Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23 edit

Gendered Naismith Coaches of the Year 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 as {{Naismith Coach of the Year}}. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and proceeding with the above non-controversial task... Rehman 12:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, awaiting admin to speedy delete some pages per G6... Rehman 12:33, 4 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 savivaldybe 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) 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nightmare to try to edit due to the lack of named fields, and entirely redundant to other templates. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having a specific infobox for everything rather defeats the purpose of infoboxes, as it doesn't really reduce effort in creating an article or making things clearer for editors. This one is written weirdly enough to actually make things worse. --ais523 11:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, after replacing the articles with the correct box. Rehman 09:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I created the template what it seems a million years ago. It was on my never-ending "to-do" list to migrate it to Infobox settlement & then delete. Thank you 134.253.26.9! Much appreciated. Renata (talk) 22:05, 1 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:Golden League 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. Courcelles 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golden League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to info contained in Template:WAT. EmanWilm (talk) 12:22, 23 November 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:BoA singles 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) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoA singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BoA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BoA singles with Template:BoA.
This navbox was recently split from {{BoA}}, but I see no basis for doing this. Sure, it gives us two navboxes that are half the size, but it also gives us two navboxes that are half as useful for navigation. If size is a genuine issue then it can perhaps be better addressed in other ways, but segregating the singles in this manner is unhelpful, IMHO. Suggest merging it back. PC78 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question If these are so closely related, why are they used on different pages? [1] [2] Is this a mess created by the split? Or is it a segregation of singles articles from other articles? --NYKevin @222, i.e. 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a result of the split. Previously all articles had the {{BoA}} navbox, but after the split this was replaced with {{BoA singles}} on all of the single articles. PC78 (talk) 22:18, 10 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) 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Before you proceed explain this template i.e. Template:Britney Spears singles. BoA has been singing as long as Britney Spears and has as many albums and as many singles as Britney Spears. So why not delete every other singles template on the Wikipedia? Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 22:04, 14 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) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge per precedent that singles can have their own templates to reduce clutter on the main artist template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:49, 23 November 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:Demography 4col 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 after conversion to another suitable template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demography 4col (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Set of templates which are now deprecated by flexible {{Demography}}. Barely used by now (I'll check the rest of transclusions):

No such user (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update #1: 4col and 7col are rather heavily used; they have some 100 tranclusions each.
Update #2: {{Demography}} is rather broken, and might need a bot intervention to sort it out. See my comment here. No such user (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main reason we have {{demography}} template is to support copy and paste from the FR wikipedia. Unfortunately, it is very complicated, requires the template to have a line for every possible year, and is perhaps not the best replacement. For example, the width of that template is essentially unbounded as one adds more and more fields. Now, the width issue has been noticed at the FR wiki, and the Deomgraphie template appears to have fallen out of favor. They have a new template over there (Demographie2?), which still has the same complex code, but does address the width issue. So, what we really want, in my opinion, is a horizontal layout version of {{historical populations}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a particular problem to make a horizontal version (I'm thinking of a 1-row table with embedded 2-row tables for each year), either by changing {{Demography}} or merging it with historical populations. The real problem is that we have couple of thousands transclusions that are basically broken, and should be sorted out with a bot. I can't think of a way not to alter the transclusion code, and change the template so that it a) accepts years before 1600 b) accepts refs and notes with year c) takes less than 30 kB of repetition. Everything else is easily sortable. No such user (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am basically agreeing with you that the current design is bad. Creating a horizontal version isn't entirely trivial, if you want the other features in {{historical populations}}, e.g. the automagic computation of percent changes, since there must be some continuity between rows. It is certainly do-able, but will take a bit of coding to make it happen in the cleanest way. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a prototype at User:No such user/Demography. A sample is at User:No such user/Test. Needs a lot of tweaking, but you get the idea. It lacks the automagic computation (if we want it at all, I think it's a bit of information creep), but I think it could be added relatively easily. No such user (talk) 08:25, 12 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]
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:Defban 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. Courcelles 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defban was a template that misstated Wikipedia policy. The template stated that the consequence of acts of defamation is an immediate ban; actually, the consequence, without more, is a block. The template was redirected to the more appropriate Template:Uw-bioblock, but there seems to be a difference of opinion over whether a redirect or a retransclusion of {{Uw-bioblock|indef=yes}} is best. I'm concerned that the title of the template still misstates policy, and would prefer deletion or redirection. Bsherr (talk) 07:32, 10 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) 03:42, 23 November 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:PD-old-50 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) 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-old-50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In almost every circumstance for an image, there is a better template than this one which will describe the issue more in depth. In the rare instance that there is not (e.g., Barbados), there will need to be an explanation anyway. As such, {{PD-because}} is a better rationale. In any case, I have literally spent months removing *hundreds and hundreds* of images from the corresponding category, and all but one of those images was mistagged; someone had simply plopped this tag on it wrongly as a way of getting it to be PD. And that one image I just placed into the correct category listed above.

In any case, this template is misused too often and misunderstood. It likely was originally created under a false pretense (see talk page). It should go; it's causing more harm than good. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:21, 31 October 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) 03:42, 23 November 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_November_23&oldid=1078569660"