Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 20 October 22 >

October 21

edit

Template:JumpStart Superheroes

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 speedy deletion by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) in conjunction with the speedy deletion of the associated article. Closing this discussion since NW seems to have overlooked that detail. (Non-admin closure.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JumpStart Superheroes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The single article that uses this template is most likely a hoax and up for deletion also, even if the article was true this is a terrible template involving several unrelated television networks and some links appearing upto four times. No good, if G3 applied here I'd use it but it's simply not that clear from past attempted G3 speedies. treelo radda 21:18, 21 October 2009 (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:Infobox outlines

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 to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox outlines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template violates WP:LAYOUT. It is an infobox whose purpose is to provide links to categories and portals. Per LAYOUT, category and portal links should be in the See Also section of the article. No attempt has been made by the creator of this template to discuss exceptions such as this at WP:LAYOUT; no consensus exists that this style of formatting if acceptable.. Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This template is for exclusive use on Wikipedia:Outlines, one of the main hierarchical navigation systems on Wikipedia that is prominently linked to from the sidebar. This template is neither meant to be placed on articles nor has it. After extensive discussion in the past, the long established compromise is that outlines are kept in the main article space, even if they are not "normal" articles. After recurrent confusion of outlines with normal articles, this template has been created to clearly distinguish outlines from articles and to provide a better navigation interface. WP:LAYOUT is about "basics of laying out an article" and does not yet mention Wikipedia:Outlines. The main purpose of outlines is hierarchical navigation (reminiscent of templates), therefore, they must, and do, contain prominent links to the root of this navigation system (which currently resides in the Portal namespace under Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge), to the topic's portal, and to the relevant categories. Cacycle (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe WP:LAYOUT was designed for index systems, furthermore there is also an Rfc in the making to clarify outlines and there use / layout etc. There has been an agreement to stop moving/deleting outlines between those that oppose them and those that support them, pending further input from Rfc. As Karanacs is a vocal opponent of outlines, I feel it is inappropriate to undermine this truce until (hopefully) the Rfc clears the issue up. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above . I believe WP:IAR applies here. This template is invaluable. -- penubag  (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not an article template. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (I interpret this as a Keep. Cacycle (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I am an editor involved in WP:LAYOUT. I am challenging Karanacs's interpretation of the guideline. First, WP:LAYOUT makes it abundantly clear that portal links are "usually" placed in the "See also"; which is qualified not to be an absolute that would stifle innovation. Second, category links without a colon preceding in the category page name, go in the foot of the article, not the "See also" as stated by Karanacs; for categories that do have a colon preceding, which makes it linkable text, are not uncommon in templates, although they are often less conspicuous than Cacyle's (e.g. the "Part of a series on" in {{Islam}}, {{Smoking}}, {{Atmospheric sciences}}). Third, it's "See also", lower case "A". For these errors both minor and significant, I am challenging the credibility of this deletion proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? You're calling out a miscapitalization? I also thought it unnecessary to point out that categories without a : go in the bottom of the article - does anyone actually dispute that? Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously? I wanted to ask that. Look, what you're doing is synthesizing the guideline, with little regard for accuracy, in order to further your point. Nevertheless, you may ignore your earlier errors if you want. Reply to this: WP:LAYOUT as quoted states "{{Portal}} links are usually placed in this section [See also]."[1] To say that it "violates WP:LAYOUT"[2] ignores both the language and the spirit. That's half your argument. Categories are more complex, and we can go over that after portals. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be useful enough. -- ISLANDERS27 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no consensus at the moment that outlines are a key navigational element at Wikipedia. There is also no consensus that outlines should be allowed to blatantly ignore standard wikipedia layout rules. Instead, members of the outline project have developed their own guidelines with no input from the larger community and no attempt to reconcile their preferred way of doing things with the way the rest of the encyclopedia works. Exceptions have been made to these guidelines (such as for disambiguation pages), but that conversation needs to be more community-wide and not decided by members of a single wikiproject. Until that conversation takes place, this template by its very definition makes articles out of compliance with key guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there appears to be no consensus at the moment that navigation systems are not a key navigational element for Wikipedia; Furthermore, there is certainly non consensus at all that they are not an appropriate system for Wikipedia , even if not the key one. There needs to be consensus that they are so inappropriate that they must all be removed to invalidate them. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator; Outlines isn't a key anything, its a small project that apparently has gotten a very big idea about itself despite having no actual community consensus yet from the notes above. This template does not meet WP:LAYOUT, it is not a useful infobox and it is not a useful navigational aid. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has now become pretty clear that the main concern is about outlines, not about WP:LAYOUT issues. This is not the right place to discuss outlines. A transparent, collaborative, and public request for comment would be, and I strongly urge the critics to go that way and to stop these Guerrilla tactics. People might get the impression that they fight this template simply because it disproves some of their main objections by demonstrating that 1. outlines are not normal articles, 2. that they are part of a hierarchical navigation system, and 3. that they are useful for navigation. Cacycle (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:Layout. Garion96 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep temporarily as experiment. Might form part of a solution. Re-nom in a few months if no consensus for usage forms. Specify in template-instructions that nobody endorses this for widespread adoption yet. (I'll do that now). Also suggest Rename to Template:Topic navigation or Template:Navigation contents box or similar to make that aspect clearer. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (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:Prettytable-center

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 per consensus in prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable-center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prettytable-center2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are more variants of the "Prettytable" family, from which two others have recently been deleted. They are both redundant to CSS classes and neither is transcluded on any pages. {{Prettytable-center2}} has been explicitly deprecated since July RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2009 (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:Kosovo-note

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 to delete at this point in time Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosovo-note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a disclaimer used everywhere the term "Kosovo" is used as a solution for the "controversy". Far from being a solution, the disclaimer spreads the "controversy" to every other article. This warning is absurd because, if we include one disclaimer about a controversy, why wouldn't include disclaimers about the other controversies? There are maybe thousands of controversies: the name of the Republic of Macedonia, Burma vs. Myanmar, Transnistria, Western Sahara, etc. In fact, there was a similar disclaimer template for the name of the Republic of Macedonia (contested by the Greeks), but it was finally deleted, after a long debate on TfD. bogdan (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:Template namespace, Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Nikola (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template was established here, as necessary and useful, as per Kosovo disputed status. Don't delete. 89.216.207.17 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's practical - better to agree on a general phrasing than to discuss it in every single Kosovo-related article. --Cinéma C 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In theory, I'm sympathetic to Cinéma C's viewpoint. In practice, having this language in a template, outside of the normal prose, is a bad idea specifically because it will be the wording agreed upon by the various vocal "sides" of this dispute, to the exclusion of everyone else. The overinclusion of the template is a symptom of this - an attempt to show scrupulous "fairness" between the disputants rather than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, which would quite often be best served by punting the definition of "Kosovo" entirely and offering a wikilink instead. Moreover, we have longstanding policies against templates as article content, and also against disclaimer(ish) content in articles. Removing this will be an improvement, though the text itself might be wanted in a few places. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, vocal or not, can contribute to the wording, so your first objection doesn't stand. Offering a wikilink instead is perfectly OK with me, if that is a wikilink to Serbia. If not, it is completely unacceptable to have a link to Kosovo masquerading it as a country. This template is not article content and also not a disclaimer, so your last objaction also doesn't stand. Nikola (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its existence is necessary to avoid disputes on Kosovo status in Wikipedia's articles.--Andrija (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I don't even like the way it's usually used, it is better than nothing. If anyone can think of something better, I'm all ears. Nikola (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's useful when used in contexts where you need to list countries in prominent places such as section names - a reference to Kosovo plus this note in a reference makes the unrelated article remain neutral, whereas any other solution could not be any more clean. Its use should be avoided in places where there is no benefit, such as peripheral geographical references, where the link to the Kosovo article is quite sufficient. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a really practical and useful template. It maintains neutrality on Kosovo related articles. IJA (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (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:David Slade

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) 00:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Slade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

David Slade has not directed enough films to warrant a navigation template. $©@®©Ξ 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three films does not seem like enough to warrant a navigational template. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry newbee to TfD, maybe there is a agreed requirement for a nav box somewhere that I do not know about, if so please show me! But this templated does not fall under any of WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template. I can not find any policy, guideline or even essay that states that there is a minimum number of links required or even suggested for a nav template. This template have 3 links and have 4 uses in main space, it does help navigating, and it would be very cumbersum to do the same thing without this template, so IMHO deletion is not a good option. If you really want to not have this nav box in the pages then remove it from the 4 pages, if no one reverts or argues which I think they should, then ask for deletion. What harm does this template do? --Stefan talk 13:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the sentence that appears immediately after the list of reasons: "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." The reasons listed are ones that are widely agreed-upon, but they are not meant to be a limitation on the acceptable reasons for deleting a template. There is no guideline for the number of links in a navigation template, but many people who participate here take a dim view of using such templates when there are only a handful of links on them, especially if all the links are prominently shown in the template's main article. (In this case, the links to all three of Slade's movies appear in the lead of David Slade.) But I don't believe anyone is claiming a specific policy/guideline on this. It is just a common sentiment. --RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2009 (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:UKimmigration

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) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template links several articles which are now redirects to the same page, namely Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A navigation template should actually allow a reader to navigate to more than one page. If articles are ever created for the individual topics, then a template might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because the linked articles have been merged for over a month now, there is simply no use for a navigation template because the links all point to the same article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (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:Heath Ledger

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) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heath Ledger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per consensus, the use of templates for actor articles is deprecated by WP:ACTOR.[3] Heath Ledger does not have a large enough body of work as a director to salvage the template as a director template, with only five films. Sadly, he will never have anymore, so this template is unnecessary and not a useful navigational tool, so it should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason for the template is to promote those actors with little to no body of work; the Ledger article was just a prototype. If the consensus is to be against me, however, I will asquiece. Stolengood (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. In response to Stolengood: The problem with actor navboxes isn't with the size of their body of work, but with the number of different actors who typically appear in a given movie or show. Numerous examples have been provided in previous discussions where a single movie has a dozen or more notable actors in it. Placing all their navboxes in the article (plus any other relevant navboxes) is too much clutter. Because most movies have just one director, director navboxes are not discouraged in the same way. So one option would be to edit the template to make it only for his directorial efforts. However, a navbox needs to have enough links to justify its existence. With just five movies as a director, it is a marginal number of links. If he were still alive I might lean towards keeping a director navbox for him, because it would probably expand. Alas, that is not the case, hence my "delete" !vote. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_21&oldid=1079337432"