Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

April 19 edit

Template:Cubes 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{cubes}} Not a useful navbox. There aren't enough legitimate cube articles to justify the navbox, and the other articles are just things that happen to be cubes - they have no other relation to justify linking. JaGa^talk 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the revised navbox. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another editor has added substantial content, and I shall do the same this weekend. As I mentioned before, there are many cubes lurking throughout mathematics, e.g. in harmonic analysis, measure theory (e.g., Menger's sponge), coding theory & discrete metric spaces (Hamming metric).

The NavBox has been substantially revised. The pop-cultural cubes now have less prominence, and cubes of toys/puzzles and art (Ann Arbor's Cube) have been added. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or significantly rewrite. A navigation box should be an organized collection of internal links, not a place for long descriptions of Klee–Minty cube, Cosmic cube and Lemarchand's box. Navigation boxes are for navigation. I can click on the link to find out that the "Cosmic cube has the power to alter reality according to wielder's wishes." Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for a rewrite has been followed.

Delete. Navboxes are to assist the reader in navigating between related articles. It is very difficult to imagine that any user will want to navigate between the articles about the Klee-Minty cube and the Cosmic Cube. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the revised template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it, and my opinion is still for delete, for the same reason. The same reasons apply: no reader will be well-served by a navbox of random cube-related stuff. Who would avail themselves of convenient links between Rubik's Cube, Cubism, and Cesium Chloride? The idea is ridiculous. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a link on every page for every user who wants to skip from articles on mathematics to articles on "ominus cubes". It's called Special:Random. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's hard to imagine people wanting to navigate between these wildly-differing articles. Zonotope is haredly related to Menger sponge, and those aren't at all related to Yoshimoto Cube or Kaaba. I'll admit, there's some value to linking the various Rubik's cubes together, but not with the other material. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the box to have Penrose tilings and quasi-crystals, linking mathematics, art, and chemistry (again). BTW, I should inform you that the puzzle section is mostly a selection from a navbox on Rubik's cube. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This reminds me uncomfortably of Borges' classification of animals. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Especially considering that's my line! Resigned to my fate, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* It serves a useful function as it is. --Panzer71 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2011 (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:Rfasupport 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other than the nom being a likely sock, this template is useless in that typing out "#'''Support''' ~~~~" doesn't take long at all, but this template encourages drive-by votes/votes without rationales. Even though it's in support of someone, we shouldn't be using templates so people can be lazy and not be bothered to write a little extra comment when they would have without the template. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It isn't that hard to type out, and doesn't accept a rationale parameter. Even if it did, it would not be very valuable as it would take more time to type the template than it would to type "Support - Blah blah blah... Example (talk)" Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a template that (if it is kept) should be substituted, and {{subst:Rfasupport}} (20 characters) is actually longer than #'''Support''' ~~~~ (19 characters). The main factor, of course, is the one cited by the nominator: the template encourages drive-by voting. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Rfasupport}} deletion as per nom and foregoing. Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename - I think this template could be useful in other areas where !voting occurs (other than RFA), therefore I propose that it be renamed to Template:Support, and the companion Template:Oppose be created also. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That only furthers the "!vote" idiocy where people think that their bold text counts more than their opinion. The elections are the only places on Wikipedia which explicitly depend on votes, so generalising this would be actively harmful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We absolutely shouldn't have a template that encourages easy, blank !votes. If someone really wants to leave a blank !vote, they can type four tildes instead of typing out {{subst:RFAS}} or whatever we would change it to. Swarm ^X 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed- there's no way to substitute a signature anyway. Swarm ^X 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Usually you're not the first person to !vote in an RFA, so it's easy to follow the way others have !voted. Unnecessary template. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is absolutely useless and encourages blank !votes. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTVOTE, discourages thoughtful discussion. Chzz ► 23:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SERIOUSLY!? Are people that lazy? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:13pm • 11:13, 25 April 2011 (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.