Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21 edit

Template:Web presence 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 replace with individual templated links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web presence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, in my opinion, is not such a good idea for a few reasons: (1) Multiple links to social networking sites is generally frowned upon per WP:ELNO, although certainly not forbidden, (2) Generally, one link to an official website is enough since there is no need for a WP:LINKFARM, although there are obviously exceptions to this rule, (3) The formatting as a floating infobox is atypical, and there is no strong reason why the links couldn't be replaced by standard uses of {{twitter}}, {{myspace}}, {{facebook}}, {{official website}}, ... (4) It has been some time since the initial nomination, and it doesn't seem to have gained much traction (probably for the reasons given above). Hence, I propose this template for deletion. The single transclusion can be replaced with individual EL templates if deemed appropriate. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace. I concur with the above assessment, particuarly about the formatting and redundancy of this template. External links are best added separately based on their own merits. I don't see any advantage in using a combo template such as this. PC78 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (the only advantage could be that this templated set is easier to monitor and hence check for correctness than loose links). Delete. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and I don't see any need to stomp on this sandcastle presently. I invite elaboration, but in present form, I don't find the nom arguments persuasive. It's not forbidden by WP:ELNO, and there may very well be situations when it's appropriate to have Facebook and Twitter links; in such situations, what's wrong with having them in a box? --Bsherr (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The box format would seem contrary to Wikipedia:External links#External links section. PC78 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that WP:EL wrapped a long conversation in June concerning the presence of external links in boxes, decided it was acceptable, and determined rules for first and subsequent links. --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm only reading what the guideline says with regard to external link sections and formatting. Do you have a link for that discussion? I couldn't see anything obvious in the talk archives. PC78 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 29#Official website in EL section AND in infobox?. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I read it, that discussion was about external links in infoboxes, specifically about duplicating links in an infobox and external link section. This template is a seperate box which per it's own documentation is intended for use within an external links section. It's a completely different animal. PC78 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but when implemented, it will be a box that duplicates some of the contents of the external links section, won't it? Of course, there's not going to be anything exactly on point, since this template only has one transclusion, but I think it's informative about how that guidelines might be interpreted to apply. I think a reasonable person could disagree, but not say for certain that it's a contravention of the guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would you need the links twice in an external links section? PC78 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Many infoboxes repeat information in the article. I expect it's because many people find the graphical presentation more appealing and noticeable. --Bsherr (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely convinced that we're having the same discussion here, so I'll start again. :-D This isn't an infobox, it's a box of external links. It is intended for use in an external links section. There is no reason to duplicate links in that section. If the links are only included in that section through this template, then it does not meet the requirements of the guideline, i.e. to list such links using bullet points. Of course, if it were restyled to use bullet points as opposed to a box, then that would at least be a step in the right direction. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Haha. Like I said, I'm not so certain it's truly inconsistent with the guideline. And for all we know, it could be an innovation. Instead of TfDing it this instant, why not bring it up for discussion at ELNO, and see what they think? Then, when we know for sure they don't want it, we can deprecate it, or delete it. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it was discussed here and there about a year ago and nothing much has happened in the meantime; how much of a chance do we give these things? I'll ping the folks at WT:EL though, let them know about this TfD then they can always weigh in with their opinions. PC78 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh.
1. It invents its own new layout. It's not a sisterlinks template. It's not a sidebar. It's not an infobox.
2. The WP:EL discussion was strictly about the use of external links in infobox templates. It wasn't about putting new floating contraptions in the EL section. In contrast, consensus has previously been that with the exception of sisterlinks external links should be inline (see the discussion at template talk:FreeContentMeta, for instance).
3. It's only used on one article, and the author agrees that it can probably be deleted.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_26#.27Web_presence.27. If memory serves, most people were unenthusiastic, but willing to let the creator try it out for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A year seems like a good long while, and the creator has already said above that he's happy to delete. PC78 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the creator wants it deleted, it looks like it can be speedy deleted per author. Why not that? --Bsherr (talk) 08:06, 28 September 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:Verylarge 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 but should be renamed, which can be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Category diffuse}}, also bad template name. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This template is a maintenance template (style) to suggest that a very large category be diffused into subcategories. Template:Category diffuse is a notice template, notifying that the category's contents are to be subcategorized. The two have separate purposes, and both must be kept. I'd have no problem with renaming the template if a suitable alternative were suggested. --Bsherr (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - per my comment below. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How large is "very large"? Category:Period television series doesn't appear to be "very" large, nor does Category:New York Times people. Both templates might benefit from rewording to make the differences in purpose more explicit. PC78 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to address that. The problem is that the cmbox is very indistinctive. Maybe changing the image? As for "very large", that's something you'll have to take up at the guideline. "To suggest that a category is so large that it ought to be diffused into subcategories, you can add the {{verylarge}} template to the category page." My assumption is that they've deliberately refused to determine an arbitrary range. How large is "very large"? So large that it ought to be diffused into subcategories! :-) --Bsherr (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. With regard to renaming, how about {{Overpopulated category}} (curently a redirect to this template, was previously a seperate template but merged here back in '05)? PC78 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to move away from a numbers criterion. What about just Template:Disorganized category? --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, but if you generalise the issue like that does it not then encroach on the territory covered by {{cleancat}}? (And at least some uses of {{cleancat}} are specifically for categories that need to be diffused.) There is also {{verylargestub}} to consider, with regards to both a rename and a reword. PC78 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see Template:Cleancat as the equivalent of Template:Cleanup, in that it shouldn't be used if there's another template that is better suited. In fact, I'd support merging those two. "Disorganized category" would specifically refer to a category proposed for subcategorization, not just that it "needs attention". And I think whatever solution we decide for this template should certainly be executed on Template:Verylargestub. --Bsherr (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a maintenance and not an instruction template. Navigational categories should not be so large as to not be usable as a navigational scheme. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I can see the overlap with {{Category diffuse}} I perceive the nominated one as a cleanup/maintenance template whereas the other one is more instructional, so similar aim, different uses. __meco (talk) 06:38, 25 September 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:Copyvio-histpurge 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 to delete at this time, however, should be reconsidered if/when a better system is put in place. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvio-histpurge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template was created and used as a crutch for one specific purpose: for articles created as copyvios but then rewritten from scratch, as a means to request administrator attention in order to selectively delete the portions of the article history before the rewrite.

With the introduction of revision deletion as a feature, admins now have a much more convenient and flexible tool at their disposal to handle such situations, but also, by merely hiding revision text while keeping editor name and edit summaries intact, to ensure that the originator of the article and possible contributors who added research (RS for instance) to the article prior to the rewrite still get credited for their work.

As one of the editors behind this template, I believe it has outlived its usefulness, but others may want to weigh in. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If deleted, how would users tag articles that require revision deletion? As I understand from reading the above, all that has changed are the tools available to admins to carry out such deletions. PC78 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fair question but I'd say the answer should be sought for more than copyvio issues, and both the tagging and the corresponding need for revision deletion publicized wider than just within the very small circle who uses the above template today. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I agree in principle, but unless there is some kind of mechanism for requesting revision deletion (I'm guessing there isn't at the moment) then I think that deletion of this template (and presumably the associated category) is perhaps a bit premature. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a centralized location to request revision deletion is set up. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this should really not be done via a template. I'm gonna try something in my user space and put it up for discussion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:43, 24 September 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.