Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 4

< June 3	June 5 >

June 4 edit

Template:Painting 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 page.

The result of the debate was move to Template:Infobox Painting. It's not necessary to rename the current transclusions. A merge with {{Sculpture}} and {{Artwork}} can be worked on on talk pages. –Pomte 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming/moving {{Painting}} to {{Infobox Painting}} for navigational purposes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move the template - TFD is not needed to do this. Gracenotes^T § 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Gracenotes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above comments. Jmlk 1 7 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objections to renaming, but as the code on all the pages with this template will have to be changed, why not go further and replace Template:Painting, Template:Sculpture and Template:Artwork with a single, flexible template that can be used for artworks of all media? That way any future changes of format can be applied across the board rather than on some templates but not others (note, for instance, how the background colour of T:Painting has been changed but not those of T:Sculpture or T:Artwork). How does an all-purpose Template:Infobox Artwork sound? Ham 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I partially agree with Ham. If the template is moved, then the old name would be a redirect. No further change is required. But these three templates do look similar. I would vote for an eventual merge and parameterize. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections/Move. —MJCdetroit 16:40, 7 June 2007 (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:Sculpture 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 page.

The result of the debate was move to Template:Infobox Sculpture. It's not necessary to rename the current transclusions. A merge can be done through talk pages. –Pomte 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming/moving to {{Sculpture}} to {{Infobox Sculpture}} for navigational purposes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move the template - TFD is not needed to do this. Gracenotes^T § 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Gracenotes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above comments. Jmlk 1 7 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objections to renaming, but as the code on all the pages with this template will have to be changed, why not go further and replace Template:Painting, Template:Sculpture and Template:Artwork with a single, flexible template that can be used for artworks of all media? That way any future changes of format can be applied across the board rather than on some templates but not others (note, for instance, how the background colour of T:Painting has been changed but not those of T:Sculpture or T:Artwork). How does an all-purpose Template:Infobox Artwork sound? Ham 12:05, 5 June 2007 (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:Artwork 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 page.

The result of the debate was move to Template:Infobox Artwork. It's not necessary to rename the current transclusions. A merge can be done through talk pages. –Pomte 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming/moving to {{Artwork}} to {{Infobox Artwork}} for navigational purposes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move the template - TFD is not needed to do this. Gracenotes^T § 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Gracenotes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above comments. Jmlk 1 7 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objections to renaming, but as the code on all the pages with this template will have to be changed, why not go further and replace Template:Painting, Template:Sculpture and Template:Artwork with a single, flexible template that can be used for artworks of all media? That way any future changes of format can be applied across the board rather than on some templates but not others (note, for instance, how the background colour of T:Painting has been changed but not those of T:Sculpture or T:Artwork). How does an all-purpose Template:Infobox Artwork sound? Ham 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move Per above.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:40, 5 June 2007 (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:ArtCutline 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion because this template is not being used. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give some more time before deleting. It was just created in March. We should give this a few months and if it is still not in use then we can delete.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be an abandoned effort. And the three templates above do the same. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it may have just been created back in March, 3 months is plenty to fix/finish a template. Jmlk 1 7 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChoChoPK. Ham 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was trying to work out what on earth it's for, when I noticed this discussion. It seems to be covered by other templates anyway. Tyrenius 14:05, 6 June 2007 (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:Kennedyfamilytree 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is overly large and does not add much encyclopedic value to that articles it has been placed in (individual Kennedy family biographies). In the one article that it might make sense, Kennedy family, there is a textual description instead, which is actually readable. There are no sources stated in the template itself or the talk page, so there is possibly some original research going on (although the Kennedy family's genealogy is probably better documented than most). The biggest problem is the size and complexity of the template itself and the rendered HTML, which has caused browser problems for some people (cf. WP:VPT#Kennedy Family Tree template). Mike Dillon 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. browser probs: This cannot be a reason, since a broken fouling slide rule will not display that template or any other page here in short time, too... 2. OR: I think the content of that template is derived from several articles and sources (if its correctness is challenged, then somebody should take some time and compare it to the sources of the other articles). 3. Since Mike Dillon says himself, that this article "might make sense" it shouldnt be deleted. 4. When is something "overly large"? Keep: So I would suggest, that we keep that template but just in the Kennedy familiy article and we just link to that article in every article about somebody from the Kennedy family. It would be really sad, if all that work is destroyed just because someone has "configuration problems", while I have no problem with my four or about four years old box. --Homer Landskirty 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get it out of template space, this thing should only be on one article (the main one for the family), it's too big to be useful in most places. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template has a pre-expand size of 900 kilobytes, about half of the limit. The rendered HTML is large and complex, so it is understandable that there will be browser problems. Internet Explorer still has over 50 percent market share and most people have old, slow computers with insufficient RAM. I'm afraid that performance problems may be more common than one might think.
Anyways, if this tree is kept for Kennedy family, I think it should be placed in the article directly (where the sources can be stated) and the template itself should be deleted. There is no way to stop editors from putting this thing all over the place if it is a stand-alone template. Mike Dillon 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okedoke... Sounds like a good plan... Should we wait for 7 days now? Or should I just copy&paste it before it is deleted? --Homer Landskirty 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we should just wait. Keeping the discussion open will allow us more time to see if others are having the same problem as User:Jeeny. With more input, it may be possible to diagnose the technical issue; otherwise, we probably shouldn't even have the tree in the Kennedy family article. From what I can tell, the issue seems to be just the hugeness of the generated <table> in the HTML output. I'm going to ask some follow-up questions at WP:VPT. Mike Dillon 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should wait. I'm also very concerned that "others" may not know they could do anything about it. Heck, I would not have known this was up for consideration if the user page of Homer Landskirty were not on my watch list. So, even then, I, the person "complaining", did not know how to go about addressing this issue and where in the world to find such a place or the "policies" involved. My goodness, that's another one of my concerns, all these votings that only those who are technically savvy enough know about, and the policies are difficult to find without spending lots of time looking for them. I'm not talking about the basic policies of Wikipedia, but the more complex technical, etc issues and policies. I, nor anyone else, should not have to be expert in programming, or Wikipedia policies to vote on something as serious as I believe this is, and as for the accessibility to a free encyclopedia as the purpose so anyone has easy access to information and the ability to edit them. - Jeeny&NBS;^Talk 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your post on the Village pump and I also placed {{tfd}} in the template itself. I guess if someone is having trouble with viewing the template they won't even see the TfD notice, but unless we know who they are it's kind of hard to find them. Mike Dillon 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks Mike. I eventually deleted that page from my watch list because it was taking up a lot of space, as other comments unrelated to this filled my list and pushed aside the articles I was working on. So I missed your comment. Sorry, about that. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. We do not have a need for this template.--James, La gloria è a dio 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not working in any browser is reason enough, as templates should work in all browsers, OS, etc. There is no encyclopedic value if people have problems accessing the pages. Things need to stay simple, so that everyone can access and read Wikipedia. Not only special browsers, expensive computers, or expert knowledge in technology, etc. This is an encyclopedia, and free! information should be clear and easy to understand. This template is a bane in my side. I actually love the idea, but the problems far out way the encyclopedic benefit this may supply. It should not even be "just in the Kennedy family" article. If it can't be fixed for all browsers, OS, etc. then it should be deleted from use.- Jeeny ^Talk 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on what is "overly large". It is overly large when it scrolls off a 1024 x 768 px screen resolution on a 17inch monitor. And when it affects the IE browser so that the mouse cannot work to scroll the article in order to read it! How is this beneficial to an encyclopedia that is supposed to be accessed by anyone and everyone? - Jeeny ^Talk 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is absolutely huge. Not really beneficial to wikipedia either. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I usually spend my XFD time at AFD and CFD, but I believe this template is useful and encyclopedic. Furthermore, it fits on my screen widthwise without scrolling. I am at 1680 x 1050. I think if something fits at 1680 by 1050 it is reasonable. Furthermore, encyclopedic value is unaffected by whether it fits on a screen. If it is encyclopedic it is. It gives a great summary of the family structure that is not easily perceptible in prose. This page should certainly be kept in the family article if deleted as a stand alone template. However, since few of the named and linked family members have it linked to their pages I may be a bit off. I would like to keep it as a stand alone, but will be satisfied with keeping it in the family page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that is not the only problem. I was addressing but one of the reasons listed above. The main reason is it highjacks the IE browser as you are using FireFox. In IE, which many people still use, the template makes it difficult to scroll the page to read the article, not just the template and scrolling the screen. As I said, I love the idea, but not if it causes a particular browser to go bonkers. It's not fair to those who do not have the hardware in order to have the resolution display as you do, or those who use a particular browser in order to view these articles with this template. That is what is not encyclopedic, not the intent of the template, but what the template does to certain browsers, etc. As the first sentence on Wikipedia's MOS "The Manual of Style is a style guide that aims to make the encyclopedia easy to read." Easy to read. Simple as that. As the template in an article makes the ARTICLE difficult to read. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shrink, and make it collapsible

Encyclopedic? Yes
Navigational value? Yes, and better than flat list
Too large (in bytes)? A local copy of Eunice Kennedy Shriver takes 183K, George W. Bush takes 276 KB, the United States takes 343KB.
Too large (on screen)? Unfortunately, yes. Therefore it needs to be shrunk and made collapsible. The screen has to be 1280 px wide to fit it. 1024 px wide screens, which are mainstream, don't.
Incompatible with IE? My IE6 renders just like my Firefox 2.0.
Slow to render? I don't feel any slower than other Wikipedia pages. Using Athlon 64 3200+ and 2GB RAM.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody demonstrates how this can be shrunk down to a reasonable size while still being useful. I don't believe that can be done. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really useful as far as I can see. Yeah, it may be interesting, but can't really be used for much. Jmlk 1 7 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:Familytree is used by 341 main space articles. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:49, 6 June 2007 (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.