Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 4 August 6 >

August 5 edit

Template:The Corre 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) 04:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Corre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Standard threshold is five relevant links (without backlink and related) The Banner talk 23:20, 5 August 2013 (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:Member states 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. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Member states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Where to begin? This template's purpose is unclear to me. I've asked for an explanation and only get back that "it's being used on several pages" (as placed, I believe, by the template creator). It just looks to me like someone learned how to make a template and so just made one, but I just don't get it. I feel like I'm being asked to disprove a negative (Why do you think this template shouldn't exist?) when the question should be, "Why does this template need to exist?" HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As expressed by the nominator, unlike articles templates are supposed to be useful. Looking at this template one cannot esacape the impression that the person who created it doesn't even understand the meaning of the term member state. The items listed are organizations that have member states, so the whole concept behind the template is flawed and I can't see it being helpful in aiding navigation of the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete didn't we delete a different version of this a few months ago? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should have done this when making the nomination, but it slipped my mind until now--I just checked and have verified that this template is not being used anywhere except where it was placed by the template creator himself. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2013 (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:Unblock abusive 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) 04:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock abusive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost totally unused, redundant to standard decline mesage which is built-in to the process already, and doesn't make much sense. "The user's unblock request was abusive, look, here is the abusive text they posted, reproduced in this eye-catching template." Why would we do that instead of just removing it altogether? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No need to draw attention to "UNBLOCK ME NOW, YOU [expletive]!!!!!!!!" and similar requests by preserving their visibility indefinitely. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (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:Unblock expired 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) 04:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock expired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, confusing, possibly not compliant with policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a template that says a block expired, yet its instructions say to remove it once the block expires. Useless. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2013 (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 Province of China (PRC) 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 as a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}} for two weeks before a user restored the previous version. In doing so he was reverted by another user, but that didn't stop him and he went on to remove coordinates and footnotes from the template, as they were not supported in his preferred version (which didn't have any fields for references, not even for population). So instead of getting into a revert war with this guy, perhaps it's better to decide what to do with this template in this page, and let the community decide. I think it should be kept, but only as a wrapper, though deleting it altogether is also an option. Nero the second (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as a wrapper for {{infobox settlement}}, then consider substitution/deletion at a later date if it is a very weak wrapper. however, at first glance it appears to be fine as a wrapper template. however, the non-infobox version is a step in the wrong direction. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep longstanding revision. 1) If the {{Infobox U.S. state}} uses coordinate ranges, why shouldn't this template? Using {{Infobox settlement}} to embody this information forces it to the bottom as "|blank_info", when it is more logically placed, as with the US template, under "Area". Not to mention provinces and the alike are not settlements. 2) The one-character abbreviations should be at the top. Even amongst the Chinese populace, these are not universally known, and definitely not as well-known, and certainly not intuitive for those not knowledgeable of history, as U.S. state abbreviations are in the American populace. Wrapping {{Infobox settlement}} forces it to the bottom, or, worse, as Nero the second, lumps it together with the language transcription info of the province's full name. 3) Lack of footnotes is not a legitimate concern. Users of {{Infobox U.S. state}} and {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}} certainly do not care; that's what the article body is for. GotR Talk 00:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because: the previous version has no spaces for area footnotes, population footnotes, coordinates (at least using the {{Coord}}), and it was designed with the idea that all provinces would use the same fixed set of references, which is an outdated concept. I'm also against keeping it as a wrapper as there is no flexibility or automation to justify this (for example GDP figures should be specified only in Renminbi for some reason, not dollars), and all these faults can be addressed by simply using Settlement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to add, the old infobox also did not support the automatic calculation of density, which meant that density figures theoretically should have been calculated manually and added back every time the population changed, but often enough the articles just went on to use the previous (and erroneous) density figure based on the old population.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) {{Infobox U.S. state}} does not support using {{Coord}}. Non-issue. 2) Revised version removes the assumption that all data is according to the same source. You didn't bother to check this. 3) We all know currency conversion rates, except for pegged denominations, are potentially highly variable. 4) That can easily be fixed with a coding scheme borrowed from {{Infobox settlement}} (only for more correct precision) GotR Talk 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you're !voting to keep you should make valid arguments about the merits of the previous version of this template, compared to IS. Infobox US State is not part of this TfD.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad case of WP:IDHT. The qualm about references is a non-argument because there is no real problem with them only being in the body text.GotR Talk 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Breath of desperation? Discuss the template, not the editor. Personal attacks won't help your cause.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) [edit: it's good that you chose to refactor your comment, but please do not delete mine, even as you change yours.]--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as wrapper for now, or weak delete after substitution according to consensus - I think some of the things mentioned could be fixed in a wrapper. Or, once a suitable wrapper or other replacement is agreed upon, it could be substituted and deleted, if desirable, but I'm not sure there is a consensus of what to use in replacement, yet. It may be some pages will do better with this wrapper or a modification, and others with infobox settlement. If no pages use this template, then it would be simple to delete -PC-XT+ 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as a wrapper making any necessary adjustments. We don't need different templates for different countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That resounds of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. A more pragmatic approach will lead one to conclude that the longstanding version (right) deals with the language complexities far better than {{Infobox settlement}} does; I should note that it is not every country where there exist multiple first-order national subdivisions with, on the official level, a different language and writing script as compared to the national language/script. So I ask all of you to push aside template ideologies and move to pragmatism. GotR Talk 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "IDONTLIKEIT" (nor is it a matter of ideology). It's "IDONTLIKE the extra workload caused by redundancy in infoboxes, the extra burden on our editors, and the confusion caused to our readers when similar articles have the same items of key information in different places". The issue here is not the importance of national identities, but of the effecitveness of our templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, the longstanding version is more effective in dealing with the language issues. Unless, of course, all labels (such as "Min Nan POJ: ") and transcriptions are removed, leaving only each script, yet still, that removes the lat/long ranges, which cannot be conveyed effectively and logically using {{Infobox settlement}}. And, again, provinces are not and cannot be represented as "dots" on the map in the manner of cities, towns, etc. GotR Talk 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IS handles languages/transcriptions better than the old template. In fact, the latest version of the 'longstanding' template merely imitates IS in that, and before it only used a single parameter for all languages, which was impractical.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone with access to the revision history can see that the correct handling of languages was only added to the so-called longstanding version a few days ago, after the IS wrapper was first implemented, and then in imitation of IS. You don't even need a careful eye to see that. And despite repeated appeals, you still can't behave.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that's a mere matter of opinion. The rest is simply blurting out what I said in parrot-like fashion. It is clear you really do have nothing much else to say. GotR Talk 16:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the longstanding version. What matters is content. We know too much that some template maniacs cannot imagine that different countries can be different, and that content's maintainers are the people who should decide which is the best *tool* to do the job they want to do. China, Korea, Japan and all these non-US countries are nonetheless countries worth some respect. Pldx1 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His point, as is part of mine, is one size does not fit all. GotR Talk 15:14, 8 August 2013 (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:Scythians 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) 04:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scythians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Converts to Christianity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2013 (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:Assyrian infobox 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) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assyrian infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bahranis infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox British Bangladeshis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Manchus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Syrians infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tripuri people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer used now that it has been merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (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.

User:Dimension10/Permanently protected or else 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 Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Technically the result was Userfied and the redirect was deleted. If the template is to now be deleted, it should be taken to MfD instead. --64.85.217.214 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Permanently protected or else (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
(Moved to User:Dimension10/Permanently protected or else (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))

"Fake" template used in User:Dimension10. Other than that, the template is highly misleading and has no merit even as a "parody" template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No comment on the merits, but Dimension10 has userfied this template (as seen here). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That attempt to userfy was still in template space; I've moved it to his userspace, and changed the name of this section to match. No comment on the merits of deletion. This move has screwed up the {{Tfd links}} template; don't know if that can be fixed, or if this should be procedurally closed and reopened as an MFD now. I suspect the latter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2013 (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 Kavajë 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) 21:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a relatively recent creation and it's only used for a single district of Albania. Could be replaced by Infobox Settlement. Nero the second (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (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 Hieroglyphen 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hieroglyphen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox hieroglyphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hieroglyphen with Template:Infobox hieroglyphs.
Duplicate in German? Widely used. — Lfdder (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (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/2013_August_5&oldid=1078573936"