Commons:Deletion requests/Random polling templates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Random polling templates

[edit]

As part of cleaning up Category:Polling templates, I am nominating the following for substitution-and-deletion (as straight forward deletion is not appropriate due to the number of links to it):

  1. Works for me - {{Works for me}} - 8 transclusions. Purpose could be achieved simply through plain text.
  2.  Awesome! - {{Awesome}} - 48 transclusions. Unnecessary informal forum-type template. Could be achieved through text.
  3.  Abstain - {{Abstain}} - 110 transclusions. Neutral on its deletion, but don't see its usefulness. Open to discussion.
  4.  Delist - {{Delist}} - 414 transclusions. Mostly used for demoting files; could easily be replaced by {{Support}} at a delist nomination.
  5. - {{Facepalm}} - 11 transclusions. Unnecessary forum-type emotions. Could easily be achieved through text.
  6. Facepalm - {{Facepalm2}} - 5 transclusions. Same as above.
  7.  Nominate
- {{Nominate}} - Pure text; no use. You actually need to type an extra 4 chars to use this template. Subst-and-del.
  1.  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. - {{NoAnonymous}} - 9 transclusions. Such situations are dealt with then an there by striking off with a note. Unnecessary mainspace template.
  2. NO U - {{NO U}} - 6 transclusions, and I don't even understand what it means.
  3.  Overprocessed - {{Overprocessed}} - 9 transclusions. Better off as text rather than image-bullet clogging the whole discussion. 4 chars extra to use this.
  4.  Oversaturated - {{Oversaturated}} - 50 transclusions. Same as above.
  5. Rock On! - {{Rockon}} - 14 transclusions. Extreme forum-type, does not belong to Commons.
  6.  Move - {{Vote move}} - 28 transclusions. Easily replacable by {{Support}} in move proposals, and could easily be used as plain text for other uses. 9 extra chars to use this.
  7.  Amazing - {{Amazing}} - 18 transclusions. Forum type; doesn't belong to Commons. Comment as text instead.
  8.  I withdraw my support - {{Unsupport}} - 20 transclusions. Easily done through text.
  9. WTF? - {{Wtf}} - 46 transclusions. Extreme forum-type purpose. Doesn't have a place on commons.
  10.  Confused: - {{Confused}} - 8 transclusions. Could be used as {{Request}} as a request for more info. Forum-type.

See here for a list of currently accepted and widely used polling templates. --Rehman 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't break anything, read my nomination, that's why I only propose substitution-and-deletion, and not straight-forward deletion. Rehman 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such substitution and deletion seems to be useless. It would disarray source code of old discussions needlessly. --ŠJů (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Therewithal, most of them are useful. What is the reason to decrease expressing possibilities? --ŠJů (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Awesome! , , Rock On! , WTF?? Commons is not a social networking site or forum. If someone really want to show emotions, they may, by all means, use text, formatting, or even images. Mainspace templates like these are a definite no-no. And most of these have just under 50 transclusions. Commons is also a multilingual site, allowing templates for all weird emotions will trigger translated templates in other languages; Commons is not a junk pile of all random items. Rehman 10:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Rehman 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some, and keep some others. Forum type and useless templates must be deleted:
  1. Works for me
  2.  Awesome!
  4. Facepalm
  5. NO U
  6. Rock On!
  7.  Nominate
  1.  Amazing
  2. WTF?
  3.  Confused:

But others are IMHO useful, keep:

  1.  Abstain
  2.  Delist
  3.  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you.
  4.  Move
  5.  I withdraw my support
  6.  Oversaturated
  7.  Overprocessed

If some templates will be deleted, I think they must be replaced by exactly the text and the image they generate, not just a "support"/"not support" generic template, or we loss the meaning of discussions. For example {{Amazing}} should be replaced with: Amazing. --Phyrexian ɸ 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. It's not broken, so don't fix it. I don't see a single reason, why users should be denied to use discussion templates they want. Btw, the authors of the templates were not notified, DR templates were not placed, so this DR is nearly impossible to find for the affected users. Trycatch (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to ŠJů. And per "It's not broken, so don't fix it", I am not trying to fix anything, and even if I were, I would question why the way Commons functioned in 2005 is still not accepted today? All wikimedia projects are constantly being "improved", the existing content doesn't have to be broken to be improved. Rehman 11:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "improvement", improvement is a useful change. Something not so good should be replaced with something better to call a change an improvement. On the contrary, there is no identified problem to solve with this change, there are no identified benefits proposed by this solution (while some drawbacks are clearly visible). It's a classic case of w:WP:DONTFIXIT. Trycatch (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, WTF? why did you  Nominate
these  Amazing   Awesome!  templates? I'm  Confused: . Multichill (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing some

[edit]

Okay, even though Commons is not a social networking site or forum, I guess we could have emotion-expressing type templates, considering that (per ongoing dev discussions) one day all templates on all wikis will be transcluded from Commons, and these templates can be useful.

But nevertheless, I still support deletion of 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. My reasons are same as the original nomination (found with each template). Rehman 08:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... maybe it's better to close this massive deletion request and open a new one for each one template you think we must delete, just an idea, but I think it will be much more clear :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, makes sense. :) Rehman 06:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, per discussion immediately above. New DR may be found here. Rehman 06:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Random_polling_templates&oldid=49652032"