Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14 edit

Template:Former U.S. daytime talk shows 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) 05:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former U.S. daytime talk shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

TFD #3 AldezD (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too many canceled talk shows to count; better handled in an article than a template. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 16 March 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:Former U.S. daytime soap operas 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) 06:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former U.S. daytime soap operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

TFD #3. AldezD (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This actually seems to be a good use for templates and I really have no issues with it; limited criteria to daytime soaps and unlike the talk shows nomination, it's impossible to be filled with countless syndicated programs as that form doesn't pursue the genre. Nate • (chatter)
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 Country Asiad 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) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country Asiad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 14 March 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 emission nebula 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) 06:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox emission nebula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only ten transclusions. Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 18#Template:Infobox dark nebula, should be merged into {{Infobox nebula}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 14 March 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 nebula 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 this one, merge the others. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nebula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New, unused; redundant to other nebular templates, some of which are already proposed for merger, and which should perhaps be merged under this name (I have posted a note there). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Maybe it's unused because it's new? Anyway, the templates mentioned can redirect to a new, combined template. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the others here even though the creator jumped the gun a bit. If it is better to delete and move another here before merging, I'd support that option, as well, due to the false start. This may be a merger, but it is not necessarily following consensus. —PC-XT+ 16:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a false start. I created this to cover other types of nebulae not currently covered by the other templates. It doesn't need to be used at all for the types under consideration at the other discussion, and I can easily strip the code that handles those. The other discussion does not cover all types of nebulae, so a generic template or several additional specific templates has always been required. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "false start" and "jumped the gun" I meant that this template was created before there was a consensus in the discussion that introduced the idea. While I appreciate the desire to help make the template better, we should wait for consensus, first. I think a generic template should cover all, (or at least many,) nebulae, so we are not in disagreement about that. —PC-XT+ 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that it is nothing of the sort, it didn't jump the gun because there are types of nebulae not covered by existing templates. Creating a new template to cover cases not covered by existing templates is not a false start. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said, I don't disagree with the need for it. I'm not against you, only asking for cooperation. (In many sports, a false start is only really bad if repeated in the same race, though it is hard on all the racers.) This name was proposed in a different, ongoing TfD, where you commented. You made a bold edit, which is often encouraged, but while there is ongoing discussion, some discretion is in order. None of us really like waiting for these discussions, especially when we see a fix for the problem, but it's better to make the fix in a sandbox first, unless there is clear consensus to do otherwise. It's a judgement call that can be hard to make. There are other currently ongoing TfDs with similar complaints, and it seems to be a regular occurrence. If the decision was to merge, that should happen first. Then, making the general template general could be brought up, and I would support it, but that is not part of any of the other discussions, and (as far as I know) wasn't mentioned elsewhere before you did it. It would be ok with me if this was moved to a sandbox or userspace, though it may need converting after the discussions close and any mergers begin. —PC-XT+ 01:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other discussion was a merger to a location. The existence of this template does not preclude a merger. If the two templates discussed there are merged, it would seem to me, that there is no actual problem, since merging would just expand the capabilities of this template, as any merger would need combine the capabilities of multiple templates together. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you have a problem with my !vote, or just the words I used? I provided the move suggestion because I thought you wanted an alternative to the others merging here. If you support the merge, then we seem to have no real problem. —PC-XT+ 07:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't have a problem with the "Merge" no, though the "Delete" is a problem, since I made the template usable for types of nebulae for which the templates under merger consideration do not cover, so deleting this one will eliminate coverage of the other types of nebulae. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I said I would support delete if it would be better than a regular merge, but my !vote is merge. If it was deleted, the other options could be added back as needed, so I don't really see that much difference, only some delay. I don't think it really needs to be deleted, though it might simplify things for the ones doing the merging. —PC-XT+ 06:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the others here per PC-XT's reasoning.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just created this! This is new, so it is unused, since I haven't gotten around to placing it on articles as yet. It is not redundant there is no template for other types of nebulae that the so called "redundancies" do not cover adequately, such as mixed-type nebuale (having aspects containing diffuse and dark, emission and reflection), supershells[1], high velocity clouds, neutral-hydrogen clouds, 21-cm clouds, Lyα clouds; the entirety of nebulae are not covered in the two templates you mentioned from the other discussion.. And this in no way is in the way of your "merger", since you can still merge it into this one. How does the existence of this template have any impact on merging your other templates into this one? I can't see any. Also, the new template supports parsecs, which the old ones do not. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it is now in use on the high-velocity cloud article Smith's Cloud, which is a nebula [2], [3], which is a type of nebula which is not covered under existing nebula infobox templates. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be, if we merged them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether we merged them or not, there's a hole in the set of nebulae templates, since it doesn't cover the cases that I wanted to use the infobox for. That you want to merge something does not mean that coverage currently exists outside of this template for articles about types of nebulae for which no other template exists. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why could those parameters not be added to a merged nebula template as proposed in the earlier TfD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because some of the extra parameters do not apply to Dark or Diffuse nebulae? Therefore wouldn't be added to templates that only deal with Dark or Diffuse nebulae? (Though, parsecs could be added to the old templates) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge other nebular templates here (this should obviously exclude galaxies). Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge other nebula templates to this one, and simplify this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What would you want to be simplifying? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Getting rid of the red background would be a start.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The default color has been changed to mauve, per your request of changing the red out. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge other nebula templates into this one. But exclude galaxies per Ruslik0 Herald 13:29, 24 March 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 requested 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox requested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template misrepresents Wikipedia policy. Infoboxes are not required, and they are not "the standard display for this subject". Considering the fairly recent arbcom case related to this, I don't think we want templates that promote the inclusion of infoboxes without explicitly stating that they are not required.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete, but only if this feature can be (or is already) merged with the wikiproject templates. it's easier to know which infobox to apply (and if one is desired) on a per project basis. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template does not use the word "required", and for some subjects, infoboxes are indeed "the standard display". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Any Mabbett. This template makes no claims about policy, contrary to the nom, and subject areas often have infoboxes that applicable wikiprojects use for articles in their subject area in a standardized way. VanIsaacWScont 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no difference between this and a plain text request for an infobox, policy-wise. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An entirely useful template that serves to functionally request improvements to Wikipedia articles on article talk pages. Deletion of this template would not serve to improve Wikipedia content; rather, this would ultimately inhibit improvements from occurring over the long-term. NorthAmerica1000 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure which way to go here, but I would think if one could put this template on a talk page one could also, I don't know, address the concern oneself. At most, if it were me, I would ask for help as to which infobox to use if I felt one could be used. LazyBastardGuy 16:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I had a look at it and it says "the standard display for this subject". If there is a standard, i.e. a policy, it should link to it. If there's not one but many (e.g. different standards for different projects/topics) then it could link to an overview page which lists and links to them. Or perhaps there should be different versions for different topics which editors could choose from. As it is it's unclear what it's referring to and so the request is unclear.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What it's referring to will be apparent from the page on which it is displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To experienced editors, yes, usually, but there are many articles with an infobox that doesn't really fit. If an appropriate infobox is known, I would think it better to put the template in, even mostly blank. However, if this is used by inexperienced or overwhelmed editors to request help in choosing an infobox, it is useful, and should be kept. Otherwise, more specifics would be a good option to have. They could be placed on the talk page itself, in many cases, but it would be convenient in the box, itself. —PC-XT+ 00:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since when is "standard" a synonym for "policy"? This argument is a red herring. Many WikiProjects do have standards and even a "Mini-MOS" which sets out the preferences of the project with respect to articles within its purview. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is useful for AFC, as we can tag articles that need infoboxes. Additionally, it allows for the improvement of articles, as we often won't spend the time fixing up articles to perfection unless we are trying to put it on the main page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the WikiProject Articles for creation talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep People who like to add infoboxes to articles by answering "infobox requested" tags are usually experienced editors, who can tell which kind of box to add, or who can remove the request if the article isn't suitable to have an infobox. Many editors who are good paragraph content writers aren't good at working with complex wikicode and we should give them an option to request that another user deal with it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says "requested" not "required." Chris Troutman (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete a user can add a parameter (|needs-infobox=yes) to (almost) every WIkiProject-template on the talk page indicating that the page needs an infobox/that it is requested. Since there is already a way of marking them that way, what is then the point of having another template doing the same thing? (t) Josve05a (c) 12:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris Troutman, the name of the template is "requested" and not "required"... I mean, unless you want to get rid of all of the {{Db-meta}} sub-templates and the {{Requested move}} templates because the same claim could be made that those are "deletion required" or "move required" (and it would of course be just as false)... I see it as a nasty slippery slope to get rid of a template for something that is requested based on a misuse that someone was unable to DROP and it ended up dragged into ArbCom... — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 12:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When an article is stub level,it doesn't need a infobox, but once it gets beyond ~4 paragraphs it really should have a infobox to help clarify high points. Unless you're using this as a backdoor to remove every last maintenance template, the banner only indicates that there needs to be an improvement. If you don't like seeing the banners I'm sure one of the many template gurus could add some CSS magic to the template and provide you with a way of visually supressing the template. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Anne Delong, User:Chris troutman, User:Hasteur, Kevin Rutherford, "Requested" ≠ "Required" - the premise upon which this proposal is based has been shown to be wrong, thus this deletion proposal is actually not valid. Embedding a "needs infobox" parameter into each of the WikiProject templates on an article talk page (three or more are very common) is a lot more work than doing it just once with this template (the effect is the same, relevant Wikiprojects are informed that an infobox has been requested). At AfC this template is added by means of a single click in a checkbox - anything that slows down the reviewing process at AfC without a Really Good ReasonTM should be deprecated on principle. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst it may not be Wikipedia policy to have an infobox on every page, it is generally accepted that most pages will have an infobox on them - they are a very important part of Wikipedia. Cyborg4 :) (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template does not misrepresent policy, nor does the request require an affirmative answer. If a discussion has previously reached a consensus to not include an infobox for a particular article, the request would intuitively be declined on that basis.—John Cline (talk) 09:32, 19 March 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:Military World Games Football 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, or rather moving to user space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military World Games Football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A notable amount of redlinks for a non-notable football tournament, which fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only three links....William 12:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we must delete too (Template:Olympic Games Football) or (Template:UEFA European Football Championship) or many others ? No I think we need to develope it and creat other links to perform this template, this football competition is very important. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - full of redlinks that will likely remain redlinks forever. No use. GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful, not enough bluelinks Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy pending creation of the necessary articles. I have no opinion on whether the three articles linked are notable, but if they are all deleted after a proper discussion at AfD (an uncontested PROD is not sufficient for this purpose), then there is no point in keeping this template and it could be deleted. Possibly {{International Military football}} could be considered along with this one. --NSH002 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 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:Location map all 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, or rather moving to a sandbox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Location map+ and Template:Location map many, and a large unmaintainable hack Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to show maps on all browsers: The Template:Location_map_all is based on the original mapping templates from September 2007, and still works correctly to position markers on all browsers, including older versions of MS Internet Explorer (MSIE) and Firefox. In fact, the template can be used to demonstrate how Template:Location_map will shift the marker on different browsers (showing some bottom markers below the map), while {location_map_all} always places the markers at the same correct locations, regardless of which browser is used. Because it based on the 2007 mapping algorithms, it still works on older browsers. Contrary to the remark as being "unmaintainable" instead, the template uses the same dependable, mapping algorithm maintained for the past 8 years. Obviously, Keep, but fix Template:Location_map to work on any browser, as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a concrete example of Location map+ rendering differently in different browsers, so I can see what's causing it and try to merge your fix with the module? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The broken Template:Location_map is showing markers too low, especially near the bottom 30 pixels of any map; the problem seems to be related to not setting style "line-height:0" in div sections, but when some users try to identify the problem then they are forgotten by users with other browsers. -Wikid77 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, if there is a problem with the current template/module, then fix the current one. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't delete a working map-marker template because a broken template might be fixed someday. First, fix the broken Template:Location_map, prove it works for months, and then discuss deletion after those months have passed. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Frietjes if there's a problem with a current location map then fix that, don't fork it creating twice as much support and maintenance work.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Template:Location_map_all is not a "fork" but rather the original mapping method as maintained from September 2007, now in 2014, expanded to allow more markers. Calling the "original" mapping method a "fork" is really grasping to use the word "fork" at all costs. -Wikid77 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Template:Location_map_all is not redundant, but rather, the original marker-mapping method from 2007. Any false claims of "redundant" are not true and should not be used as a reason to delete a template which works correctly on all browsers. -Wikid77 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to help improve the existing templates —PC-XT+ 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to a sandbox would be ok with me, as well. —PC-XT+ 01:47, 16 March 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_March_14&oldid=1080037073"