Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29 edit

Template:Blue Heelers character 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) 18:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blue Heelers character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should probably be replaced with {{Infobox soap character}} WOSlinker (talk) 21:02, 20 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, WOSlinker (talk) 19:54, 29 October 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:Biblical longevity 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, but will userfy upon request for further development. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biblical longevity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Trivia: not sure that this has any real encyclopedic value. Ludwigs2 19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be considered under Stand-alone lists, thereby a separate article. But as a template added only incidentally to 82 biographies it seems to have no improvement value. ""Excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia," i.e. Peleg or Eber. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. "No improvement value" is not an argument especially at TFD, and this is not "excessive lists". JJB 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Further, this is a placeholder for the numerous source arguments to come, already alluded at Talk:Moses and first link therefrom. ... JJB 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, I may provide them later, because there's no need for overkill: per this very page, "no encyclopedic value" is not an argument either. If there is an actual allegation of NPOV, the only applicable deletion rationale above, the source arguments can be listed. One correction: I said that this template and its sister are in 82 articles (not all biographies); the sister Template:Sumerian King List was not nominated for discussion. For comparison, Template:Adam to David appears in about 35 articles without objection, and if anyone objects to it we can just hide it in the objected article. JJB 00:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete after substituting into Longevity myths. This template links a variety of biblical figures by a relatively minor attribute (longevity) and gives undue prominence to the issue of longevity in most of the articles in which it appears. It is an appropriate table to include in the Longevity myths article, but a single appearance there does not require a template. As to the arguments from its creator, templates such as {{Adam to David}} are navboxes that appear at the bottoms of articles to aid in navigation, whereas this template serves to convey content related to longevity, so I would not consider them comparable. {{Sumerian King List}} is similar in function to this template, and should also be nominated for deletion for the same reasons. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Religion is bullshit. --Asbury Marie (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the contumely of the previous reply, RL0919 is right that age is not a very distinguishing feature. Practice does not organize biography articles by age, and I see no reason to start here. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: some arguments are not valid for deletion, and some are answered because there are plenty of sources. However, to save time, I would also compromise with RL to a position of "keep in nonbio articles". This template appears appropriately in Longevity myths, Genealogies of Genesis, Generations of Adam, and Byzantine calendar. Why don't we agree to leave it there for now? The argument of "undue prominence in most articles" is NOT a deletion argument, but a "keep and scale back" argument. JJB 01:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I do not agree that the template is appropriate in any of those articles except Longevity myths. In Genealogies of Genesis it is redundant to another table in the article, and in the other two it is unnecessary detail. So while I appreciate the attempt to find alternative paths, at the moment I'm sticking with my "delete" position. --RL0919 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Ryoung122 says, "I'm all for keeping the Biblical longevity template, so long as it remains objective," and has been invited to comment in more detail here. JJB 01:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unecyclopedic trivia. There is no reason why we would organize articles in this fashion except that some hobbyists are into human longevity and have decided to create a template to highlight their minority interests.Griswaldo (talk) 01:24, 3 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:Infobox Floorball biography 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) 04:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Floorball biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Infobox WOSlinker (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. We do have a few articles for floorball players, for which this infobox could presumably be used. PC78 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are particulars about floorball that shouldn't be supported by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. At first glance I'm not seeing anything unique, but since I know nothing about this sport I could be missing something. --RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 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 Judge alt 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) 04:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Judge alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article. {{Infobox judge}} should do. WOSlinker (talk) 16:15, 29 October 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:Tattoo artist 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) 04:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tattoo artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Infobox WOSlinker (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a duplicate of {{Infobox writer}} (an older version), which desptite the name doesn't appear to have much or anything to do with tatoo artists. PC78 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 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 Western Chinese-language actor 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) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Western Chinese-language actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article. Could probably be replaced with Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor WOSlinker (talk) 16:05, 29 October 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 Sociologist 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) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used on one article. Infobox person should be enough. WOSlinker (talk) 16:04, 29 October 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:Sandbox Prose start date and age 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. G7. Author requests deletion. WOSlinker (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sandbox Prose start date and age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not certain but appears just to be a test. Anyway, it is unused at present. WOSlinker (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please delete --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:21, 30 October 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 Gentleman Biography 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Gentleman Biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and rather specific to one person. WOSlinker (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD T3. PC78 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 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 mongolian sport wrestler 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 under WP:C1 as a malformatted template. Airplaneman ✈ 02:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox mongolian sport wrestler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article and doesn't even do anything useful. WOSlinker (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense. Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G1. PC78 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 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 Irish Republican 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) 04:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Irish Republican (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on two articles. Could be replaced by Infobox person or Infobox military person. WOSlinker (talk) 14:36, 29 October 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:Userspace BLP 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 and possibly add NOINDEX feature to {{BLP unsourced}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userspace BLP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used template of unclear purpose. In userspace this merely transcludes {{BLP unsourced}} and adds the NOINDEX behavior switch; if desirable we can simply add this function to {{BLP unsourced}}. In other namespaces it does nothing. The doc gives a completely invalid deletion criteria, but in any case we now have the WP:BLPPROD process to facilitate the deletion of unsourced BLPs. PC78 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The main purpose of the template is to use "What links here" to identify BLP in user space. Only articles are eligible for ProD, so ProD BLP is inapplicable to user pages. Template:BLP unsourced is also only for articles, not user pages (so, in fact, this template should not be transcluding BLP unsourced). If kept, it needs to be revised. Now, I can't speak to whether this template is utilized, but it seems to have a valid purpose. --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it only transcludes {{BLP unsourced}}, you can easily filter pages that link there by namespace, so that usage is redundant. As I read the doc, the deletion refers to pages that have been transferred to mainspace, not those in user space. But as I said, there is no such deletion criteria anyway. PC78 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that, like I said, BLP unsourced is not to be used on pages that are not articles. So that's not an option. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concerning the documentation, though, no question it's wrong. --Bsherr (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're talking about what is, though. But there's no reason why we can't use that template in userspace. PC78 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there are several reasons why Template:BLP unsourced cannot be used on pages that are not articles. First, it's an ambox template, and ambox is just for articles. Second, its documentation indicates it's supposed to be used on articles. Third, it's listed at WP:TEMP in the section for article namespace templates. We are indeed talking about what is, but "what is" is fleeting on Wikipedia. I'd change it immediately, but I figure it's worth discussing first. --Bsherr (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then there's the general point that we don't put article maintenance templates on user pages, because they "belong" to the user, per WP:UP#OWN. --Bsherr (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • {{ambox}} can easily be changed to {{mbox}}, documentation and listings can also be easily changed. Per WP:UP#OWN they do not belong to the user. But if such notices are inappropriate for user pages, is that not an argument for deletion? I'm open to a revamp though if you have something in mind. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • First off, if you didn't catch it, that's why I had "belong" in quotes above. Maybe I should have used "!belong". Yes they're not owned by the user, but nonetheless, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests". That's what I was referring to with "belong". Adding a silent tag is significantly more sensitive than adding a content template designed for articles. If, as I assert, "BLP unsourced" is inappropriate for user pages, the solution is editing "Userspace BLP", not deleting. The revamp I suggest is removing "BLP unsourced", correcting the documentation, and adding the template to relevant user page and BLP guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • This isn't a "silent" tag though. If you remove {{BLP unsourced}} then that only leaves NOINDEX, for which we don't need a template. PC78 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, I wasn't as specific as I should have been. I mean making "BLP unsourced" conditional on the page being in the article namespace. Then it's silent in user space until moved. And it preserves the ability to track templates using "What links here". Or, alternatively, a hidden category can be employed. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You mean flipping the current usage so that it's hidden in userspace but not articlespace? Again, we could do that with {{BLP unsourced}} directly. In fact, that would eliminate your concern about the template being visible in userspace. PC78 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maybe redirect it if a better system comes along. I wouldn't rely on vaporware, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As creator, it would be useful if you could offer some more insight as to what this template is intended for. Clearly there are issues here with regard to implementation, and ideally we should try and address these. PC78 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea was to move newly created (unreferenced) biographies of living people from the article space to the User space and tag them to not be indexed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there any basis for doing this, though? PC78 (talk) 16:03, 23 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) 01:05, 29 October 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:Site plan 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 with {{superimpose}} in a way that will still facilitate migration of information from de.wikipedia, perhaps by creating a substitution wrapper that calls the superimpose template, or by use of a redirect. The feasibility can be discussed on the respective talk pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Site plan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely-used utility template which seems to duplicate the functionality of {{superimpose}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Site plan}} provides relative positioning, which the other templates appear not to. Has this been merged into superimpose? I cannot see a way to do it, but if it is possible please add an example to Template:Superimpose/doc as that would be very useful. See Template talk:Superimpose#Problem with functinality. -84user (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I admit the name is poor. Its a transliteration of the name of a German Wikipedia template, , which redirects to this template, and has been used when importing articles. As 84user says, it could be useful and I've got plans. It could be easily merged with Superimpose but that template has too many problems. Any suggestions for a name for a new merged template would be appreciated. I thought of Superpose but I don't like it. It really is all about overlaying any image on top of another image and not just for use with maps. There is another template, {{overlay}}, which I just found, with a similar function. –droll [chat] 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have far too many templates of this sort which have almost entirely overlapping functionality. This is confusing, and results in duplication of effort. As far as is possible these the templates in question should be merged or deleted. For the most part the functionality in question is unused precisely because less than a handful of editors actually understand or care about the code in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep this template to support the importation of articles form de.wikipedia. Also as it uses relative (percentage) coordinates it allows the base image width to be changed without a change to the relative position of the layered image. This is superior to the way Superimpose works. Since it makes a unique and useful contribution to the encyclopedia I think deleting it would be a mistake. Too many templates is not, IMHO, is not an adequate argument. –droll [chat] 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were evidence that in its present form it is helping with migration of articles from de-WP I could see the point, but that doesn't appear to have been the case for a long time. And having multiple templates with overlapping functionality but subtly different syntax simply makes things more confusing for anyone looking to work on template code, especially when they are primarily used nested inside infobox code and the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge functionality into superimpose. If it is superior, it should be added to superimpose, so you can choose an alternate coordinate parameter set. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 12 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) 00:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tested to allow percentage positioning values for Superimpose, take a look at {{Superimpose/sandbox}} and {{Superimpose/testcases}}. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:14, 8 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:Content 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. Perhaps the best path forward would be to refactor the merge target, demonstrating the proof-of-concept, and then renominate if there is consensus that the refactored version is an improvement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Importance-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Content with Template:Importance-section.
These two templates are similar enough that I think they can be successfully merged, using parser functions if necessary. Bsherr (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge per nom. The issues highlighted by these template are essentially the same. PC78 (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. In the context of a section {{content}} and {{importance-section}} could be merged, but {{content}} has a different meaning in the context of an entire article. If {{content}} in the context of an entire article were changed to a different template, I would conditionally support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why can't this be done with a parser function? --Bsherr (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Separating the two uses of {{content}} cannot (easily) be done mechanically. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's only one Template:Content presently, so presumably, they're not separated now, right? I wouldn't propose changing that (whatever it is you're referring to; could you clarify?). --Bsherr (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is the context of {{content}} different with regard to sections and whole articles? I don't see it myself. PC78 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{content}} refers to "article or section". {{Importance-section}} obviously refers only to the section. I (among others) have been using {{content}} (preferably with a talk page pointer) to avoid edit-warring against a host of global warming anons when they pretend not to violate WP:3RR; perhaps there's a better template, but it is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why wouldn't you be able to continue to do that with the merged template? --Bsherr (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Arthur Rubin makes a valid point. Additionally, the content template can be used to indicate that some part of a section, which is currently absent from the article (particularity due to edit warriors) is in dispute. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why can't this be done with a parser function? --Bsherr (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make a proof of concept template somewhere. ("Talk is cheap. Show me the code.") Tijfo098 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Work in progress at User:Bsherr/sandbox3. --Bsherr (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see how [1] is an improvement over the current {{content}}, except for getting rid of the tiny font. The wording seems more confusing. The 2nd part "If under discussion..." seem to direct users to remove the tag rather than discuss the matter. I bet it will be abused by edit warriors if approved that way: Alice first removes some content. Bob disagrees and adds the tag. Then Alice removes the tag, because the article no longer contains material anyone thinks is off-topic (incontestable truth to both Alice and Bob, even though Bob thinks on-topic material was removed.). The current wording with "in (or previously in)" was a less conductive to that scenario. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What would prevent Bob from reverting? Why wouldn't Alice remove the current Content tag for the same reason? But at the very least, we can parse the template so that one switch displays the current "Content" and the other displayes the current "Impartance-section". Would that satisfy you? --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ultimately WP:3RR, but that's not the issue. We want a wording in the tag that's more likely to lead to discussion rather than lead to edit warring over the applicability of the tag itself after some disputed material is removed unilaterally. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With less than fifty transclusions and an unclear purpose, why do we need this at all? Dispute tags are supposed to be for serious problems, not just to try to hook people onto the talk page. I dare say we could do without this entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need a template to report that multiple editors are adding (or removing) the same disputed material to the article, regardless of attempts to add specific dispute tags (and there appears not to be an appropriate dispute tag for the "See also" section other than {{content}}). Something like:
    • is needed, although I'm not sure "Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute" is the appropriate tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{examplefarm}} works for me where "See also" contains poor or irrelevant links. Again, does this genuinely need a dispute tag? If people are edit warring over content then the solution is protection, not badges of shame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is an active dispute (even if a serial vandal is not recognized as a vandal), there should be a dispute tag. {{examplefarm}} is absurd for easter egg links and WP:OVERLINK disputes, and is not quite on point for absurd "See also" links. As for your assertion that tags are "badges of shame"; my position is that a tag (referring to an active dispute) should remain unless there is consensus for removal. It appears that you differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've seen both kinds of these arguments often enough. Maybe a policy or guideline should be developed on this topic. When are article tags (of any kind) appropriate? But that seems orthogonal to whether any tag should exist (unless you think Wikipedia should have no tags at all, which seems a fringe position these days.) Tijfo098 (talk) 22:32, 22 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) 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this conversation going anywhere? It seems to have stopped and I'd like someone to make a decision. In the meantime, pages such as Colonialism are made ugly by the additional text above the importance tag. Yaris678 (talk) 15:44, 13 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:Klugh 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 and redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template, created on 28th of October 2010, is redundant. The Earl Klugh template had already been created on 7th October 2010, is more comprehensive and was placed on all Earl Klugh album pages. The template creator of this template did not investigate / check well enough to see if an Earl Klugh template already exists. Amsaim (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect per nom. PC78 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would probably do, although delete would be fine too. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:53, 30 October 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_October_29&oldid=1142563093"