal Affairs block to the front page? It could display recent developments, links to important, unresolved discussions, and, at the bottom, feature a list of all pages currently marked for deletion.

I admit that I, personally, usually skip the main page and go directly to recent changes, but the exposure would still be a lot higher than on obscure pages like a deletion category or Lucy's Balcony (a more descriptive name for that one might help as well).

Independent from that, LGPedia:Deletion_Policy should be expanded with a list of common, logical reasons to mark a page for deletion. Guidelines, if you will. Currently, it's apparently up to the personal opinion of a user whether a page should be deleted or not.

Obviously, I vote against listing "currently unused" as a valid reason.

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Even more independently, I'll go and create LGPedia:Templates tomorrow or the day after, as well as Template:Quote.