Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

Template:Letter-NumberCombination

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Both the keep and delete sides raise valid points. However, neither side carries the burden of proof required for a definitive decision. Until further evidence and/or arguments for one side or the other can be presented, it would not be prudent to rule in favor of either keep or delete. RyanGerbil10(Mac Miller stole my style!) 06:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Letter-NumberCombination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 22#Template:Letter-NumberCombination.)

It is not our purpose here to provide a "tool" like this with questionable if any legitimate purpose, that is ostensibly obligate on all pages to which it could be applied. This narrowly survived a previous TfD as "no consensus", in which only one objection (utility) was raised by the nominator. As I've shown, there are many others. I note that the "keep" rationales in the earlier TfD were generally rebutted and tended boil down to I think it's should be useful to someone somewhere on some rare type of page". The "keep" case has had time to prove itself and done quite the opposite.

1. The vast bulk of readers will never use this, and we certainly have no evidence of a need for it.
2. A large percentage of users are likely to find it confusing (as evidenced by it's being TFD'd before as useless and confusing, confusion on its own talk page about what it could be for, etc.).
3. We have zero evidence at all that the kind of browsing supposedly aided by this template (jumping around via links to usually totally unrelated concepts that happen to have a one-character difference in name) is a type of browsing that is typically engaged in. For example, there is nothing at all to suggest that readers of the article Oxford look next for Poxford or Oxeord or Oxforc, or even wish to do jump around by morpheme instead of character, like Hartford, Oxnard, etc., from the Oxford article. Indeed, a desire to navigate articles in this manner would probably be strong evidence of some type of autism or perhaps use of psychedelics.
4. It's not likely that this tool actually helps such alleged browsing, assuming it exists and is a legitimate need for the encyclopedia to fulfill, since just editing the page URL to show "B13" instead of "B12" and pressing Return/Enter takes less than two seconds, meanwhile the template looks like some kind of graph of data or something, and it is not immediately apparent at all that is is some kind of navigation "aid" (it takes longer to figure out what the heck this is than it does to edit the URL).
5. This particular tool implies incorrectly that this form of navigation is a norm, and generally useful as an encyclopedic tool, since we've gone to the trouble of creating it and installing it all over the place, with the result that [next bullet]...
6. It is guaranteed to waste a boatload of time for many readers, who will assume it is intended as meaningful, useful navigation like everything else on our site, when in fact it is nonsense, and it takes them a while to figure out that it is nonsense in most if not all of its applications.
7. We already link to meaningful things between articles, and do not link to non-meaningful things. "To browse, navigate from link to link, and explore" is the entire rationale of a hyperlinked encyclopedia. That project only functions if the links are not arbitrary gibberish.
8. It's an accessibility nightmare, that will just be read as a string of nonsense letters to anyone using a screen reader.
9. It incorrectly implies by red links that "missing articles" in the "series" should be created, even when there's nothing notable to write about, e.g. L41. It also suggests that similar graph-like navigation should be applied in other contexts. Update: Someone below actually suggested applying this very template to sports team names; so QED on the slippery slope. 01:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
10. It's effectively a well-camouflaged form of blatant original research, advancement of a personal position and soapboxing, right in the article namespace via transclusion. Namely, it is the pushing of a novel theory of human cognition and computer–interface design that presupposes that this is actually useful and not only could be used by readers, but should be used by them, that the encyclopedia is intended to be navigated in such a manner.
11. After it squeezed by TfD on the grounds that it wasn't going to be applied all over the place, only where "actually useful", it's been applied to over NINETEEN HUNDRED pages in just a few months, and is spreading everywhere it could possibly be deployed, not just where it was alleged to make sense to deploy it (note "alleged"). It's become an outright viral nuisance like linking years and centuries, and other such overlinking practices we've done away with as not actually helpful to most users.
12. In most contexts, it simply duplicates the functionality and purpose of the "Random article" link in the sidebar, but in a typographically constrained, pseudo-random manner.
13. To the extent that it provides alphanumeric navigation of things that are actually related (rarely), it simply duplicates the functionality and purpose of categories.
14. To the extent that it aids alphanumeric navigation of unrelated things like disambiguation pages with similar name, and this is useful for editorial reasons, that is not a justification for template clutter transcluded into main (article) namespace pages. Ever.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I cannot access the toolserver page showing the 9,000 pages it is used on; however, I am saying keep for this reason alone. Deleting the template would inhibit readers' abilities to navigate pages such as that one. A similar example, which also hi-lights a flaw in the usage of the template, is SO2. The navigation should not link readers to pages that do not exist as that inhibits navigation. SO2 should link to SM2 which should link to SH2. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL relates to the content of the article, not the value of a template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  In fact, I have thought of a useful way to use the template so it will not be used to navigate unrelated disambiguation templates. It could be valuable in articles about sports teams, even if it were used within a navbox, {{Minnesota Twins}} for example. The center would be the page of the team the reader is currently on, the left and the right would be the teams alphabetically before and after the twins, and underneath would be a link to the Triple A equivalent (Rochester Red Wings). For the Rochester Red Wings article, above the team would be a link to the twins and below would be a link the the Double A equivalent (New Britain Rock Cats). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: No one said anything about 9,000 pages. WP:AADD applies outside AFD and article content, that's why it's called WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, not "Arguments to avoid in article deletion discussions". The template is transcluded into the main namespace, so that argument wouldn't be valid anyway. The navigability argument has already been addressed, the flaw in it being that there is no logical connection between "A660" and "A661" or "A660" and "B660"; they are just arbitrary strings of characters. I have no idea why you think sports team articles are relevant, since letter-number combinations like A660 (the scope of this template) and sports team names have nothing in common, and sports team pages are not disambiguation pages. It's great that you brought that up though, since it highlights a problem with this entire line of navigational thinking even when there is some kind of not entirely arbitrary and meaningless connection, namely that no one navigates articles this way. (I am a professional subject-matter expert in Web usability, two decades running, so I actually know that for a fact.) People looking for Manchester United or Minnesota Vikings, virtually never, ever are coming here to look for the next team in alphabetical order before or after them, just like they don't have any interest in what American actress is closest up or down in birth order from Jane Fonda, nor which World Snooker Champion is "before" or "after" another one by the first letter of their home country, or any other such meaning-free gibberish. It has no encyclopedic context. Anyway, see how such meaningless intersections are handled in categories (they're forbidden, and deleted with prejudice at WP:CFD). Where there is a meaningful, in-context intersection, this is a good reason to have a category, and when there is a category we automatically have an alphanumerically ordered list; that's why we have categories at all. There is no reason at all to think that people looking for BCE might be randomly interested in BDE or CCE or BCF or whatever, except in a few outlying cases of boredom. Being an online clicking game isn't a WP purpose, and even if it were, we the "Random page" button would take care of that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have time to address all of your issues now, but I will point out that WP:ITSUSEFUL specifically refers to articles, categories, redirects, and DAB pages. Templates are not included, and even if they were, "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more...so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." As to your comment about why I brought up sports teams is that the use of the template should be expanded past just letter number combinations to a full fledged navigation template. In addition, I am the type of person who is likely to view the next team in alphabetical order or who might skip from SO2 to SM2, so I take offense to your early comment about people being autistic or on psychedelics. Much of the time, I begin using Wikipedia to learn about one thing and constantly follow links as I learn many more things. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• This template is explicitly and always transcluded into article space, ergo of course any rationale applying to content in that namespace applies to this template. Precedent for that goes back long before my tenure here. See my comments to OlEnglish below on "templates...which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more"; this template's failure to do this is the reason it's been TfD'd. Sorry you were offended, but I simply do not believe that you not only regularly "skip from SO2 to SM2" and so on, in long sequences as a mode of reading (vs. editing) Wikipedia, but that you also need special navigation tools to do this. It's not really plausible. I think we all "constantly follow links as [we] learn many more things" here; WP makes this easy by providing links that have meaning in context, to move between linked topics. Accident of alphanumeric order is not meaningful in context, and the idea that the template helps navigate between related topics fails at all turns: It cannot possibly apply to anything like a series beginning C1, because "C1" and "C2", or "C1" and "D1", are not linked topics; they're DAB pages that by definition automatically cover multiple, unrelated topics. If you are doing this for editorial reasons, editing like a "human bot" (I do it all the time!), as suggested by another commentator here as an ostensible reason to keep this template, that's a purpose (often necessary to get similar articles/DABs/whatever, consistent) better served by some other tool. We don't clutter up articlespace pages for all readers just to make this tedious type of editorial work more convenient. If it's a nav template transcluded into articles, it has to serve readers not just editors, and this doesn't. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. For the same reason as last time. It's a purposeful navigation tool that benefits those readers that like 'exploring' Wikipedia by link-jumping. And there's no obligation to use this on every page that applies. Also, I find the "autism/psychedelics" remark quite insulting and bad faithed. I'm not going to bother going into detail with a large rebuttal of every point made above, as I don't consider this that big of a deal.. I'm just really discouraged at this point. -- œ^™ 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This "link-jump exploring" rationale has already been dismissed many times in many similar debates, most notably those over linking of centuries, dictionary words like "sun" and "elbow", years, and eventually dates at all except in special contexts. Wikipedia works as a browsable, exploratory hypertext work because the links throughout it are meaningful in-context, which the links provided by this template are not. They are to random stuff that coincidentally has a similar name. I have no bad faith here; I'm being honest. There is no sensible, logical pattern to attempting to navigate a well-organized site of millions of pages by popping around in four directions based on one-character differences in the filename! There is no target readership for this template. No one navigates that way. It could be pure entertainment for some people to experience the sheer joy of finding that not just A1B but A2B, B1B, A1C, etc. might go somewhere, and to spend all day link surfing letter by letter, numeral by numeral like that, but that isn't an encyclopedic purpose we need to go out of our way to provide tools for. This is a navigation template; it was marginally kept before only on the basis that it was to used for legitimate navigation, which is has not been. Random link surfing is not navigation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like too stringent of a thought of WP:OVERLINKING. There is a huge difference between overlinking by linking almost every word in an article and including a navigation tool which may or may not link to a related item. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that it "may or may not link to a related item" (emphasis added) is precisely why the original justification to keep it (that it is supposedly a navigation tool to link to related items) has been proven false. The template is specifically engineered to link to unrelated items, because it links disambiguation pages (only), and they are by their very nature unrelated subject matter, except in cases of temporary coincidence (e.g. more than one sequentially named highway that each also does not happen to coincide with something else with the same name that anyone's written an article about yet; rare, non-permanent cases). I hope this is clearer now. This template is a purely editorial tool being misused by transclusion in the main namespace, and its use there implies that it is a consistent form of sensible navigation for encyclopedia readers, which we all know it isn't. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. For the same reason as last time. Useful for readers moving between sequential disambiguations to see various meanings (e.g., 1G (disambiguation) 2G (disambiguation) 3G (disambiguation) 4G (disambiguation)). Especially useful for editors moving through sequential disambiguation pages to standardize them, such as 0W, 1W, 2W, 3W (an ongoing project). I would support moving it to the bottom of the page on longer ones, but most uses are on very short pages, such as 8Q. Jokestress (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Editorial convenience is not a good rationale for keeping clutter in articlespace. Maybe something on the talk page could do that. The disambiguations are not "sequential" except in an arbitrary, accidental way, the same way that "Clio" and "Clip" are. It's not encyclopedic. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Given your examples and retorts to everyone who disagrees with you, it seems as if your concern is not with the template itself, but with its use on two-letter combination pages. They are not one in the same. Jokestress (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a correct assessment of my position at all; I used short alphanumeric examples because they were convenient, and because they are in fact the subject of the template (letter–number combinations, as opposed to things like sports team names like someone else suggested). I can't clarify this further without needless repetition. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Adds unneeded clutter to disambiguation articles. Why would someone at the AB article need to navigate to AC or BB? There really is no mutual connection between them. From the perspective of a disambiguation page, the only true connection between these names is that they are adjacent combinations of integers or letters in the English alphabet. It is true that some highways or whatever happen to follow these connections .. great, make a template or whatever for that highway. But I don't see why a disambiguation page needs to show such arbitrary connections between adjacent letters and numbers. +mt 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or restrict usage. While I can't comment on all possible uses (although I've not seen any good examples), this certainly adds nothing but clutter to the two letter DAB pages, and I think it should be removed from those. I don't see that this template applies to the "sports team" example made above, although I could certainly see lists that could usefully have forward and backwards navigation, if not necessarily for the sports teams. For example, on the year pages, quick access to the adjacent years makes perfect sense (although the current scheme of nearby years, decades, centuries, and the *one* enclosing millennium, seems an odd combination of overdone and inconsistent). Similarly for the very large category pages that are broken down by first letter, a quick jump from the end of the "B" page to the "C" page is quite reasonable. But this template does nothing in either of those cases. Rwessel (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: I cannot imagine a page on which it would be useful to readers of the encyclopedia. I have seen many pages on which it provides useless clutter and sometimes positively misleading links - the example cited above old version of A660, implies that there is no article such as A707. I don't understand what kind of navigation RV is saying (23:23 14Aug above) needs to be made available for that page: anyone interested in roads (UK or French), or phones, will follow the appropriate link and should find navigation within that set of terms made available there. (Actually, no: the Samsung phone link led to a page with no mention of A660, though there must have been some reason for it when I created that dab page in 2007. Now removed.). It's interesting that SO2 is discussed above: what I think would be useful would be links between that and S02 - genuine likelihood of confusion, as between various other sets of letters/numbers which include 0/O or I/1. But that's another template (or a "distinguish" hatnote, or just a "See also"). If by any chance this template survives deletion, I suggest that WP:MOSDAB be amended to specify that this template is not to be included in dab pages. PamD 07:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Unnecessary clutter. May encourage inappropriate generation of acronyms (ie, contrary to WP:DAB#Related subjects, abbreviations and acronyms. Any legitimate usage could more easily use categories (eg Template:GB A road zone 6). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as clutter. It looks like a way to provide navigation just because we can, which is seldom a good idea. I do not see usefulness of this feature. Just because someone, somewhere, sometime, might find it useful is not a good reason to keep it around. On the contrary. No such user (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Gah. SMcCandlish does an excellent job of countering the "link-jumping is good" argument here: we want people to jump to related pages, not just anything which happens to have a title with a roughly similar string of characters in it. Furthermore, these templates self-evidently encourage the proliferation of garbage like this which exists only to satisfy some misguided attempt at consistency. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. If usage can be restricted such that it is not added to dab pages, that would be fine too, per Rwessel, but after getting rid of that clutter (which is already counter to the dab guidelines), there does not appear to be any other use. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with JHunterJ that if usage can be limited to meaningful series and not applied arbitrarily, then it would be fine. But as it is, it appears to be used solely for disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I nominated this last time. It's an eyesore and reduces signal-to-noise ratio almost all the time, as evidenced by this example. Not having it doesn't prevent people from searching neighboring letters manually. --Bxj (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see that it's any more of an eyesore than the infobox found on many articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Other infoboxes? Whatever infoxboxes you're talking about, I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm talking about low signal to noise ratio as demonstrated in the example disambig page. --Bxj (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep on dab pages; remove from non-dab pages. A brief inspection of the template code will show that this is intended to link disambiguation pages to one another; any other use is actually misuse (do we really have a need for Minnesota Twins (disambiguation), Rochester Red Wings (disambiguation) and New Britain Rock Cats (disambiguation)?). Its name also implies that it is intended to link combinations of letters and numbers, i.e. A1, A2, A3 or 2A, 2B, 2C. As I stated previously, it is useful for regular sequences, ie 1A-1B-1C or A1-A2-A3 etc. although not useful for non-regular sequences. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images and templates, it should be removed from dab pages. This leaves nowhere for it to be placed, and that's why I !voted to delete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, especially from dab pages. Clutter and completely against the grain of what I consider the guiding principle making dab pages simple and quick to depart from for the majority of their readers.--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I must protest the use of the phrase "strong evidence of some type of autism or perhaps use of psychedelics." Coffee sprays not good for keyboards.--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or remove from all dab pages. Unhelpful template and very inefficient, since if I want to go from lets say MA to MK I have to click a wikilink 10 times. Its probably faster to simply enter MK into the search box. Furthermore I don't see any evidence for the assumption that if a reader visits MK, it would be helpful for that reader to also visit the other dab pages suggested by this template. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as useless clutter. A useful navigation tool would be one that led readers to some article that was related in some meaningful way to the page on which the tool appears; this doesn't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that some users apparently enjoy being able to easily navigate from one assortment of essentially random links to the next assortment of essentially random links is too little justification for making us all look at this thing. It never should have been implemented without consulting editors who are interested in disambiguation, with whom I very strongly doubt that it would have found consensus support because it serves no disambiguative benefit. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This template can usefully give readers quick access to links in an alphanumeric sequence. bd2412 T 15:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  In what way is that access useful? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The template is likely useful for a minority of readers, but it is also quite small and unobtrusive for the remainder of readers for whom it's not useful. In other words, it's helping some people, and not doing any harm to the rest, so why delete it? If the complaint is that it is used on non-dab pages, then the solution is to remove it from inappropriate pages, not to delete the template altogether. —SW— ^chatter 22:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, no. The issue is that the template is inappropriately used on disambiguation pages. The template serves no purpose in helping to disambiguate articles -- it only enables access to other pages that are related only by purely arbitrary sequences. And the template is not inconspicuous. It is simply put clutter. The placement of the template has zero support from either WP:Disambiguation or WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps because they weren't informed of this deletion discussion? I've posted messages to both talk pages now. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• What I meant is that neither disambiguation guideline page supports the use of this template, and instead rather strongly implies such a template should not be used on disambiguation pages. For example, from WP:DABNOT: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. And from WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates: Including images and templates is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question. older ≠ wiser 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need a WP:ITSWAFERTHIN (in honor of Mr. Creosote), to rebut any argument of "it's just one little thing; what could it hurt?" At least in the context of disambiguation pages, there is a continuous influx of "little" things that eventually wind up overwhelming the primary purpose of dab pages: to help the reader get to the unambiguous page they wanted, rather than the ambiguous page of the same name they got.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• The template would be less obtrusive if it were down in the "See also" section, where virtually everyone seems to agree that it belongs as long as it exists. But the people who place the template don't put it in "See also", they stick it at the top of the page, pushing down the templates that ARE helpful and proscribed by guidelines, because the people who place the template are by all indications interested only in placing the template and not in guidelines or consensus or compromise. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it belongs in See also at all. WP:SEEALSO says "... links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles." I don't believe that an article (or DAB) is "related" just because it is alphabetically or chronologically adjacent. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I said there's a consensus (from the last discussion, IIRC) that it belongs there as long as it exists; perhaps I would have been clearer if I'd said "as long as it must be somewhere on the page", which is what I meant. I do not believe the template should exist or that it belongs on the dab page at all, but of all the areas of the dab page, it would clearly be most appropriate, and defensible, in "See also" rather than at the top of the page, where it is indeed obtrusive and most damaging. In case anyone else interpreted my remarks to mean I don't hate the template, let me reiterate: this is a stupid useless template. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems like harmless fun to me and many of the listed arguments are rather over-the-top. Personally, I am in favour of having more editors who are autistic or on psychedelics to counter-balance the humourless hordes. Also, not everyone has a photographic memory for alphanumeric acronyms and it may even be useful on the odd occasion for people who thought they were looking for B52-Foo but really needed B51-Foo. Seems like an odd thing to get worked up over. Ben MacDui 19:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you'd also like to include a link on apple to banana because some people are easily confused by fruits? older ≠ wiser 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the collective unconsciousness, someone just received your brainwave and is even now formulating a "Sack Lunch Fruits" navbox.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Steady, WP:BEANS and all that. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Clutter is not harmless. Clutter is the primary impediment to effective dab pages.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is what I said last time: "If this template is used inappropriately in an article it can create irrelevant links, a degree of clutter and so forth. This situation can arise with no end of templates: those invoked by Twinkle are particularly prone to being intrusive. The solution is to remove the template transclusion from the article. It is not appropriate to delete templates under such circumstances". I came to that AfD when I landed on an article using the template so very effectively that I investigated and found to my dismay the template was at AfD. I have been wracking my brains and am utterly unable to remember which article I had found! Hey, ho, never mind. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I made made a quick check of the template transclusions and did not find a single article which uses this template. All pages I found are DAB pages so it seems to me it is not used "properly" on any article and thus has no valid use (although if it is in fact used on a single article, I might have missed that). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that you would find this template on non-dab pages, for the simple reason that the links it generates are always to dab pages. For example, putting {{Letter-NumberCombination|B1|B3|A2|C2}} generates links to B1 (disambiguation), B3 (disambiguation), A2 (disambiguation), C2 (disambiguation) - articles with names like these should not be regular articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And that is precisely the problem -- the template serves no purpose for disambiguation. Both disambiguation guideline pages rather strongly imply that such a template should not be used on disambiguation pages. If the template is designed to only used on disambiguation pages, then it should be deleted because it is counter to disambiguation guidelines. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fancy that. I must have forgotten how poor my memory is! Thincat (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that your argument for keeping seems to be that this template can be useful in articles, and the evidence suggests that it would be highly unlikely to be used in articles, I would suggest that your argument ought to be re-considered. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I have seen it before and I agree it helps in navigation to pages I didn't know about...Smarkflea (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  You could just put a link to Special:Random on your user page for that though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  A random page doesn't take you to a related page...Smarkflea (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  I still fail to see in which way the pages suggested by this template are "related pages". They are not related in an encyclopedic way, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  The letter combinations are very related...Smarkflea (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  They are arbitrary sequences of characters combinations -- there is nothing to relate the content of the pages in any meaningful way. Going from one page to another is essentially equivalent to going from one random disambiguation page to another. older ≠ wiser 22:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. We also don't link area, arts, or 2RES from Ares (disambiguation). Should the template somehow remain after the TfD discussion, it will still be removed from disambiguation pages (per the disambiguation page guidelines on templates). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  @older≠wiser: This template is specifically and exclusively for letter-number combinations, those, which would be the most useful if restricted to just 1 letter and 1 number, ARE quite frequently related to each other, the most prominent examples being designations of planes and model numbers of cars etc. You want relation? Start at B4 and use this template to navigate only up to B8 and see how many aviation/automobile-related links you get between them. Just as an example, this template would be perfect for aviation buffs wanting to reach articles of planes they haven't read about or otherwise know how to reach, and those articles will likewise get more exposure because of this very template. -- œ^™ 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Which would be just great if the template were used on aviation or roadway articles instead of disambiguation pages. The template serve no function in support of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. For the people who want to navigate aviation/automobile related links there should be a navbox template on the article in question which can be used to navigate these planes and automobiles. Quote from WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." There is no disambiguation required to navigate aviation/automobile related links. This has nothing to do with the function a disambiguation page is supposed to fullfill. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't have to, as far as I and the other readers that use this template are concerned. It's a useful navigation template that only works on letter-number combination disambig pages, and if this template is kept WP:DAB can be updated accordingly if need be. -- œ^™ 01:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't "work" on disambiguation pages, because it doesn't disambiguate anything ambiguous. Per the disambiguation guidelines, it needs to be removed from any disambiguation pages it's on. If this template is kept, you would need a separate discussion (and new consensus) to change WP:DAB to reflect this change away from the current guidelines of just disambiguating on disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig yet it serves a purpose, and I don't see anyone calling that 'clutter'. This is a navigation template with a purpose for navigation between like disambig pages. -- œ^™ 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support a proposal to delete Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig meaningless. But it's not cluttering up the dab pages; it replaces the usual {{disambiguation}} tag, and its topic is the disambiguation page it's on, not a collection of unrelated pages that are not ambiguous with the title of the disambiguation page it's on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I propose a compromise: that this template be used exclusively on single-letter, single-number combination disambig pages where it's most useful, and that it be removed from all other pages. I will personally update the template's docs to explicitly state this as well. -- œ^™ 01:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean like {{letter disambig}}? +mt 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example. -- œ^™ 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

{{letter disambig}} is also unneeded and serves no purpose in disambiguation. I'd rather go ahead and delete this template and then worry about the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why'd you stop? You're not finished with your AWB mass removal of this template before the TfD is even closed. -- œ^™ 04:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I paused to go to bed. Of the templates that are incorrectly placed on disambiguation pages, I'm not removing the one being discussed. -- 11:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't support this compromise, but if it were approved, I have no reason whatsoever to think that editing the template's docs would result in it being removed from the other pages. I don't see you volunteering to actually oversee its removal. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I got this template confused with {{LetterCombination}} which is already separate from this one, and which JHunterJ is already mass removing. So it seems I don't need to do any removals at all if this template is kept. -- œ^™ 15:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, use of this template is contrary to disambiguation guidelines and can be removed from disambiguation pages regardless of the outcome of this discussion. If this template is kept, it will merely result in an unused template. You are free to initiate a discussion to change the disambiguation guidelines, but the outlook for that is doubtful given the number of disambiguation regulars who oppose use of this template. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation guidelines never needed to be changed for any of the other templates that are currently on dab pages. A perfect example was given above, {{letter disambig}}. Now watch all the hard-asses say they want to delete that too, along with every other useful template because it don't fit within their narrow-minded pedantic viewpoint of what a dab page should be. I'm fed up, don't care anymore about this. -- œ^™ 02:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

{{letter disambig}} is an interesting comparison. It is, IMO, unobjectionably because, if properly placed it replaces the standard {{disambiguation}} notice at the bottom of the page and relatively unobtrusively adds a navbar immediately above it. If a similar approach had been used to incorporate the navbox with {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}}, much of this churn might have been avoided. older ≠ wiser 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I encourage all those supporting to keep this template to read WP:NOTDIC#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary. Furthermore, please also read WP:DDD. Quote: "Don’t use vague subject areas for organization." This all rather strongly implies that this template should be removed from all dab pages. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors can choose whether to use the template and which links it produces, so unrelated links are the fault of the editor, not the template. I think this is an editing problem and, while navboxes for specific sequences might be better, I don't see the need to delete this template. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• See many comments above, which point out that the links it produces are always to disambiguation pages; that cannot be overridden. It is intended only for dab pages, and is currently found only on dab pages, and it does not belong on dab pages.

It is, therefore, a template with no valid use. Keeping it around only encourages people to put it in places where it does not belong.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If this template isn't deleted, I would be inclined to propose at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that a bot be used to remove it from all disambiguation pages, unless there is an alternate consensus in that forum to amend the Manual of Style to allow this template. I don't see any reason why a discussion here about deleting the template should supercede MOS guidelines, and a number of the template's supporters appear to have made that distinction as well (by indicating that their support of the template's existence does not necessarily mean support of including the template on every single disambiguation page for a two-character term). Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expert-verify

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect to {{expert-subject}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expert-verify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yes we need more experts but this template does not really add anything that is not better said with another template such as requesting refs, or questioning the POV for example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I take Doc James' point, but it can be a somewhat helpful tool for users who recognize that there is a problem but are not sure what to do about it (see, for example: Talk:Cyberstalking#This article needs help). Suggestion: instead of deleting, create and force a parameter assigning the template through substitution to a particular WikiProject, then have tagged pages appear in a category of pages needing attention from that project. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If a user is unsure what to do to improve it leaving a note on the talk page is the best place to start not tagging the top of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that you're wrong about that, of course. But I suppose that's an argument against templates generally, not this one in particular. Why does that argument apply more to this template than to, for example, the template for POV? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DocJames has already made the point that another more specific template such as requesting refs, or questioning the POV for example would be more useful as would a specific comment on the talk page. --Penbat (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but that wasn't my question. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway experts are not allowed to verify. Only references are able to verify.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but that's only the name of the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. All articles could do with expert attention so it is a futile and pointless template. Hundreds of psychology articles, for example, are embarrassingly bad. Even the good ones would benefit from an expert review which would pick up more subtle issues such as weighting and balance.--Penbat (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete As nominator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I find this template useful in scientific and highly technical articles for most reasons trypto points out. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Change to Delete Redirect. Sorry to do this just after you said that, Ottawa4ever, but I just looked around and realized that we also have {{Expert-subject}}, which serves the same purpose, but better. We don't need both. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I can agree to a re-direct as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{Expert-subject}} (which is also the redirect target of {{Expert}}). __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redirecting is the best approach to take. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The other one is not really that much better. We need people willing to read and reference the literature. Sometimes these will be experts and sometimes not. But I do not see how requesting experts helps? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about experts, in principle. What I think makes the "subject" template better is that, when you actually look at what it does, is it asks for one or more WikiProjects to work on the page, rather than just asking an "expert" to "verify". Perhaps the template needs a better name. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{expert-subject}} per above user Doc James/Jmh649. If editors desire to keep the functionality (namely, requesting subject-matter expert attention on verification specifically) it can be added as a parameter to the existing template. The main reason more and more templates of this sort get created is that the existing ones are too inflexible as to their wording/details. Easier to fix that than to control proliferation of templates. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{expert-subject}}. I'm not a huge fan of the other template either, but there certainly isn't need for two of them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• A merge to {{expert}} is definitely the right call here as there's simply too much overlap to justify separate templates. However, it's also worth nothing that this template was formed by a copy-paste move from {{ExpertVerify}}, so if anyone fancies some histmerge fun this would be the time to do it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree it's redundant.Smarkflea (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to a central template. {{Expert}} is the simplest and has my vote, but any of them would be fine. — Bility (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Expert-subject}}. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. As Penbat said, all articles could benefit from expert attention. Per Doc James, anyone can edit Wikipedia: references verify, not experts. Experts are better recruited with specific messages on article or WikiProject talk pages than by a vague template just expressing dissatisfaction like this. Quigley (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Filmrationale

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted upon creator's request (WP:CSD#G7). –MuZemike 17:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Filmrationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Speediable - under WP:CSD#G6, uncontroversial deletion of an unused deprecated template. No media files use this template, and it does not seem to be part of any active discussions, projects, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AZsubnav

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:AZsubnav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete unusedCurb Chain (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SplitfromBannerShell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deprecated Nabla (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:SplitfromBannerShell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, very few transclusions —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The few transclusions I see do seem important for keeping record of history/attribution. Splits and mergers often break up an article's history and it's necessary to keep track for posterity using templates like {{Split from}} and {{merged to}} etc. Please subst all article talk page transclusions if deleting. Nevermind, I just realized this is just a collapsing template and deleting it won't affect the existing splitfroms it collapses. Still.. it's going to leave a bit of a mess on some talk pages.. -- œ^™ 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I was going to clean those up myself (I'm the one who implemented multi-article support for {{split from}}). So the nomination has come somewhat prematurely for me. That said, it's fairly trivial to collapse these lists into one template now, and that can be done easily after the fact. It's only going to uglify a couple of dozen talk pages which are all pretty fugly anyway, and only until they're converted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.