Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 9

< February 8	February 10 >

February 9 edit

Template:Next 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 ⚡ 10:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

these were being used to create large navigation buttons at the top of a few articles (e.g., see [1]) before I removed them. this sort of thing is very non-standard and redundant to less obtrusive forms, like succession boxes and sidebars. Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems redundant to succession templates. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, it's redundant. Jorgath (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These two templates are redundant and ugly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Just looking at these templates, I am thinking of several instances where they would be appropriate, but a succession template would not be. See Lists of CJK Ideographs. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean a pointless reference page copied wholesale from a list somewhere else which already has a navbox anyway? Picking hypothetical example uses out of thin air has been a productive exercise at TfD approximately 0% of the time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm saying that there are certain instances where this kind of template would be appropriate, and the suggested replacement template would not. I had at least a cursory example of the kind of list page where that is the case, so I let people take a look. Agree or disagree, but at least consider that there might be validity to an alternate perspective. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the generic claim: The templates {{next}} and {{previous}} may be preferable when consecutive articles are not about a separate work, but are instead a single article that is required to be split by wiki-architecture or other artificial limits on article or list length. Where there is a natural or otherwise inherent distinction between successive articles, (eg, sequels, volumes, etc.) a succession template should be used. As such, {{next}} and {{previous}} should not be summarily deleted without a larger understanding about the relationship between {{next}} and {{previous}}, and succession templates. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that with succession boxes

Preceded by 1000-2000	List of unicode characters 2000-3000	Succeeded by 3000-4000

65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not trying to argue about this. All I want is for this to be an informed consensus. Yes, of course I know how a succession template could be used to link separate sections of a topic split between different articles. I'm not an idiot. The question is whether we think it is the right way to do it, or whether the next/previous actually offers an advantage. You don't need to convince me here. I just want people to be able to say "You know what, I've thought about it, and I think that split articles probably are best served by a standard succession template, and that a next/previous setup doesn't meet the needs of this kind of situation better." If you can say that and give something like a coherent reason, then I have no objection. I only have objection to deleting these templates without consideration, and as far as I can tell, that consideration is still forthcoming. So I will ask: I think there are a few reasons to treat navigation across split articles/lists differently from successive topic articles. Do you disagree? If not, how should they be treated differently? If so, how should we indicate that an article or list is a continuation, and not a complete topic or list in-and-of itself? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I've thought about it, and I think that the succession template is sufficient for the functionality of split articles of all kinds. Having only one template for this type of function promotes a consistency of format and makes editing in general easier, and the succession template can perform this template's function better than this template can serve the succession template's function. I won't bold my recommendation because I already !voted above, but I reiterate that this template should be deleted. That said, I suggest that we try to add a parameter to the standard succession template that lets editors indicate to readers when it's being used for a split article/list and not a successive topic. - Jorgath (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You know what, I think you're probably right. Specifically, editing of these two templates is more complex and more prone to error than a succession template, and that the advantage of having a distinct styling is outweighed by the consistency that succession templates provide. If we could get some documentation on how to use succession templates for split articles - perhaps simply standardizing placement at page top, rather than bottom - I think we'd be good. delete. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 18:58, 15 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:Battles of the Paraguayan War 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) 18:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Battles of the Paraguayan War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to the more complete Template:Campaignbox Paraguayan War, and it's actually the first time I've seen a full-width navigation template being used for battles of a particular war. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with a switch to activate a footer template. The Campaignbox is a sidebar template, so editors can choose between the two, depending on how they write their articles. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we use 'Battles of...' footer templates for any other war? I thought the campaignbox sidebar templates were standard. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as redundant to the campaignbox, we don't need a switch to activate a footer, since that's not the format used in battle articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 17 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.

Sierra Leone subdivision templates 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) 10:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bo District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kailahun District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kenema District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kono District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Moyamba District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Port Loko District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tonkolili District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Western Area Rural District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Western Area Urban District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Set of navbox templates that don't have any navigation links in them. WOSlinker (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. I was suggesting to merging these template, but it would be redundant to {{Districts of Sierra Leone}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:46, 12 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:Strike Back 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 ⚡ 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strike Back (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template only has two notable links to the subject (the first series and Project Dawn) which I believe is hardly worth the effort for a template. The creator of the template added links to characters and episodes, but they only redirect to the cast and episodes section of the two articles. I believe this template is non-notable. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. These articles are already sufficiently interlinked; a navbox is pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:57, 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:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log 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 ⚡ 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template and fancruft. Wikipedia is not a newssite. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete on the one page it is transcluded on. Not a useful template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as above. Useful part of its article, but no need for a separate single-use template. Reso lute 16:40, 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:Inadequate lead 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inadequate lead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contested merge to {{lead too short}}. The reason we have length guidelines for lead sections is wholly because that is a good heuristic to ensure that the lead adequately covers the article's key points, and to dissuade people from the common problem of trying to make the lead as short as humanly possible. The author appears not to have read the discussion at template talk:lead too short regarding wording; the only reason that {{lead too short}} does not contain all the explanatory material in this template is because it makes the template wrap to three (or more) lines on normal desktop browsers, which is annoying long for a cleanup template. Recommend redirecting, and then the author can try to persuade people to expand the wording of {{lead too short}} rather than just forking it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are cases where the lead section does not provide an accessible overview of the article, yet is NOT too short. This is why this template was created several years ago. It is useful and distinct from {{lead too short}}. It is used in hundreds of articles where the lead is inadequate, but not too short, by authors which appear to care about the distinction, and should not be deleted without serious consideration. Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, see the discussion at template talk:lead too short (which you appear never to have edited, before or after forking the template and deploying it). There is far too much overlap here to warrant two separate cleanup templates. The key point of the lead is not length, but coverage. A lead section which is several paragraphs long but still does not adequately summarise the topic probably needs rewritten. There was a reasonable consensus it should be merged somewhere at the previous TfD. It has only 5% of the transclusions of the other template, and I warrant that the majority of them would be better tagged with either {{lead too short}} or {{lead rewrite}} anyway. As for "serious consideration", it's difficult to see what that could mean other than a TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The Lead rewrite template is very vague, and does not explain what is wrong with the lead. We don't want vague tags; What we need is clear tags that suggest what should be done to repair the problem. the situation of a lead which is long enough, but does not address the key points in the article according to the due weight principal, is a common one, and I see no harm in keeping a cleanup template for this situation. Marokwitz (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has been repeatedly discussed at the original template's talk page. The template is deliberately brief to avoid being too long. There is no semantic difference between the two templates, as you'd have been informed had you deigned to ask before forking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it were used in only 1%, that still doesn't negate the main point for keeping them as separate template, which is that "inadequate" and short" are two completely different things. In addition, I urge User:Thumperward to refrain in the future from being overly bold and redirecting maintenance templates without prior discussion. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not "completely different things". As noted on multiple occasions now, "inadequate" is what we care about, and "too short" is simply the heuristic which gets us there. Marokwitz apparently believed, erroneously, that {{lead too short}} only covers the latter and not the former, whereas it not only covers both but primarily addresses the former. The template should not have been forked in the first place, and it's well past time that fork was ended. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{inadequate lead}} indicates that the lead does not summarize the contents of the article. It can be too short, too long, or a good length, but it fails to summarize the text of the article, and is thus inadequate. I'm sorry, but {{lead too short}} means something completely different, and is not an acceptable substitute. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Inadequate" and "short" are different concepts. A412 (Talk * C) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect {{lead too short}} into {{inadequate lead}} - For the following reasons:

The wordings are almost exactly the same. If the templates are for different things and can't be used interchangeably, why aren't they more different?
Inadequate lead is a more informative, descriptive, and objective name for the template.
Inadequate lead can be used for a too-short lead.
{{inadequate lead}}'s message can be pared down if there's too much information in it.

I don't think {{inadequate lead}} should be merged into {{lead too short}} (since not all inadequate leads are too short), but instead, it should be the other way around and {{Lead too short}} should redirect to {{Inadequate lead}}. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the eventual title, so long as there is a merge. However, it's instructive to note that at the time of the fork the original template used an expanded wording which was later pared down after discussion. Merging the other way basically rewards an editor for forking without discussion and repeated disrupting efforts at consolidation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really care that much about which message is used (though I personally like the oldid you linked to and the current {{inadequate lead}} better than the current {{lead too short}}), but I still think if things get merged, inadequate lead would be the best destination. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. If the succesrate of this template is higher then 0%: keep. If the tempate is not working at alle (succesrate = 0%): Delete. Alternative: merging with a suitable related template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. These two templates are so close that I've never before realised that there were two of them. Most inadequate introductions are simply too short or have other glaringly obvious issues; any exceptions cna be noted on the talk page easily. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inadequate and too short are not necessarily the same. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can see the Too short template states that the lead is inadequate. Therefore, all the leads (validly) tagged {{too short}} are inadequate, though not all the leads tagged with {{inadequate lead}} are too short. As it is, these two templates put articles into the same category, and have almost identical wording, so even if they're supposed to mean different things, they don't. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this, {{Inadequate lead}} is only used on 198 articles, whereas {{Lead too short}} is used on 4636 articles. I wouldn't say this this is necessarily a good argument for deletion because I can see where using this tag would be more appropriate than lead too short, and so I am not sure whether this should be deleted. —Comp dude¹²³ 06:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/replace - Essentially, the {{lead too short}} template contains all the functionality and information we want, but if we are only going to keep one of these two templates, the survivor should be named {{inadequate lead}}. So merge them into {{inadequate lead}}, but in doing so replace the content of {{inadequate lead}} with the current content of {{lead too short}}. - Jorgath (talk) 18:32, 15 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.