Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 21

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

May 21 edit

Template:Penshootoutbox 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) 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 21 May 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:Image stack 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) 22:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image stack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and superseded. ~50 transclusions can be fixed with AWB. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 21 May 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:Nikita 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 Modify to remove cast and include links to films, which Matthew has now done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating this for deletion because it is a redundant, non-notable template. There are so far only three articles on the topic (the show, the characters, and the episodes) There are characters in the templates, but they all just redirect to the main characters article. Besides each character is the name of the actors who plays them, but there were past consensuses here and here against the inclusion of cast and crew links. -- Matthew RD 02:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make Nikita wide (i.e. include the films and La Femme Nikita) and it might be a useful navbox. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • I wouldn't object to that. -- Matthew RD 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This template is basically nothing but List of Nikita characters repeated again and again and again, each time piped to someone's name. The problem is that each name in that article only has a single short paragraph of description. (I daresay the List of Nikita characters article may be safely merged with Nikita (TV series).) In Wikipedia, the aim of a navbox is to help ease navigation of readers amongst articles; but this navbox only makes it inconvenient. Fleet Command (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cover every variant of La Femme Nikita, and rename to template:La Femme Nakita. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 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) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to template:La Femme Nakita, and add films. Cast should probably not be in there. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I wish to withdraw the nomination, as I have just made an edit to it including La Femme Nikita and the two films. Also, I disagree the template should be renamed to "La Femme Nikita", the original movie, was just called Nikita. -- Matthew RD 21:46, 30 May 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:Philippine English 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion. According to the article, this English variety is substantially similar to AmE, so I don't see the need for this edit notice--many of the differences are in the vernacular, anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Philippine English, while it may look like American English does significant differences, not just on the vernacular. Examples are the use of "railway" (BrE) vs. "railroad" (AmE), the use of the serial comma and pluralization. Problem of transclusion is pretty easy to deal with. Plus, it's quite useful on the only article it is currently being used, as there had been a discussion on what type of English (Hong Kong vs. Philippine) to use. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from that article, it seems like there should be a {{Hong Kong English}} template be created. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and popularize. It seems to be gaining popularity already: by now there are 3 transclusions. --Deryck C. 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and popularize. Now there are 6 transclusions. mabdul 10:55, 6 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:Round8-with third-waiting 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 Userfy. If a substantial need arises, it can always be moved back, and rediscussed based on its merits.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round8-with third-waiting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used by any tournament article. Should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to creator's space. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC):[reply]
As the creator of this template, i can just explain that, it's true, it is not used in article. But he can be a short time (7 months) every 4 years in 2 articles very seen . As you can see in it's discussion page, in a football european championship, it should be used when all the teams in a group are known (december, Year Y-1) until the quarter finals (mid-june of Year Y) then replaced with other template. So outside this period of time, it's not used... It's because word cup article is seen by lot of people meanwhile this time. A similar template exists for Football World cup articles (with one round more) here. I won't vote. Khardan (talk) 18:21, 11 May 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) 23:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The template's waiting cell just seems something for decorative purposes. It is nothing the reader doesn't already know. --MicroX (talk) 02:41, 22 May 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:Round8-waiting 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 Userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round8-waiting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not used in any tournament article. Useless template should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to creator's space. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 11 May 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) 23:36, 21 May 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:Non-administrator observation 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-administrator observation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template almost exclusively serves to reinforce the erroneous and harmful view that the opinions of administrators are qualitatively different from and more important that those of non-administrators; it is harmful to the community. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any suggestions regarding where I should place notifications about this TfD? It's most used on pages like AN and ANI but I'm not sure it's appropriate to place a notice on those pages. Maybe it would be ok to place a notice on their Talk pages...? ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's excellent reasoning. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it should be emphasized that being an admin is WP:NOBIGDEAL, there are some areas, such as WP:AN and WP:ANI, where non-admin commentary should be denoted as such. Doing so helps reduce confusion over who may or may not be able to perform certain actions, and who is or is not simply contributing (hopefully, in a constructive way) to the discussion at hand. Not having that flag available may have a chilling effect on editors who wish to contribute to a discussion that some may perceive to be the exclusive domain of admins. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concern that those discussions are not the exclusive domain of administrators. But I disagree that we need to single out non-admins with a special template as it's simply not relevant in most cases who is and is not an admin. I contend that such a practice in fact has the chilling effect we both want to avoid. ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It helps sort out who can perform certain actions and who cannot, so an user knows not to ask a non-admin users to block a certain user because they saw them in an admin-related discussion and thought they where an admin. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 05:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is used on WP:AN/I and WP:AIV to show that an editor is not an administrator. This is important to guarantee transparency on the boards. Those threads are for getting admins attention; if some random person shows up and says "Sure, I'll take care of that", the problem doesn't get solved... ever. For those speeding through the page, it shows that an editor may not be experienced in administrative matters. They may not have valid policy points, or they probably haven't taken new admins school. Either way, knowing that one is not an admin on pages like that is important for understanding their position and judging them; if an editor is not an admin, they aren't likely to get bitten if they say something that previous consensus has decided doesn't apply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Thank you for making my point for me. ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tasks like WP:UAA and WP:RFPERM are normally taken care of by one administrator. If someone asks a question or starts a discussion, their admin status is highly relevant, because such an issue is normally left open until a consensus is reached by all involved administrators. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great example of the damage caused by this template and its use. UAA should NOT be ruled solely by the consensus of administrators; it only exists primarily because only admins have the tools to act on the requests and not because their judgment is any different or better than non-admin editors. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 20 May 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 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fully agree that the opinions of admins and non-admins are of equal worth - however in areas such as WP:PERM where only an admin can make any valid positive action it's probably handy. Frankly I see enough "non-admin comment" bits hanging on to the front of very useful commentary that it seems to me this serves a purpose (as a made up example - Non admin comment - user has 800 edits, no block log, proficient with Twinkle would give me both comfort of an aditional opinion and a reason why the person commenting has not taken action). Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I use it a lot, and User:Feezo encouraged me to use it. It is helpful in many pages in which administrators are everywhere. --Σ ☭★ 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Pedro. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm very sympathetic to the rationale behind the nomination. I never use it myself (I prefer my comments to be judged on their own merit), but some non-admins are more comfortable tagging their comments that way, so more power to 'em. 28bytes (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it shouldn't be encouraged. ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. In fact, if you wanted to include some language to that effect in the template documentation, I would strongly support that. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Methinks WP:SNOW. See? It even works here! --Σ ☭★ 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I hate to dignify this pointy comment with a response, I have to ask: Why the hell does it matter if you're an admin or not? ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess you haven't actually read WP:POINT ElKevbo, or at least if you have you need to read it again? Σ is make a point and not a point. The blue link is about disruptive points, which this is not. I really do get frustrated when people link to essays and guidelines only because the title sounds correct. Pedro :  Chat  19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've ridiculously updated it. So it applies to more situations where user rights of power make a real difference. --Σ ☭★ 22:45, 26 May 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:Tiffany Giardina 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) 01:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tiffany Giardina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template consists of two wikilinks, the artist and an album, and since the two articles already link to each other, it makes this template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 20:31, 21 May 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:O 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, although a redirect to {{•}} might be useful. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template was created to insert a spaceless bullet and used in only two pages for the French abbreviation No, for which which the character is thoroughly inappropriate (it should be a superscript o or a degree symbol, and so these uses have been replaced). Circéus (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there anyway you can prove this? If true, Delete.Curb Chain (talk) 11:47, 27 May 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_May_21&oldid=1138695374"