Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21 edit

Template:Caste groups of India (Vanniyar) 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, along with the others in the same category. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caste groups of India (Vanniyar) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is transcluded onto only one page (via redirect): Vanniyar. There is a perfectly acceptable subsitute (Template:Infobox caste) that will work just fine. This particular template is particularly a problem because all of the information is hard coded (no parameters), meaning that changing info is extremely difficult. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, those will need manual moves, but there are only eight of them. Is there some way we can put all 8 up for deletion simultaneously? All of them are similar one-off variants of Infobox caste that don't really add much value. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can put up 8 for deletion at the same time, see the instructions for "multiple templates" at the top of the main TFD page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I replaced it like this. I wasn't sure where to put the "titles", so I put them in the subdivisions. If there is a better place for this information, then we should move it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, I will add a "regional_titles" parameter, since this is basically what this is. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, your addition was reverted, but I think you were on the right track. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 10 September 2011 (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:Sidebar with heading backgrounds 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) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sidebar with heading backgrounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One of the large number of derivations of {{sidebar}} created by Sardanaphalus to capture every single possible permutation of the sidebar concept. Differs in only tiny details from {{sidebar}} but due to our inheritance system requires manual maintenance over and above that of the master: for the likes of {{infobox}} / {{infobox person}} (where the child template takes quite different parameters) this is sensible, but not where literally the only thing being changed is to hardcode a header colour for the template. Can be trivially substituted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main differences are the setting of 3 class values. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|titleclass   = navbox-title
|headingclass = navbox-abovebelow
|belowclass   = navbox-abovebelow
  • Comment. I have no objection, but I just want to make sure that the significant number of pages where this template is used will be efficiently switched to substitution of the parent template, without creating a lot of work for the editors who watch those pages. I don't want to see a lot of scrambling to fix sidebars that suddenly disappear. If that were to occur, then I would rather keep the template, as it doesn't really seem to be doing harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Tryptofish. If it can be replaced without disruption or major effort, then I'd be happy to see it go; if not, then getting rid of it is unlikely to be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no objection provided that all the substitutions to {{sidebar}} are done beforehand. If this condition isn't met, then I'm opposed. I am especially concerned that Template:Violence against women should be unaffected by this deletion. Also, I strongly believe that if any template is being nominated in TfD for the reason that it is redundant to a better design, then prior to nomination, substitutions to the better template should already have been made in all dependent templates. I have just posted a proposed change to this effect on the TfD/Header talk page and I would be grateful for comments. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 19:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I became aware of this TfD because the template in question is used in {{Intelligent Design}}. I set up a sandbox of simply replacing {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}} with {{Sidebar}} and cannot see the difference. If the former can be replaced with the latter transparently (including making appropriate redirects or transclusions), then I would have no objection. But I would suggest that it would save a lot of confusion and concern if assurances were made that templates based upon a generic template would not be adversely affected, when said generic template is nominated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup: replying to all of the above comments, the substitution is an integral part of the nom and will have zero effect on any existing transclusions (they'll look exactly the same, only be implemented with one less layer of abstraction). That's what I meant by "can be trivially substituted". I didn't premptively substitute because it's poor form to orphan a template and then argue after the fact that it's no longer used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, then. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether or not the proposed change occurs seems irrelevant.  The template, now marked for deletion discussion, is used directly in more than 2,000 articles (I got fed up counting at that point), and more than 200 other templates (in who knows how many thousands of other articles).  As editors run back and forth trying to fix minor vandalism changes, a significant portion of the encyclopedia currently has notices plastered at the top of likely tens of thousands of pages while this discussion goes on.  Every minute this discussion continues does far more harm to Wikipedia as a whole than all the stupidity of the vandals.  I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, to improve the encyclopedia; but at this point, the reality is the opposite.  This discussion must end now and the encyclopedia restored to its undamaged form and this discussion can take place at the Village Pump or elsewhere.  — Who R you? (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. An IP editor appears to be mass changing this template page-by-page to template:Sidebar. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably because this deletion discussion has broken the template (sort of). I don't know if that's the intention, but having mention of a deletion discussion on every page the template is transcluded to seems like overkill to me! GDallimore (Talk) 16:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what you mean, although those notices are what brought me here. And the edits are having the effect of "breaking" this deletion discussion. I also see some edit warring over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that was me. Given that there have been zero objections to changing this template in this discussion, and that there are significant objections to what the TFD notice is currently doing to articlespace (see Who R you?'s comments), I thought it was a good idea to just get it over with. Of course, I can revert my changes if there are any significant objections here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess the only issue for me is what Chris points out in his "yup" comment a bit above, about orphaning the template while the discussion is in progress, and I had no way of knowing whether or not you knew about this discussion when you were making the edits. Now that you have commented here, I'm pretty much neutral about that. I don't know whether anyone else has any concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that in the case of at least one template ({{Intelligent Design}}) the change-to-template:Sidebar was already in the sandbox and well on its way to a consensus when it was changed-reverted-and-changed-back (thus it was the revert that was arguably against consensus). I would agree that if you don't want everybody getting in a flap over the TfD, then don't let people who don't need to know see the notice for it. If the change is meant to be transparent to downstream users, then don't tell them (us?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I guess we are getting off-topic for this deletion discussion, but I suppose it might be useful to start a discussion elsewhere (?), suggesting that the automatic placing of a notice on each page be replaced by the placing of a notice on the article talk page. That way, interested editors would still get timely notification, but the rest of the world wouldn't have to look at an annoying message. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (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:Mach 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in 2006. Doesn't appear to be used. Lightmouse (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The convert template doesn't support it, see: Template_talk:Convert#Mach. Template Mach has existed for 5.5 years. It isn't used. Does that indicate lack of demand? Lightmouse (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could do. The aircraft project has always been very consistent, if idiosyncratic, in the templates it does and does not deploy, and it would obviously be the primary consumer for this template. I'd argue that it really should be more widely deployed to be honest; it seems like a handy way of generating a frame of reference. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mach number is definitely used in some fields, but requires the assumption of 21 degrees Celsius and atmospheric pressure or some other measurement. Most scientific measurements state all variables/conditions, so the mach number is not used widely.Curb Chain (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five & a half years and still unused: this shows that it's not needed. Add this to the problem that the conversion depends on temperature & pressure and we have a good case against the template. For it to be accurate, we have to either use it only when we know the conditions are right or fix it so that the conversion takes them into account. Either way, I think we'd be asking too much of editors. Mach number doesn't seem to be used that much, perhaps the conversions are best done by hand where needed. JIMp talk·cont 17:54, 23 August 2011 (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 medical 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in single article, Template appears to be hard coded content that could be better represented directly in the article concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That, plus the creator insists on pushing non-free content onto the template in violation of WP:NFCC #9, and insists on trying to remove deletion tags from the template. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template is completely useless. The template originally was an article; it was never a proper use of templatespace in the first place.Curb Chain (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2011 (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 cardinal 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cardinal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Christian leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox cardinal with Template:Infobox Christian leader.

This template already uses a old version of "Template:Infobox Christian leader". For maintenance it is better to transform it to a redirect to "Template:Infobox Christian leader", once checked the fields. A ntv (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2011 (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:Saffir-Simpson-NWP 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) 17:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saffir-Simpson-NWP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be a duplicate of {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}, but for tropical cyclones in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. However, the relevant template for that basin is {{Japan Meteorological Agency's Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale}}, so there is no real purpose for this template. It is also not transcluded anywhere. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletrious! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need a seperate template for every tropical cyclone scale in the entire world, since not only most of the readers on WPTC are only familiar with the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, but also because every basin aside from NAtl, EPac, and WPac use their own alternative scales. Although they are well-defined, they may also confuse readers and are unnecessary. Rye998 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (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:Political parties in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic 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) 17:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template of political parties, in a single party state, I mean seriously. The template contains two parties one being an outlawed faction of the other. That's like creating a template for Genders of Humans: 1. Females 2. Males, what a great encyclopedic entry! Completely useless template Tachfin (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2011 (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/2011_August_21&oldid=1138694807"