Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13 edit

Template:Update 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Update (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Out of date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Update with Template:Out of date.
Both of these templates say essentially the same thing and have the same use. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 20:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—not going to !vote either way at this point, but from what I understand {{Out of date}} is a stronger version of {{Update}}, so they are not the same. The question is, do we need numerous "levels of strength" for cleanup templates. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of whether we need levels of strength as Ynhockey proposes above, there is no need for two such templates. I support the merge of similar templates in general and these two templates are very similar. Whichever template is more used should be the primary template - probably Update. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've understood "Update" to mean there was new information to be added, like the next in a succession of officials, and "Out of date" to mean the material was fro obsolete sources. But I have never remembered which was which, & in practice I think I may have used them as random. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I would say that "out of date" is for articles where the factual accuracy is out of date (like claiming that Piltdown Man is a true human evolution fossil, which it was claimed to be until found to be a fraud ; or claiming the president of the US is Ronald Reagan) or using the wrong tense (will be, is , instead of was) and that "update" is for articles where it is not wrong due to new information, but just missing newer information (such as having the leadup to an election, but missing the election results, or having the history of an event up to 3 years ago, and nothing newer); I can see that "out of date" can be treated as a special case of "update" though. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They are essentially redundant, and we really don't need levels of strength. Consider that no other templates (except user warning templates) have levels of strength. The IP above me does have a valid argument; however, they are still very, very similar, and Wikipedia needs to have up-to-date information regardless. Having multiple templates here just creates confusion for both readers and editors. --HGK745 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Update}} is basically a temporal equivalent of {{expand}}: it's for when an article is missing detail. {{Out of date}} is specifically about cases where articles are factually wrong because the information in them has been superseded. I'm not sure if a merge is appropriate here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Update}} is for articles where new information is missing. {{out of date}}, on the other hand, is for articles where new information renders the article incorrect. "update" is more similar to {{incomplete}}, except it is more specific that new information is what makes the article incomplete.—Bagumba (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging is OK, as long as "Update" is kept as a choice. It is a word that one would naturally use if the info is out of date. It can be used by any editor who doesn't really know if there is actually such a template but writes the word between double brackets, as I have just done with Birobidzhan Jewish National University, to see what happens. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for merge - I note that the templates place the articles into different cleanup queues. That would need to be addressed. I appreciate the distinction that Thumperward has identified and can undertand it, but it seems like a rather fine distinction that would be lost on the majority of editors. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not such a difficult distinction when properly presented. I'd argue that both templates should be rewords (and possibly renamed) to clarify this. I think a merge causes problems because these are fundamentally two quite different tasks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but add an inaccurate=yes switch that would put the page in a higher-priority category. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree with Ego White Tray. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ego White Tray. I currently use the "Update" template on my userpage. It would be bizarre to say that "this userpage's factual accuracy may be compromised"... and I can easily envision other scenarios where the current wording would be better suited to the actual condition of the page. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ego White Tray's idea. If the only difference between the templates is whether the article is rendered inaccurate, then a simple switch would be the best solution. Shirudo talk 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect {{Update}} to {{Out of date}}. By my understanding there is no consistent use of these templates in practice and quite often they are used as synonyms without distinction mentioned above. Beagel (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I oppose Beagel's suggestion, since "out of date" is a special case of "update", and not the other way around. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with IP that "out of date" is a subset of "update", as not all articles with "update" are factually incorrect due to stale information; they are just incomplete. The fact that some editors misuse the two does should not render the banning of all proper uses.—Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Merge. Ya see Template:Update means the article needs to be updated with more information and cleanup, while Template:Out of date just means the info means updating. --187.126.187.228 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (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:Menswear (band) 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Menswear (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a useful template: only used in one article, and even there it's not very useful, as it only contains two actual links, and the information is all in the article already. Robofish (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navigation template that doesn't help navigation in any way. One of the actual links is already linked in the article, and the other one (List of Britpop musicians) would work better as a "see also" link. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robofish and Jafeluv. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not useful for navigation, and the only 2 bluelinks are entries more suited to a see also section.-- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2012 (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:Banks established before 1800 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) 21:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banks established before 1800 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This would do better as a category, rather than cluttering up each bank article with it. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not everything needs a navbox. I don't see why these are grouped like this, and why one would be navigating between them. I'm not even sure why being established before 1800 is in any way significant. As far as I can tell, the articles don't discuss this attribute of the banks. And even if there is significance, the material would be better served as a list article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better as a category rather than a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
move to a catLihaas (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems pretty absurd why the line was drawn here: what makes banks established before 1800 so important that it requires a template? They could exist as "Banks established in the 18th Century". --Pudeo' 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why was the line for Template:50 largest US banks drawn at 50? The line here was drawn at 1800 because there is exactly 1 bank established in the 15th century, exactly 1 bank established in the 16th century and a small number of banks established in the 17th and 18th centuries, fitting perfectly within one template (as opposed to the 19th and 20th centuries, with a large number of banks etablished). They could not exist as "Banks established in the 18th Century" because it's not a template for banks established in the 18th century; having different templates for the 15th (1 bank), 16th (1 bank), 17th centuries (7 banks) makes absolutely no sense. Also, familiarising oneself with the existing category system could be an advantage before voting to "move" a template to a new category, as we already have categories for every year (Category:Banks by year of establishment). These categories that also cover defunct banks do not provide the overview that this template for existing banks does because they are too fragmented, often with only one article per category in 230 subcategories. Templates are independent of the category system and we often have both templates and categories. Vanasan (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (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:Banks established in the 19th century 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) 21:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banks established in the 19th century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This would do better as a category, rather than cluttering up each bank article with it. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it becomes too large, it could be divided in two for example (banks established 1800-1850). Vanasan (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposal to make it a category rather than a template. There are surely too many of them and they only share the period of foundation. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be a category because of precedent and because there is not a usual motive for wanting information presented this way in an article. Without an unusual rationale for keeping this it should go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not everything needs a navbox. I don't see why these are grouped like this, and why one would be navigating between them. I'm not even sure why being established in the 19th century is in any way significant. As far as I can tell, the articles don't discuss this attribute of the banks. And even if there is significance, the material would be better served as a list article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

move to a catLihaas (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fits well as a category, I can't see any need for a template here. More categories for every century should be created in that case. --Pudeo' 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than cluttering up the category system by creating a redunant category (we already have the highly fragmented Category:Banks by year of establishment with its 230 subcategories covering existing and defunct banks), the template should be retained as it provides a much better overview. Templates are independent of the category system and we often have both templates and categories. Vanasan (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2012 (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:Everybody Dance Now 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) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Everybody Dance Now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does this really need a navbox? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:The show has been axed - the links can easily be integrated into their respective articles. Reubot (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There won't be any expansion of this template given the show is cancelled. I don't see that the links themselves in the template are so strongly related to the show that navigation between them is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Reubot and Whpq. I've changed my mind because the show has been cancelled. Oz talk 20:40, 21 August 2012 (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:Super rugby squad start 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) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super rugby squad start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Super rugby finals system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (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:Cizersj 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 delete per WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Three of the four blue links redirect to Cizer, so it doesn't actually provide any navigation. Was removed from Cizer on 21 May 2012. DH85868993 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2012 (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:Start River Line box 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) 21:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start River Line box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{s-rail|title=River Line (New Jersey Transit)}}. DH85868993 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. ----DanTD 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
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 Local Politician 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) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Local Politician (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (apart from transcluding itself, generating a template loop). DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused and not needed given that we have Infobox officeholder -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2012 (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:Start Sheffield Supertram box 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) 21:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start Sheffield Supertram box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{s-rail|title=Stagecoach Supertram}}. DH85868993 (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can you show me an example of a Stagecoach Supertram station article using such a template? It's not that I don't believe you about the redundancy, I just want to see an example of an article using the current article using the existing template. ----DanTD 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sheffield station. DH85868993 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Delete. ----DanTD 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
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:Nowhere tracks 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) 21:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nowhere tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one track has an article. Easy navigation to Nowhere (album) which contains full track list; the navbox {{Ride}} seems to be a better choice here. I believe these are better when multiple (or nearly all) songs on the album have articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Navbox that isn't useful for navigation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2012 (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/2012_August_13&oldid=1138695781"