Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30 edit

Template:Quikflag 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. There is additional discussion going on elsewhere that will hopefully form some sort of consensus. RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with the very well-known {{flagicon}} template system designed by WP:WikiProject Flag Template. It can only be used for flags named "Flag of Place.svg", which is a subset of all the flags supported properly by flagicon. This seems to be an attempt to bypass the "overhead" of the flag template system, but that overhead was designed to be minimal by the work done in early 2007, so the benefit of a "quik" alternative is dubious, especially when it is limited in functionality. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The existing {{flagicon image}} can be used in cases where "quick" image rendering is desired. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per author. Contrary to the many misconceptions above, Template:Quikflag is NOT redundant, but rather, a totally different kind of flag template that does not restrict the possible flags. Quikflag can display more than 500 flags, as well as any of 2 million images, very quickly, by parameter image=xxxx.
The main purpose of {{quikflag}} is to display a flag, by name suffix, very quickly, as a short entry in a page. However, the purpose of {{flagicon}} is to provide the flag for a nation-code or name, and display the official name of that nation. Consequently, {{quikflag}} can display hundreds of flags, because it does not check the nation-code to restrict which flags are shown. Note, in the following examples, that Template:flagicon does not handle the flags of "Persia (1906)" or "Yellowknife, NWT" which are displayed quickly by {{quikflag}}:

{{flagicon|Persia (1906) }} {{flagicon|Yellowknife, NWT}}

{{quikflag|Persia (1906) |size=70px}} {{quikflag|Yellowknife, NWT|size=70px}}

Part of the reason that {{quikflag}} is so quick, displaying a flag using no other templates, is because {{quikflag}} does not lookup nation-code entries. The 2 templates have very different purposes. Template:Quikflag displays flags that {{flagicon}} does not, and hence it is not redundant but rather a very quick, short and valuable addition to Wikipedia. Quikflag is intended to be simple, and the other template {{flagicon image}} is not as simple; compare results:

{{flagicon image|USA}}: File:USA
{{quikflag |USA}}: {{quikflag|USA}} {{quikflag |Ireland}}: {{quikflag|Ireland}}

Also, by being so quick and short, Template:Quikflag is extremely easy to maintain. I would have responded sooner if I had been notified about this TfD, as author of the template. I have written over 1,000 templates on Wikipedia, so I would not create a useless template. This template is a definite KEEP. -Wikid77 06:21, 5 April 2010 (redid copyvio image 7 April)

flagicon can display a few thousand flags (more than the limited subset of 500 of quikflag), and does it correctly. In your example above, the icon links to the Persia (1906) article, which is a useless redlink. Even worse, your second example links the flag of the Republic of Ireland to the article on Ireland (the island), which is offensive to many people. The flagicon templates always ensure a real, proper article is linked. (So {{flagicon|Ireland}} renders the right link at

.) And {{flagicon image}} can also display 2 million images "very quickly". Therefore, you could say that quickflag is redundant with flagicon image if you dispute that it is redundant with flagicon. But either way, it is redundant. And sorry about the lack of notification; I assumed that you would have the template on your watchlist because you created it recently. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Quikflag is not redundant, but rather, it displays flags that {flagicon} or {flag} do not handle:

{{flagicon|Victoria (Australia) }} {{flagicon|Yemen 1923}}

Use {{flagicon|Victoria}} or {{flagicon|Yemen|1923}} and it works perfectly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{quikflag|Victoria (Australia) |size=70px}} {{quikflag|Yemen 1923 |size=70px}}

Beyond those flags that {flagicon} does not display, {Quikflag} has another difference, it bypasses hundreds of flag-data templates so that it is "quick" (hence the name). During an edit-preview of an article, the only flag-template listed at the bottom would be Template:Quikflag. Remember the difference: it is NOT redundant, but it is quick. -Wikid77 21:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't {{flagicon image}} even quicker? —Quibik (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:flagicon_image is a short template, but it isn't quick for the user, who must specify the full image name:

- {{flagicon image|USA}}: File:USA {{flagicon image|Japan}}: File:Japan

- {{flagicon image|Flag_of_the_United_States.svg}}:

- {{quikflag |USA}}: {{quikflag|USA}} {{quikflag |Japan}}: {{quikflag|Japan}} -Wikid77 10:19, 6 April 2010

(ec) This is a strawman. It is trivial to add historical flag variants to the flag template system [1] [2], and the results are much better (e.g. {{flagicon|Yemen|1823}} wikilinks to Yemen, not to the useless article name at Yemen 1923. I could just as easily demonstrate some counter-examples as a rebuttal to your choice of examples, such as the widely-used United States flag from 1912–1959: {{flagicon|USA|1912}} versus {{quikflag|image=US flag 48 stars.svg|link=United States}}. Which of these is "quicker"?

The difference between quikflag and flagicon is that the former relies on knowing the image names (with a #switch statement to handle some selected exceptions to the rule), whereas the latter makes the image names transparent to the editor, using transclusion instead of #switch to place per-country information (such as the correct article title for the wikilink) into individual container templates. So your objection seems to be due to the transclusion of three templates per instance (such as {{flagicon}}, Template:Country flagicon2, and Template:Country data Yemen for example) versus one. Is that design really so terrible? For example, {{convert|6|ft|5|in|m}} results in 19 (!) templates listed in the edit preview window. Does that mean we should avoid using convert? Hopefully not! Inline templates like these are intended to make editing easier, and to that end, simpler markup syntax is strongly preferred. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several editors are working to make {Convert} use less than 19, now 18, subtemplates per conversion. Requiring 18 is not considered a positive quality, but {Convert} can be used to calculate huge numbers {{Convert|87,000,200|m|ft}}. Meanwhile, yes, a user is free to avoid {Convert} and use quicker alternatives, such as {{ft_to_m}} or {{Height|m=1.72}}, which shows: 1.72 m (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in). The analogy of using {{Height}}, rather than {{Convert}}, is similar to using {{Quikflag}}, so each user has a choice to use a quick alternative. People should not be forced to use any of those specific templates. -Wikid77 10:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Quikflag provide any functionality or features that Flagicon does not? If so, can that functionality be merged? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no additional functionality in quikflag. The differences are in the underlying implementation, and sometimes with the necessary input parameters. (For example, {{flagicon|Victoria}} and {{flagicon|Yemen|1923}} versus {{quikflag|Victoria (Australia)}} and {{quikflag|Yemen 1923}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "additional functionality" is in Quikflag bypassing the flag-restriction checks of {flagicon}, and I'm not sure that could be merged without complicating both templates: Quikflag would become less "quick" while {flagicon} might become overly complex. We wouldn't want template {Height} merged into {Convert} so that {Height} would invoke "20 templates" to compute heights, and risk hitting the fatal template-nesting limits that {Convert} has hit in recent weeks. Currently, the parameterized templates can only be nested a few dozen deep: for some reason, MediaWiki markup templates cannot be nested 100 deep as might seem trivial to implement. Previously, Template:CountryAbbr2 had used 560 flag/data templates (in parallel, not nested) and generated many millions of extra wikilinks. -Wikid77 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not really additional functionality that the editor using these templates would see; it's an implementation difference. (And I'm not sure what you mean by "flag-restriction checks"—could you explain?)

Right now, quikflag is sort of in the middle between {{flagicon image}} and {{flagicon}}. Compared to flagicon image, quikflag assumes that images are named like "Flag of Place.svg", so it automatically supplies the "Flag of " and ".svg" strings. The benefit is shorter wiki markup ({{quikflag|Brazil}} versus {{flagicon image|Flag of Brazil.svg}}, but the deficiency is that it can't be used for thousands of flags that aren't named like that, such as File:US flag 48 stars.svg and File:British Ceylon flag.png. So that explains the implementation behind flagicon—the image file names and article links are each stored inside country data templates. Instead of a thousand-way #switch statement, the parameter(s) to flagicon selects the data template to render the right flag. So what do we do with quikflag? Either you keep adding lines to the #switch statement to handle more image and country names, but that makes it even less "quik" than the existing flagicon image. In effect, you'd be re-implementing flagicon with parser functions instead of meta-template transclusion. Or you live with the limitations, but that's not a very editor-friendly option, in my opinion, which is why I made this TfD nomination.

And as for CountryAbbr2, I agree that it is a terrible solution, which is why we have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.2 and this addition to {{Infobox settlement}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and continue discussion with regard to merging any useful features with the existing {{flagicon}} on the respective talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template instead. I welcome any discussion about improving the performance of the existing design, created over three years ago. Much better to improve the existing high-use well-known templates than to introduce a "template fork". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really much to discuss: Template:Quikflag is merely used to quickly display a flag by the place name (such as "{{quikflag|Norway}}" {{quikflag|Norway}} or "Persia (1906)" {{quikflag|Persia (1906)}}), with no restriction denying the display simply because there is no article yet named "Persia (1906)". For people who want the flag-name verified against restricted names, they can use {flagicon}. But, for those who want to display a flag-image simply because it exists, they can use {quikflag|name}, without waiting for an approved flag-code or valid flag-article to be created and approved for inclusion. In a few rare cases, such as with name "Ireland", then {quikflag} can link to "Republic of Ireland" rather than anger users who demand that title. It is meant to be quick, but not so clueless as to mis-link names that are controversial to many users. I don't think there will be many special-case names that must be linked to avoid angry users, so hence, {quikflag} is likely to remain simple and quick. For users who don't want to use it, they can use {flagicon} or such. This is not rocket science: there is no need for a 3-year debate by a flag-approval committee comparing complexity criteria. It will not take our users long to understand what is meant by the idea "quick". -Wikid77 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your Persia (1906) example raises some issues. There shouldn't be an article created at that name, and readers who click on the icon should not be taken to that redlink. Similarly, a screen reader should not produce improper output. Therefore, quikflag is flawed for many, many image names.

Also, I don't understand your FUD about "approved flag-code". If a country data template doesn't exist, anybody can create one (and many editors have). There is no "approval" process.

Lastly, I think it is an assumption of bad faith to assume that WikiProject Flag Template contributors would spend three years debating how to improve efficiency. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're worrying about redlink "Persia (1906)" but meanwhile you've forgotten about {flagicon} linking to a redlink Template:Country_data... which varies if flags are misspelled:

- {{flagicon|Persia (1906)}}: {{flagicon|Persia (1906)}}

- {{flagicon|Persian (1906)}}: {{flagicon|Persian (1906)}}

- {{flagicon|Persia (1908)}}: {{flagicon|Persia (1908)}}

- {{flagicon|Portugull}}: {{flagicon|Portugull}}

Quikflag will display any flag-image, regardless if there is a corresponding Template:Country_data... Hence, {{quikflag|Persia (1906)}}: {{quikflag|Persia (1906)}}. Plus, users might think every time they had misspelled a flag name, then they needed to create a new Template:Country_data... for that misspelled name. That's not quick, and I can see that people might be tempted to create yet another Template:Country... before they even realized the flag-name was merely misspelled. If there is no "approval process" then people will be creating those Template:Country pages for any flag they merely wanted to display. Therefore, {flagicon} is flawed for many, many flag-names which require a Template:Country page must exist, before {flagicon} displays that flag. That's not quick. As for a 3-year span, it's been 3 years since {flagicon} was changed to require those templates, and where was {quikflag} during those 3 years? No one is "assuming bad faith" but rather, the reality of 3 years of discussions already. I hope that makes sense: look at all those redlink Template:Country_data... over the past 3 years: there's been enough time. Quikflag is ready for use, now. -Wikid77 03:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea at WT:WPFT#Discussion at TfD, and alternative proposal. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 April 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:AIHL09Bracket 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) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AIHL09Bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Given the name, it appears this is a bracket template for a single year. Since it is orphaned, it appears it is no longer needed and can be deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orphaned and undocumented. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:11, 31 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:ACC-decline 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 Deleted by Prodego (talk · contribs) with the comment "unused". The deletion seems to be out of process, but since all the comments here favored deletion and it has been deleted, I'm closing the discussion as moot. Deletion review is available if anyone wants to have it undeleted and restart the discussion. Please note that {{ACC-confirm}} and {{ACC-access}} were never formally nominated for deletion; nominating them was just a suggestion made in one of the comments. RL0919 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACC-decline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template, not sure if it is of any use? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused, unnecessary and it has a comma splice. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete afaik, ACC doesn't use this template anymore. fetchcomms☛ 00:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also pretty sure ACC no longer uses this. I will double-check with ACC tool admins. Also, you may wish to add the following: {{ACC-confirm}} and {{ACC-access}}, and {{Uw-acc}}^Avicenna_sis @ 00:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:ACC-decline, but Keep {{ACC-confirm}} and {{ACC-access}}, I always wondered what happened to these templates. They were very poorly documented and therefore not used, but they still are useful to ACC, and now that I know they still exist I would use them more often. However ACC-decline is unnecessary, and personally I feel that when declining a request for access you should explain your reasoning to the user and how they can improve to possibly get access in the future, instead of just templating them. --Chris 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused. As noted by Ten Pound Hammer, it's grammar isn't stellar, either :) Airplaneman ✈ 04:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted but keep {{ACC-confirm}} and {{ACC-access}} as they do get used when applicable. I didn't know about {{uw-acc}} but it really would come in so handy at times. And does anyone else think this is all a bit late since the template that prompted this was already deleted.delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:28, 4 April 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:2009 North All-Stars roster 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 North All-Stars roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009 South All-Stars roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template for the roster of an All-Star team in the Philippine Basketball Association. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:38, 30 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:2009 Mountain West Conference football season 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) 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Mountain West Conference football season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to Template: Mountain West Conference football season with "year=2009" option. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redunant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:15, 31 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:Mai Hoshimura 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) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mai Hoshimura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with only main article and two song articles transcluding it. Redlinked articles since July 2008. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless articles can be made on the redlinked works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough links for a navbox. No objection to this being copied to user or project space for more work. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:14, 31 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:Borough 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) 12:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As long as the handful of articles on which this template is transcluded really are "districts" -- I'm pretty sure they all are with the one doubt being Solihull -- then this template is redundant to {{Infobox UK district}}, which only has a couple more fields and is used much more heavily. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Given that {{Infobox UK district}} is also deprecated, I would say replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Since there were only about 5 transclusions, I went ahead and made the change, but will revert if this is controversial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the UK isn't the only place to have these things. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 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:U.S. Senate DSCC Chairs 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) 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Senate DSCC Chairs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. I'm not sure if this level of navigation is desired. It should be put to some use or deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as overkill.—Markles 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and redundant to the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:12, 31 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.