Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 6 July 8 >

July 7 edit


Template:Shadmehr Aghili 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, with only two album articles left, that is generally below the consensus for the threshold for musical artist navboxes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shadmehr Aghili (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on 1 page. Only 5 potential uses and 2 of them are at AFD and a 3rd one is tagged for "notability." Content can be merged into Shadmehr Aghili if it isn't already there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no merge, no deleting i create the page and i will made them looks good but in different methods, the consider is usage bytes and its not heavy right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsum (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the template and added it to all 4 album pages. As a general practice, navigation templates aren't created if there are only a few pages that will use them. Redlinks typically aren't used on templates for musicians. More typically, the album or song name is left un-linked until or unless a page is created. If the page is deleted, the album or song is de-linked and changes from red to black. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i was in good process and clear way then war edit break my progress to less i will create and made all pages as some as possible, i forgot to link the template to each page and tnx for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsum (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are only four links in this navbox, two to articles currently at AfD and two which may also be nominated soon. The other entries which are not links do not belong according to the WP:NAVBOX guideline. As an aside, I wish Magnetsum would spend more time adding reliable source citations to the articles already created, rather than creating more articles.- MrX 12:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if the associated articles are deleted, but keep if they are kept. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage update One of the AFDs closed as delete, the other closed as "redirect to artist's page." Of the 3 remaining articles that use this template, 1 is the artist's page, one is of a work which was highly ranked by a television station, and I've proposed that the 3rd article be deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 25 July 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:Pharmacology of ethanol 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) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pharmacology of ethanol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, and no obvious places to use it Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even clear what the use of this template is supposed to be. Created as part of a massive expansion of anti-alcohol coverage here, by a user who has now been blocked. That author himself attempted earlier to get this deleted, although through a malformed nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the author of the template wants it deleted, and it's not being used for anything at all? This seems like an easy call. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 14 July 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:BDS 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a subdivision of Template:Billboard by its airplay charts. All listed are either already in that template or redirect to Billboard charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about merging the template into the Billboard template. Robert Moore 13:07, June 20, 2014 (HST)
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) 03:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, although it looks like most of the links have already been merged. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 14 July 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:Suggest incubation 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) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suggest incubation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete. Part of the Article Incubator initiative which was closed down (and arguably never really caught on anyway), and superseded by the new Draft namespace. In any case we don't want to suggest use of the article incubator at this point. —91.125.182.5 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should have been TfD'd a long time ago as a form of canvassing and proxy voting, as it's a pre-written !vote for AfD written by inclusionists and promoted by them for others to use to spread a "party line" inclusionist message at AfD, instead of people actually writing and defending their own positions. I also agree with nom's position that it's obsolete, even if it were legitimate, which it's not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguably, this is a T2 speedy, as a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical  "Obsolete" is not an argument for deletion.  We already have consensus to mark effects of the Article Incubator as historical.  The What Links Here does not show that this template was applied in a deletion discussion.  People who follow AfD know that Userfy !votes are uncommon, so this template appears to be only for those rare cases.  A mystery in the above argumentation is how it is that the act of suggesting incubation to an editor who has !voted to userfy, is on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really "historical". It was never appropriate to give users a pre-written !vote. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason What Links Here does not show any usages is because the template's documentation says to always subst it. Try this. –91.125.182.5 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  See WT:Article_Incubator/Archive_1 for a discussion about this template.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical, possibly move from Template: space to a sub-page of Wikipedia:Article Incubator and log the fact somewhere on Wikipedia:Article Incubator or its talk page. In any case, If this template is deleted or moved, that fact should be noted on Wikipedia:Article Incubator or its talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant now that the Incubator is inactive. I find it amusing that it's suggested this template was written by "inclusionists". I kind of remember writing it, and I remember deleting a whole lot of articles... It was also not used for canvassing, and I don't even understand that suggestion. However, since there's no longer a practical use for it, and since I can't see any particular historical value to keeping it, let's get rid of it. I agree with User:davidwr that a note should be made at the defunct Incubator project page regarding the disposition of this template, whatever it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The main effect of delete is to prevent non-admins from researching this history.  Admins have no special authority to research the history of the incubator.  This should be speedy closed, as the community has already made this decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The main effect of deleting anything is to keep non-admins from seeing it. What makes this case special? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, there is nothing special here that should prevent non-admins from looking at this template.  Non-admins are highly capable and just as capable of extracting meaning from an historic template as an administrator.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that if your argument held water, we should never delete anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this more of the inclusionist/deletionist/canvassing theme?  It doesn't matter, non-admins should be able to decide for themselves if this template had an inclusionist/deletionist/canvassing element.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. What history becomes invisible if this template is deleted? The conversation in which we developed it in the first place, and every subst'ed use of it, remains visible. The only copy being deleted is probably the copy that the fewest people ever have looked at, or ever will look at.

    Am I missing something? I mean, I'm pretty sure I wrote the thing, and I get it: it's useless now. We preserve pages for historical reasons, and I get that, too. However, doing so at an arbitrarily fine-grained level of detail seems needless. Again, maybe I'm missing something here. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Objects in delete-space have the property of object permanence, so even though they can no longer be seen, they still exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving the template to delete-space will make links red that are currently functional, and prevent non-admins from (1) seeing the template and the doc page, (2) seeing the code used to write the template, (3) seeing the talk page, and (4) seeing the edit history of the code and the template.  What is the benefit to storing the template in delete-space?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the possibility of this template being useless, non-admins should be free to decide for themselves if all aspects of this template are useless, and not have this decision made for them by this TfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What? None of that makes sense. The purpose of TfD is exactly to decide whether a template is useless, and again, deleting anything makes redlinks and keeps non-admins from seeing it, so by your logic, we should keep everything forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telling me that none of a 3-part post makes sense, while you specifically agree with one of the points I made (redlinks), seems contradictory.  As for the latter part of your comment, see WP:OSE.  The community has already decided to mark the AI as historical.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the benefit to storing this template in delete-space?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - reply to Unscintillating) Ok, thanks for that. I guess I understand how delete-space works; I used to be an admin myself, and did lots of deletions and undeletions. Can you tell me the benefit of storing any template in delete-space, or are all template deletions subject to the same argument you're presenting here?

When you say "all aspects of the template", and you mention the code, I wonder whether you're thinking of someone using it as an instructive example in learning how to write template code?

Have you seen the talk page? Do you see anything there of historical or other value? I'm asking these questions because I'm curious from what perspective you're making these arguments. How useless would a template have to be for you to assent to its deletion? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial elements of your post are WP:OSE.  I get it that there are no hidden great essays on the talk page.  I'm avoiding saying that there is or is not instructional value of the code.  I see a technique in there to prevent the use of the template without substituting, which is instructionally new to me. 
Also, I'm not arguing that this is anywhere near as important as some of the other templates that appear at Category:Article Incubator templates.  Your !vote states that you want to "get rid" of the template, but where is there a better place than where it is now?  The context remains that the community has decided to mark the AI historical.  What is the benefit of storing this template in delete-space?  "obsolescent", "get rid of it", and "it might never be useful" are not compelling arguments.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not arguing that "other stuff exists". I'm trying to ask you a question because I'm curious, but you haven't answered it. I'll try again. What do you consider worth deleting from template-space? Anything, or nothing? If anything, then what? I'm trying to figure out whether your argument applies to all templates for deletion, or if this one is somehow special. Could you please address that? Are you, or are you not, making an argument that no template should ever be deleted, even if the community decides in a TFD that it should? If that's not your argument, can you please distinguish your argument from that? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The context is that the community has decided to mark the AI historical.  Yes, there are templates brought to TfD other than those the community has decided to mark as historical.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the community couldn't decide to mark a project as historical and still decide to delete some associated template or templates. The community has decided to mark the project as historical, and the very same community has not decided to mark the template that way. We may still decide, as a community, to delete it. There's no inherent contradiction there. Thank you, however, for explaining your position as much as you have. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal at WP:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator states, "...it's [sic] pages will be marked historical."  Is there anything special about this template that it should be an exception?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that is the question being asked in this TFD. I'd say so. It lacks historical value of any kind. There's no indication that anyone in the RfC was thinking about this template, or even knew of its existence. It was never even really "part" of the project, so it's not "one of its pages". It was just a scrap of code that I hacked up and used six times in 2009. Two other people used it ever, one user once (2009), and another one twice (2011). Nobody has ever given a shit about this template, and nobody ever will give a shit about this template. It's about as worth keeping as a used piece of packing tape that's no longer sticky. That's coming from the guy who wrote it, and used it - for only one day - twice as much as the whole rest of the community ever would. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation as a process remains a part of deletion policy, and WT:Drafts is a work in progress.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense does incubation remain part of the deletion policy? Are you saying it's being actively used? Nothing is in the incubator, and there's a big note saying not to add anything new. As for the draft project being a work in progress, Wikipedia is a work in progress. That claim means nothing relevant to this discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Though I do believe this is historical, and find Unscintillating's comments valid, I think an exception fits. I don't see why we should keep this template in the already large main database when there are so many other copies of it, along with the conversation of its development and other information. The code is interesting, but the subst-only code is documented at {{Error:must be substituted}}, and the signature code ~~<noinclude><nowiki /></noinclude>~~ is used in other templates. We are now adding more about it in this discussion... Its influence will still be around. —PC-XT+ 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Also, I agree with User:davidwr and User:GTBacchus about the project page note. —PC-XT+ 04:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you opine that deletion of the template will be at least partially a loss to non-admins, but the loss is mitigated, including by two substantive discussions.  And the benefit of doing this is to relieve pressure on the main database, which is "large".  How is this not the "Arbitrary quantity" argument disrecommended at WP:ATA?  Is there technical documentation about how the deletion of this template will relieve pressure on the main database?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, what part of your argument is specific to this template, as opposed to all templates? Because if it applies to all templates, it's clearly incorrect, since it would mean that nothing should ever be deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The post to which you have replied paraphrases and asks questions without taking a position, or making an "argument".  So your question that begins "Once again" is unclear.  The community has decided to mark the pages of the AI as historical.  You initially argued that a deletion exception should exist due to WP:CANVAS canvassing, but you provided no evidence of canvassing, or a theoretical case for use of the template in canvassing.  And when I said to you, "There is nothing special here that should prevent non-admins from looking at this template.", you did not reassert your canvassing argument.  To the question, "What is the benefit to storing this template in delete-space?", you've had no reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and questions. I do agree that deletion hides the actual edit history from non-admins. This would have more weight if the contributors in the history wanted to keep it. I did not mean to be specifying any quantity. The technical documentation needs to be better, as we have been discussing in several places, but here are some technical observations: In raw size, the deletion discussion can be larger than the database space saved by moving something to the deletion database, though discussion often explains some things about the template better than the template does. Some space will likely be wasted by confusion, as well. This can only be quantified or weighed statistically, if we are talking about all templates, which I have not done. The size point I hear more often is that fewer templates/pages are easier to organize and handle. Moving to a project subpage may help with organizing, but it still needs to be maintained. Issues involved in maintenance are not only reverting vandalism, but also making decisions, such as whether to update historic pages, (as a simple example, when their link targets are moved,) or leave disconnected when other pages change into something new which doesn't make sense in the historic context. I probably wouldn't mind if a few editors want to maintain the template as a subpage for now, as long as it is understood that the page will probably be the first to go if consensus starts to lean that way. Then again, it may be more productive to move on to other things... —PC-XT+ 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Obsolete" is not an argument for deletion.  How is "template intended for substitution" an argument that supercedes the community consensus to mark the pages of the WP:AI historical?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 27 July 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:D'Artagnan Romances 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D'Artagnan Romances (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates Template:The Three Musketeers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 19 June 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) 00:09, 7 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_7&oldid=1142562661"