Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 10

< October 9	October 11 >

October 10 edit

Template:BARB UK viewing figures 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) 00:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BARB UK viewing figures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

data has not been updated since 2008, and seems like overly detailed to have a gallery of graphs like this. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 16 October 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:2009 flu pandemic in Asia 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) 00:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 flu pandemic in Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

mostly section anchor links, and redundant to the links in template:2009 flu pandemic. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{2009 flu pandemic}}. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 16 October 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:2009 flu pandemic world map 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) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 flu pandemic world map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to the group links in template:2009 flu pandemic. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{2009 flu pandemic}}. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:36, 16 October 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:Forest Park 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) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forest Park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

empty. Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion. Pointless and never had any content and "not employed in any useful fashion". Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:33, 14 October 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:Sclass- 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, but feel free to renominate it if a concrete merger proposal is developed (e.g., with an working example of a merged template). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sclass- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sclass2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

note; sclass2 is protected; ~~some admin should tag it.~~

This is a fork of template:sclass to instead use a hyphen per wp:ship's plan to rename ship classes to use hyphens. I'm not opposed to this but find it silly. Forking sclass is inappropriate. Before this is widely deployed it should be discussed. My thinking is that the proper path forward is an adjustment to sclass itself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note; sclass2 was added during this discussion due to being an additional fork of sclass. (note added 00:29, 12 October 2012‎ by Br'er Rabbit)

I agree. if the final state will be hyphenation, then just add a simple "ifexist" for the hyphen version, to link to it if it exists. this will allow for migration, without changing all the transclusions. once all the articles are renamed, then remove the ifexist logic. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is as simple as you say it is, get to work. If you can make {{sclass}} do its own work and the work of {{sclass2}} and {{sclass-}} without disrupting the thousands of articles that use these templates, please do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Editor Br'er Rabbit refers to this this RFC at WP:SHIPS. Finding something to be "silly" is not very persuasive. Editor Br'er Rabbit states that {{sclass-}} is inappropriate but fails to support that assertion. I am not opposed to discussion. I concur that in the best of all possible worlds, a transparent and easily implemented change to {{sclass}} would be the best. However, the time for that may have passed because {{sclass2}} is also a derivative of {{sclass}}. If {{sclass-}}'s functionality is to be included in {{sclass}}, then {{sclass2}}'s functionality must also be included at the same time.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forking templates like this is always inappropriate. I'd not seen sclass2; it's some slight tweak. yes, it should be merged back in, too. I'm adding it manually. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying the same thing, just more loudly. A louder, but still an unsupported, argument isn't any more convincing than when you said it the first time.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i could use <big>...</big> if you'd like ;) template forks die on this page quite regularly. get ready for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, this is the fork. a '-' and 2×{{strip whitespace}} due to your habit of tossing spaces around pipes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. There is no prohibition against the use of white space within a template. In reality, for these templates I almost never include white space around the pipe. I did in the documentation simply for clarity. The documentation is where editors learn about a template's function; forcing them to decode a cryptically run-on string of characters gives newcomers extra, unnecessary work to do.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For named parameters, the presence or absence of whitespace around the pipes is largely immaterial, since the MediaWiki template parser strips it; however for positional parameters it does make a difference, since the MediaWiki template parser preserves any whitespace before or after the parameter value. It's covered at Help:Template#Full syntax for transcluding and substituting. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I added {{strip whitespace}} to {{sclass-}}. Without it, any whitespace following the class name was inserted between the class name and "-class" in the link part of the template output:

{{sclass- |Example |scow}} created: [[Example -class scow|''Example'' -class scow]]

which makes for a red link because the article title doesn't have a space preceding the hyphen.

Thanks for that link.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just commenting on the other aspect of the diff than the '-'. I like whitespace, although I avoid it in inline templates that are intended to be short and wo/param-names. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread what you wrote. I've explained why I added the {{strip whitespace}} templates to {{sclass-}}. Your assertion that I did so because of my "habit of tossing spaces around pipes" is patently false.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some background on the hyphenation (at least as far as it directly concerned me), please see Template talk:Sclass#Edit request on 26 August 2012 (and this is also relevant). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the tfd-tag. i've not looked at exactly what sclass2 does differently; italics and another bit. i don't really care. i've pinged Chris about combining all of these; my concern is the forking (and the numeric parameter is editor-hostile). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because these templates are intended as typing shortcuts they are necessarily terse. It would be rather pointless to have a template that looked like this:

{{sclass |name=Example |type=scow |grammar=noun |italics=on |display=name,type |link=name |hyphen=on}} to produce this: [[Example-class scow |''Example'' class]]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not suggesting named-params; an enumeration would be better than a decimal representation of a binary set of flags, though. Stop flailing at every comment. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expand upon that, please. Is not the list of numbered parameters an enumeration? Were you thinking of {{HMS}} and similar templates when you wrote that "decimal representation of a binary set of flags" bit?

Do not tell me to be silent, please. As you can see, I won't be quiet.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just tried to add an {{sclass2}} template and the preview informs me it is being considered for deletion, so my response is, WTF?

The reason given is that it "is a fork of template:sclass to instead use a hyphen per wp:ship's plan to rename ship classes to use hyphens"(sic).

Just to be clear, this template isn’t a fork to add hyphens at all; it is necessary when the name to be used isn’t italicized, per WP:NCSHIP.

So (Br'er Rabbit) as you freely admit you don’t know what this template does, perhaps you should take the time to find out, and consider how this difference is to be accomplished without using this template, before deciding it needs to be deleted. Hmm? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading the rationale regarding {sclass-}, not {sclass2}; I said that it was about italics. It's a trivial fork of the main code and that is always inappropriate. Try reading the whole discussion before asking what-the-fuck, hmm? And '2' is really a wonderful indication of the intent of this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale I read (as opposed to what it says now you’ve changed it, applied to sclass2 as much as sclass-; and as the “main code” makes no provision at all for class names that don’t take italics, the sclass2 template is neither “trivial” nor “always inappropriate”

It is also mandated by the guideline at NCSHIPS (did you read it?) and at the sclass template (“This template is for ship classes that are named after the lead ship. For ship classes that are named for a common theme, such as the Flower-class corvette, use {{sclass2 instead.")

And deleting a template that is used on a couple of thousand articles, which’d then have to be individually replaced with a long link or a new template, that’s what I’d call silly.

So I am opposing this deletion for those reasons. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time Editor Br'er Rabbit offers the same unsupported argument. Perhaps if it's said often enough we will come to believe it?

I'm not convinced that forking templates is necessarily bad. The language of Wikipedia's templates is peculiar. I confess that I have put off learning the nuts and bolts of it because of its rather sparse and cryptic documentation, the failure of template editors to document their code, and of course, because of the astonishing number of curly braces that templates require but which hamper human readability.

Because the template language is this way, short, simple, relatively easily understood templates that perform one simple function would seem preferable to more complex templates. Simple templates are much easier to maintain; simple templates are less likely to have subtle peculiarities that are only revealed under limited conditions.

Were there a case to be made that limited storage space precluded the use of multiple simple single-function templates then perhaps proscribing forking would be in order. In the 21st century, that is not the case.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for template:sclass2. I can't believe how uninformed this debate is. If you don't understand why template:sclass2 and template:sclass are different, you should never have tagged it in the first place. As for template:sclass- and its forks, I care not. 2.102.149.140 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose whatever is going on here because it is making my eyes bleed (see Ballistic missile submarine). Please try to settle this in a manner that doesn't disrupt articles while debating, so that casual users can still enjoy reading Wikipedia. Krushia (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not at all convinced of the need to deleat this Template. See no reason for it also. It does serve a useful purpose in getting info quickly to those who need it. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 05:20, 13 October 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:Memoryalpha2 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) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memoryalpha2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was a test using a small infobox format for an old proposal back in 2007; the old proposal is at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis/old proposal, and the template was moved to Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis/old proposal/example leaving this cross-namespace redirect. No pages link to the nominated template. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis/old proposal/example should be marked as historical (once upon a time we had a huge discussion over whether to allow for external wikis to use the sisterlinks style, and consensus was against it); there's no need for a cross-namespace redir to it, as it's not ever going to be transcluded again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unused cross-namespace redirect. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 16 October 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:Majestic Pyre 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) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Majestic Pyre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Total nonsense; it's for the creator's personal use.

It's only used by the creator's user page; See "what links here". No reason to keep it in the "template" namespace. Teika kazura (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly valid userspace banner which happens to be in the wrong namespace. It isn't "total nonsense" by any stretch. It just needs userfied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the template to the creator's subpage, so it's ok to delete.--Teika kazura (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Why did you copy it, instead of moving it? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

history merge, now that it has been "copied". Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 16 October 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.