Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10 edit

Template:Bible book 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) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bible book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivial internal link template. Substitute and delete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:19, 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:Arbic actors 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, if the author would like to have it userfied as a translation template, we can do that as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arbic actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox with Arabic parameter names. {{Infobox actor}} is significantly better. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: perhaps it's meant to be used to "translate" templates from the Arabic wikipedia? That would explain why it's orphaned.--LK (talk) 13:20, 16 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:Wikisaurus 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 after replacement. I replaced it with {{wiktionary pipe}} in the "placeholder name" article. Feel free to add a parameter to {{wiktionary pipe}} or to {{wiktionary}} if you think it would be useful to add verbiage to indicate the entry is in the Wikisaurus namespace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that's a bit overkill. For all who don't know what the Wikisaurus namespace is: It's a Wiktionary namespace that contains a list of words of the same family. It's pretty informative, and I myself love to read it, but it's too much really to make direct links from Wikipedia into that deep. We should restrict on simple links to the Wiktionary entries. If people want to go further, that's Wiktionary's job to set links to Wikisaurus. Keeping this template would be like asking Wiktionary to set links to our portals or book pages. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. We have enough problems with people adding every single possible synonym to descriptions in articles here without adding a template so that they can be pointed to even more of them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, and more so per Thumperward, but insert witty comment about the "extinction of the Wikisaurus" here. MSJapan (talk)
  • Weak delete — WikiSaurus is almost a sister project by itself, but if people want this, it might be better handled by a parameter passed to {{wiktionary}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason not to link to areas of sister projects. Many articles link to Wiktionary categories and indexes, and there is no reason not to link to Wikipedia portals from relevant Wiktionary pages. (ATM, English Wiktionary doesn't have any relevant pages to link from, but the French Wiktionary does have portals of their own, and they do link to French Wikipedia portals. Likewise, I would assume that if English Wiktionary starts to have portals, they would link to relevant Wikipedia portals and the Wikipedia portals would link back.) This particular template is only used where lists of relevant words would be helpful, such as the article Placeholder name. --Yair rand (talk) 18:19, 21 August 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) 02:35, 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:1994 PTS TOC 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. Discussion seems to have died with the relist two weeks ago, and it had no no agreement at that time about whether these custom TOCs were desirable or not, and if not what the best solution is. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1994 PTS TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete ??? Special TOC for the 1994 Pacific typhoon season. No other season has custom TOCs (see below), and I don't see any reason why this practice should begin with the 1994 season. If navigation is desired, {{1994 Pacific typhoon season buttons}} can be created (see {{1994 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} for model). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transclude/delete. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to have a template for only one usage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of templates have one time uses. See {{Infobox hydrogen}} for example. However the debate should be on having custom TOCs or use the default TOCs. If custom TOCs are fine, they should be placed in a template for the reasons given below. If customs TOCs aren't fine, then they should be removed from articles, and the templates deleted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, these custom tables seem to be used in some places. If this is the case / has consensus amongst WPTC, then those custom tables should actually be moved to the template namespace. Along reducing clutter in the edit window, the custom TOCs are not excluded from print version of Wikipedia (PDFs amongst other things) and that creates tons of problems. If the TOC is moved in a template, then that template can be excluded (by placing it in Category:Exclude in print) and everything is peachy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh, mein Augen. This is a TOC? The table of contents has one purpose, which is getting people to click the section they want to read. If articles aren't organised in a way that makes using a normal TOC for this practical then the articles need rewritten. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a standard-issue TOC would cause a TOC that is a mile long and causes extensive whitespace near the top of the article. Floating TOCs are also out of the question due to the existence of floated tables near the top of the article; having a long floated TOC would cause narrow columns of text, which are unreadable. While the "rewrite the article" bit is a nice soundbite, it is not always feasible for articles listing multiple storms in detail, as this article does. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The root problem here is that we have a bunch of articles which, against all advice in the MoS, use one paragraph per section heading. Having a custom TOC only means that there's less impetus to fix the articles, and indeed the existence of such custom TOCs encourages people to edit future articles in ways which mean that regular TOCs can't cope with them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guide to layout has no restrictions on one-section paragraphs. In fact, the only advice it offers on section length states that "very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose," and a paragraph and a table per section do not constitute a very short subsection, IMO. In any case, this TFD is not the place to argue about a layout used in hundreds of articles, and which nobody in WP:FAC has even blinked about. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or reformat and substitute, or reformat like one of the Category:Pacific typhoon season button templates. This template is very wide, and could be merged with the timeline directly below, although that has wp:accessibility issues. In any case, we don't need to override the standard TOC. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 7 September 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) 02:33, 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:Infobox Australian Football League umpire 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 at {{Infobox Australian Football League biography}} like {{Infobox football biography}} and others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian Football League umpire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox AFL player  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian Football League umpire with Template:Infobox AFL player.
Redundant. Only used in four articles. Per prior decision to merge AFL player infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge at {{Infobox Australian Football League biography}}, with redirects. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 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) 02:25, 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:Infobox New Zealand school 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 or redirect after adding a WikiProject tag to talk pages, and converting all transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New Zealand school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

largely redundant to {{infobox school}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden category should be on talk pages, not on articles. That is another matter that needs to be rectified and is beyond the scope of Template For Discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page. Putting the template on talk pages will not allow the use of "Related changes" to pick up vandalism. It is not valid to say that something is outside the scope of discussion if it will clearly harm the encyclopedia.-gadfium 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject categories should never have been added to articlespace in the first place, let alone through templates. category:schools in New Zealand should already be on every page that this template is used on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories of this are in almost every such page. However, there are far more such subcategories than are appropriate to launch "related changes" pages for every time I check my watchlist. If there was an ability to view related changes to all pages within a subcategory tree, there would be much less of an issue here. There is a minor aspect, however, that a vandal or inexperienced editor may (and not all that infrequently does) blank the tail end of an article, removing all categories. Damage to an infobox tends to make the article more easily identified as being in a vandalised state.-gadfium 09:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the pages: Why are articles with this infobox the only template that has a hidden category violating WP:NSR exclusively for the sake of reverting vandalism?Curb Chain (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a few school articles on my watchlist and vandalism is certainly an issue for this content type. Often, Gadfium beats me to reverting vandalism, so the nationwide vandalism control does work. It seems non-sensible to remove a working vandalism mechanism. Schwede66 15:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infoboxes are not "vandalism mechanisms". If the New Zealand schools project wishes to use a template to track vandalism then they should consider creating one and getting consensus to deploy it, as a) every other part of the encyclopedia seems to get by without misusing infoboxes for this and b) it means that articles on New Zealand schools will not be hamstrung by having a suboptimal infobox to that used on articles on schools anywhere else in the world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are very keen to destroy an effective anti-vandalism mechanism. Please try to come up with an effective alternative mechanism. Adding all articles to my watchlist will not be a suitable replacement for two reasons: other editors may also use the wikiproject, and new school articles added often are based on a copy of an existing school article, which automatically includes the category. If you care about combating vandalism, please step up. Just being negative doesn't help.-gadfium 09:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is not on the wider encyclopedia to bend to the requirements of a single WikiProject. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This is a positive move which significantly improves the infobox used on articles on New Zealand schools by having them automatically pick up enhancements in the master template. In the process, it improves the conformance of said articles to our guidelines on categorisation by removing a category which doesn't belong in the main namespace (it's been separately nominated at CfD). I find it hard to believe that there is no effective approach to watching these pages other than misusing WikiProject categorisation because evidently everyone else on the encyclopedia manages to look after articles without such hacks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggested compromise. If we move the category to talk pages, via a yet to be created {{Wikiproject New Zealand schools}}, then the toolserver project wikiproject watchlist will generate a list of recent changes. In some ways this is not as effective as the present method, but it also has advantages since it can readily be used to filter edits and can also view changes to talk pages.-gadfium 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ideal. It's also how all other WikiProjects do it. I was rather surprised that Wikiproject New Zealand schools wasn't a formal WikiProject in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan, I'm installing the banners as we speak - set to null for now. You can also use a Femto Bot /recent changes page, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Recent changes. if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 17 September 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) 02:18, 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:Easton Corbin 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) 16:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Easton Corbin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One article short of the rule of five at WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:44, 2 September 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) 01:08, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_10&oldid=1078566008"