Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7 edit


Template:Colevel/check upto10 things 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⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colevel/check upto10 things (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Colevel/count upto10 things (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused (appear on User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/004, which is very old). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:52, 7 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:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader 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⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after replacement with Portal:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:18, 7 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:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2008 in Pakistan 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⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2008 in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2009 in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphaned and replaced by template:2008 in Pakistan, template:2009 in Pakistan. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:04, 7 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:LostAlone 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⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template seems premature/unnecessary; navigates only two articles, one being the band's parent page.  Gongshow Talk 21:27, 7 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:Of Machines 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Of Machines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only two articles (one being the band's parent page); not enough links to be useful.  Gongshow Talk 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Seriously, why do you morons keep doing this? Don't you know navboxes are supposed to navigate swaths of articles? They're not just there to look pretty or "complete". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Ten. The creator User:Krazycev13 has made useful contributions and has put himself in Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Go trout him if you think he needs it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:47, 7 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:AfD-postpone 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⚡ 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AfD-postpone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for a proposed guideline that never got off the ground. The guideline hasn't been touched since 2010, so I see no forthcoming use of this template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 7 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 former Champ Car driver 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 merge with {{Infobox Champ Car driver}}, as a first step. If that template is viewed as redundant as well, then someone should feel free to nominate it for deletion/merging. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former Champ Car driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 12 transclusions. It doesn't support birth/death fields. Delete and replace by {{Infobox racing driver}}. Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 7 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 Academy Awards 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 merge with {{Infobox film awards}}, preserving the history of {{Infobox Academy Awards}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Academy Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this template should merged with {{Template:Infobox film awards}} which will serve as an overall film award template for all film award articles. A TfD discussion of various similar clone-templates resulted in Merge, and brought forth the consensus, that the new {{Template:Infobox film awards}} template should be used as a base template for all other film awards. Amsaim (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As the original creator of {{Infobox Academy Awards}}, here's my two cents: For attribution purposes, any merge should go the other way into {{Infobox Academy Awards}}. As mentioned in that TfD discussion, Template:Infobox Academy Awards is the original film infobox template – all of the other templates are forks or mirrors. I'd rather see {{Infobox film awards}} be deleted as a fork, then have {{Infobox Academy Awards}} moved to that title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion, Zzyzx11. The original creator of the template must be preserved per WP:COPYWITHIN. {{Template:Infobox film awards}} should be deleted as a fork. {{Template:Academy Awards}} should then be moved to a new title e.g. Infobox film awards, which will then serve as a general award template for all other film award articles. Amsaim (talk) 21:04, 8 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:Dubious conversion 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 move to a subpage of UnitBot. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dubious conversion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, doesn't appear to have ever been used in any fashion since creation in 2009. Related to below — we have unit conversion templates, so I can't ever imagine a faulty unit conversion being a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been used in the past, but the highlighted errors seem to have been fixed. It is, however, needed in lots of places. For example if you search for any article containing the measurement 304.8 m, in most cases it is a ridiculously overprecise conversion of 1000 ft, which implies that the original measurement was accurate to within two inches. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For above reason. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precision of unit conversions is a huge issue that needs addressing. I think the way to address the issue is through 1)education, 2)reviving the UnitBot project.
1) Educating all editors about the issue and encouraging them to use {{convert}} for unit conversion. (I just added a reference to {{convert}} at the subject templates doc page just in case the template is kept.) Also, editors can be referred to MOS:CONVERSIONS.
2) The UnitBot project is (was?) a good idea and should be revived. If anyone has the resources to help make that happen, please get in touch with the bot's owner to see if that can be made a reality.
So, I agree that the unit conversion precision is an issue, however, Template:Dubious conversion and Template:Bad unit conversions are probably not the best approach to address the issue. Therefore, I recommend
  • Delete, along with the above recommended actions. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If UnitBot were revived, then the template would be very useful, as it could be used to flag borderline cases. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right, Move and Repurpose (and maybe Rename at the developers' discretion) for use with UnitBot per above. But Template:Bad unit conversions should still be deleted because a bot doesn't need a visible message box at the top of the page, only inline flags. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative suggestion - move into talk space of UnitBot. These templates would become widely used if the UnitBot project were revived. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per Hyperdeath's above suggestion. Jorgath (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this fails the "quicker to fix the problem than to flag it" test. Specific instances of overly-precise conversion can be trivially fixed in ever case simply by deleting the bad conversion. {{Bad unit conversions}}, on the other hand, could serve as a bot call, and also as a useful "hey, come and {{convert}} this" call to editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:17, 13 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:Bad unit conversions 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 move to a subpage of UnitBot. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad unit conversions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused — it was on two articles, but one had a table even claiming it was inaccurate and a dubious source, and the other had no "units" to speak of. We have conversion templates out the yin yang, so I can't imagine unit conversion errors being a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No we won't, because it's unused as it is, and {{convert}} assures that unit conversions are accurate. Under what circumstances could a unit conversion be inaccurate if we have {{convert}}? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read significant digits; if you don't use the "sigfig" flag in {{convert}}, then it already falls afoul of bad unit conversion, and that flag is not mandatory. Even if this template is unused, that does not mean that cleanup for this case isn't necessary, only rare. If we don't have a specific template for every type of cleanup, why are we deleting the general cleanup template {{cleanup}}? Obviously, if we don't have a generic cleanup template, we cleanup templates for every type of cleanup. -- 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think this template will get any use. Also, "overly specific" ≠ "bad". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overprecise conversions aren't just undesirable, but a form of error. For example, if an original source contains a length of 1000 ft, and an editor converts it into 304.8 m, this implies that the length is somewhere between 304.75 m and 304.85 m. Unless the original 1000 ft measurement was accurate to within two inches, this is false. In other words, the editor has taken a source, and attributed unsubstantiated information to it. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 22:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the one who wants to delete the general cleanup template because there are specific templates available. If you delete the specific templates, then we don't have the templates need to actually mark things for cleanup. You can't have it both ways, either we need a lot of cleanup templates, or we need a general cleanup template, or we can't mark articles needing cleanup because there is no template to use. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative suggestion - move into talk space of UnitBot, as above. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into UnitBot talk space, as per Hyperdeath's suggestion. - Jorgath (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one can be deleted because a bot doesn't need a visible message box at the top of the page, only inline flags, but Template:Dubious conversion should be moved per above. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Move may still be worthwhile. The template could be used as a UnitBot attractor, and simultaneously instruct UnitBot to lower the thresholds of its decision making. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category might be better -- less of load on the server than searching for transclusions. But it's actually your call as the developer of the bot. In either case, the template would only be visible for a short while until the bot took care of it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Keep it as a template, but move it for UnitBot and hide the inline tags. - Jorgath (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd far rather this were more repurposed to deal with any article with a non-{{convert}}ed conversion which wasn't a direct quote. We have plenty of them and Hyperdeath's argum3nt against them is compelling. The inline tag is pointless though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:23, 13 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_7&oldid=1146550714"