Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

November 19[edit]

Template:Malaysian general election state results, 2013[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 Substitute and Delete. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Malaysian general election state results, 2013 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Subst and delete. WP:TMP#Usage is clear that "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". This template does do the work of article content, and both of its uses should be substed. (2 articles: Malaysian general election, 2013 and State Election Results of the 2013 Malaysian General Elections). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Subst — Please go ahead with subst'ing and deleting it as the table in it is now stable. Just after the election, there was some uncertainty about the numbers and the presentation so I created the template to keep the info on both Malaysian general election, 2013 and State Election Results of the 2013 Malaysian General Elections articles consistent. cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 15:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
subst and delete per nom, who is correct in her point about templates not doing the work of article content. --NSH002 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
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:Fashion Net[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 Deleted. Spam. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Fashion Net (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template appears to have been created for the sole purpose of introducing WP:Linkspam, and used for that purpose by its creator. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The links to Fashion Net are not spam. Shousokutsuu (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a generic template for wikis to which this is redundant? Something like "[[{{{wiki}}}:{{{page}}}|{{{page}}}]] at [[{{{wiki}}}:|{{{wikiname|{{{wiki}}}}}}]]" using the interwiki map, perhaps pulling wiki names from a table like Template:Wikia/list? A generic template could help track usage, as with Template:wikia. If one exists, Fashion Net only needs to make it on the interwiki map or otherwise show it is relevant for this kind of inclusion on Wikipedia. If this template had documentation similar to Template:Wikia, for instance, the appropriateness per article would be clearer. I really don't want us to have a template for each wiki, though. -PC-XT+ 05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The conflict of interest of Shousokutsuu at Fashion Net and related articles is now confirmed - WP:COIN#Fashion Net. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
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:Scattering mechanisms[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. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Scattering mechanisms (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template was transcluded in Scattering (optics) (now merged into Light scattering) and Scattering theory. It is a copy of an indexing scheme for submissions to optics journals (see section 290 in the link), and is not really a list of scattering mechanisms. It also is full of redlinks. In the above articles, I have converted the transclusion to links in See also, removing redlinks and redundancies within the article. That is a much more useful way to present this information, so the template is not likely to be used again. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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:Donelink[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 Deleted. However, documentation should be added in {{done}} to show how links can be added. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Donelink (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused (one non-use transclusion) and redundant to {{done}}, because {{done}} accepts links too. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
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:Doctor Who actors[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 (NAC) with no prejudice against a merger. There is a strong consensus that the navbox must be exempt from a previously-established consensus about the usefulness of such navboxes. Consensus can change. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who actors (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Generally, consensus is against including actors in navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries, and this type of navbox should be discouraged. The information is at List of actors who have played the Doctor, which is included at Template:Doctor Who navbox. Imagine if there was a Template:Dracula actors or Template:Frankenstein actors - this should not be treated in any different way. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - I understand the existing consensus and the reasons for it, but I think this may be an exceptional case where an actor navbox is justified. Most (if not all) of these actors are best known for playing this character, and the different versions of the character are frequently referred to by the names of the actors. There is at least one similar precedent in {{James Bond actors}}, which I think is worth keeping for the same reasons. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is an exception to the general consensus per Robofish. ({{James Bond actors}} should also remain an exception.) HairyWombat 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Doctor Who navbox which appears on almost exactly the same set of articles and could easily incorporate the information, perhaps as "First (William Hartnell) • Second (Patrick Troughton)" etc. Failing that, keep as a second preference. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This template has been here all this time. Only the fame of the 50th Annerversity seems to have brought out every deletionist on the planet. I see absolutly no reason to delete this template. Its been around quite a while and is very useful. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - The consensus in WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries is against succession boxes for actors, not navboxes in general. The arguments don't apply here. This navbox has most of the five properties recommended in WP:NAVBOX - more than most templates. The only one missing is the article Doctor Who actors, but there is no reason why there couldn't be such an article. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If you read it in conjunction with the "Filmographies" discussion, I think that you'll find the arguments do hold up. However, if this box is to stay, I think that a merge with {{Doctor Who navbox}} would be appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I am just not seeing the relevance. However, I have no objection to a merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep per Thryduulf —PC-XT+ 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge per Thyrduulf. No need for a separate navbox, but worthy of inclusion in the navbox on the incarnations. oknazevad (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep There are exceptions to this rule and this is one of them. I understand what you mean with characters like Dracula and Frankenstein but for them, they are played by other film or TV companies like Disney or NBC. In terms of Dr Who, The Doctor, and all the other character affiliated with it. They are exclusive to the BBC and to no one else! So in those terms, that is the exception to the rule. Nhajivandi (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
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:Internet Archive short 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 Keep (NAC). No consensus as to what to do, although deletion is unanimously ruled out. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive short film (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant with Template:Internet Archive film; the text telling that it is a short film adds nothing, as whether the film is a short one or not is irrelevant to its availability. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. 822 articles use this template. There are two different templates for films that are available on the Internet Archive. One for short films (40 minutes or shorter) and one for feature films. Both of these templates have a "More"-link where users can click and get a list of short films (or feature films) available on the Internet Archive. For this short film template this function was used 670 times in October 2013. A lot of work has been invested in sorting and marking the articles about short films and feature films and much of that work can (and should) be exported to wiki data. Until then, I suggest the template stays and that we revisit this proposal down the road. Because even though I do agree the template is not very pretty, it does serve a purpose other than just standardizing displaying the information in the articles. --Bensin (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they can be merged, with the option of differentiating between short or feature -PC-XT+ 04:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, with a but - But you really need to scrap the entire use of "film" in the template altogether. Why? Because IA hosts all sorts of media: Feature films, short films, audio, photographs and still images, documentary films, newsreels, etc. etc. These need to be easily delineated. Have one template which would work something like this:
{{IA|type=short|title=One Week|id=OneWeek}}
to translate to:
"The short film One Week is available for free download at the Internet Archive"
or, alternatively:
{{IA|type:book|title=Complete version of ye three blind mice ([1909])|id=completeversiono00ivim}}
to translate to:
"The book Complete version of ye three blind mice ([1909]) is available for free download at the Internet Archive".
What do you think? -Gohst (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Gohst: Well, since the Internet Archive film template can link to anything on their site, and there's no mention of "film" anywhere there. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Internet Archive media"? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge/rename per nom and Gohst -PC-XT+ 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)—PC-XT+ 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge: Add the parameter |short= [y|n] to the template {{Internet Archive film}} then merge. I also support the idea of a generic template {{Internet Archive media}} with the parameter |type= [shortfilm|film|etc]. HairyWombat 17:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge per HairyWombat. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep No benefit for this change has been demonstrated. Per Bensin, it performs a different function. Generic templates are harder to use and maintain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
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.