Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24 edit

Template:WikiProject Seattle 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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Seattle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. I'm finishing off the last few transclusions now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to Template:WikiProject Washington like how so many other templates of absorbed projects are for various other projects. 184.144.166.87 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me to have been a very odd choice to absorb the project, given that over time the Seattle project seemed to me the more active, but I haven't been so involved the last year or so, so maybe this has changed. Was there a clear consensus to absorb the project? Can someone point at a place where such a consensus was reached? - Jmabel | Talk 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per normal. NB: Which direction the merge took place really doesn't matter now, though overly specific to more general made sense. It stands to reason that the Seattle project would have more active editors, and after the merge that more active WikiProject Washington editors would be Seattleans, since Seattle is the most populous place in the state. Non-problematic in any way, and a merge in the other direction would have made no sense at all, since Washington outside Seattle (e.g. places like Tacoma, Washington and Redmond, Washington) would not be within the scope of a Seattle-only project. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:Uw-3rr-resolve 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) 07:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-3rr-resolve (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template doesn't look like an warning/notice, but merely a boilerplate text for a seemingly personal message. →AzaToth 22:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As redundant to {{uw-3rr}}. A template warning is a template warning, however you phrase it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep here's why. 1) "Regular user" and non-regular user edit warring on an article. 2) Other user notices this and gives both sides a standard 3rr notice. "Regular user" throws their toys out the pram at the person giving the warning because they are upset over the edit war and cite WP:DTR and get even more upset about it.
  • This has happened several times to me and clearly its an issue with no good answer. The standard template upsets them, yet writing a personal message which contains links to all the dispute resolution material they need to help solve the dispute is time consuming, and not providing that information might mean they might well not know how to solve the edit war productively which is also bad.
  • While this template may not be perfect it is a good step forward and ideally should be included in Twinkle along with the standard warning notice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Late vote here, but the wording of this "friendly warning" is sufficiently patronizing to be completely unhelpful. i kan reed (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The wording is supposed to be friendly, but as Ikanreed said, it is in fact patronising. Also, not a WP:UW-style user warning, as might be inferred from its "uw-" prefix. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - tone and format aren't in synch with what we generally do with user warnings. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel its patronising why not make an effort to improve the wording? And is it more patronising than the standard template which will undoubtably be used instead? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 27 June 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:Illumination Entertainment 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) 07:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illumination Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1) Largely unnecessary template. 2) Company only has two actual films. 3) Majority of links are to subsections of the same page, redirects, or only tangentially connected articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • re. 1) The template is in no manner superfluous. re. 2) This is irrelevant to protesting the entry. re. 3) This entry has been updated with more robust links from respected sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EkimW4301 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no reason for this information to be in a template, since only a handful of pages would use it, other than someone thinks it'd be cool for their film company to have a template like big ones do. As nominator noted (point 3), there's no need for the information to be presented this way at all, as it simply grossly misleads the reader into thinking that there are all sorts of articles and they're all relevant, when these are not actual facts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:Eco-Challenge 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, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eco-Challenge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - template has no value. It does not group articles that are related to Eco-Challenge in any meaningful way as there are no articles other than the main article that are strongly associated with it. Template is linking articles for states or countries where the challenge was run and for other sporting events or challenges that on one occasion ran in conjunction with the challenge. These are all linked through the Eco-Challenge article itself and the template, which is only used on two articles, serves no purpose. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note User:Harley Hudson has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711 Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rationales for deletion were indeed both quite valid: This doesn't have any reason to be in a template, since there are only two or so articles that allegedly need this information, and the information is not actually needed in this form anyway or anywhere, since it's already provided in-context and much more usefully. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:Percentage of Featured Articles 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) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Percentage of Featured Articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not used, and has not been used for some time. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 24 June 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:Notation 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) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) not used, (2) incomplete since there are far more than 3 notation systems. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think it will be impossible to include every single notation system on earth. Currently, those notation systems are English, or Anglo-Cultural or Western, Euro-Cultural systems, and Western music has a notation system which I think is very broadly used. Thus, I think such a template would be unwieldy to be used on articles.Curb Chain (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because it is not used. It cannot be a criterion of keeping a navbox template that "every single [thing of the subject's sort] on earth" be included in it (indeed, trying to do so would be foolhardy for most topics "on earth" :-). Navboxes exist to help readers find important topics' articles, not trivia. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:46, 27 June 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:CD 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) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CDW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CD-el (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CDT-el (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CDW-el (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(1) replaced by template:CDD and (2) this was being used as a redirect before, and was repurposed and (3) there are far too many things named CD (disambiguation), in particular, the use of such templates for two letter country codes. could be moved to user space, and if deleted, template:CDT, template:CDT-el, template:CDW, template:CDW-el, and template:CD-el should be as well. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make template:CDD contain everything I need, and haven't checked if the others are still used, maybe just left as tests? CD (disambiguation) would seem completely irrelevant in regards to my templates. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the numerous items in CD (disambiguation) is an indication that the term "CD" has more than one meaning, and could be confusing. this is the same reason why we don't have template:bridge-stub (see the deletion notes on that page). this comment was not in reference to the utility of the template, but in reference to its name. if you check the links for all the templates listed above, you will see they are only used in one place, which is in userspace. so, it appears these are not needed for any articles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As both nominator and commenter point out, this is just used by userspaced stuff, and {{CDD}} covers the bases. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:Infobox general 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) 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox general (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a clone of an existing template ({{infobox aviation}}) which exists solely due to the idiosyncracies of WikiProject Aviation. Basically, it's an attempt to make articles which don't have proper infoboxes look like they do by taking the lead image and sticking an infobox frame around it. This is, at best, pointless, and results in duplication due to the title header (unavoidable in an infobox, which is an actual table containing information, but wholly unnecessary for a table which only contains an image). Recommend converting to a simple image thumbnail, leaving the "name" attribute out entirely, and then substituting the existing uses to orphan this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this template because there was an obvious need for it in non-aviation articles that do not have specific infoboxes designed for them and it is currently in use in 164 articles, with a good level of editor acceptance (The vast majority of which I did not insert it into the article, that was done by other editors who apparently found it of value). I don't see a good case presented here to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, in many cases this is replaced by template:infobox image. if we need a free form infobox, we have template:infobox. the name is also confusing, since there are many uses of the word "general". Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Frietjes and thumperward. There's no need for an "infobox" look unless it's an actual infobox, and just the regular image with a caption would do fine. demize (t · c) 20:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; this is unnecessary Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what links to here. The template is obviously mostly used in articles that has nothing to do with aviation. Kill {{infobox aviation}} instead! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It isn't a "fake" infobox, it may not be as useful as you would like, but it really is an infobox. Also since this discussion came up an editor has gone around and replaced many of the instances of this infobox with the very similar Template:Infobox instead. See this one example. Not sure what the point of that is; is that template going to be nominated for deletion as well, since it seems to accomplish much the same thing? - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, Rursus shouldn't have done that, and should revert. {{infobox}} is quite obviously not going to be nominated as it is usually used as a meta-template (i.e. to create subject-specific infoboxes): its direct transclusion on articlespace should only happen if a very specific set of infobox content which isn't catered for normally is needed on an article, and obviously none of the {{infobox general}} transclusions (which are, as previously stated, just images with captions and titles) fit that bill. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, oh. My edits were quite legal and motivated by the wish to cleanup the messed articles that I felt for. A template is not fixed from edits when it is TfD:ed. An AfD:ed article may be fixed after being nominated for deletion, and so, by analogy, I may change the usage of a template after being TfD:ed. There's no prestige in using, protecting or deleting a certain template — the template have no human rights. Likewise, a TfD is not a matter of prestige, it's just a matter of keeping WP clean, nice and tidy. I suspect I actually broke no rule by changing the usage during the TfD, or did I? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you do things like this, it looks very much like you are trying to pull off a fait accompli by rendering moot the main "keep" rationale for this template (namely that it is semi-widely used, and for a given, consistent purpose), while that very rationale is under discussion. And, actually, WP:ARBCOM has spoken very strongly against fait accmopli actions. Search cases for the phrase "fait accompli". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intention. No apologies intended. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree that infobox aviation needs some improvements but this is less of an eyesore than Template:infobox . Marcus Qwertyus 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request to delete {{infobox aviation}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Serves no purpose not served by simply using an image properly, or using a normal infobox and putting more information (you know, that words stuff after the picture, the "info" in "infobox") into an appropriate infobox for the article. What {{infobox aviation}} does or doesn't do or should or shouldn't do isn't of any relevance. And, yeah, the name is bad - sounds like it is for military leaders. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the 'quick' infobox to use when and where there is no other ready made infobox .. perhaps amended to include stub equivalent features for use when creating article .. a kind of 'stub' infobox (if there isn't already such a thing)?? Bruceanthro (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is having an infobox with nothing in it except an image an improvement over just using the image? Not every article needs an infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick, 'stub' like Infobox of this kind creates an infobox (with a heading, image, and caption) in the absence of there being any ready made infobox .. signalling authors wish for there to be an infobox .. Could easily function like this:   I guess?! Bruceanthro (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ee already have a way of requesting that an infobox be added to an article: the much less intrusive {{needs infobox}}. This doesn't even encourage people to add to the article because, unlike using {{infobox}} directly, it can't be extended. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:55, 30 June 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:X Factor UK sidebar 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) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X Factor UK sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard template used to replace the television infobox. No apparent discussion at the television project to very from the preferred standard version. Ckatzchatspy 07:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after migrating to the standard TV infobox. If it doesn't provide a feature that is needed, then seek consensus to add to it, instead of forking a one-show template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:X Factor US sidebar 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) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X Factor US sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard template used to replace the television infobox. No apparent discussion at the television project to very from the preferred standard version. Ckatzchatspy 07:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the one above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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:X Factor Australia sidebar 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) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X Factor Australia sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard template used to replace the television infobox. No apparent discussion at the television project to very from the preferred standard version. Ckatzchatspy 07:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as per the ones above. Related templates like this should be nominated as a group. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:32, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_24&oldid=1138695249"