Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11 edit

Template:Km/h to mph 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) 02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Km/h to mph  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is unused and redundant to {{convert}}. JIMp talk·cont 23:50, 11 June 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:Flag 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 keep. Consensus is clear, and discussion of the more general issue belongs at WT:MOSFLAG, though it has also made its way to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Flagicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(Note an admin needs to add a TFD notice to this template). Used in 250,000 articles yet certain editors continue to cite MOS:FLAG as a policy for why flags should be removed from articles.If there really is consensus against flags on wikipedia then the community will vote to delete them. If they don't and it is voted to be kept I strongly urge that this guideline is altered because at present it is laughable to see flags used in at least 1 in 6 of all articles and for some individuals to claim there is strict indifference to them. Personally I do not care, they have visual appeal rather than encyclopedic appeal, but if its one thing I hate on wikipedia it is double standards. We either permit flags to be used in articles or we don't. Plain and simple.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note en wiki has 3.6 million articles so the usage number of these template is actually about 1 in 14 Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a useful template. Sensibly used, flag icons enable quicker identification of countries and enhance the appearance of articles, their tables and infoboxes. MOS:FLAG is clearing flying in the face of common usage and needs to be toned down so that it only discourages excessive use that can be distracting in some cases. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, MOS:FLAG is currently used as a policy by many people for removing single flags from infoboxes on settlements. So even when there is minimum usage it is claimed to not be acceptable. Should this template be kept, then I want to see support here for an adjustment to the MOS guideline for flags. We cannot have it both ways. If it is deleted then the guideline stays intact.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on Jimbo Wales' talk page. My first reaction is that the policy is generally correct that flags shouldn't be used capriciously in biographies, etc.; but I don't think it prohibits, or should prohibit, flag icons in military history infoboxes, or results by country for a European Union referendum or a major UN Security council decision. Why not just put a big bold warning on the template about some of the worst abuses? Also, it would be nice if you can get a list of all the articles which are a) BLPs and b) include this template, since the odds are those are the most problematic uses. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the vast majority of people removing flags citing MOS:FLAG they are merely a single flag in an infobox like Accra or something. They are not abuses at all. What I'm saying is that either this becomes acceptable for single infobox useage for settlements as it is with many sports related articles or we delete the entire template altogether because its double standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Stop this silly, pointy TfD. Many editors would prefer nuanced rules where flags are used in certain cases but not others; this has been discussed at length on the MOS page. To go through the motions of deleting all flags is an absurd overreaction to a legitimate difference of opinion over the details of the RfC. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We either use flags in infoboxes or we don't. I'm sick of people like you disrupting the system, picking and choose when flags suit you and citing MOS:FLAG when they don't. Your keep vote illustrates to me perfectly your warped ideas of guidelines as elsewhere I've seen examples of you removing flags from articles. If a flag is not permitted in an infobox for a settlement it should not be permitted in any other infobox or shape or form.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my desire to follow - and improve - the policy on flagicons is not compatible with your all-or-nothing approach, the best solution is to put your case over at WT:MOSICON and try to get consensus for your proposed changes there. Angry rants about "warped ideas" are not going to help us move forward. bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags are used in infobox settlement by myself and other editors for the same reason flags are widely used in sports and military warfare articles, to make the country stand out and by more recognisable. It is not absolutely essential that flags are used in sports and military warefare articles so somewhere along the line whoever wrote MOS:FLAG is basing it on what they like or don't like, which a few of the people who guard it like you Bob happen to agree with. It does not truly reflect the overall view of the community and the masses of editors who are happy with flags in infoboxes. If the way forward is for an actual long needed change to MOS:FLAG based on the input of many, then this is a good thing. Because there is NOT a consensus against using flags in infobox settlement, even if there maybe for biographies. A far better alternative would be to accept flag icons and simply have an option in you personal preferences to Hide all flag icons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There's no reason to go for “extremes” and either allow flags everywhere in all infoboxes or not allow them anywhere in any. WP:MOSFLAG sounds quite reasonable to me (and does not say that flags should never be used, so my keep !vote does not mean the guideline needs to be altered). --Six words (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC) modified so it is clear I understand where the nominator wants to have either/or decision. --Six words (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Six words: Nobody said flags should be everywhere! But topics such as settlements have every much as right to use flags as sports articles do. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't change a guideline by nominating the template it deals with for deletion; the current consensus on when to use flags is described by the guideline, and only a new consensus can change that. Bobrayner already gave some good advice on where to start discussion. --Six words (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a fan on this, but think this would need a much wider talk about policy it's self rather then just the templates. This would cause much unneeded conflict from many corners of Wikipedia. If any policy talks comes up let me know. Moxy (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No good is going to come of this TfD at this time. I agree in principle that its existence is not compatible with MOSFLAG, but there needs to be a wider social effort to get that across to the community first before this can be deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are editors who prefer to use flags were applicable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid nomination speedy keep This is a WP:POINTy nomination. This nomination is invalid, the result of this AFD being it keep or delete doesn't not affect the consensus established at WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus there, dude. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well established and stable guideline. The definition of community CON Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even so, they're not only used in templates in articles. I'm sure many users have a few scattered across their userpages, and that alone is reason to leave it be regardless. ResMar 13:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there is occasional gratuitous usage of flags, but there are plenty of places where they are highly relevant. Here, for example, where the visual impact allows for quicker and easier distinction over plain text, which the brain is less adept at separating – try focusing on where the Argentine winners are on the list; you'll notice that this is quite possible when focusing on the flags but nigh on impossible when attempting to do the same trick by looking for the word "Argentina". We are visual creatures and we should take advantage of this when it is appropriate. SFB 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete the WP:WIKILAWYERs at MOS:FLAG instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 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:Opus 100 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) 23:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Opus 100 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful navbox which serves only to associate three (of many) items in a not-very-important book with the book. Everything useful this template does (and more) is also done by the wikilinks in the "contents" section of the book article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 11 June 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 WHS 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) 23:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in two articles and can be replaced with Template:Infobox school Elekhh (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of another school template. The parameters are even the same, so I just changed the "WHS" to "school" and the template still works the same (so now an orphaned template). Could qualify as speedy delete? Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 13 June 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:UploadedVP 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 no longer needed as the project it was used for has been discontinued. -- Selket Talk 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Un-used template of a project that was shut down following an MFD in December 2010 Acather96 (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Project shut down. All of these should probably be nominated under one.Curb Chain (talk) 13:30, 12 June 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:PromotedVPC 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 no longer needed as the project it was used for has been discontinued. -- Selket Talk 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Un-used template of a project that was shut down following an MFD in December 2010 Acather96 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 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:VPCnom 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 no longer needed as the project it was used for has been discontinued. -- Selket Talk 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Un-used template of a project that was shut down following an MFD in December 2010. Acather96 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 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:VPC 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 no longer needed as the project it was used for has been discontinued. -- Selket Talk 22:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virtually un-used template of a project that was shut down following an MFD in December 2010 Acather96 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 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:Kings Quest fan series 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kings Quest fan series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles in the template except one (The Silver Lining (video game)) are either merged or redirected Mika1h (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mika1h (talk) 02:06, 11 June 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:Gurren Lagann 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) 04:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gurren Lagann (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk) 04:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template links five articles, not four. Calathan (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep NavBox seems useful here as not everything is confined to one article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking back at this template I am seeing that everything is linked already through articles allright. the article for Simon threw me off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (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) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it meets the rule of 5 but everything is sufficiently interlinked otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:52, 11 June 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 Archery event 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 Votes for keep gave no reason why the specialized template is superior. -- Selket Talk 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archery event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

was only used once, and easily replaced by template:infobox sport event (see [1]). Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- The template was created for the World Archery Championships, and so from now on will be used on those articles. The template is down to the point as used to distinguish archery from other sports. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- archery coverage is relatively weak on Wikipedia, so I pretty much started the template and, in the future it would be used as well. Please take a look at all the archery world championships and see which ones have articles, the 2011 version is the only one. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What fields are missing from {{Infobox sport event}} that are included in {{Infobox Archery event}}? We typically try to use the more generic templates whenever possible (e.g., {{Infobox sportsperson}} rather than {{Infobox archer}}). I believe we can accommodate any necessary parameters, and should look into merging other {{Infobox foo event}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:07, 12 June 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_June_11&oldid=1146678914"