Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24 edit

Template:TOCrightEx 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only exists to break font-size layout, shouldn't even exist as a option. Dispenser 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not entirely sure what the nomination says, but regardless, there's no reason a TOC needs to be in the middle of article content. -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The font size in a TOC should not be customizable. It seems it was done at Geographical centre of Europe so the Ukraine image is higher up. If there are overcrowded images to the right, the TOC is fine at the left by default. –Pomte 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed whatsoever. Jmlk17 08:43, 28 April 2007 (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:TOCnestright 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Picaroon (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{TOCright}} does the same thing with the clear=none parameter. Dispenser 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redundant. –Pomte 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What's a clear=none parameter to an average editor? In fact, what's a clear? This is a natural adaptation of {{TOCright}} and {{TOCleft}}, so what's the disdain for producing a tool usable by anyone? Is there some HTML pre-requisite course I was supposed to take before making my first wikiedit? This template is A) Brand new, B) unfinished (I'd asked advice of CBD -- see the before and after diffs and discussion points!), and C) is very useful as is for packing a TOC in tight against our much too much over worked right page sides where infoboxes, images and the kitchen sink all predominate. This template helps keep those ugly blotches of excess whitespace from making pages ugly. A much needed thing, IMHO. // FrankB 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CSS Clear property forces floats underneath the side in which is specified in the attribute. So, clear:left; will place the element after all the left floating elements creating white space above as need. If the property is not specified then the default (clear:none;) will take effect, which is what you have done in this template. —Dispenser 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the average editor ignores most templates and associated parameters. While clear=none is not exactly intuitive, they are likely to not know what nesting means either, and "TOCnestright" doesn't describe how the TOC is being nested. Looking at the name alone, I could not guess what this template does (a TOC nested inside something while aligned to the right?) Even if it gets renamed to a better name, the functionality appears so far to be redundant. If you provide a distinct use though, feel free to create a new template for that. I disagree that the whitespace is ugly especially if the TOC is small. Shoving the box to the side adds clutter and looks unorganized as text isn't justified around it. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Pomte and Fabartus. Jmlk17 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate, for Fabartus gave reasons to keep. –Pomte 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must first apologize for the mixup; finals are in session as well, so my mind enjoys the opportunity to veg-out every so often, my bad. Secondly, it seems this template would make it easier for a non-experienced editor to use, hence it's creation. I myself am not too experienced, and my major is history, not computer science or anything, so it has taken QUITE alot of getting used to in order for me to do even what I do now. I believe the majority of editors on this site are like that, or even less experienced than myself, and any help they/we can get is GOOD. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Dispenser, Thanks for the clear explanation of how clear works -- such is useful for the vast majority of us who don't speak script except in pigdin! <g> Please see if you can improve the {{TOCright}} (and left?) usage for such lay people! (At least I have a programming background as an engineer, albeit one lacking in all this modern CS script based technology.)
- Answer--Per my query section to CBD, my own thinking at that time and from playing with it was to add parameters ahead and behind the actual occurrence of the TOC command. Most times, and most places it would be applied in one or two paragraphs down in longer articles with equally long introductions (See Arabian Sea and other pages where applied). The point is I want something that will be fixed in a vertical placement, and have the other text (below it) wrap around it and down, yet still float right against the long graphics and info box elements that predominate our pages. In sum, neaten things up and eliminate text/element combinations which don't nest well together now. The whitepace I'm trying to obviate is the effect that occurs with a long occupied and overbusy right margin element, causing even TOCright to create huge whitespace gaps sans any text. Typically, these go well over half a screenview, show the TOC only in the next section, then finally continue the article again. The TOCright, even with the switch I believe will not work with IE6, which alas, will still be with us for several years. MSIE7 also fails here with the first stab version of this, which I first saw when posting the above--both seem to want to anchor the TOC box with a valign-top, so there is a significant difference in Bharuch viewed in IE browsers and in Firefox/Netscape.
  
  Bottom line, we need something to tighten up unsightly large gaps in a fairly large percentage of articles, and I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. That 'nest' means nothing when viewing just a template name means little, most template names follow that pattern (What the hell does {{Catmore}} mean, for example! <g> I'm still trying to figure out that mnenomically!).
  
  However, any editor who sees the difference pushing the TOC over against the other boxed elements on the right can then 'project' that solution elsewhere (As I did when first experiencing TOCright), when the need occurs to their evaluation. Like anything, one has to use such a few times before feeling sure of it.
  
  Bottom line, TOCright usage needs fixed up to clarify this if it will perform this way, as I will (plan) to document this, assuming success. If not, per normal practice, I'll db-author it. (I don't usually fail, though! <g> Praise the Lord! Lol!) Unfortunately, I'm on the road this week, so wiki-time is a premium. // FrankB 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Position changed to keep. I'll need some time to understand exactly what Fabartus wants to achieve, but he's obviously enthusiastic about getting this to work and there's more code than that of {{TOCright}}, so this template will be used for testing. I'll look at the issue from different browsers and help give suggestions if possible. Still, I have to wonder whether this is really more aesthetic for a similar reason I had opposed {{TOChidden}} here. –Pomte 23:00, 30 April 2007 (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:Displace Me 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for a one-day event sets a bad precedent. Has the stench of advertising. I'm sure it's a worthy cause, but an ad is still an ad. dm ^(talk) 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navigation templates are for defining qualities, which being part of this event is not. A category, maybe. -Amarkov moo! 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. it looks like spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.Jer10 95 Talk 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actually using this template would add to article-bottom-clutter, and while perhaps made in good faith, this is a bad idea in the long run. Gracenotes^T § 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom - thank you Astuishin 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very bad precedent. When I saw this on the Chicago article a day or two ago, my reaction was to propose it for deletion myself. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointlessness at the extreme Booksworm Talk to me! 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Simple spam; no need for a template for a one-time, one-day event. Jmlk17 08:47, 28 April 2007 (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:Easier Version:WHOIS 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on WHOIS, also an inappropraiate use of {{nutshell}}, which states is only to be used on Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. The text should be merged into the lead and the template deleted. — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't anyone here try to accept that someone MIGHT be new here and MIGHT not know all the ropes of how wiki is to be used? SORRRRRRYYY that I hurt someone by accidentally placing my 256 KB of MySQL usage in the wrong place. I'll move it. Geez. JoshEdgar 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... who isn't accepting that? And who thinks you are hurting them? -Amarkov moo! 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is about the fifth time that some Wiki-idiot gets all in a huff over a little itty bitty mistake just because "it's not the right format". Christ, what will we do!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshEdgar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom, this is not an appropriate use of a template. -- Mithent 01:38, 30 April 2007 (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:Social Christianity 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this in relation to the AfD for the parent article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Christianity. A more full reasoning for deletion is presented there, but in summary this appears to be an OR attempt to unify a bunch of vaguely (if at all) related topics. Adam Smith as a key thinker in the Social Christianity movement?. — Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Jmlk17 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its parent article was deleted as not being about a reasonable grouping of topics, and the same criteria should apply here. -- Mithent 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mithent. Ros0709 20:50, 1 May 2007 (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:Subst: 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template have fa purpose?. _→AzaToth 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it needed for capitalization error? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be that it's an attempt to implement something like {{tls}}. As that template already exists, I'd say delete this one as redundant, or redirect it if you care about the one actual use on Template_talk:Bibleverse. Gavia immer (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. Subst: (capital S) also works. –Pomte 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No possible use. -Mschel 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The attempted use is already covered better by other templates. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made two changes that removed the link to it in Template talk:Bibleverse and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). --Kevinkor2 12:57, 25 April 2007 (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:Fb-spoiler 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is an unneeded template, unneeded clutter and going to far with spoiler templates. This is solely intended to do the same thing as {{spoiler}} except say it's for the "future", if an article is structured/written correctly this type of template should not be needed. Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer states that Wikipedia contains spoilers, if people read them when there's a general warning they only have themselves to blame, spoiler warnings are a courtesy and just a placebo to be frank. Matthew 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repetitive and unnecessary. {{spoiler}} is good enough. Jmlk17 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any spoiler templates other than {{spoiler}}. Gavia immer (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article should already have made it clear that it is a future episode. –Pomte 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eeeeh, maybe keep, maybe delete At first I redirected this template to {{spoiler}}, thinking it was a bit needless, but the author did have a point, most people don't expect future spoilers. Given this is the same rationale for the spoiler warning template in the first place, even more so because it points out a spoiler that even Wikipedia regulars would likely not expect. At the same time I can't say that it would bother me if this was deleted. A warning for spoilers is never guaranteed, and it is just a courtesy. For most situations editors will likely not be able to include "future" information, because a lot of that stuff comes from unreliable spoiler websites, or is flat out speculation. I'd lean towards keep since I don't see the harm and I can see the value, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If this can be used (and Ned Scott points out there may not be many uses), it does seem to do something that {{spoiler}} doesn't adequately do. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of things could be used, but I don't find your argument compelling. Take for example an episode, we generally already have {{Future television episode}} and {{spoiler}} combined. Matthew 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{Future television episode}} is not supposed to be used in that way. The template should not be used to tag all future television episodes, something we've talked about time and time again on CFD. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the spoilers are "Quote" yet to broadcast "Unquote" then how can we verify the spoiler itself? Booksworm Talk to me! 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
- Through reliable sources, which makes it more easily verifiable than actually having to watch a show, as most plot summaries are unsourced. –Pomte 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes this kind of stuff gets accidentally said in interviews or in product merchandizing (track 57 of the OST for Episode I.. titled... "Qui-Gon's Funeral".. "oops" haha.) But yeah, it doesn't happen often. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (The soundtrack came out before the movie). -- Ned Scott 02:20, 30 April 2007 (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:Supplement 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (Talk) 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:

Its functionality is covered by {{main}} and {{see also}}.
It is used by only two articles:
- David Hilbert. My edit replaced it with {{main}}.
- Bohr-Einstein debates. My edit replaced it with {{main}}.
Its parameter handling is bizzare.

I have notified Lacatosias (the template's creator) and Scharks (a user who had the template in his toolbox).

--Kevinkor2 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Jmlk17 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and poor use of parameters. "Supplement" is an inaccurate way to describe the relationship between articles. –Pomte 17:05, 24 April 2007 (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:Generational cohorts 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not cite sources, and even if it did, would represent a false sense of consensus on the topic of naming and dating global generations (there is a separate template for purely American generations - {{Generations}}). There is no consensus, as evidenced by the constant bickering and changes seen on the pages for the various generations. A template like this adds nothing but confusion the the articles. Peregrine981 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{Generations}}. –Pomte 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is redundant as mentioned; however, I agree with Peregrine981 as well, and will take that to {{Generations}} myself. - Freechild 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, {{Generations}} is a case of systematic bias towards America; I created this template to be more general/global -- deleting it doesnt fix the problem. The bickering is a problem; to resolve that I think the best approach is to replace the start/end years with decades. John Vandenberg 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the effort, but I just don't think that there is such a thing as a "global generation", and doubt that reliable sources can be found to back up that assertion. Generations will be very different in different countries experiencing different phases of social development, and lumping them all together is artificial IMO. The American chart has its problems (is it based on Strauss and Howe or not? The dates in the chart explicitly contradict information in the articles... etc... but as long as it is explicit about its geographic scope, it can stay. Peregrine981 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the {{Generations}} table is placed on articles like Generation Y and Generation X, which are terms that I grew up with in relation to Australian generations (you disagree they can be international, thats fine). The term generational cohort is defined as "the aggregation of individuals (within some population definition) who experience the same event within the same time interval", which IMO leaves plenty of room for global cohorts that experience the same global events; i.e. if you use a definition of "population" that equals everyone, the aggregation is fine provided the events that define them are worldwide, and I have limited this template to generations of international note as a consequence. Gen Y is becoming known as the "Global Generation", as there are now so few local-only events.[1][2][3][4] gs: "global generation" "generation y", gs: "global generation" "gen y" John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly many of these terms, baby boom, gen X, etc.. are used in many international contexts especially in the developed world. But I have a problem saying that they're truly "global" since I don't think that they necessarily apply to much of the developing world. For example, in China the experience of generations experiencing the cultural revolution, one child policy, and then rapid industrialization will be vastly different than the generic boom, bust, echo pattern seen elsewhere. Much of southern and western Asia, and Africa certainly differs from the patterns described in this template. Neither is it exclusive to a developing/developed dichotomy, see Greece, Japan, Korea, and Russia for places that will differ widely. Also, I would argue that despite "experiencing" some the same worldwide events, the effects and interpretations will be different enough to make generalization very difficult. ie. someone living in Afghanistan vs. New York will see September 11th quite differently. Peregrine981 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree each locality will have more meaningful and precise generations, but this template was a navbox to aid the user, for example jumping from Gen X to Gen Y, without needing to resort to the {{Generations}} which is really {{USA Generations}}. If you can think of a better way to do that, I am all ears! John Vandenberg 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this, I don't think there's a really a viable way, short of making a seperate infobox for various countries, which is bound to get out of hand. I think people may just have to get by without a navbox. Peregrine981 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific country articles can have them, not as templates but single-use tables for summary/navigational purposes. {{Generations}} is unweildly and should get removed from general articles, unless those articles have an extensive section on USA only. –Pomte 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its almost unused, and a table can be substituted easily enough.DGG 05:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a navbox, placed at the top of each article it linked to, such as Generation X and Generation X, but some enterprising people have removed it. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the years from template as they were unreferenced. John Vandenberg 07:19, 26 April 2007 (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.