Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16 edit

Template:The Linux Game Tome 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) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Linux Game Tome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sadly, the Linux Game Tome shut down last April and all links produced by this template are dead. Let's remove the template before someone hijacks the domain. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, I temporarily fixed it by switching it to used an archived link, but the information provided is fairly low value, so it would be better to just delete the links. Frietjes (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2013 (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:Urdu numeral 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 Keep. (NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urdu numeral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaces Urdu numerals with images, completely unnecessarily. Like all other non-Latin scripts some users may have trouble viewing Urdu, but the solution is for them to switch/update their browser or OS, or install fonts in their current one. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Well, here at en.wiki, English readers may be interested in knowing just the shape of the numerals, and forcing them to install fonts for the purpose is not ok... This template is only used to provide sample numerals. Nowhere are the numerals themselves necessary. Here, the problem is that Persian and Urdu have different numerals, but Unicode doesn't assign different code points for them. The only way is to apply Urdu fonts on Persian numerals to render them as they should be in Urdu. And I repeat, sample numerals are needed, so if images serve the purpose better, there should not be a problem. ULS can solve the problem, but a reader with default settings will not see any difference in Persian and Urdu numerals.
    E.g., here:
Western Arabic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eastern Arabic ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩
Perso-Arabic variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹
Pakistani variant                    

If the numerals themselves are used:

Western Arabic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eastern Arabic ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩
Perso-Arabic variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹
Pakistani variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹

There will be no difference in the last two rows for the normal reader. (Which sould be there... Note the digits 4, 6 and 7. Urdu digit 4 is different from both Arabic and Persian. The 6 is similar to the Arabic one, but with a deeper groove. The 7 is more like the English less-than sign ‘<’, than the English ‘V’.) Hope I am clear. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Template is only used on reference articles, where it would be unreasonable to insist on the user installing fonts for this handful of articles. In any case, the template is necessary, as pointed out by Wamiq above, to allow for the lack of different Unicode code points for Persian and Urdu numerals. --NSH002 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been insisting on users 'installing fonts' for a number of years, to view the many non-Latin scripts used on en.wp, such as Chinese. I accept there may be a problem though with the availability of distinct numerals within Unicode, but I would hope for a better solution; based perhaps on the text being marked by the {{lang}} template. What is ULS and how could it solve the problem?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could get it them work by adding the following to my CSS: span[lang|=ur] { font-family: Urdu Naskh Asiatype; } I already had the font installed. The following table then works for me:

Western Arabic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eastern Arabic ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩
Perso-Arabic variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹
Pakistani variant ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩

And this is them done without the {{lang}} template:

٩ ٨ ٧ ٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١ ٠

--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Sigh* I knew this already... I tried a similar thing here That is a different case, but admins will not add lines like these to the mediawiki commons. And the Universal Language Selector can fix this, but I don't know how to get it done. It had been a case with Arabic recently, where all Arabic text was displayed in Amiri by default by using {{lang}}. I don't know how they pulled this off. If this can be done for Urdu digits too (by rendering any of the Arabic or the Persian numerals into Urdu fonts) this would really be nice. But the problem still remains; iPads, iPhones, and the like, do not support web fonts and they don't have any native Urdu font either, (and there's no way to manually add new fonts) so only images work best there. The only mobile OS which has a native Urdu font in it by default is Win Phone 8. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 05:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the discussion I've linked to, above: Urdu has another problem, too. Urdu shares the same letters with Arabic and Persian, with a few extended alphabets, but the shared letters vary in their shape when written in either of the three languages. Unicode again encodes just the Arabic one. What I currently do to resolve this is use {{lang|ur|{{nq|...}}}} to force Nastaliq fonts on the reader. Install any of the fonts in {{nq}} and check out this:
Western Arabic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eastern Arabic ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩
Perso-Arabic variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹
Pakistani variant ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹

But again, this works natively for only Win 8/8.1 or Win Phone 8. Other mobile OS's don't support this. For other Desktop OS's you need to install a font first. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 05:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's clear there's a problem the template addresses. The template's solution may not be the best one but deleting the template is not a fix either. If there is a solution it's possibly outside the scope of this template and so this discussion. Because of this I'd like to withdraw the TfD nomination, and as no-one else has supported deletion can this please be speedily closed as keep. Thanks.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:10, 17 December 2013 (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 drug/Metformin 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) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox drug/Metformin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused hard-coded infobox. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (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:Assaf Bernstein 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) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assaf Bernstein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator...William 16:17, 16 December 2013 (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:Leonid Prudovsky 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) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leonid Prudovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator...William 16:17, 16 December 2013 (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:Ayelet Menahemi 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) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ayelet Menahemi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator...William 16:17, 16 December 2013 (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 web browser 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 Keep. (NAC) No consensus to merge or delete. Fleet Command (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox web browser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It can be merged with Template:Infobox software or become a wrapper. Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that should work fine. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi. They sure are similar enough but I shiver to think I must start reverting people who disruptively abuse |included with=. They can already change infobox name too and do the same but they haven't thought of do that yet. And {{Infobox software}}'s code is more cluttered. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa do you suggest that we simplify {{Infobox software}}'s code? If it possible I would support that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If any of my concerns were strong enough, I'd have said keep or merge already. But they aren't and I don't know. You see, keeping them separate won't be bad because we can improve, change or spin off {{Infobox web browser}} further and have a different level of protection on it without risking impact on those one million (?) software articles. As for merging them, it is also easy, so I won't feel strongly about it. It is not like that {{Infobox OS}} fiasco. (I trust you know about it?) As for simplifying {{infobox software}}, that's a separate issue; I am looking into it already.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't have been forked in the first place. In the specific case of "included with", there's nothing browser-specific about software bundling: if this is seen as a sufficiently notable piece of comparative information for software applications then it should be in the parent infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Golly, aren't you just a little ray of sunshine? ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello, Chris. You summed up my fears very well. I shiver to think of an article about some advertising toolbar (say Google Toolbar) that adds 11999 article links to its |included with= parameter of the infobox, not realizing that the parameter is only for operating systems and devices. As you said, there is no sufficient Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of this template, it really wouldn't bother me one way or the other if this template is merged or is used as a wrapper for {{Infobox software}}, but there are a few things to keep in mind. This template was created per this discussion and related discussions on other talk pages because there are/were a lot of web browser articles and there had been discussion of adding other web browser specific parameters to a dedicated template. At first glance now, it looks like little of that was ever done and there are only two parameters in this template which are more web browser specific, the one I added, |engine= and Codename Lisa's later addition, |included with=. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other question I can see with the |engine= and |included with= parameters is should they be present in {{Infobox software}} itself? After thinking about it some more, I'm leaning more towards they idea that they should not be in {{Infobox software}} since that template is much more widely used for articles about general purpose software, and we've already had a lot of trouble with trying to keep its usage constant where editors would misuse its other other parameters. I also suspect that a discussion on that template's talk page would reject adding these two parameters to that template, so that is probably going to leave the option of converting {{Infobox web browser}} into a wrapper and adding support to {{Infobox software}} so it can somehow support additional display elements. The challenge with this will be trying to figure out how best to order and display extra elements with {{Infobox software}}... --Tothwolf (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. The problem with this approach is that whatever is exposed in in {{Infobox software}} is exposed to all articles. After hearing you and Chris, I am going for definite "No". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per nom. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris Cunningham and Tothwolf. This is a more specialized version of {{Infobox software}} and |engine= and |included with= should specifically not be in {{Infobox software}}. On the other hand, implementing a wrapper-wrapped relationship as Tothwolf suggests, is neither Merge, nor Redirect; it is the act of changing both template's structures. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons provided. We shouldn't delete a template just because someone decides that they want to abuse a part of it. Besides, the Web Browser Template is different, and the articles have their own needs that the other templates can't provide. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do we have separate InfoBox Templates for other types of applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, and slideshow presentation programs? If yes, keep. If no, merge to InfoBox Software. The important thing is that types of application software, whether Web browsers or anything else, are consistent in terms of the InfoBoxes for them. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the old "other stuff exists" discussion disguising itself as a question. We will have separate templates for separate things when we have a reason strong enough to do so. Types of application software has zero significance here while not encouraging undesirable contents has a huge significance. We still have not forgotten the |frequently_updated= parameter that was recurrently set to yes, without regard to what it actually did. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The parameters |engine= and |included with= can be added to software, as they could be used in articles about non-browser software as well. To answer Willstro, we do have separate infoboxes for computer viruses and operating systems, but not for word processors and the like.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2013 (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:Microsoft 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 Withdrawn by nominator. The template has changed a lot since the nomination; its contents has been trimmed as most of the people here suggest. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This gargantuan navbox accomplishes little besides link bombardment by the pretext of connecting irrelevant articles such as Raymond Gilmartin to Halo (series). Somehow this template is assuming to burden the load of categories and portals of Wikipedia too. We already have a fleet of 21 navboxes for connecting Microsoft subjects that can easily replace this navbox, including:

Note that we do not have edit consensus in favor of such gargantuan navboxes. For instance, there is no such thing as an infobox connecting the video games of all studios of Activision Blizzard. (That'd still have the benefit of being relevant, since all of them would be video games.) Codename Lisa (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If we do get rid of this, it should after being removed from articles, be converted to a documentation template, that links the various templates together with a template link to each template, and this appearing on doc pages. Thus it would become a navbox between templates. If this is kept, then a template of this sort should be created. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Already done See Template:Microsoft/doc. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's not a template, that's a doc page. Instead, it should be a template. And if you delete this template, that doc page will also disappear. Such a doc page would not necessarily be shared by all Microsoft templates, since some of them will require proper documentation instead of a list of other templates. -- 65.94.77.150 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, you are using {{not done}} template wrong. Using it that way means you have intervened and prevented this thing from being done; while all you are trying to says is it is not done yewt.
Second, no, that doc page won't disappear with the deletion of the template unless an admin deliberately delete it in a separate act. Not going to happen.
Third, that page is a template (see its Template: prefix), we can rename, move or customize it as we see fit. You just tell me exactly how you want it done and how should it look like. But again, not here; maybe in my talk page or the talk page of Template talk:Microsoft/doc.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well. That's taken care of. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first thing I did on this page was go to the bottom look at this template to find the page most relevant to what I was looking for over having to read the whole article. I did find Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc what I was looking for. Useful template. -- Moxy (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if trimmed: It has been standard practice for major corporations to have navigation boxes, but I think this needs to be trimmed down to meet standards (as opposed to your suggestion of nuking the whole thing). It should focus solely on corporate aspects of the company, and only contain links to articles describing the company's major product lines and divisions, as opposed to the unified mess that this has become. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I know about the standard practice and its usefulness but I thought perhaps {{Microsoft executives}} is enough. Nevertheless, your sense of judgment for what to keep is great. Maybe we should merge these two because they'd have a large degree of overlap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2013 (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) 01:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined towards feeling that we still need a high-level navbox for Microsoft. While to insiders and software professionals the company's many different (infamously competitive) divisions feel like different companies, for a general reader it does indeed serve a purpose to have a quick navigational tool across the entire range. We shouldn't force all such readers to have to go through Microsoft as an intermediate portal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A high-level navbox for all of Microsoft is useful and serves as an index to all the topics you've listed above. Trim it down and keep it around. Zachlipton (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim severely per ViperSnake151 - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2013 (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:MG 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) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MG/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 1#Template:MG

It claims to assign a 'designated' maintenance group to an article/template, but WP has no way of designating such groups. There's only one group, {{MG/1}}, with only one member, who has added this to many templates, even ones he/she has made no contribution to. Editors can check the template history for past contributors, or post to the talk page for those actively watching it. The page views for {{MG/1}} are less than one a day, so it's being ignored anyway. It serves no useful purpose and should be deleted. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This template is used on thousands of templates as a means of providing novice users with assistance should they need it. This template has been previously discussed in several forums. It has no nefarious use. If this template only helps a few dozen users, I believe it has merit.  Buaidh  19:59, 2 December 2013 (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) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is buried somewhere deep in template coding, being transcluded by inheritance, so absolutely nothing to do with a group maintaining them since they don't necessarily maintain all subsequent derivations, and we already have {{maintained}}. There is no link to the maintenance groups so this is a very unhelpful template that's supposed to be helpful. If there's no maintenance group to access, it's a fairly useless and hidden template. There's no visual display so no novice user can see it. That it's buried into {{uir}} and transcluded by inheritance makes it stuck onto many templates without showing up as being maintained in the template code itself, thus not indicating anything to people editing {{User in X}}. Such templates should be directly transcluded into every template that is maintained and not inherited. There seems to be only one person and one maintenance group, that is the creator's, User:Buaidh, (as indicated in {{MG/1}}) so this appears to be a personal template to tag templates ad infinitum, since it's an inherited transclusion. Rather Buaidh (talk · contribs) should just tag the templates he wants to maintain with {{maintained}} -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may be better keeping this if only to serve as a convenient tracking tool for the years-long operation to unravel the author's tendency for overengineered, obscurely-named and excessively intertwined utility templates (a brief history of deleted examples). This template is, of course, a prime example: a two-letter name, a single user, and only used to link between his own templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't even link between his own templates, since it's being inherited by subsequent uses of his base templates into templates other people make. (such as the derivations of UIR) It should be cut out of being inherited when derived templates make use of one of his base templates, if it is kept at all. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (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/2013_December_16&oldid=1083550895"