Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21 edit


2011–12 NBA game logs 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 after substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011–12 Boston Celtics pre-season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Boston Celtics season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Chicago Bulls season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Cleveland Cavaliers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Dallas Mavericks pre-season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Dallas Mavericks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Denver Nuggets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Detroit Pistons season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Golden State Warriors season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Houston Rockets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Indiana Pacers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Los Angeles Clippers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Los Angeles Lakers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Memphis Grizzlies season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Milwaukee Bucks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Minnesota Timberwolves season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 New Jersey Nets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 New Orleans Hornets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Orlando Magic season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Philadelphia 76ers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Portland Trail Blazers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Sacramento Kings season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 San Antonio Spurs season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Toronto Raptors pre-season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Toronto Raptors season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Utah Jazz season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011–12 Washington Wizards season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:2011–12 National Basketball Association game log templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete single-use templates (Minnesota had been removed from season article, now it's substed) per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. It's just as easy (or easier) to update the season articles as the templates. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 21 February 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:Mocca 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 21 February 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:CompactDocToc 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Loooong-deprecated way of adding template documentation on the template talk page, before we had {{documentation}}. Now removed from any current template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 21 February 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:Infobox Paleontology 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox which never caught on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unused and old. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem was that dinosaurs all have a taxobox that takes up the same position. Is there any way to fix that? --Kaz (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paleontology is not unique to dinosaurs. If it is deirable to add paleological information to an article's infobox, the logical move would be to add it to {{taxobox}} directly so that all extinct or ancient species benefit from it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Support modifying {{Taxobox}}, per Chris Cunningham. 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
  • Merge to taxobox. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete but do NOT merge. Unused. Ancient. Redundant. The taxobox serves as a unified infobox for all taxa articles, including extant plants and animals. Most of the info in this template should be in the text as they're too variable to be on any infobox anyway (most paleo articles are not on a per species basis). The taxobox is fine as it is. Merging is not possible nor desirable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not merge. This sort of information belongs in the text. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is any information in this unused template that should be in the taxobox, it can be added. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the information belongs in the text anyway, but if it is seen to be necessary, some of the stuff exclusive to this infobox could be merged into {{taxobox}} (with proper consensus, of course). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 February 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:Def 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused utility template which duplicates in-build handling of definitions using the semicolon operator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unused; template markup is greater than standard wikimarkup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this be using DL lists with DT and DI ? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 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:Daybar 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; deleted as G6 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanked six years ago, so obviously not doing anything of note any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 21 February 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:NHLPlayoffTOC 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 21 February 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:American Center for Voting Rights 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 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Center for Voting Rights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template: used on a single article, and there the existing {{Infobox organization}} seems entirely sufficient for that purpose. Robofish (talk) 15:24, 21 February 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.

Template:Cite doi/doi:10.1371.2Fjournal.pbio.0040202 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/doi:10.1371.2Fjournal.pbio.0040202 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bad title, with duplicate doi. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:37, 21 February 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:ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A pseudo-TOC which is really a navbox, and thus duplicates the more sensibly implemented {{Museums in the US}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 21 February 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:ListByUSStateTOC 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) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{TOC US states}} but with a huge image map stuck in it. It is somewhat unlikely that we have readers who can find a state on a map without being able to name it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 21 February 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:TOC nest right 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC nest right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in articlespace and broken, seemingly without anyone noticing, in other namespaces for nearly a year. The niche for which this template was designed never really required it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 21 February 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:More plot 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; if more discussion is required, this can be done on the templte's talk page and an RfC can be started as necessary. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:More plot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they already have sufficient plot summaries. The link is to an essay within a template, not to policy, and needs to be altered. Here are transclusions as examples of the problem: [1]. Also, the "More plot" name contradicts the words and doc of this template; so a rename from "more plot" to "copyedit plot" might be in order, and help reduce incorrect usage. Note: this template was discussed in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#"No plot" and "more plot"; also, I must give a "thank you" to Begoon for an assistance of this message. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do recommend a quick look at the discussion George links, as it explains the thinking behind this request. There are 3 main aspects we looked at:

  • The template should be renamed to {{copyedit plot}} or {{improve plot}} or similar, since its name is at odds with its displayed content. The word "more" may encourage unnecessary lengthening of a plot description, where "copyedit" or "improve" may not.
  • There are very many transclusions of this template which are unnecessary, and may, possibly encourage the addition of a long, unnecessary plot description.
  • The wording of the template and docs is not policy, and should be reviewed. For instance, it states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps.

I do see a valid use for this template, but I agree it needs attention to encourage proper use only. This is here rather than RM because the template needs overall discussion, and a move may not be the only solution. Begoon talk 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please explain what you mean by "[I]t states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps." I hate to have to point out that a plot summary is, yes, a summary. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major point, just semantics. Seems to not help describe what the tag actually wants. I'm not sure what the plot of a non-fiction work is. Maybe the work tells a story with a plot, maybe not. As I say, not very important, but possibly confusing to dumb editors like me :-). Begoon talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duh! Sorry, I missed the "non-" part. Yeah, this template should not be used on non-fiction works. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily close: Someone suggested deletion, so speedy keeping on a process basis is off the table. This is a WP:RM issue, and should be discussed on the template's talk page. TfD is the wrong venue, and no clear proposal we can support or oppose has been made here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be a response, but since there were several possible outcomes, of which deletion could still be one, I didn't feel it would hurt. I'm sure George would be happy to move the discussion if it is deemed out of process. Begoon talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it hurts, it's just premature. This should easily be resolvable at the template's own talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a fair point. Seems we had xFD "stuck" in our minds after the start of the linked discussion, and forgot it was now really an RM as you say. Begoon talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, this should certainly be kept as a TfD, because the template in question should be killed with fire. If there is one single aspect of Wikipedia which does not need improving, it is out coverage of plot material! The potential for misuse here is simply too great to warrant its existence. Nor is a move to "copyedit plot" or the like necessary, when {{copyedit}} already takes a section flag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's the sort of comment I was hoping for in wider discussion. Good point with {{copyedit}} and the section flag. That sounds like a good solution. One of the options we discussed was deletion and use of another template, but we didn't spot that. Too simple, I guess. I think that works for me. Begoon talk 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Copy edit; the template is already being abused almost as badly as {{Cleanup}}. Proposing a "hey, we can just convert all of these to yet more cases of {{copyedit}}" pseudo-solution is contraindicated. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific {{copyedit}} spammer myself, I'm not particular opposed to it being used as a catch-all "rough diamond requires attention" tag. I don't see why {{copyedit|plot section}} is suboptimal for the use case described. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: "See Template talk:Copy edit". Objections have been raised by people who care a lot more than I do. Heh. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody here can vote delete or keep if possible. In fact, the goal of this discussion is to discuss; voting can be optional but beneficial. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This exists for a reason. It is not a general "drive-by tagging" pointless template like {{cleanup}} (I can't believe that thing survived TfD again), nor does it flag something so uncommon and peculiar that having a template for it is pointless (like original research with regard to a coat of arms, a template presently at TfD). While we do have {{All plot}} for excessive plot summary fanwankery, which certainly does happen, the clear fact of the matter is that an enormous number of articles on works of fiction in various media have plot summaries that are basically one-liners or little more, and do not serve our readers' encyclopedic interests. If the template needs to be renamed or have its wording altered, be my guest and have at it. Deletion would be a mistake. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look through the existing transclusions and I really don't buy that this is a pressing enough problem to warrant a cleanup tag, or indeed any central action at all. Lemonade Mouth is nearly all plot, though it lacks a narrative. That's a matter of general copyediting. The Accident Man and Assassin (Cain novel) contain absolutely perfectly-sized blurbs for their overall lengths. Ingenious Pain, Outlaw (novel), One Morning Like a Bird and King's Man could do with a little plot expansion, but again they explain the key plot element in each case and some of the themes while devoting a far larger amount of time to the much more important aspect of the cultural impact of the works. The vast majority of our coverage of fiction is weighted completely the opposite way and ignores the cultural impact of fictional works in favour of droning on about what happens in them. We should do everything in our power not to encourage that any more than we already do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That some editors have misapplied the template where it isn't appropriate is not an actual argument for deletion. The fact (which I concede, I assure you) that many of our articles on fiction lean too much toward {{all plot}} does not mean that the opposite sort of article, with a "user-hateful" level of near-nothing plot summary, are not also problematic and somehow don't need to be fixed. It's an apples/oranges logic issue. Just because hypoglycemia is far more prevalent than hyperglycemia doesn't mean we don't test for and treat the latter condition. PS: The template is relatively recent so it is to be expected that it use is not yet widespread and stabilized. The template was not "advertised" at the Pump or otherwise, so usage is naturally low and spotty so far. Again, not a real rationale for deletion. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is "user hateful" about short plot sections. The truly aenemic can be tagged with the existing {{expand section}}, which does not come with implications of an expected minimum verbosity for plot sections specifically as a new tag does. {{Spoiler}} might be long gone, but if you asked the average editor (as opposed to, say, the average high school student with a late homework assignment) whether our plot sections should be less or more detailed in general, I'd hope for the answer to be "less". Blurb-style plot sections should be encouraged IMO, especially over user-generated narratives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so how do we get that goal while also getting at the goal of fixing "It is a movie about a guy in Manhattan who falls in love and then they move to New Jersey and a lot of funny stuff happens" so-called plot summaries? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't believe this is a common enough problem (especially compared to the opposite issue) to warrant a separate cleanup tag. {{plot}} specifically links to a part of the MoS where we explain what we want from our plot sections and why too much detail is bad. We have no such advice for plot sections which happen to be too short, because hey, people intuitively seem to grasp that we should make an effort to explain the plot of a fictional work in its article. Usually with both hands. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who added the tag to Lemonade Mouth, I'd like to point out that I couldn't find a more fitting tag to explain the situation that was going on when I added it. A well-meaning editor added TONS of info on the characters, and I discovered this. I added an {{All plot}} tag to the article itself (since it is entirely plot), and I added {{more plot}} and {{overly detailed}} to the plot and characters sections, respectively. Since I haven't read the book, I wasn't sure what was important to the plot and didn't feel comfortable moving/deleting information unless it seemed/was obviously unimportant/trivial (i.e. "Olivia carries a Scooby Doo backpack", etc.). - Purplewowies (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, on the same basis as SMcCandlish above: that this template is misused does not mean it is useless, and some of our articles do have excessively brief plot summaries. I don't think there are any precise guidelines on the subject, but clearly a few sentences to summarise the plot of an epic, multivolume novel saga would be too short, just as many detailed paragraphs about one short story would be too long. I say 'weak' keep because I take Chris Cunningham's point above that {{expand section}} could do this job just as well, but there is arguably some value to being able to identify the articles specifically lacking plot detail. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If {{expand section}}'s (or whatever's) documentation explicitly provided such a case as an example, I probably wouldn't have an objection to phasing this template out. I really couldn't care less about the code or the page name, just about article improvement. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would "phasing this template out" imply deletion? If not, what would it? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split to {{Improve plot}} (maybe), {{Copyedit section}}, {{Hook}} and {{Expand section}} Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"Many articles that transclude this template... " there are a grand total of 24! And "A journalist who covered the Vietnam War becomes mentally unstable and goes on a spree of robbery and murder." seems a perfectly good candidate for both more and improved plot coverage. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah - "many" was a bit strong - if you see the linked discussion, I looked at the first 10 and thought it could probably be removed from 6. But that's subjective too. I am concerned, as George, and Chris, that there is a lot of 'drivel' already masquerading as plot summaries, or masquerading as 'character summaries', so I'm sensitive to the concerns about encouraging more. I also agree that there can be a need to tag some short/badly written plot sections. I'm equivocating but leaning towards rename to {{Improve plot}} and clarification of template wording/usage rather than deletion outright. Begoon talk 02:18, 24 February 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:Characters on The West Wing 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 for now, but consider restructuring. If there comes a time when there is consensus to redirect all the character articles, then the template will indeed be unnecessary, but until then it has navigational value. However, there is consensus that it should probably not be structured as a fictional US administration chart. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Characters on The West Wing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. I have redirected some of the articles with issues. Some of the links were already redirs. The template is now superfluous due to the very few remaining useful links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - boldly blanking through redirecting? Then trying to delete the nav template? There are innumerable of these types of nav templates for television shows, and quite a few other things. - jc37 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists of characters may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Organisational charts for fictional US Administrations masquerading as navboxes, however, are not appropriate in any circumstances. The navigational value of this template is minimal, and thus it is unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#Template:Mama's Family for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently relisted on the 27th. - jc37 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but restructure. Most of the links here exist as separate articles rather than redirects, which means a navigational template is useful. But this template is made less useful by its structure that lists the characters based on their role in the show, resulting in some characters being linked more than once. If kept, this template should be restructured into a simple list of characters arranged alphabetically rather than by their fictional position. That would make it clearer that this is a Wikipedia navigational template rather than a guide to the show. (Compare {{GalacticaCharacters}} for an example of what this should look like.) Robofish (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no matter how the content is linked it's not necessary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 24 February 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:Kevin Harvick Inc. 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kevin Harvick Inc. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is no longer used; the team it was for is now defunct, and the navbox itself contains no "past" info, just now-out-of-date 2011 info with no provision for "past" data. All drivers have moved on to other teams; there is no longer any need for the box to be kept. The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - unused template for defunct team. Robofish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Is the information in the navbox included in the main article? A cursory look suggests yes, but there may be something in the box that ought to be in the article but isn't. I support deletion conditionally, because care needs to be taken not to lose notable information. The team itself is notable, since notability is not transient. - Jorgath (talk) 18:34, 21 February 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:THBSOIR 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template with a smell of copyvio from the mentioned source. Usefull template???? Night of the Big Wind talk 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out the copyvio. Hopelessly wrong argument. My apologies. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination: It is not a frivolous nomination, but badly worded. My main concern is the content, the Top 100 Ticket Selling Station. Why that choice? There are so many train stations in India, that this is an almost random choice. What is the added value of this template? Next a template of the Top 100 Loss Making Stations? Or a template of the Top 100 Where Trains Are Passing Without Stopping? I absolutely don's see the added value of template, hence my question if it is a useful template. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Its not a copy vio! The website belongs to Indian Railways and the page mentions the top 100 profitable stations in India. This is a general information. Now, we all can create stub templates here and there about major stations in India without any proof and what I provided is an actual proof. The site is for general purpose ie for passengers to know about their trains and It is maintained by IR. After all its not a book of an author for you to nominate the template on account of copy vio. Kindly check my contributions. Now providing reference in Wikipedia is such a big crime, thats it, its my last edit here!!! arun talk 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read WP:DIVA. Threatening to quit Wikipedia doesn't impress anyone, does not make your argument seem stronger, and will not affect the outcome of any debate here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikimate, I am not here to impress anyone or to show off! My concern is just that today Wikipedia is just limited in hands of few "privileged" users who command things and do it their way and do not care for other editors contributions. This is not how Wikipedia used to be when I created my account and started contributing! Those words were just my frustration. Coming to the point, yes, this template is useful. It lists the top 100 earning stations under Indian Railways with reference! Might be the heading needs to be changed. But the template is 100% useful. arun talk 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). Those who do not understand copyright law should not nominate things for deletion based on copyright arguments. Lists of bare facts like names of train stations are not subject to copyright. (IANAL, but I worked for a non-profit law firm for 9 years, one of the major specialties of which was copyright law, so I do in fact know what I'm talking about.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a minimum, this needs documentation so an uniformed editor can understand the use and criteria. Ditto for the title and the template name.
  • Comment: The "top-x" ranking of things seems to be one of the most common classification systems we have. Seven wonders of the world, American Top 40, Top ten list, Fortune 500, etc. Why is this one different? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And those are notable enough for most folks to understand as well as having articles. "Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways": top in traffic, ticket sales, awards? Not enough context for me to tell if "booking station" is the name of the sales office or if it refers to ticket sales. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the main problem seems to be naming method used! well, I guess if we change the name of the template to "Most Profitable Railway Stations in India", then common people would understand! arun talk 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you refer history as well, we never keep the count of losers, for example in Olympics, we do take a list of 1st, 2nd and third but never the last ones. The most profitable stations in India needs to be recognized. If I go by the way of my friend who nominated the template for deletion, we need to seriously reconsider some of other templates such as Top ten tennis players etc. arun talk 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the chosen 100 stations seems a bit like a random choice with no real reason other then a website for it. What is the added value of this template? A Top 100 of busiest stations makes more sense. A Top 5 (or Top 10) busiest stations per state even more. A busy station seems more important (to me) then a busy ticket desk. It is certainly not the case that I want to destroy the template or don't appreciate Indian railway stations, but the plain choice of stations. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not just any other website! It is the website of the Indian Railways. Those are top hundred booking stations. Top booking stations means top profitable stations and top profitable stations means major rail hubs in India! It is Indian Railways that is recognizing the stations as important, not me or some website. It is not a random choice as well. India has millions of such rail hubs, but these are top 100. This perfectly makes sense! The only problem and my mistake, I admit, is the template heading, which of-course can be changed like " Major Rail Hubs in India' or so forth! arun talk 16:30, 22 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_21&oldid=1078574508"