Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7

< September 6	September 8 >

September 7 edit

Varieties of English templates 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 snow keep Bencherlite ^Talk 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Varieties of English templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:English variant notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These notice boxes don't inform you about how to make additions to the article to match the style that's used; they're only there to scare away those that might make silly orthographic changes. We don't need a show of nationalism (Hiberno, Scottish, Pakistani, Trinidadian.... should we have one for Lfdder English too?) to tell people that. And we don't need a banner that takes up the whole browser window horizontally and half of it vertically to tell people that, either. — Lfdder (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't fault you for boldness, given that the template has nearly 10,000 transclusions. The purpose of the template is essentially to remind editors of WP:ENGVAR, which is a weel-kent guideline (as might be said in Scots) and it is hard to see how the large number of ENGVAR issues, which form the subject of entire articles, could possibly be included in such a simple reminder. This isn't to say that the template couldn't be improved, but whilst ENGVAR remains in place it seems to me to perform an important function. I don't have such browser window problems so I can't comment on that. Finally, it's well known and understood that issues of nationalism and national identity are thorny ones, and although I don't think the templates offer a "show of nationalism" these can be tricky waters to negotiate. ~~In that vein can I respectfully point out that 'Paki' is generally considered to be a derogatory term in my part of the world and that you might consider modifying your above comment.~~ Ben Mac Dui 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to write the exact words as above, but I was beaten to it. Without a notice like this template, those "silly orthographic changes" could get so outta hand. (That's American for "so out of hand".) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Elimination of this template is a call to arms for continuous edit warring over varieties of English usage.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is useful and while I don't know what your display is on my 1080p display the template takes up less than a tenth of the vertical browser window. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not buying the argument that removing this tpl "is a call to arms for continuous edit warring", etc. The guideline will still be in place. Anyone who'd edit war would do it with or without this banner. — Lfdder (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, the policies and guidelines are in place to which a pointer can be given upon reversion of a new editor's faux pas to help hinder bickering and battle. This template notice is designed to nip even that in the bud. Many contributors actually do check talk pages before they change things. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have stated, the primary purpose is to inform editors of the variety of English that is currently used on the article. Many new users, when they read and edit Wikipedia for the first time, are usually unaware that Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the English language (for example, the numerous requests to "correct" spellings on the Main Page or Today's Featured Article) Although articles in which "a topic has strong national ties" may be obvious and may not need these tags, various articles in which the variety of English was chosen because of the other WP:ENGVAR guidelines such as "opportunities for commonality" and "retaining the existing variety" may need them because it may not be immediately obvious -- and any discussions establishing this consensus may be buried in several-years-old archived talk pages. Such tags should not be deleted solely because they may "take up a whole browser window" -- this can be changed as needed. Likewise, they could be improved to show "how to make additions to the article to match the style that's used". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a talk page template, so wouldn't scare editors away from editing the articles, since they'd see it if they went to the talk page, but not the article page. However, it would inform those editors who would later come by to maintain the consistency of English used in the article, which English variant to use to make the article consistent. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to show what type of English is used in article, helping avoid the article being messed by two entirely different styles and helping it remain consistent. Talk page notice and it takes up a very small section of screen certainly not a whole browser.Blethering Scot 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the points made above. --Khajidha (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—as per Ben MacDui's comment. The template is designed to prevent confusion between English variations. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the points made above. 23 editor (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, removal would only cause confusion and conflict. It should also be stressed that the templates are not compulsory. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:36, 9 September 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:Cashis 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) 03:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NENAN by not having five relevant links (not counting the backlink and "related articles". The Banner talk 13:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This artist hasn't shown signs of expanding notable entries, but if he does, it could be returned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Niteshift - Jason from nyc 18:45, 11 September 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:FC Dacia seasons 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) 02:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Dacia seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

contains links to only three seasons and the club. 5 is the generally required minimum for a navbox. Could be recreated when more were written. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. Giant Snowman 09:00, 7 September 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:FC Costuleni 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) 02:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Costuleni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template links to only one season. Could be recreated if more were written but as of now serves no real purpose as a nav box. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. Giant Snowman 09:00, 7 September 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:FC Sheriff seasons 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) 02:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Sheriff seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

links to only one season article. Could be recreated if more season articles were written, but at the moment serves very limited use as a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. Giant Snowman 09:00, 7 September 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:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis 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) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hasn't been used in a long time. The project its associated too has been inactive sine at least 2010 and the project is now supported through the WikiProject United States banner. Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 7 September 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:WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains 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) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hasn't been used in a long time. The project its associated too has been inactive for a long time and the project is now supported through the WikiProject United States banner. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 7 September 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:WikiProject NCSU 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) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject NCSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hasn't been used in a long time. The project its associated too has been inactive for a long time and the project is now supported through the WikiProject United States banner. Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 7 September 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.