Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17 edit

Template:Infobox Star Trek episode 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) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Star Trek episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated for {{Infobox television episode}}. There were about 700 transclusions and I have replaced 200. I'll likely polish off the rest tonight. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 17 March 2010 (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:Omamori Himari 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) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omamori Himari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not need to wikilink three articles into a single nav template. Transcluded in only two locations. —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NAVBOX ("fewer than a handful of links"). TJRC (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete² Not enough articles to warrant an infobox. It's not that a functionality exists that you have to use it. Having an infobox may give a feel good sensation but it won't make listed articles better in quality. --KrebMarkt 08:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Even more for deletion of the template, now that this template creator is making unwarranted spin-out articles in spit of Wikipedia inclusions guidelines in order to "stuff" the box and avoid template deletion. This is not a proper behavior. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too few links = delete. No clear opportunity to expand to enough any time soon. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - three articles is certainly too few for a navbox, although it appears that there's potential for a character list, and the author may be able to support an article (though I'm dubious on author links counting toward link counts in navboxes like this, but that, I think, is another discussion altogether). While you're at it, Farix, perhaps you'd like to nominate a couple of these navboxes? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The template's create has since taken to copying the code of the template directly into the articles instead of using transclusion as well as create a lot of frivolous character stubs despite the clear lack of notability of the characters. —Farix (t | c) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the inappropriate individual character articles as there is clearly no attempt to show independent notability, therefore they should not exist.Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even now there is a character list, I'm not seeing a reason to use a navbox for this size set of articles. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing that can't be handled with a "see also" section. —Airplaneman— 01:15, 24 March 2010 (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:Byline 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) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are we crediting now in Wikipedia pictures with bylines to the photographer? I think this template is just ignoring all kind of basic principles of Wikipedia. Are works in this case pictures honoured much more than texts people write or do we start soon to put signatures in articles? See Wikipedia:Captions#Credits --Meisterkoch (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not appropriate to use byline on pictures in articles in Wikipedia. -TheG (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (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:Essay-project-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 keep (though a merge had some support). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in 2007 this template is hopelessly out of date and causing confusion. See this AFD [1] There is a general lack of consensus for most of these GNG subsections and this template is highly misleading when it says to consult an essay during an AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or merge with Template:Notability essay) - I'm not convinced by the nominators argument. Seems like a good boilerplate to make it clear these little notability essays are not guidelines/policies. Also puts the cart before the horse. Reword if necessary. –xenotalk 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to what "Do not use" there are other template for failed policies. This one seems highly misleading and unnecessary. In fours years of working on notability guidelines I have never seen consensus on anything remotely close to what this template is suggesting. Ridernyc (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only thing it says is that it may be "consulted for assistance" which really doesn't say much at all. I think you're reading into things more than they need be. –xenotalk 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: merge) I think it's better to keep the templates separate for categorization and to be specific. Cenarium (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This could be accomplished through parameter and parserfunctions (Notability essay|Wikiproject=yes or suchlike). Basically I think the wording and general message should remain similar and this is best achieved by keeping it together. But either way. –xenotalk 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's more complicated overall for a simple case. You'd need to use params, change the existing uses, update documentations, etc. Cenarium (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that I hadn't noted the nomination and moved the template to Template:Wikiproject notability essay a few minutes later. I think we need such a template precisely to dispel confusion, make the purpose of those essays clear (why they're not 'official' guidelines, etc). The wording of it may need to be adjusted. Cenarium (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seem WP:POINTy to me, he disliked that people were using the essay a reference point to oppose his view, so kicked up a fuss. --Natet/c 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Template:Notability essay, as they are extremely similar in both purpose and wording. It's a useful template; if the closer decides against merging, keep it is. —Airplaneman— 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge could make sense, especially if a parmeter to flag it a a project (or other type) of essay was available. --Natet/c 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see benefit from the results of the template, I believe it makes the essays that use it more clear. I've tried to follow the nominator's reasoning for delete, and I just don't necessarily see that as a reason to delete. I don't read it to be misleading, but if it is then that is an editing issue of content, not a deletion issue for the entire template.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (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:Medicus Mystery Series 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medicus Mystery Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navigational template, navigating only between redlinks. Two of the three links are to deleted articles, while the third link goes to an article that was never created. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not useful, with zero working links. —Airplaneman— 01:20, 24 March 2010 (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:Economy of Moldova table 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Moldova table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think there is no reason to keep this template anymore. It isn't included anywhere in articles (see), and the main article Economy of Moldova uses more common template {{Infobox economy}} instead of this one. RoadTrain (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is not used in any articles (and therefore orphaned). The article it was intended for now uses a different template. —Airplaneman— 01:22, 24 March 2010 (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:12TeamBracket-Byes 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:12TeamBracket-Byes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:12TeamBracket-Byes-6Rds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - No apparent uses. Closely related {{6TeamBracket}} is transcluded, not substituted, so that's probably what would happen with this one. Only incoming links are from maintenance reports. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can be used for basketball conference tournaments, especially with the number of DI conferences with 12 teams, and with more conferences expanding to 12 teams. Mtndrums (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - both templates are unused. —Airplaneman— 01:24, 24 March 2010 (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:AEBE 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) 23:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per WP:TMP, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".

This template is massively unnecessary and the user who created it seems to be on an editing spree to use it incorrectly. All this template does is replace existing article text. Jeni (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provides for a consistent way of writing British/American differences instead of many variations like: hood (UK: bonnet); hood (bonnet in UK); hood (US) or bonnet (UK); hood/bonnet (US/UK). Except I would shorten the text 'American English' and 'British English' down to 'US' and 'UK'. Not sure if we need both AEBE and BEAE.  Stepho  (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Usage is often more nuanced or ambiguous than this template can deal with—see, for example, the leads of Semi-trailer truck and Antenna (radio), where the template's creator shoehorned the template in in a way that misrepresents the linguistic situation. Deor (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The semi-trailer article certainly has some problems with it (made much worse by the 'considered for deletion' ugliness) but the antenna article looks fine to me. A possible solution woudl be a slightly different form of the template with multiple parameters like {{AEBE|us=tractor|uk=truck|au=prime mover|ireland=tractor unit}}. But as I've said in my comment below, the semi-trailer article should use only a single form of prime mover (or truck or tractor or tractor unit, but only ONE) because this article is not defining prime mover.  Stepho  (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word aerial is also in common use in the U.S. Presenting antenna/aerial as a U.S./British distinction is just incorrect. Deor (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that just means that the use of the template was not appropriate for that particular article. It doesn't mean that the template itself is bad.  Stepho  (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these templates force a simplistic dichotomization even when a more nuanced analysis of usage would be more appropriate. Deor (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dichotomy only applies when users are forced to use the template and only two options are allowed. If the template doesn't quite fit the article then there is no compulsion to use it. I also mentioned above that we could expand it to allow for more than two options. So, dichotomy is not the issue. In the two articles you mentioned there are three uses of the template. As you pointed out, the aerial/antenna terms are not a US/UK thing, so the template should not be used there and therefore that article is no longer an argument for either side. For the semi-trailer article, the second usage (truck/tractor) should also not be in the article (not even in its pre-template form), so it is also no longer an argument. The first usage still has something to say because it has more than 2 countries. If the template is not able to handle more than US and UK then the article simply doesn't use it. But see my previous comment where I mentioned a possible expansion of the template to handle more then 2 countries (ie UK, US, Australia, Ireland). Come on guys, don't just condemn the simplistic thing it is now, think of what it can become.  Stepho  (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deor. I thought we were supposed to use only one particular form of English throughout individual articles? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to show both when the topic is known by different names in different parts of the world. For example, would an American be happy if the Hood (vehicle) article replaced all occurrences of 'hood' with 'bonnet'? Would a Brit be happy replacing all occurrences of 'bonnet' with 'hood? What you are thinking of is that other articles mentioning the topic should choose one form and stick to it within that article. If the AEBE template survives, then it should only be used in articles defining a topic - eg in Hood (vehicle) but not in automobile when it mentions the 'hood' or 'bonnet'.  Stepho  (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Articles are supposed to maintain consistent usage when using the term as the term, but when discussing terminology itself, it is considered appropriate to treat all usages. This is often done by mentioning synonymous terms in the lead section and then picking one and sticking with it for the rest of the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see much benefit in using a template to enforce a standard usage. If there's a style guideline describing a consensus for how to describe spelling differences, it can be followed just by typing it the way it should be typed. And if there isn't a guideline, this template is just codified instruction creep. It may well be we shouldn't get too specific on this; as Deor points out, situations vary. (FWIW, I also agree with Jeni's interpretation of WP:TMP, but I find "it's policy" to be a poor argument. Policy can be changed. A keep/delete decision should stand on its own merits.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of any arguments about AE-vs-BE usage, this is just plain lousy prose with just plain ugly markup - so it will always be redundant to more natural prose explaining the same thing. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Markup can be changed. In fact, I just did. Now it looks like 'hood (US) or bonnet (UK)'. I can change it again if someone has a better suggestion. But if that was all it did then, yeah, it doesn't give much. But it's possible for much more. The links to the British/American English articles for starters. And in the future it might be possible for some robot to scan for use of this template and to automatically build lists of differing American/British terms.  Stepho  (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (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:BEAE 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) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per WP:TMP, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".

This template is massively unnecessary and the user who created it seems to be on an editing spree to use it incorrectly. All this template does is replace existing article text. Jeni (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Usage is often more nuanced or ambiguous than this template can deal with—see, for example, Automobile pedal, Autumn, Zebra crossing, and Shoulder (road), where the template's creator shoehorned the template in in a way that misrepresents the linguistic situation. (In the first case, Jan Berry is no doubt turning over in his grave.) Deor (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either the user or the template should be stopped from foolishness. As Deor said, this template oversimplifies a dictionary meaning of a pair of words that divides people more than the Atlantic Ocean would, especially in a world in which the world is inundated with the likes of both BBC (tends to spread some words) and Hollywood (tends to spread some others). In short, my ear seems to violate a lot of the examples and/or the implementation is a joke campaign. It is the literary equivalent of a monkey wrench ... is it a tool used in a garage or do we throw it into an article for good measure? I like to saw logs! (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought we were supposed to use only one particular form of English throughout individual articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of any arguments about BE-vs-AE usage, this is just plain lousy prose with just plain ugly markup - so it will always be redundant to more natural prose explaining the same thing. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2010 (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/2010_March_17&oldid=1141876493"