Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22 edit

Template:Musical group individual bio 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) 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musical group individual bio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems redundant to infoboxes, article text and a band members section. I really can't see this being very useful. Currently used in one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Delete as highly redundant to {{infobox musical artist}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the otters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:57, 25 March 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:SterileEditWar 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) 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned Template. Doesn't seem very useful to Wikipedia, as we currently have templates which indicate page protection which resulted edit wars. Keep if anyone can find a use for it. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we don't even know what a "sterile edit war" is per WP:EDITWAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what type of edit war is sterile either. fetchcomms☛ 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StrokeJob Per Fastilysock above. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm guessing a sterile edit war can't fork into child edit wars. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:17, 26 March 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:Aphonopelma Species 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 Substitute into List of Theraphosidae species, and place a see also in Aphonopelma, or the other way around if someone wants to change it Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aphonopelma Species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Posting this template for discussion, because I'm not sure I've done the right thing now. This list of species was included in both the genus article Aphonopelma, and the List of Theraphosidae species (tarantulas) - several had been duplicated the same way and they were contradictory. It's good to have it in both, but now that I've done it as a template, I'm wondering if there is a better way to transclude this content - I doubt there would be more than these two places it would be used. (Note: I've done a number like this, but if there's a better way, I can change them easily enough). -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete. This seems well-intentioned enough: same material is in more than one article, so standardize it with a template. But the content in this case is a list, and it is being used in articles where it is a vital part of the article content. Generally speaking, it is bad to put regular article content (as opposed to things like infoboxes and navigation, or unusual text that needs special tagging or formatting) into templates, because this makes it harder for editors to find and update the content. If this template was used on dozens of articles, I would think twice, but for just two articles this type of content is better left as regular article text. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughts - are you saying that it should go back to being duplicated in both articles and we have to hope the two don't get out of step? (I guess it could be commented in each place to point editors at the other one). Or is there some other way to transclude part of one article into a second one? -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An entire page can be transcluded into another, but I don't believe part of one can. Let me ask: does the list of species really need to be included in Aphonopelma, or would a "See also" to the appropriate section of List of Theraphosidae species be sufficient? --RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Sorry for the delay - I have this watched but missed it) That's a good point - I hadn't thought of it that way round. I was thinking it's natural in the Aphonopelma genus article, but is also very useful in a List of Theraphosidae species too. But yes, I think it could work that way round instead - in the Theraphosidae list, with a "See also" in the Aphonopelma article. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 22 March 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:Welcom 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) 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The {{Welcome}} template is the appropriate template; this one seems redundant. Site: WP:TFD reason #2 for deletion. Also, this isn't pretty (see my rant below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that reasoning, all but one from Category:Welcome templates are redundant. Why do you find this one in particularly not useful?
Generally, which template is used is based on personal preference of the welcoming editor, and sometimes of the impression made by the welcomed editor. The template under discussion is unique in being one of the shortest welcome templates we have. There are many others I find much redundant. Amalthea 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not see the relevance of this template. It has one sentence followed by three progressively indented lines. This makes no sense and looks horrible. The {{Welcome}} template looks professional and tells a user "hey, we're good at this!" This template is sloppy and says "someone threw together this mess and put it on your talk page!" I do not believe this template is actively used. Timneu22 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a very different reason, and one I can get on board with. I myself don't like it either, and have never found it appropriate. I don't know how often it is used; it's currently part of WP:FRIENDLY, which is why I'm here in the first place, so it probably is used from time to time, but not necessarily on its own merits.
I've asked folks from the WT:Welcoming committee to give their input; maybe it just needs a rewrite to give it a more professional and welcoming look&feel. Amalthea 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, we have much better welcome templates so this one doesn't even need fixing up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ~~claim~~ think that it's "unused"? It has been used at least 1,600 times. Of course it has no transclusions in userspace, none of the welcome templates should. Amalthea 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have only seen {{welcome}} used. Further, with {{welcome}} being such a good template, why on earth would {{welcom}} ever need to be used? Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very brief. And apparently, that was a good enough reason over 1,600 times. Amalthea 13:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Used or not, it's still a very poor one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Welcom" is not English (it doesn't have a wiktionary entry, nor a wikipedia article), and we shouldn't promote bad spelling in welcome messages. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The non-word "Welcom" is of course not part of the welcome message left for the user. It was only displayed as an exemplary user name if you looked at the template page. Amalthea 13:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's referenced by twinkle. ~~Just a shorter welcome then the main welcome template. I use it every now and then.~~ Lots of welcome templates for lots of reasons. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 06:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops was thinking of a different template. Keep it because twinkle references it. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is twinkle, and why is it relevant here? Timneu22 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TWINKLE -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of WP:FRIENDLY, actually, but if it's found to be an unwanted template, it takes only one minute to remove it from there, so that's no reason to keep it. Amalthea 13:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a poor-quality template, and if it's easy to remove it from where it's currently used, that would be a great improvement. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This welcome template is very weakly designed and there are several others that are way better than this one. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other templates are so much more informative and helpful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:19, 26 March 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:Withdrawnafd 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) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - If a nominator wants to withdraw his/her nomination, (s)he is free to do it without this template. In the rare situation where (s)he changes his/her mind after other users had agreed, (s)he will usually make an untemplated statement to that effect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just withdraw, don't slap a template on. Template creep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the nominator wanted to withdraw, they could just close the AfD as withdrawn. I don't see the point of having this. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:28, 25 March 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:Snowball Earth/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. I consider myself uninvolved enough to close this, despite having left opinions below (which were, if anything, on the non-consensus side). Amalthea 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snowball Earth/Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template that appears only in the Snowball Earth article. Should be substituted into the article and then deleted from template space. RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not belong as a template since it's only being used once. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It provides an easy to follow diagram for novices. ShawnIsHere (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not to eliminate the diagram, but to move it from template space into the article. Since it is only used in the one article, and has no apparent usefulness anywhere else, there is no reason for it to exist as a template. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The code is very complex, and it is unlikely to be edited often, so to have it just sit in the article would do nobody any good and it would be harder to notice if it had been inadvertently messed up during an edit. —Soap— 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to get deleted, then I think it should be replaced with an image, because otherwise the 60-odd lines of code are just going to get in the way of people wanting to edit the article, whereas the lines of code themselves will virtually never be edited. See how few edits there are to this template since its creation in 2007. Which is why I think the ideal solution is to leave it the way it is, as a template transcluded onto the article. —Soap— 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after subst. Reasons given for keeping are against policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What reason is against which policy, exactly? Amalthea 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, subst/delete. Timneu22 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being used in only one article is no reason for deletion. It's a question of complexity, and whether keeping the code directly in the article is making things easier. For example, {{2009 flu pandemic data}} and {{2009-2010 flu pandemic table}} are both only used in one article, too. Nobody will want to move the 85k of wikicode from the latter template into 2009 flu pandemic by country. Amalthea 22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at the code. Including that at the beginning of the article is likely to overwhelm and confuse people. Reach Out to the Truth 01:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Template:Snowball Earth graphical timeline, which uses {{graphical timeline}}. After replacement, (since it is a single use template) I would recommend substitution and deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a much clearer looking diagram, but 1) I would ask at the article's talk page first whether this is an acceptable replacement (the The Ediacaran Period isn't placed quite where it's supposed to), and 2) this template has more lines of code than the timeline, actually, and will complicate the article even more.
  In any case, a simple "subst and delete" of the original template is always a license violation. Amalthea 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) The spans of the individual periods are exactly the same as the other template, so that shouldn't be an issue? (2) I would say that is the essential argument against, but I don't feel this is the case. However, I will see if I can make it shorter. (3) The GDFL issue is easily solved by moving it to a subpage, then redirecting the subpage and noting the merger in the page history or I can simply create a new (and probably better) one based on the text of the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) Will depend on the font size you're using, but they are not the same for me even if I reset to default: In the original, the "Ediacaran" text is placed exactly in the middle of the -640 to -542 period (and overlaps the "Gaskiers" marker), while in the HTML-version it's below that, and thus not quite centered. Don't get me wrong though, it's still better and more accessible (although with larger font sizes it starts to explode again). Just thought that a pointer at the talk page wouldn't hurt.
      (2) Yeah, well. A matter of opinion, I myself don't mind single-use templates that much if they remove significant and rather cryptic clutter from a page.
      (3) You're right, the information that went into creation of the template is pretty much trivial and present in the article, should be good.
      Amalthea 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The non-overlap was on purpose to make it readable. There is a nudge factor in there which can be adjusted to prevent text overlap. I have created an even shorter version and pasted it into Talk:Snowball Earth for comment. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Template:Snowball Earth graphical timeline. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with the new Template:Snowball Earth graphical timeline, which is much better. Template:Snowball Earth/Infobox looks poor on my screen, with text not quite matching the boxes and some overlapping. And then substitute and delete. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new timeline template should be used; it should also be moved to {{Snowball Earth}}, rather than having such an excessive title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{Snowball Earth graphical timeline}}, and then substitute and delete as above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there is now consensus among all the active snowball-earth-editors to substitute the new version (see the talk page). So, I have boldly replaced it. Please revert if this is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:39, 1 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.