Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 26

< November 25	November 27 >

November 26[edit]

Template:Wahldiagramm[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) 01:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused template from another wiki. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2012 (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:Navbar with targets[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 move to project space for now. There does not appear to be any consensus to keep two distinct navbar templates, but at the same time, there is not a clear consensus for merger either. I suggest continuing the merger discussion at Template talk:Navbar. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbar with targets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a recently created fork of Template:Navbar, with some extra functionality in that you can specify separate targets for the View / Talk / Edit links. As I explained (see discussion) to the author of the template User:Ahnoneemoos, I don't think this is a good idea because of the confusion that may arise. These links always point to the same page (or talk page) currently, and it is unintuitive for the "talk" link to point to a page other than the corresponding talk page.

In any case, we should not be keeping two separate copies of the navbar template. If this functionality is desired, it should be incorporated into {{navbar}} and this one can be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: incorporate features into {{navbar}} or keep as a standalone template. This is a useful and beneficial feature that allows contributors of WikiProjects to format lists quickly. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Requested articles as an example.

This was formally and properly requested as an addittion to {{navbar}} at Template talk:Navbar#Code to specify the edit target but the user submitting this RfD denied its inclusion unilaterally simply because he has Administrator priviledges.

You must take into consideration that V · T · E is a user created template and it's NOT part of the MediaWiki software; changing the targets to what these links point to is a valid and legal use of MediaWiki's template functionality.

This RfD is not based on logic nor reason, but on fear based on custom and tradition. However, Wikipedia must evolve and allow changes to its templates to temper itself to its newcomers and new ways of accessing Wikipedia. Everyone on Wikipedia is entitled to their own opinion, but we can't decline new features to a template simply because your opinion differs from those trying to implement said features.

In conclusion, the features are benign and if people consider that they should not be incorporated into {{navbar}} then {{navbar with targets}} should be left as a standalone template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion reaches a delete decision, as I believe it should, you are welcome to garner consensus for your proposal on Template talk:Navbar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is that the additional functionality is desirable, it should be incorporated directly into {{navbar}} for use by all existing consumers of that template. There's an active discussion on that very subject already. Forking templates creates confusion for future editors, increases the maintenance overhead of templatespace and increases the surface area for template-based attacks, which is why we discourage it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with nomination. If really needed, this functionality can be added to {{navbar}}, but should be used sparingly nevertheless. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote is merge rather than delete then? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion (I don't think it's a good idea to point V/T/E links elsewhere) but I would support a merge as well. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I remind you once again that V · T · E is a user created template and it's NOT part of the MediaWiki software? Therefore, allowing it to link to whatever it is that we want is an acceptable use of MediaWiki. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

move to project space. as far as I can tell, this is only used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Requested articles, so move it to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico. if there is a need for it in more places, then discuss a merger at template talk:navbar, and see if a merger is feasible in a low-impact manner. Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion at Template talk:navbar but nobody else is participating. The reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Requested articles is the only page using it is because the user that submitted this RfD, User:MSGJ, unilaterally opposed to its addition into {{navbar}} simply because of his Administrator privileges. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel you are getting enough participation, then advertise the discussion. I still don't see this being used outside of project space. I'm not sure how you know how MSGJ would act if MSGJ were not an admin. seems speculative. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2012 (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:-ceo-pvs[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 Closed. I have moved this "article" into the correct namespace, and applied {{db-a7}}. I think this nomination can safely be closed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-ceo-pvs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This page is not a template, it is an article. If it was an article, it should be deleted under CSD A7, because it does not indicate the importance of the company in any way. User<Svick>.Talk(); 11:32, 26 November 2012 (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.