Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

March 31 edit

Template:Rogerebert 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template sets up a link to Roger Ebert's review of a given film in the article's "External links" section. The template is poor precedent per WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If Ebert's review is useful for a film article, then it should be incorporated. Reviews of a given film are not hard to find; the actual challenge in writing a film's reception is selecting a limited set of reviews that can represent all significant viewpoints. External link templates for individual film critics are thus unnecessary and counterproductive. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if Ebert has done a review, it should be sourced with in an article, otherwise it should not be added to the EL section and certainly not in a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator that if a particular review of Ebert's is useful enough to be included as an external link, then it's useful enough to be cited within the article. Steve ^{T • C} 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ebert is one of the most well known reviewers, but he isn't the only one and his voice isn't even the "be all end all" in the community. As a matter of fact, not one reviewers voice is "THE" voice of reviews. If this exists, it'll paved the way for one on Richard Roeper, Pacos Bill, Paul Bunyan, etc. If the review is relevant and professional, it should be in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons above. The template is not necessary when the review could just be included within the article itself. Don't want to see future templates for each single reviewer out there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not necessary to have this for a template, it should be included within an article. Techman224^Talk 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason cited above. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (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:Indefblockvandal 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. {{indef}} has been a redirect to {{indefblockvandal}} since earlier this year. JPG-GR (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems redundant of {{indef}} which is usually used in cases of vandalism-only accounts. I don't think I've ever encountered this template being used on a talk page. -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{indef}} is already used. Techman224^Talk 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some people are indef blocked for reasons other than vandalism. Also, this template is used (see what links here). I assume the cases in which it is used are to inform people about the reason for blocking ,which could be useful in some cases (as when unblock requests misrepresent the reason).Yob Mod 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by adding "reason" parameter to the indef. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2009 (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:BS-daten 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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-daten (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was originally deleted because of this discussion, but a deletion review resulted in this relist for further discussion. I am personally neutral on the issue. Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this template exists in most local projects that adopted the German Bahnstrecken-System. It makes translating of railroad articles far more easy using this template! axp_de ^Hello! 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This template, used on dozens German railway line articles, was recently deleted and replaced by Template:Infobox rail line in many articles. The latter has major disadvantages: first it doesn't merge with the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it has a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a hassle when translating articles because it takes time to convert. There are a lot of railway line articles still be translated, so this is a major issue. The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Holenbrunn–Leupoldsdorf railway or the Hof–Bad Steben railway and compare them with their de.wiki counterparts. At the very least we should retain this template until a multi-lingual version of "Infobox rail line" is produced which a) can handle "BS-daten" fieldnames and data, b) generate a single box combined with the route diagram template and c) is aesthetically as good as the template it replaces.--Bermicourt (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (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:Eastern Conference (NHL) 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Conference (NHL) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{NHL}}. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:EMBED navboxes should only contain links which would already otherwise be linked on the page that the navbox is being used on. A number of the links in this navbox are not relevant to the articles you have placed them on. Secondly most of the links are already found in the NHL template which is already on those pages. -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info is redundant after {{NHL}}. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template. black ngold29 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per nom. Reso lute 13:28, 1 April 2009 (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:Western Conference (NHL) 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Conference (NHL) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{NHL}}. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were designed to help casual hockey fans a better, more concentrated and in-depth understanding of the lineage behind the respective conferences. For example, it's highly likely that a lot of people who don't follow the NHL don't instantly understand the significance of the Campbell and Wales Conferences or the divisions that corresponded them. TMC1982 (talk) 10:39 p.m., 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why those articles are linked in the respective conference articles. Per WP:EMBED navboxes should only contain links which would already otherwise be linked on the page that the navbox is being used on. A number of the links in this navbox are not relevant to the articles you have placed them on. Secondly most of the links are already found in the NHL template which is already on those pages. -Djsasso (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. -Djsasso (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info is redundant after {{NHL}}. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template. black ngold29 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per nom. Reso lute 13:29, 1 April 2009 (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:Botanist-inline2 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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Botanist-inline2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates functionality of {{Botanist-inline}}, infact a simple option "2" (or whatever a named parameter would be chosen) would make an exact match possible. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the 20 or so transclusions and delete. Looking at the templates in the edit window, there seems to be no significant difference between them (one uses "date=1992" and the other uses "year=1992", but that's it). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete as redundant to {{botanist}}, which I actually prefer to either one of the inline versions. When dealing with these types of minor differences in style or wording, it is better practice to gain consensus to reword or modify the parameters of an existing template rather than to create a fork. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{Botanist-inline}} produces This botanist is denoted by the author abbreviation Brown when citing a botanical name., an awkward, stilted expression.

{{Botanist-inline2}} gives (He) is denoted by the author abbreviation Brown when citing a botanical name., with improved grammar and accuracy, since many taxonomists are not botanists. The two versions are certainly not exact matches. If templates must go it should be {{Botanist-inline}}, which has had its use, and is now obsolete and {{botanist}} which produces an unsightly boxed version. Rotational (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. It does not give the "He". It produces a non-sentence beginning with "is". Hesperian 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily have been accomplished by adding a parameter to the original template. If they're not botanists, then why is the template called botanist-inline2? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume because {{Botanical author-inline2}} would be too long - most templates aim at brevity so as to be more easily remembered. Rotational (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You presume? You created the template. Don't you know why you named it that way? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a variant of {{Botanist-inline}} and it would have been misleading for me to call it {{Jackanapes-inline}}, thus I am presuming the rationale behind the name of the original. Rotational (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather than have a duplicate template, the original should just have been edited. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicate template. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a duplicate template - do try and read the above comments Rotational (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a duplicate template. As noted, the main template could easily have been edited to address this concern. Reso lute 13:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some dufus removed the notification tag from the template, as a result of which I have just posted a duplicate TfD, which I shall now roll into this one.

There has been consensus since way back in 2005[1][2][3] that using transclusion to generate article prose is an absolutely terrible idea. I can't find this consensus ensconced in our policy or guidelines anywhere, but I suspect that is because the idea is so awful that it never occurred to us that we would need to discourage it. Here are some reasons why templates like this one are a very bad idea:

It encourages formulaic repetition across articles;
It prevents editors from adjusting wording to fit the context, on many levels:
- You can't make grammatical adjustments, leading inevitably to poorly constructed sentences like the one at the top of the current version of John Lindley;
- You can't make wikicode adjustments, like re-using a reference, or choosing not to link to a page you've already linked to elsewhere;
- You can't contextualise the transcluded material. In this case, for example, I might have already discussed the use of standardised author abbreviations for citing botanical authors, in which case I would only need to write "his standard author abbrevation is XXX.".
It makes the page code difficult to read, navigate and edit. This is especially true for newbs, for whom transclusion may be a difficult concept to grasp. But even for experienced editors this kind of transclusion leads to errors: for example I note that the creator of this template has managed to finish the first sentence of the current version of John Lindley, with two full stops instead of one.

In summary, this is a dirty hack that encourages boring, formulaic, error-riddled, poor quality prose. Delete. Hesperian 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Lindley and other notable botanists who are the unwitting victims of boring, formulaic, error-riddled, poor quality prose. First Light (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Botanist-inline as a result of a request elucidated here. I didn't think at the time that it was useful, but I wasn't aware of the cogent reasons given by Hesperian above in opposition to the whole class of inline templates. I had considered transcluding it in {{botanist}}, to keep them from drifting apart in wording, since the wording of {{botanist}} was the result of consensus, but I wasn't sure whether serial transclusion would cause problems, and at the time no one I asked gave me any guidance.

The reason it says "botanist" is that only botanical names have stabilized abbreviations. A previous version of {{botanist}} said "The standard author abbreviation _____ may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name."

Because this template diverges intentionally from the wording of {{botanist}}, which will end up being Not a Good Thing, and for the reasons Hesperian gives, I say Delete.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Making separate templates for every possible wording is not a good idea. Even if it was not a duplicate, we do not need a template that generates a single sentence. Transluding text is poor method of article writing.Yob Mod 10:15, 2 April 2009 (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.