Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13 edit

Template:Irish county navigation box 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) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish county navigation box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to the current system which just uses template:navbox directly. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2012 (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:PD-URAA 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-URAA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Requires the article to be tagged with a more specific template, and if it is, then there is no need for it. Culturally insensitive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Yes, it requires a more specific template, but not it's not redundant, since it would still give the US copyright status (which is a legal requirement imposed on Wikimedia wikis). I'm not sure what you mean by "culturally insensitive"... do you dislike the wording of the template itself or the fact that every image has to have a US copyright tag in the first place? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. On Commons you have to use PD-URAA-Simul, and PD-URAA is deprecated. But we don't seem to have PD-URAA-Simul here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More specific is better, but this is not useless. The US copyright law does have a special status here, since that's we're our servers are, and it's the law ofthe country in which the WMF is incorporated. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (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:Italic 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) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in eleven articles; uses more characters than italic wikimarkup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say the same thing as I did for the template {{Bold}}. —Kri (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per {{bold}}. in the meantime, the tfd notices are seriously affecting articles where i used the template, such as Horus Heresy and Horus Heresy (novels). 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, confusing, and wholly useless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- suggestion – perhaps you could create a template with the content of your comment above. you seem to be using it with abandon. it could save typing some characters. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there are better options, like simple wikipedia markup. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is evidently not true that "{{italic|TEXT}}" takes more characters than "<span style="font-style: italic; padding-right:0.1em;">TEXT</span>". The proponents of deletion do not take into account that the template does more than just italics wiki markup; just compare "(1+i)" (standard italics wiki markup) with "(1+i)" (this template). --Lambiam 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard markup is to enclose the text in two apostrophes: ''. That is four characters. There is no need to inject font markup for italics. Lets take a look at a few samples:
  - Edgeworthstown: Formatting other_name in the infobox. Nothing on the right that needs padding.
  - Thraxas: Used to format book titles that are followed by a space and ndash; extra padding not needed here.
  - Frightful Cave: Used to italicize the language in the lead; {{lang}} should be used for this.
  - Cool Paradise: Used to italicize a quote that should not be italicized; see WP:MOSQUOTE. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

will use it extensively. it delienates italic text much better than apostrophes, making articles more editor-friendly, especially articles with extensive markup. as has been pointed out, it is also not exactly the same as apostrophes. i have seen no valid reason for deletion. it should be much better publicized. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When would I ever use this instead of two apostrophes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When, without "italics correction", the slanted characters would run into the following upright text, as I showed in an example above. --Lambiam 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Markup which has a purely presentational value should be avoided. If you believe that Wikipedia should present italicised text differently when placed next to non-italics then the best thing would be to raise a bug against MediaWiki, not to hack around it with obscure templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - pls explain why "Markup which has a purely presentational value should be avoided"? that's news to me – if you don't like it, by all means avoid it. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What? I don't understand the problem, nor do I understand how this template fixes the problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Justin e^xtra999 (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly redundant template. One of the central goals of any encyclopedia should be consistency. We don't need to confuse new editors by providing examples of multiple templates. A412 (Talk • C) 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- apart from your philosophical ideas about what anything should be, now i'm confused. what "multiple templates" are you referring to? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I,ve just written below re {{bold}}, this kind of thing is extremely unhelpful. Consistant markup benefits the vast majority. We don't need this added complexity. JIMp_talk·cont 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- readers, the target audience and the reason wikipedia exists, deserve consistency. these templates deliver it: bold and italics are consistently rendered.
- editors, who volunteer time and effort, deserve options. in this respect, the nominations for deletion of these templates are ill-conceived, detrimental, and a waste of time. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2012 (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:Bold 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) 00:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in four articles; uses more characters than bold wikimarkup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template uses the HTML span tag to make the text bold, so you can't really compare it with wiki markup. It can be used in some special cases when the wiki markup doesn't work (see the documentation); it's not meant to be a substitute for it. How did conclude that it is used in four articles? A transclusion count yields 82 hits. —Kri (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A transclusion count in article space yields substantially fewer [1]. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep and leave utility templates alone already. it's not as if there aren't more pressing items that need to be fixed. what kind of argument for deletion is that it is using "more characters"?! no one is forcing usage of the template on anybody else. i would not only keep it, but publicize it in wikipedia guides so that it is on an equal footing with the code. let users choose. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choice is not always a benefit. It plainly isn't in this case. This rote defense of useless templates got tiring a long time ago, .126. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's not plain to me why there is "no benefit" to choice in this or any other similar cases. pls explain. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no need to keep it when there are better alternatives. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- excellent. pls don't ever use it. but why are the alternatives "better"? your unexplained opinion is no basis for deletion. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When would I ever use this instead of three apostrophes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very poorly phrased. your personal like/dislike is not a basis for limiting everybody else's options. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright When would one use this instead of three apostrophes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is irrelevant. when it come to choices, "one" can speak with relative certainty only about themselves. i'll tell you why i use it: 1. because i use templates extensively, so this preserves consistent markup practice within articles i work on 2. because it better exposes attributes to editors (who may otherwise miss an apostrophe here or there) 3. because there's no cost involved: the parser reads the underlying code, and almost all text/word processors include an edit buffer that can type things for me at a click 4. because there have been situations where only text in <span>...</span> would work, nothing else 5. because it doesn't break anything 6. because it's my prerogative as an editor to use any available tool, and to ask for more tools as i don't know what i'm liable to need next. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were this your personal plaything, you'd be correct. However, this is a massively collaborative project. That brings with it expectations on how articles are developed, what style is used and so on. Wikicode is no less important in that regard than anything else, and insisting on using one's own prolix calling convention for trivial bits of markup provided by the core software itself does not lend itself to that environment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Justin e^xtra999 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly redundant template. One of the central goals of any encyclopedia should be consistency. We don't need to confuse new editors by providing examples of multiple templates. A412 (Talk • C) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of thing is extremely unhelpful. Consistant markup benefits the vast majority. We don't need this added complexity. JIMp_talk·cont 05:17, 19 April 2012 (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.