Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24 edit

Template:Infobox Hindu Avatar 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) 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hindu Avatar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox Hindu deity}}, only used on one (or fewer) pages. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:17, 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:Cedar Fair 2012 Additions 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) 02:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cedar Fair 2012 Additions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There ~~are no other navboxes~~ is only one other navbox like this, and frankly there's a good reason for that. As of right now, this only lists three attractions, and though it may be expanded over the next few weeks as more announcements are made, I highly doubt this will ever be large enough to warrant having. Not everything needs a navbox, and this is one that doesn't. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I did the same thing last year for Six Flags (2011) and it is still here, so their is another one like this but for another company and last year. I know more stuff will be added in a couple weeks and I know what I'm doing and maybe this might be a big year for the company. --Jpp858 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for pointing out the other one; I've modified my rationale appropriately. The question remains, though: is this type of thing something that's worth collecting in a navbox? I personally don't think so, so I'll let this run its course. If this is deleted, though, then a TfD for the 2011 Six Flags one may be warranted; I don't feel strongly enough about it to make this a batch nomination. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally, don't think this template is needed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we shouldn't be making a template that lists all the rides for every year for every company. Pretty soon we will have 5 templates all the way from 2010 to 2015, and links to all those rides will be spamming the whole articles. I say we delete it. If you want to keep the information of all the rides added in 2011 and 2012, then do so in the main company article, but not on a template. We should also delete the Six Flags one too. Giggett (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we need a line with "2012 additions", add it to {{Cedar Fair}}. I just nominated the Six Flags template here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:25, 9 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:Mile marker 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. JaGa^talk 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mile marker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use, plain wikicode formatting would suffice just as well since this template doesn't do anything more than call up the milemarker. Intended use per documentation violates MOS:RJL since milepost data is given in text format, usually with 1, 2 or 3 decimal points of precision based on the source material Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 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:Erd 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) 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:DE A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:DE B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Redundant to using a straight wikilink Imzadi 1979 → 21:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:24, 9 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:Nono 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 possibly rename to {{redact}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only 50 transclusions in over a year. It is not at all obvious that we need a middle ground between deleting text and striking it, and there's a degree of potential for abuse (mostly due to the optional replacement text). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's no reason to delete this template - it's tiny, and we are not running out of disk space - and it is useful to admins for redacting text inline in heated discussions. it's better than strike-outs because it obscures the text completely and doesn't disrupt reading flow anywhere near as much, and it's better than deletion because it signifies that something has been deleted and is much easier to fix if a mistake is made. Compare the following examples:

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

The fact that this is not more generally used has more to do with people not knowing the template exists than with people not wanting to use it. --Ludwigs2 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ludwigs. It's a good middle ground between striking and deletion. As for getting word out about it, perhaps a note at WP:REDACT would do the trick. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the optional second parameter? Even the example given on the doc page seems quite plainly inappropriate (jokingly bowdlerising the comments of others), and I've seen cases of such where that's been used elsewhere (there was one on ANI yesterday). Is it really necessary? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The second parameter was intended to allow redactions without destroying the flow of the post. The idea is that by removing stupidly aggravating comments without disrupting the valid elements of the conversation, an admin could keep the conversation flowing in a positive direction while lowering the tension level of the page. Sometimes the stupid aggravating comments are so intertwined with the valid points that restatement is necessary to preserve the sense of the passage. Obviously if it's done in a mocking or stupid way it's easily fixed; one assumes that common sense will prevail in those situations (or if not, it will get so stupid so fast that it will be obvious enough to act on).
  I'm not all that concerned about bowdlerization. Frankly, my opinion of wikipedia editors is that - while the vast majority of editors are nice, sensible, quiet people - there is a loud, prominent and well-ensconsed minority who are nasty, arrogant, pugnacious little shits who need to have their posts bowdlerized (among other things), because wikipedia won't (on principle) boot them and the internet doesn't provide the proper mechanisms for reparenting them. Obviously that shouldn't extend to content, but I've seen enough crap on talk pages to recognize that even otherwise intelligent and productive editors can act like spoiled pricks when they get themselves knotted up.
  
  Now, wouldn't it be nice to have some template we could use to tone down my last paragraph a bit? hmmm… --Ludwigs2 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see that allowing one to use "acting like [less than nice people]spoiled pricks instead of "acting like [redacted]spoiled pricks" does anything to raise the tone of a discussion. The former looks like putting words into someone's mouth, and the type of editor who needs this sort of template applied to them is hardly going to take kindly to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case it probably wouldn't: as I said, the second parameter was intended to be used in those cases where it was necessary to paraphrase or reframe in order to maintain the sense and readability of the passage. and example might be where someone uses an offensive noun phrase to refer to another editor - e.g. "I disagree with [redacted]that dick" vs. "I disagree with [editor Bob]that dick".' Redacting the referent entirely can make the discussion difficult to follow. But this isn't really an issue about whether to keep the template itself. This is an issue of how to use the template, which we should take up on its talk page if it is not deleted. Maybe add something to the docs about proper usage? --Ludwigs2 13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. With a comment added to the doc to only use the second parameter in cases where redacting the material without further context makes it difficult to follow a discussion I'd be okay with it being kept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something less stupid and then keep. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 08:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions? it may be a stupid name, but it is short and to-the-point. --Ludwigs2 10:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Redact}}, maybe? (And I agree that it's a stupid name.) jcgoble3 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's a very good point. {{redacted}} already exists and has a significantly harsher connotation than this template (that the material has been oversighted). It's not good at all to have two templates with very similar output but very different semantics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an excellent template that gives us a much needed alternative to 'strike, delete or just leaving' a comment that needs to be redacted. An alternative name would be fine, something to reflect the redacting nature of the template. Heh..mebbe 'Redactoplate'... :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [redacted]and trout Thumperward This template should work nicely for peacekeepers, and is also nice for use on one's self, in the event. Really the current name is good as it conveys a touch of the understanding that we are not to be taken seriously, we humans. I'm guessing that template:redact is too close to template:redacted. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 04:38, 30 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:Iron Kingdoms Terms 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) 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iron Kingdoms Terms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the linked articles (which were 100% fancruft) have been redirected to the plot sections of the two games in question. As such, this only navigates two articles now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:46, 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:Briland 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) 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overly specific ambox. No uses. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like it could be easily handled by other templates, and reads like someone's feathers have gotten ruffled. There must be a better way. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom says it allCurb Chain (talk) 21:29, 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.