Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 7

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

December 7 edit

Template:Anon vandal 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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anon vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose redirecting to Template:Uw-vandalism3. In actuality, the only part of this template that is specific to anonymous users is the last paragraph, which is redundant with adding Template:SharedIPAdvice on to a UW-vandalismX template. And the UW-VandalismX templates are superior to this template, because the series has gradations based on the faithfulness shown by the offending user. In contrast, this template assumes bad faith, and does so under the guise that it's the only template that exists to serve anonymous users. It's redundant to the UW templates. Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (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:TTT 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) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Was previously used as a demos at Help:Template but not any more. Mhiji (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've notified the creator of this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much point in this case as the creator hasn't been very active for a while now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and not used. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused and so unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:23, 13 December 2010 (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:Kōnan Line 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) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kōnan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to Template:Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line, last (non-bot) edit on 24 February 2007 (may fit criteria for speedy delete) EmanWilm (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, you are nominating the wrong file. {{Kōnan Line}} is much older than {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}}. I suggest you delete the latter, and rename the earlier to the latter. Rehman 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Older does not necessarily mean better. I notified MChew who authored the new one and might want to comment on the difference/need. --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that two identical templates are redundant, and one should deleted. However, the Kōnan Railway operates two lines, and for the sake of uniformity, feel it would be better to keep the naming as {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}} to match the template named {{Kōnan Railway Ōwani Line}}. --MChew (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (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:Professional Colleges of North Malabar 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) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Professional Colleges of North Malabar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the purpose of this template. It is not a navigational template, as none of the colleges are actually linked. It seems like WP:NOTDIRECTORY Muhandes (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:03, 9 December 2010 (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 Channel Island parish 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) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Channel Island parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Infobox parish/settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - useful overview, and also visually appealing. -MacRusgail (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and edit to become wrapper for Infobox settlement. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, IMO there is nothing that useful to merge. Rehman 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is not that complicated and could be easily replaced. It would be far easier maintain without having yet another frontend/template. I have already made a few test edits to the ones in Jersey demonstrate the feasibility. I will, of course, revert/change these edits if the ultimate decision is to refactor the template, or keep it outright. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redundant to Infobox settlement. Mhiji (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2010 (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:Cleanup-now 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) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}. Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I suppose this was meant to save some typing. The Cleanup-now template must itself be subst-ed, so it saves one from typing only 3 characters vs. using {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}, although {{subst:clnd}}, which redirects to this one, saves more. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be best if a single convention could be adopted. Either the Dated template, or Template-now. --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see a strong argument for deleting this typing-aid template. (Never mind that most people write {{cleanup}} and have a bot write the date; it's obviously better to allow or even encourage people to add the date themselves if they can.) The name is potentially a bit long for its purpose, but the redirect avoids that. --ais523 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, I recently put in a bot request for a bot that automatically adds dates to undated articles in maintenance categories. As soon as the bot gets up and running this template (as well as others like it) will become obsolete. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Per ais523, most people just add the template and let a bot do the rest. If a reliable bot is set up to quickly add the date after adding the template that would be great and when vgmddg's proposal is up and running there will be little need for templates like this whose sole purpose is for users (like me) who are too lazy to type out the whole |date= parameter - these users will soon just rely on the bot do the extra work. However I don't think it's a bad idea having a method to do this and I agree with Bsherr we need one convention. That should be the {{dated}} template. This can be used for all templates and if new templates are added at a later date, using {{dated}} means extra templates don't need to be created. We don't want to start a trend of creating an additional template for all of the cleanup templates! Just have the one. Mhiji (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (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:The Santa Clause 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 Speedy delete. CSD G4 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Santa Clause (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Take away the cast, which is not allowed in film navboxen, and you have only three articles to navigate among — the Laura & Neil Miller links point to other people not associated with the film. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:02, 7 December 2010 (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.

Disambig 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airport disambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Callsigndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Disambig-Chinese-char-title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geodis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hospitaldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mathdab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MolFormDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Numberdis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Schooldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Species Latin name disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{disambig}}. The {{disambig}} template now has parameters to add a page to a particular category. This has the added benefit that one disambiguation page can be added to multiple categories. Mhiji (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep The individual messages produced by these templates are very useful. Having individual templates in this case would be better than having to remember individual parameters which may not be supported. Ng.j (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why speedy? Why do you think the individual messages produced are very useful? For example, how does this page benefit from having the hospital message rather than the standard disambig message? I don't see how this is useful or helps anyone, it just complicates things. Keep things simple. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you may not have realized is that some of these templates also provide sorting functions, which is very useful for projects or when you are looking for similar information. Deleting these templates will also unsort many dab pages. Many editors use these templates, and we should be adding more tools, not taking them away.Ng.j (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have realised that... I'm not proposing just deleting them all together, but replacing them with {{disambig}} with the correct parameter instead. This still sorts the dab pages into the correct category so none of the functionality will be lost. Mhiji (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The airport, hospital, school and human name templates all have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories. Merging would remove this, and although the categories could be added separately to the disambiguation pages, it seems unnecessary and would not be an improvement. Peter E. James (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you mean they have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories? They just look like standard categories to me (so are in alphabetical order anyway). I am not suggesting adding the categories separately to disambiguation pages - as you said that wouldn't be an improvement at all. If you look at Category:Airport disambiguation at the top it says there are 3 methods to add a page to the category. Adding it manually, adding {{Airport disambig}} or adding {{Disambig|airport}}. I don't see any benefit in having both of the last two methods for this - this is quite simply duplication. We only need one method for this. Either the parameters should be removed from {{Disambig}} or we should get rid of {{Airport disambig}}. However having the parameters has the added benefit that up to ten of them can be used at the same time (if a number of the above templates where added then one article would have multiple dmbox messages - we don't want that), therefore this method is superior to using the templates above. Mhiji (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • For example {{hndis|name=Weber, Max}} - the "name=" exists in these templates but not in Template:Disambig. It looks like it's only used in the human name disambiguation pages (a good reason for keeping the templates used on those pages separate) - is there a way to check whether this option is used with the other templates? Peter E. James (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all you could simply intermediate transclude the new {{disambig}} from these current usages. 65.94.45.167 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand what you're saying. So, for example, the code at {{Airport disambig}} could be changed to simply be {{disambig|airport}}? This would mean that users who want to use these template names can still do so. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be no problem with the system as it is. I only usually edit hndis pages, and check the changes to this category every day. If it was just part of the enormous disambig category, I probably wouldn't bother, as it'd simply be too big a job. Also there are slightly different rules for hndis and disambig pages, e.g. no a/an/the at the start of the sentence fragment for hndis, but that's fine for disambig, etc. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But adding {{disambig|human name}} does exactly the same job - it still puts the page into the same category. I'm not suggesting deleting the categories. You wouldn't have to look through all of the disambig pages - that wouldn't change. Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all they provide sub categories for more individual topics and are good for categorising disambiguation pages. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding {{disambig|parameter name}} does exactly the same thing - it adds them to the same category so that would not change. I just don't see the point of having two templates which do the same job! Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is a WP:SNOW keep. We're not going to replace every single {{hndis}}/related template on Wikipedia with {{disambig}} with a parameter. Just doesn't make any sense. Logan Talk Contributions 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why doesn't it make any sense? Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are more precise than the generic dab template and very helpful when applicable. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Especially geodis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the template encodes useful information. A very strong case for the benefits of a single parameterised template would need to be made to justify changing the 28 thousand pages that use hndis - TB (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about converting them to wrappers for {{disambig}}, keeping the categorization? --Bsherr (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds good. I'd support this. Mhiji (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And oppose speedy keep. Unless anyone can show why one of the criteria in WP:Speedy keep applies. --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to replace. If all the features and benefits of these templates are going to be preserved and the templates themselves remain functional via redirects, I see nothing wrong with replacing this wild variety with just one parametrized disambig. It is a step towards better standardization. On the other hand, if any functionality is going to be compromised during the conversion, then no, I'm not supporting this proposal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)
  • Keep, though maybe make into wrappers for {{disambig}} with appropriate parameters to reduce duplication of text. I have a decent number of edits (10,000+) and yet I'd never heard of {{disambig}} taking parameters until I read it just now. A straight delete, if it doesn't keep the expected behavior on long-standing template names, will cause a lot of confusion. --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful substitutes for {{disambig}}; wrappers would be nice if they were possible to implement. —mc10 (t/c) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Everything is working fine. No reason to replace. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (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:20-cen 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) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20-cen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecesssary, against MOS (see WP:DATE#Typography) Mhiji (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (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/2010_December_7&oldid=1086089499"