Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8 edit

Template:Minus 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, per this discussion and discussion for {{times}} below. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template should be deleted for the same reason as {{times}} listed below. JIMp_talk·cont 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to add much value over alternatives. Not used.

Keep per reasons 'times' should be kept. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another pointless template that can be achieved with a single character. Processing of pages with pointless templates slow down the rendering of pages. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike {{times}} below, there are multiple similar-looking characters, which makes it difficult to just use the edit window toolbar to enter it using more direct means. Besides, some people are rather picky about how long their lines of black pixels are, so any aids in this area are useful. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but − is shorter to type and works just as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:26, 17 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:Km2 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Km2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to a common unit contrary to wp:overlink. Without the link, it saves just a few characters. Appears to add little value. I hope there aren't more like this. Lightmouse (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If I count right, when "subst:" is included, the number of characters that must be typed is the same as using a superscript. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to encourage people to use the conversion template and write {{convert|55|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}} thus providing a conversion from confusing metric measures into something useful.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I disagree with the comments "confusing" and "useful" made by Toddy1. Agathoclea (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Lightmouse says, this template is only useful if you want to violate WP:OVERLINK. Use convert (which can be set to add the link if needed). JIMp_talk·cont 23:18, 8 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:Times 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) 00:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template does no more than what × does. The html code is two characters shorter but even easier still is using the "×" in the tool box. I don't see the point in this template. JIMp_talk·cont 02:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless. It's faster to just type ×. Kill this. 76.113.124.50 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HTML entities are not user-friendly, especially to novice editors/ editors not familiar with raw HTML. "I don't see the point" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note also {{·}}, {{•}}, {{minus}}, {{ndash}}, {{mdash}}, {{Thinsp}} and others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Interesting that you bring those up since most of those also include a leading  , so it's not the same situation. In fact, {{minus}} is really the only one which is directly analogous to this one. We should delete that one too. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Multiple ways of doing the same thing is not user friendly. Editors would soon get used to html code and/or the tool boxes & we'd benifit from consistent mark up (see my various comments below). JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Providing many ways to do the same think is confusing. Instead we should devote our efforts to finding a more effective way to educate editors about HTML character entities. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A harmless new creation. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I challenge the "harmlessness" of this creation. As I explain below, multiple ways of doing the same thing potentially creates more difficulty than ease. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps we need a table listing various ways of producing other characters the consensus for each one. Lightmouse (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested table is a good idea - and making it easy to find on Wikipedia would be one of the challenges.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It might be appropriate as a reference in wp:mos to a page in in 'Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting)' Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Help:Entering special characters. Art LaPella (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2{{times}}2=4 is easier to understand than the html code as a way of writing 2×2=4. Though what is wrong with 2x2=4? The later uses an 'x' for the × sign.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use ascii 'x' and it works most of the time. Although I'm happy for a bot or gnoming editor to make it into a special character. Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is 2{{times}}2=4 easier to understand than 2×2=4? Perhaps it is, marginally. 2×2=4, which we can get using the tool box, is much easier than either. Talking ease of understanding the task of editing and we have to consider the ease of understanding it as a whole. Is this task made easier when there are many different ways of doing the same thing? I say it's not. It's better to let editors get used to html and the tool box and keep mark up more consistent. Consistent mark up also makes searching in edit mode easier: fewer varients to search for. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is × easier to type, as people have noted, but the "×" character is available just by clicking on it from the "Insert" list below the edit box (it's between − and ÷), so it can be inserted directly. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pointless template which adds to the page processing time. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't forget the substitutions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{subst:times}}, fifteen keystrokes; surely using the tool box is easier. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Orthogonal template to others. Sure, there are other ways, but some may prefer this. Would expect usages to often be converted to explicit character (×). --168.122.165.145 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Orthogonal template to others" is only valid on the assumption that these other should stay. Flip the logic: these others should be deleted orthogonal to this. Different editors may prefer different ways of doing the same thing, sure, many perfer consistent mark-up for the ease of all editors. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Make it subst-only if necessary, but useful for some group of editors and not harmful for readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harmful for editors: many ways of doing the same thing adds to confusion in the edit mode. How can new editors get used to mark up if it's all over the place? How can we easily search for things in edit mode if we've got to search each different varient? JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alt+0215 or × are no worse for typing, and result in better page markup. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are as easily remembered by people not familiar with such technical forms. The page markup as presented to the reader is identical, whether {{Times}} or × are used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is {{times}} more easily remembered than ×...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it uses the same format as all other Wikipedia templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - By that logic, we wouldn't have any wiki markup that wasn't a template transclusion. It's condescending to assume that editors will have trouble remembering HTML markup syntax, especially when tutorial pages like Help:Wiki markup prominently mention the concept. Also, our own Manual of Style specifically highlights the preference for HTML markup, such as using <sup>text</sup> instead of {{sup|text}}. We should only be adding to Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates when templates are needed for technical reasons (e.g. {{!}}), not for trivial cases like this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Keith D. Template proliferation is slowly killing Wikipedia (for logged in users at least). Until T21262 is fixed, we should not be creating more unnecessary templates. Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really unnecessary to have this template. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there weren't a named entity for this I'd be inclined to keep it around simply for ease of use, but there is, and the lack of a proper set of analogues ({{trade}} doesn't do the same thing, for instance, and {{minus}} is unused) makes for this to be a bit of an oddity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see the sentiment in creating this, but I think the vast majority of us would prefer to keep things simple and have newbies (a) learn to click the "×" character in the insert/markup toolbar, or (b) just use the usual letter "x" (which isn't a hideous or ambiguous usage and can easily be replaced by more conscientious users at some point). SFB 22:01, 17 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.