Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24 edit

Template:Austin Carlile 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) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Austin Carlile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the links are to other albums of which he has not created himself but rather that of the bands he worked with, which is explained in his articles discography section anyway. The discography also seems a bit too short for him to need a template. SilentDan297 talk 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't even remember creating this thing. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:46, 28 January 2014 (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:Violence against Muslims 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 with Template:Islamophobia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Violence against Muslims (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is already Template:Islamophobia which lists most of the same things. This template is also quite unfocussed in how it lists different beliefs such as secularism as violence. James from Carlisle (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not identical categories, lack of focus, if any, is not a reason to delete. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 22 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) 01:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Doug Darkness Shines (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename the template for Islamophobia to Violence against Muslims or merge both to Violence against Muslims. It would be preferable if we had a standard form for victim templates. We have templates: Violence against Hindus and Violence against Buddhists but we have Persecution of Christians and Antisemitism. A template for each demographic group as victim is needed but don't see why some groups need two. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per Jason from nyc, as templates often cover several close categories —PC-XT+ 18:34, 7 January 2014 (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) 21:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per Jason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per Jason, too much overlap. Frietjes (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (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 United States proposed state legislation 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. Although there appear to be no objections to merging these templates in this discussion, the attempt to move the federal template was reverted, with a discussion thread on the talk page. I suggestion continuing the discussion there, and simply merging them if there is consensus to do so, with no real need for a discussion at TfD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This infobox is almost identical to the Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation (see diff for evidence), and we already have Template:Infobox legislation and the US-specific Template:Infobox U.S. legislation. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have infoboxes for articles on state legislation, federal legislation, and proposed federal. We're missing an infobox for proposed state. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the code of the two templates is identical (and currently it is, excepting the image/seal difference), why do we need another infobox? It would be better to rename the existing template or creating a new name for state legislation as a redirect.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any template architecture that gets the right code onto the right page. So, am I hearing you correct-- you think think solution would be to create a smaller template that calls a second one in order to change the title and seal and other details? What template should be called? --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, my idea is to just rename Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation to "United States proposed legislation" and modify it to add the required features. It would not be complicated, for example, to add an image_seal parameter to change the default seal if the article requires it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you know what you're doing, so my advice is to make it so. :) I certainly don't know what I'm doing, I'm just trying to get the right html on the right articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of changes to what is now Infobox United States proposed legislation, let me know if more are necessary.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (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:Native Son (2010 film) 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 as a duplicate of the main space article Native Son (2010 film). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Native Son (2010 film) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate/draft version of the Native Son (2010 film) article, in the wrong namespace. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any duplicate. If there's a duplicate it's mine also; I have been working on this for months, the last time using citeweb for reference sources. Please provide me link to duplicate entry. There are other films of the name "Native Son" that are on the American theme or racism. But in 2010, a Scottish film by name came out with an entirely different theme. But if the Scottish film is there twice, then is it my creation? Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I checked and found a film from Argentina and several versions of the American themed film. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how there is a duplicate of this same Scottish film? Please be more specific, as I am not understanding what or where there is a duplicate.

Legaleze (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an article in template space. An identical article in mainspace exists at Native Son (2010 film). This might be speediable under {{db-a10}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Don't know how I did it. Created the template. Don't know how to delete a template. I looked at {{db-a10}}, and I do not understand the instruction. It's okay to delete the template; had no intention of creating a new template. Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2014 (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:Jacksonville NASL 2015 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) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jacksonville NASL 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains only three links and another is an external link. Currently not a useful aid to navigation and with the club not starting competition for another year seems unlikely that there would be scope for expansion in the near future. Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template was created prematurely, as there's no information for this team yet, and the external link is completely inappropriate. (The formatting, btw, is a bloated mess that has been rejected as against the style guides for navboxes of WP:FOOTY.) Obviously, this should not be in any way taken as reason against recreation when there is sufficient material for a navbox in the future, and the deletion not must include that so it is never falsely subjected to speedy deletion. oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2014 (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:Oklahoma City NASL 2015 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) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oklahoma City NASL 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains only four links and one, the season link is redirect to the league article. Currently not a useful aid to navigation and with the club not starting competition for another year seems unlikely that there would be scope for expansion in the near future. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template was created prematurely, as there's no information for this team yet, and the external link is completely inappropriate. (The formatting, btw, is a bloated mess that has been rejected as against the style guides for navboxes of WP:FOOTY.) Obviously, this should not be in any way taken as reason against recreation when there is sufficient material for a navbox in the future, and the deletion not must include that so it is never falsely subjected to speedy deletion. oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2014 (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:Tbold 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) 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A template for colouring text? Per MOS:TEXT#Color article text should never be coloured other than the colours provided by the style sheets. Apart from that we don't need a template to embolden and add quotes. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by author. The use of {tbold} is for easy title-bolding with neutral gray-shade levels, and there is no option to set text color as reddish, greenish, etc. The default shade has been #656565 (as "This is default shade"), and other shades include neutral dark-gray #414141, but never slate gray which would be a "colored gray". For years, editors have bolded the titles of entries in lists, and so {tbold} just makes it easier without quoted triple-tic "'''x'''" while also allowing system-wide adjustment of the default gray-shade if needed later. Also, typos in miscounted apostrophes can be difficult to search in lists (such as 2-3 "''x'''"), but checking for double-brace nesting of "{{tbold|__}}" can be much easier. Using {tbold} has helped to pinpoint typos in bolding, and can reduce future apostrophe typos. So, now, why would we not want to reduce typos? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But grey is a colour as much as red, green. It's certainly a colour as far as WP goes: the default colours provided by the stylesheets are optimised for readability, so any other colour is less readable, while colours are normally reserved for special uses: link colours primarily. Making headings grey impacts readability and makes it look like they have some other purpose. System-wide style adjustments should use stylesheets, not be hardcoded into templates. As for typos if one is noticed which is easier: editing the Wikitext and finding the extra/missing quote or editing the Wikitext and encountering a template which you've not seen before and which you need to visit it's documentation page to find out how it works (as unlike some common templates how it works can't easily be guessed)?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greyscale photos (B&W) are not "colour" photos but instead use achromatic grey, and the straw man argument to claim {{tbold}} uses colored text is just not valid. Stylesheets could be used in {tbold} if needed. Regarding typos, it is much easier to search the rendered page and spot "{{tbold|Title}" as missing "}" than to find a mismatched apostrophe among all on a page. But to delete a template because "you've not seen before" is really grasping at straws. Focus on reasons beyond wp:IDONTLIKEIT. -Wikid77 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again grey is a colour – see that article's first sentence. Yes, B&W/greyscale technology preceded colour technology, so is often named differently, but that is irrelevant – grey is still a colour. And it's not that I've not seen it before. It's that no-one has. So someone editing e.g. Next Men, which you've added it to, when they come across it will have no idea of its purpose (the name gives no indication as noted below) so will need to look at {{tbold}} to find out what it's for – a process WP does not make easy: you need to open a new edit window and type 'Template:Tbold' into the search box. Repeated for all editors that's a massive waste of time and effort for a template that does nothing that can't be done compactly using normal Wiki markup (apart from adding colour which it should not be doing).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why isn't this called {{bold}} ? And why is this changing the color of the text? If this is to augment <bold> it should not be affecting the color at all. We already have {{color}} for that. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete for accessibility reasons. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps userfy - A good try, but I would think there is a better way to handle the situations this template addresses, ~~avoiding more gray areas~~. There are too many potential problems for the potential benefit. Maybe it is trying to do too many things. If it was just for bolding or quoting, or maybe even both, I could see possibly !voting keep. I see why you want the bold title to be a neutral color, but think a stylesheet may be a better solution. (Gray is considered a color in some pure black and white (2 color) systems.) —PC-XT+ 00:50, 6 February 2014 (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.