Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9 edit

Template:Valley Lines edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valley Lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations}}, which has up-to-date colours based on this map. Unused in articles; the single transclusion is a demonstration that was superseded by {{Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations}}; other than this page, the single link (at User talk:Welshleprechaun#About, and open the "Articles created" list) is on the user talk page of somebody who has never edited this template. Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clearly redundant. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as author - It has served its purpose and has now been superceded by current formatting. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ariana Grande edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ariana Grande (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the links refer to either Victorious or its spinoff. She has not released any music herself. -happy 5214 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable artist, but has no released music under her name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Cleanup-translation edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-translation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Proofreader needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-translation with Template:Proofreader needed.
The wording of these two templates is roughly the same, so I believe it is better to merge them carefully. DixonD (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard question. One the one hand they are alike. On the other hand, proofreading is more specific in that it doesn't include other forms of clean up. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but IMO the difference is too subtle to keep two separate templates. Basically both templates suggest to do similar work on a article, I mean to read and correct mistakes after translation. I think it is not really clear which template should be used in the particular case.

BTW There is also another template Template:Rough translation, however it should be used only on articles with machine translated text. --DixonD (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a translator and I suggest Keep for at least three reasons:

Neither template violates the temple namespace guidelines.
The templates are not redundant... in fact they are very different:
Cleanup-translation requests someone with dual fluency but Proofreader needed does not.

Cleanup-translation directs the editor to a discussion on Pages needing translation into English but Proofreader needed does not.

Cleanup-translation also directs the editor to post a notice to the bottom of WP:PNTCU section on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English but Proofreader needed does not request notification of the broader community or other multilinguals.
Proofreader needed could be used simply when proofreading, not translation is needed, and could be similar to "{{cleanup}}," "{{cleanup-rewrite}}," or "{{copy edit}}." These writing functions are different from translating.

In conclusion, at least keep Cleanup-translation. - ʈucoxn\^talk 09:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion is not about deleting both templates but about merging them into a single one. --DixonD (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. That is what I understood from the introduction.

To illustrate the differences, I'll use English wikipedia articles that have been influenced by the French wikipedia since that is the second language I know best.

Here is an example of the "{{Proofreader needed}}" template being used correctly, at least as I see it. Ozymandias the Great did a fine job adding a translation of the Important theories section from the french article. Notice that there is no french language text and that very few changes, especially regarding grammar or syntax, needed to be made to that section. Notice that the copyediting changes to the Important theories section are wikifying, bold font, comma placement, quotation mark addition, like→which, and spelling correction of "mechnical" [sic]. Of course, other more substantive information-related changes have also been made to that section, which are neither of a translation or copyediting nature.
On the other hand, here is an example of when the "{{cleanup-translation}}" template was used rather appropriately. You'll see that the user who added the template (Itsmejudith) has significant knowledge of French. Also, the seven more recent edits after that were made by a user who is a native French speaker (Pierre.alix). This edit, by the same native french speaker, even lists in the comments that it was "Rewritten in a better english (based on French article as I am French native speaker)." You'll see that some other editors to this article (Piccolapixxie, Omar-toons, and me) have significant knowledge of French. Although I cannot speak for the others, I noticed this article because it was posted on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is what editors are directed to do when they use the "{{cleanup-translation}}" template: "If you have just labeled this page as needing such attention, please add {{subst:Duflu... }} to the bottom of the WP:PNTCU section on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English."
Merging these two templates would mix translation work with copyediting work. Translation requires dual fluency, or something extremely close to it. Copyediting requires fluency in the target language. Please keep them separate. - ʈucoxn\^talk 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense if to change wording of the the Cleanup-translation template appropriately. But in this case DGG is probably right, the Rough-translation template would become a duplicate of this one basically. --DixonD (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove. Cleanup of a translated article requires more than proof-reading. Proofreading in general requires only a good knowledge of English grammar. Cleaning up a machine translation requires also a reasonable knowledge of the source, because most machine translations are so bad that they leave some matters ambiguous or even some words untranslated--the level of knowledge depends on the type of article.

On the other hand, I am not sure we need both cleanup-translation and rough translation. Most translations that need cleanup are in fact machine translations. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the Cleanup-translation template requires better wording in order to state what you said. Should we add the Rough-translation template to the discussion here? --DixonD (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG that most translations that need cleanup are machine translations. I believe a more appropriate discussion is on the merger of the "{{Rough translation}}" and "{{cleanup-translation}}" templates. In this case, I would still prefer most of the language from "{{cleanup-translation}}" with the addition of some elements from rough translation and improvement on one other element. Please let me know and I can propose what I think would be a good combination of those two. Also, there are over 100 pages currently using the "{{Rough translation}}" template, about 50 pages using the "{{cleanup-translation}}" template, and about 35 pages using the "{{Proofreader needed}}" template. Merging rough translation and cleanup-translation would probably have the biggest positive effect. Should I wait for this merger to close and another to open with "{{Rough translation}}" and "{{cleanup-translation}}" before proposing my idea for the merged language of these two templates? - ʈucoxn\^talk 09:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in per tucoxn. FurrySings (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tucoxn's alternative suggestion of merging {{rough translation}} and {{cleanup-translation}} makes more sense. {{Proofreader needed}} should be phased out: by itself, proofreading does not imply translation, but rather general copyediting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful to see a bit more consensus before closing this discussion and working on the alternative I proposed. - ʈucoxn\^talk 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is enough consensus for closing this merger and opening a new one about merging {{rough translation}} and {{cleanup-translation}}. Also it could be worth to think about merging {{proofreader needed}} and {{copyedit}} (as it is stated in the comment below) --DixonD (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{proofreader needed}} should be merged to {{copyedit}} -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Rhythm & Noise edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rhythm & Noise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

band has 2 albums, dont need a template for that few articles. Naut Humon is likely not notable, Z'EV has no referenced mention of the band in his article, and the other 3 links are not appropriate for a navbox Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added references to Naut Humon's page enforcing his notability and have written in Z'EV's page a brief description of his involvement in Rhythm & Noise. This template links several related notable articles together and should therefor be kept.--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I firmly support the idea that Naut Humon and Z'EV are notable, but that does not that mean that this template is useful as a form of navigation. It's basically just "I want my favorite to have a navbox, too" fankwankery. There are not nearly enough articles available to put into this navbox to warrant its existence. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while i am now pretty well convinced that Naut Humon is notable (thanks to SC), that doesnt really lessen the rationale for deleting this template.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not appreciate the suggestion that I created this template simply because I wanted my "favorite to have a navbox", such a comment is unjustified. I created it because I felt that five articles is sufficient enough where having a template might be beneficial to users. If you don't feel five is ample than how many would you recommend?--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only four directly related articles isn't enough for a navbox. Navigation from the stub article, Rhythm & Noise, remains simple enough. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, has enough links. if you don't think the articles are notable, then take them to AfD. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - small but there is enough. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.