Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

Template:Ateneo Blue Eagles current roster

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator (closed by NAC) Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ateneo Blue Eagles current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three squads in one template? Is this vandalism or a template in need for a split? At least, a template should show one subject/theme and not three. The Banner _talk 23:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a genuine mistake. Editor has removed the nomination template AND the two misplaced teams. Situation is normal again, so: Request speedy close as keep (as nominator) The Banner _talk 10:38, 10 November 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:South Luzon Expressway

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) 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:South Luzon Expressway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is huge but only has links to provinces and towns thru which the expressway runs. To link these towns with this navbox is totally overkill, every town is connected to each other by roads. A good example that not everything needs a navbox. The other topics in the template are already discussed in the main article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as duplicative of South Luzon Expressway#Exits. These lists are normally placed in a road article (such as South Luzon Expressway) once, with a distance table in which {{jct}} is used to list each town in order of milestones or kilometre posts, end to end. The "transportation" section in individual town articles would then link to South Luzon Expressway as well as to any other roads, canals, railroads, airports or other transportation infrastructure in the area. The article on the road itself also seems to contain a bizarrely-excessive amount of detail about what type of ramps exist at each exit; normally we just want the milestone, name of the intersecting road, name of the town(s) served so exit 369 might get 369km Yonge Street: Toronto but we really don't care whether this is a full or half-clover offramp. K7L (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete that's what WP:RJL is for. --Rschen7754 23:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Rschen. Imzadi 1979 → 13:15, 11 November 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 Architecture Logicielle

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) 02:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Architecture Logicielle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary import from the fr wikipedia. here, pages like MathML use {{infobox file format}}, even for other standards that aren't files. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant and unused. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:52, 8 November 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:Wikitravelphrasebook

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) 02:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a advertisement for a commercial site which is currently threatening or engaged in vexatious litigation against one or more WMF volunteers. There are only four pages using this, and it should be scrapped per WP:NLT if not WP:ADV and WP:SPAM. WT is a direct competitor to a WMF project, Wikivoyage, so should find somewhere else to advertise their for-profit operation. There is also the problem that the WT wiki itself is filling with spam now that the admins which used to clean this up have left for Wikivoyage. K7L (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:SPAM. Definitely also worth deleting until at least the legal actions are resolved. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. –sumone10154^(talk) 19:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with links to the corresponding phrasebooks on Wikivoyage. Jpatokal (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Pending further action. As it is only used on 4 pages, it's no major loss if it is not replaced by a Wikivoyage link. Also, the Wikivoyage community has not decided what will happen to their phrasebooks, as cooperation with the language guides on Wikibooks is a possibility. JamesA ^>talk 07:11, 11 November 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:Wikitravelpress

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) 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a advertisement for a commercial site which is currently threatening or engaged in vexatious litigation against one or more WMF volunteers. It contains content which has been forked and now duplicates a proposed WMF sibling, Wikivoyage. We should not be advertising this for-profit corporation on Wikipedia, per WP:NLT if nothing else. This template is used only once or a token number of instances and should simply be scrapped. K7L (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:SPAM. Definitely also worth deleting until at least the legal actions are resolved. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above, although Wikitravel Press is not owned or operated by IB. –sumone10154^(talk) 19:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The rationale is incorrect -- WTP was not owned by Internet Brands -- but WTP Inc was dissolved on Jan 1, 2012 and the books are now obsolete, so the links should go too. Jpatokal (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - The company is dissolved, so the template is outdated. JamesA ^>talk 07:08, 11 November 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:Ruby-ja/noresize

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) 05:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ruby-ja/noresize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The manual of style for Japanese subjects has long forbidden the use of the "Ruby" style formatting due to browser issues, so this template should be useless entirely on this project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: At WP:MOS-JA, the line "Do not use the ruby tag to further annotate the kanji, as most browsers cannot display it properly" in my opinion is somewhat dated, since after all, it has not been altered for years. The latest versions of Internet Explorer and Google Chrome are well capable of displaying ruby text (these browsers have been capable for over a year now), and the sum of the market share of these two browsers are well into the majority. I think it is safe to say now that it is not the case that ruby text causes complications for the majority of readers. Even in the case where readers use a browser such as Opera which does not support ruby text, the template causes no disruption, since it then displays the text like so: "foo (bar)". This isn't really a !vote related to this TfD though, and it might be something that I need to bring up at the MoS talkpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I don't know what this template is attempting to do. All I can tell is that the output looks very bad as a result (inputs are scaled down from default font sizes and appears distorted from Kanji used in {{nihongo}}) and it doesn't appear to have any advantage over just typing Kanji (Furigana). Instead, it adds more key strokes to produce the same affect. —Farix (t | c) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "I don't know what this template is attempting to do." - It provides an alternative to {{ruby-ja}} without font resizing. "it doesn't appear to have any advantage over just typing Kanji (Furigana)" - I am assuming you are using the stable release channel of Mozilla Firefox, or Opera. I assure you, things look quite different if you use a different browser (pic related). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • So why use something that is so obviously broken in two of the major browsers? —Farix (t | c) 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Because it isn't "broken" - for those who use a browser which perfectly supports ruby, it displays the text optimally; for those who don't, it displays the text that isn't any more confusing or uncomfortable to read. It's not a "win-lose" situation, but more like a "win-meh" situation - it helps half of readers, and it doesn't help nor disrupt the other half. There is nothing lost or gained for those who use non-supporting browsers (it would just be like putting the ruby in (small text parentheses)), and for those who use Chrome or IE (which make up a giant percentage of market share), the reader obtains an additional boost in informative quality.
        Furthermore, as a comparison, Windows XP and earlier operating systems do not have out-of-the-box support for Tibetan, Mongolian and Yi text, and the writing scripts of many Indic scripts, yet we include them everywhere on Wikipedia where relevant - we include information that may be helpful for those who can use it, and might not be helpful for those who cannot, and in my opinion inclusion is non-disruptive and a better option than exclusion based on the argument that "some people can't use it". A certain number of readers won't be able to properly display (Tibetan: བསྟན་འཛིན་རྒྱ་མཚོ་), yet we don't even bat an eyelid to have it at the 14th Dalai Lama article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) It is quite broken and it doesn't produced the same affect as plain Kanji (Furigana). Also, those statistics are based on page views, not on the percentage of visitors who use which browsers. Based on the page you cited, Chrome is oversampled while Firefox and Opera are undersampled. As for IE, the statistics don't report which versions of IE is used. You cannot assume that all of them are using the latest version as there are still a lot of legacy IE installations, especially in school systems. Generally, you have to consider the "latest" version to be at least two version back. —Farix (t | c) 02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The ability to display a certain font (fixed by installing the fonts to the computer) and the inability of the most popular browsers to parse a series of ancient HTML tags are two different things.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Opera is popular? I thought it was a niche browser. IE has had ruby support since IE5.0 (source), which shipped with, what, Windows 98? IE and Chrome are the top two in regards to market share, ignoring version, and Chrome autoupdates by default unless you specifically tell it not to. The only ones left out are Safari and Android, which I haven't checked yet, and Firefox, which is only the case for the stable releases, and this is remedied by an add-on anyway. Finally, it isn't the end of the world if viewers don't see what we want them to see; just put a {{Ruby notice}} template on the page just as you would for {{Contains Tibetan text}} and viewers will know what's going on. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Before I installed the Firefox add-on, I found the parenthetical fallback ruby text to be extremely annoying for text longer than two characters, because it made both the characters and the gloss unreadable. That is one difference between ruby text and unsupported unicode text, which just displays blank boxes for itself. We cannot expect ordinary readers to install such add-ons or to switch browsers just to read ruby text on a miniscule number of Wikipedia articles. Using ruby text is not particularly easy to learn or rewarding when you do for writers of articles, either. It makes a lot of sense that the Japanese MOS does not support it, and I wish the Chinese MOS would discourage it, too. Shrigley (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• delete, unused and browser dependent. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is unused only after the nominator removed all transclusions prior to the nomination. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:19, 19 November 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:Cleanup-astrology

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) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-astrology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly-specialised and blurs the line between NPOV (which is a dispute, and should have talk discussion) and simple maintenance (tag and move on). Articles should use the standard dispute tag, which alerts readers to the seriousness of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't this be something that {{astrology project}} be used for? (such as "cleanup=yes" similar to "attention=yes") -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The template employs an issue/fix approach similar to {{cleanup-school}} and other standard cleanup templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Cleanup of specific subjects. As for the talk discussion, per WP:FRINGE/PS, astrology is a pseudoscientific theory. When an astrology topic is presented as science, the article should be changed per WP:PSCI so that the coverage does not convey acceptance by the scientific community in science behind astrology. For example, as noted at WP:PSCI, the article should not describe the two opposing viewpoints of scientific consensus and pseudoscientific theory as being equal to each other. Also as noted at WP:PSCI, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as being pseudoscientific. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • {{Cleanup-school}} covers a more nuanced set of problems and has a specific MOS sub-guideline associated with it. This one basically just says "this article presents pseudoscience uncritically", which is a more serious dispute than a mere cleanup tag. If indeed we wanted a cleanup tag for that particular issue, this template should be generalised to cover all pseudoscience and not just particular branches (lest it be repeatedly forked). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Using a standard dispute tag would be inappropriate because it is not a disputed issue. In other word, it isn't a matter of critically presenting in the Wikipedia article a dispute that some in the scientific community accept science behind astrology whereas others in the scientific community do not. The content policy WP:PSCI does not endorse Wikipedia articles conveying any acceptance in science behind astrology by the scientific community. The template now reads, "This astrology-related article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's content standards. The article's coverage astrology sources should be changed so that the coverage does not convey acceptance by the scientific community in science behind astrology." As for repeatedly forked, Astrology is the only pseudoscience specifically identified in WP:FRINGE/PS/Generally considered pseudoscience. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Template:Fringe_theories can be used to cover much the same ground. I'm not sure you are trying to argue that Astrology is the only pseudoscience; it was just used as an example; there are hundreds more. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Great catch: {{fringe theories}} is indeed the generalised case, and this template is mostly redundant to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to be unnecessary as it addresses just one specialty over WP:UNDUE that affects a wide range of fringe articles. Also, it turns out that this is already covered by {{fringe theories}}. Kooky2 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• delete per Kooky2 and others. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 19 November 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:ISSN-disclaimer

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) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:ISSN-disclaimer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single transclusion. This isn't such a serious issue that it warrants an articlespace tag: {{ISSN-needed}} should be modified so that it covers broken ISSNs as well as missing ones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that a single tag could be used that covers a variety of ISSN issues, like missing or potentially inaccurate ISSNs, wouldn't "ISSN-disclaimer" be the more appropriate name? --Saaga (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. {{Check ISSNs}} would work, but the exact name isn't really important: what is important is that the other template is presently deployed in the right namespace over a wider range of articles and as such it's the codebase that should be kept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• delete, no need for a disclaimer. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 19 November 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:Tech Issue

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) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Tech Issue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single transclusion. Technical issues are serious errors, and should be taken to WP:VPT or a similar noticeboard rather than flagged and forgotten. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As the creator, agree to delete. I could just put it under user request, but the one transfusion is what i'm worried about. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if there is a tech issue, shouldn't the page be flagged, while the issue is being sorted out? Just because it is reported to VPT doesn't mean it'll instantaneously get fixed or a workaround is handy to be immediately implemented. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't use disclaimers like that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 12 November 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:Largest cities of Hawaii

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) 01:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of Hawaii (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List consist mainly of "census-designated" cities, not real cities. The Banner _talk 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and it's fine with me as creator if you'd like to delete it. I think it's still a relevant table, though, seeing as nearly everybody who doesn't live in Honolulu lives in a CDP. These CDPs have 20,000+ people, so they're still significant population centers for an otherwise small state. It's just Hawaii's quirky division of municipalities--there are no incorporated cities outside of Honolulu. But to be honest, I'm not sure how to edit the template to have it note that #2-10 are CDPs and not cities. Perhaps if the template could be made clearer in that regard, it would be more accurate, so to speak. Any suggestions? Bs4173 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

With just two real cities, there is no need for a top 10. Census-designated cities are just inventions for statistical reasons. They don't have to represent any city-like geographic location. See for example: O'Briensbridge-Montpelier The Banner _talk 23:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your call on a deletion. Bs4173 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 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:Twitter trends

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) 01:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Twitter trends (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template makes a link to search for words in twitter.com, but such external link is not for wikipedia according to the policy WP:EL. It's transcluded only in three pages, so deletion is almost harmless. (Memo: they are Mankatha, Why This Kolaveri Di, and Bring Zack Back Home. I'll clean them up later.) Ahora (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:07, 8 November 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:Düsseldorfer EG roster

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) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Düsseldorfer EG roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User:WLinsmayer created this template in good faith when there has already been a template for this same thing for over a year and a half. The user should have moved the old template to the new designation instead of creating a new one. Please delete this duplicate. saint0wen (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as obvious duplication. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:27, 17 November 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.