Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 23

< September 22	September 24 >

September 23 edit

Template:Film editor 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 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film editor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Film editors are covered by WP:FILMBIO, for which the relevant project banner is {{WPBiography}}. There is no need whatsoever for a seperate talk page banner telling us that the article is about a film editor and linking to the same WikiProject. The usage instructions are, frankly, bollocks. This isn't a template that should be substituted, and how it's supposed to facilitate searches is anyone's guess. Only three transclusions, but I'm finding 151 substitutions with AWB. PC78 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote this one about 2 1/2 years ago. My idea at the time was to facilitate searches on the article quality ratings of film editor articles. It did serve this purpose, if imperfectly. There may be better tools for this limited purpose; perhaps you could direct me there. Anyway, I don't have any particular objection to deletion of the template itself at this point. cheers, Easchiff (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how this template facilitates searches, because it's not at all obvious. PC78 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been a bit dicey. I did Boolean AND searches for article talk pages: "class=B" AND "film editor" - using the Wikipedia search engine. As far as I know, such searches require some definite phrase such as "film editor" to appear on the talk page; I don't know how to do a search requesting articles with the phrase "film editor" in the article, and "class=B" in the talk page. I considered suggesting an "occupation= " parameter on the WP:Biography header, but never pursued it. As I ultimately learned, there are very few articles on film editors other than stubs. So the question became moot after a time. Easchiff (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a search like this? That's pretty hit and miss at best; AWB would be your best bet for that sort of thing (I found 15 B-Class film editors, BTW). Obviously it wouldn't be feasible to have a template like this for every profession. PC78 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I need to get with the AWB program; I didn't know there were that many "B-class" editor articles! As you say, the regular search engine wasn't very complete, which had puzzled me. There are lower visibility solutions than the template to the larger issue of supporting refined searches of talk pages. Perhaps a dummy parameter for the WP:Biography banner such as occupation= is better than the template scheme; there I suspected that some robot would cleanse the unrecognized parameter out some day. cheers, Easchiff (talk) 05:42, 25 September 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:Thai LGBT films 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) 02:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thai LGBT films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The films listed in this template are only loosely connected by subject matter. I appreciate that navtemplates can often cover the same ground as categories, but in this case I think it's best left to Category:Thai LGBT-related films. Similar concerns were raised almost three years ago on the template talk page, but never properly addressed. PC78 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NENAN. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and WP:NENAN. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 08:20, 24 September 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:Paris 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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not a "Paris topics" or "Paris landscapes" template, but another kind of template used on commons (this one) for some metropolis, but not used on Wikipedia. Also the "red" categories are cats used on commons. The template is also orphan. Is it necessary to mantain it? It sounds like redundant and a template "Paris" should be used as this one or similar. Dэя-Бøяg 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The duplicate template is already present in commons where it is meant to used e.g. a easy shortcut to writing [[en:Paris]]. A standard [[Paris]] would be enough for linking here on English wikipedia. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is Wikipedia, not Commons. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 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:Crimean region 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 and replace with {{Infobox Raion}} Magioladitis (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Crimean region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox Raion. See Petrivskyi Raion. Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 23 September 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:It's Fantastic 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 delete as G5. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:It's Fantastic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template featuring nothing more than a non-notable home-made movie (whose article is at AfD) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fantastic (sorry). Delete per nom. PC78 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the article survives, there's no need for the template. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—unnecessary. –Grondemar 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: hardly imparts any information, and doesn't serve a useful function as a template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G5 (block evasion). Creator is clearly a sock of Beyonceloverlove. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain your rationale for suspecting them to be a sock? They're not on the list of suspected sockpuppets you linked to. If and when they're blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, the template could be speedied. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With one link, unnecessary. --Bsherr (talk) 15:53, 24 September 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:Doctor Who Glitz Stories 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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who Glitz Stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three stories - no where near notable enough to warrant a template 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Just three doesn't really resonate notability to keep the template.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above. No upcoming stories means that the template has no future use either. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three episodes are referenced in the article, so there's no good reason for the template. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for a navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 24 September 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:Hidden archive top 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 WP:SNOW Keep NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden archive top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be depreciated or removed. It is harmful to the project as a means to suppress debate, and the requirement for "uninvolved editors or administrators" does little to deter "IDONTLIKEIT" closes by someone not yet involved, but otherwise acting in conflict of interest. At a minimum, the default text of "this discussion has been closed" should contain advice as to how to contest it's closure. Triona (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited 10:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I do recognize that this serves an important purpose in deterring harmful discussions, such as those that degenerate into personal attacks, but it seems it's used just as much or more as a "STFU" button without any real accountability for doing so. As an alternative to this template that would discourage misuse, consider modeling a replacement on the talk page guidelines and CSD templates. ie {{hat-npa}}, such that the reasoning for closing a discussion is apparent, and such that abuse is readily apparent - having to specify a "generally accepted" reason for closing a discussion in this manner would make it harder to game. Triona (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - if a tool is used inappropriately, address the carpenter. Don't throw away the tool. –xeno^talk 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI think I have to completely agree with Xeno here. The reasoning for closing a discussion being absent is a fault of the closing/archiving editor, not of the template. The template has much provision to provide closing messages separately. You do know them Triona hopefully. Sincere regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from offering a good way to close discussions, the template allows you to collapse lengthy linked lists or diatribes and prevent those blocks of text from messing up readability on hig traffic pages (without removing the content). Protonk (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This template is widely used and has proved itself very useful. Anyone who uses the template inappropriately should just simply be reverted. Also, large pages can be difficult to navigate through, so collapsing finished sections can make it easier to navigate through a page. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 329° 37' 15" NET 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this template is very versatile and is used on thousands of pages throughout the project for a variety of purposes. For example, I use it on both my user page and my user talk page in order to keep useful information handy but tucked out of the way. I've seen it used to to compartmentalize long, off-topic posts, to improve readability by collapsing resolved issues, and to bring discussions that are about to go off the rails to a close before someone goes too far and winds up blocked. One of the most useful templates in our portfolio, from my perspective. If it is used inappropriately, it is simple to revert it, with a quiet word to the editor. Risker (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the reasons stated above: it's an enormously useful template, and the template itself is not at fault if it is misused; users should simply be made more aware of its proper usage. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This template is even more useful than the main page. Hans Adler 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—highly useful and used template. As others have said above, just because some people may be abusing it isn't a reason for deletion. –Grondemar 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Plainly useful. If we removed anything that could be abused, that list would never end. BigK HeX (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - highly useful template. Yworo (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hiding discussion is intimately related to deleting discussion. --Xerographica (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given all of the warnings you've received about engaging in WP:OR, I can see how that may be a problem from your viewpoint.... BigK HeX (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - useful and widely used. Almost everything has the potential for abuse, but that's not in itself a good reason to get rid of it. If you feel the need to do so, change the default text, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widely used and highly useful. Suggest WP:SNOW. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace with a "nest" button which allows readers that don't want to read a long winded winding post to close it so they don't have to see it. but let the reader decide - not some other user (usually with a differing opinion). This function just calls out for abuse - which is probably why I've never seen this function on any other type of forum - only on Wikipedia is it accepted that any user can decide another user's posts can be "closed". At the very least, at least describe what the function really does. Put an appropriate description "User1 has hidden this part of the discussion because ...". To say that the discussion is "closed" implies consensus which is rarely the case. stmrlbs|talk 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, one whole day of discussion. stmrlbs|talk 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this open on TfD is a waste of time. Far too many editors find the existing utility of this template to be essential to thread management on the likes of ANI for anything other than a close with no action to be the outcome here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 24 September 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:IWork 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) 02:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough content to be useful; could be adequately summarized in a "sea also" section ℳono 02:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nom - scope too small for navbox and easily covered by prose. –xeno^talk 19:17, 23 September 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:Disco Mix Club 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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disco Mix Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template intended for barely-notable Disco Mix Club. The article doesn't seem extensive enough to need a template. JaGa^talk 10:00, 14 September 2010 (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) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original nom. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - limited scope easily covered by prose or seealso. –xeno^talk 19:35, 23 September 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.