Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5 edit


Template:Robert De Niro 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. Ruslik_Zero 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robert De Niro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two films, 23 years apart. Both films are covered in article. Template overkill. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Do we really need a template to link TWO articles? Yeah, like some doof can't get from point A to point B without a template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typical underpopulated director navbox. Can recreate if/when he has directed more movies. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 10 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:Latest stable software release/rxIRC 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) 21:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no article for rxIRC, I would consider this a housekeeping deletion. We should not have templates for tracking non-notable software. (As a separate issue it is very well established, but I am questionable about this practice of using templates to track software versions.) Miami33139 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. This appears to be just one of hundreds of similar templates listed in Category:Latest stable software release templates. Based on the other listings in the article where it is used, Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, it appears that quite a few of these products do not have their own articles. Is there something that makes this template especially undesirable, or do you believe that all the templates with similar situations should be deleted as well? --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they should probably go away, IMHO. These version templates regularly get deleted after deletion discussions when the parent article goes away as plain housekeeping. If the admin that deletes the article doesn't delete the templates, I follow up with a CSD tag as housekeeping. I've been doing that for months, but this one was contested. Honestly, looking at Comparison of IRC Clients I don't think that is going to break or remove essential information because the redlinked clients don't have version information. Version numbers as standalone info are so arbitrary they might as well be random. Miami33139 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this meets any speedy deletion criteria, so I'm slightly surprised to hear that similar templates have been speedy deleted in the past. It isn't necessary that every item in a list article be individually notable enough to warrant an article. So use of this type of template isn't specifically dependent on the individual product articles. It just has a link back to the article if it exists. (The link is inside a "noinclude", so it doesn't even show up in articles where the template is transcluded. It appears to be just for reference of editors visiting the template page.) So CSD G8, which is what I assume you've been using, doesn't seem to apply. That doesn't necessarily mean this template should be kept, but I am a bit perturbed about the idea of treating its deletion as "housekeeping". Since I'm not particularly familiar with what standards are used for including/excluding items from software list articles, I've placed a notice of this TfD at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, in hopes of obtaining more input from more editors who are familiar with how these templates are used. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator (housekeeping) templated is not needed, as we do not and should not be in the habit of tracking non-notable products. JBsupreme (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have been informed on my userpage that there is an open ANI discussion regarding interactions between the editor who opened this TfD and the editor who created the nominated template. I take no position regarding the merits of the complaint, but it is relevant for other editors participating this discussion to know that a dispute exists. --RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I personally don't see any reason we should be listing non-notable software in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and a quick search for sources on rxIRC didn't turn up anything to show notability for it. However, deleting the template doesn't remove the table entry, which is the real issue here, and removing the entry is a discussion that should really take place on the talk page, not TfD. BryanG (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I attempted to speedy the template as housekeeping, I was not aware of its usage in the comparison article. Deleting the orphan template doesn't really affect the comparison article and is still the right thing to do. Miami33139 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er... it's not orphaned if it's being used in the article and if the entry is staying then there's no reason to delete the version template (I do think this whole mess of templates is the wrong way to go about doing this but the system's apparently long-standing and it's not really something worth a lot of drama over). BryanG (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This template is not orphaned and a CSD G8 or housekeeping deletion most certainly does not apply. (I am also discounting User:JBsupreme's !vote above, see the AN/I discussion I've linked to below for details as to why.)
    This TfD nom by User:Miami33139 was initiated strictly for harassment purposes after the CSD G8 that they previously attempted was also declined. I made a report over the harassment issue, see this discussion on AN/I for details. The nom only found this template by wikistalking my contributions and in the case of this template there is absolutely no other reason for them to attempt a CSD G8 and TFD other than for harassment purposes. The nom's claims they were unaware of the template's usage are bogus. This can be proven simply by checking my contributions where I created this template and added the entry for rxIRC to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. It is all clearly visible in the edit summaries. [1] [2]
    Regarding User:RL0919's question as to how these templates work and are used, {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} templates are commonly used for two purposes. First, they may be transcluded via an infobox such as {{Infobox software}}, {{Infobox OS}}, and others. Second, they are commonly used in the Release history and similar sections/tables of Comparison articles. See Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Release history to see how they are being used here.
    Where these templates become very important are the larger and more complex Comparison articles. These templates allow the version information to be easily updated without having to edit the larger article, which in many cases can exceed 50 to 100KB or even more. See Comparison of web browsers and Comparison of e-mail clients for examples. In the case of Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, it is presently at ~83KB in length. We expect it to reach somewhere around ~120KB or thereabouts once it is fully expanded and reworked.
    These subtemplates are also very helpful in keeping the minor edits to these larger articles to a minimum. For an example directly related to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients see the edit history [3] of Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles. Prior to the creation of the ClicksAndWhistles template, the Comparison article was edited extremely frequently just to update the version. For even more examples of how these templates are usually used in the larger comparison articles, see Category:Software comparisons.
    As RL0919 pointed out above, there are no requirements that every single item in a larger article meet the notability guideline on their own. The notability guideline does not apply to the actual content of an article, it only helps determine if a particular subject is worthy of its own stand-alone article. This also includes red links, which the nom has a history of removing while claiming "removed non-notable red links". In the case of Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, all of the red links will either become standalone articles or be redirected to a larger article. WP:NNC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
    --Tothwolf (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • STOP IT WITH THE HARASSMENT CLAIMS IN DISCUSSIONS. It is entirely inappropriate and says nothing about the issue at hand. Miami33139 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked you to leave me alone but you continued. I stand firmly behind my assertion that your TFD nomination of this template was in bad faith. The diffs I've linked here and on AN/I prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leaving aside all the personal-dispute heat, I haven't seen a good case that this template ought to be deleted at this time. It is not an orphan and it is essentially similar to a whole series of other templates, some of which are for software products that have articles, while others are for less notable products. If there is a consensus at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients that this particular product doesn't belong there, then it should be removed. Then this template would be an orphan and deletion would be entirely reasonable. (Or, perhaps the entire series of product-specific templates should be replaced with a generic alternative. But no such alternative has been put on the table in this discussion.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that note, if someone has any suggestions or ideas on how to further improve the version subtemplate system in general (which is a system that has been in use on Wikipedia for a very long time) I'd be very interested in them. I did some work on several infoboxes and the LSR and LPR templates awhile back to standardise the look, use, and improve how they functioned. I've not yet had a chance yet to further refine the currently inactive/incomplete preload code in the infobox templates (which was already there when I began) but it was one of several things I wanted to further improve. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 5 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:2005 Pro Bowl NFC starters 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A rather trivial link between players given the current year: contributes to template clutter. Would be better served by a category or list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Pro Bowl players are important distinctions, not just a "trivial link;" they were all elected as starters to the Pro Bowl, which is akin to being named to the 2005 All-Pro Team. Pats1 T/C 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - think about the logical consequences of that: a 9 time pro bowl starter will require 9 templates, just for this at the bottom of his page. Can't this better be served as a category? Or combined with other Pro Bowl starters? I just happen to think of someone *really* wants to navigate through the pro-bowl starters from a given year, can't they just go to the respective page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many 9-time Pro Bowl starters are there? This is why navboxes are collapsed by default. Pats1 T/C 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of two who played in 14 Pro Bowls each (mostly as starters): Bruce Matthews and Merlin Olsen... and both started in most of their Pro Bowls. 147.70.242.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
So we're considering deleting these navboxes entirely because there are too many of them for a handful of players? Isn't that like deleting every Super Bowl navbox just because Brady has three and that's too many? Pats1 T/C 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the matter other than to point out that this is similar to other templates that have been debated frequently here on TFD that list the rosters of championship teams. Among those that have been deleted are the ice hockey ones and the Association football ones. The ones for baseball, basketball, and American football currently remain. As indicated on the latter discussion, and this other recent one, their use seems to be based on consensus of the members of the respective WikiProject. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no good reason to delete them. User:Duffy2032 —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 5 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_5&oldid=1138694002"