Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2

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

January 2[edit]

Template:Spy Fox[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) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Spy Fox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The characters list was merged, leaving only four articles. WP:NENAN. Delete or merge to {{Humongous}}. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Redundant to {{Humongous}}. All the navigation is in that other template. Sw2nd (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{Humongous}} - Since the character list has been merged into the series article, {{Spy Fox}} has the same links as the Humongous template (series + 3 article). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  08:06, 6 January 2014 (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:JPL Image[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 relisted on 2014 February 4  by Jax 0677. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:15, 4 February 2014 (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:Link-interwiki[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 for now. Before editors can decide whether to merge the templates, a demonstration is needed of how a merged template could work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Link-interwiki (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Ill (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Link-interwiki with Template:Ill.
Templates provide the essentially the same functionality ({{Link-interwiki}} displays the language code in superscript whilst {{ill}} does not. Also {{Link-interwiki}} requires parameter names be specified whilst {{ill}} does not. My vote would be to use the display of {{Link-interwiki}} but without having to specify parameter names. User:Set theorist has brought this up on the talk pages with no response in over a year. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have difficulty in understanding why Link-interwiki was created at all. It's newer and more difficult to use than ill, and isn't related to any similar templates corresponding to {{illm}}, {{ill2}} or {{ill-WD}}. I also prefer the suffix/subscript format of the ill family of templates to the superscript of Link-interwiki. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Whatever the case this TfD is screwing up the display of thousands of articles that use ill since the TfD message is inline intrusive to the text. I'm personally happy with ill, why not add an optional parameter for super/sub-script if desired. -- GreenC 18:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if they are merged, the unnamed parameters should acquire optional named versions (keeping the unnamed versions), and a switch to swap display from inline to superscript or subscript. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • keep separate until there is demonstration of a merged template. it's not clear to me how we are going to support optional sup output in terms of template syntax. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (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:Track length needed[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. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "deletes", the solitary "keep if someone adds a tracking category" apparently does not apply, as nobody shows any sign of doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Track length needed (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Only one transclusion--doesn't seem necessary since the lack of times is obvious to the reader (it clearly needs to be filled) and there is no tracking category to ensure that they get filled anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The template's creator, who is blocked, has responded on his talk page, saying

Adding a category would be trivial (you can use "what links here" instead). Low usage of a maintenance template is not necessarily a sign of non-utility, it can be a sign of the very opposite - {{Uncategorized}} for example.

rybec 00:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep if someone adds a tracking category. If, in a year or so, it becomes clear this is still not getting any use, it can be brought back here for further evaluation. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. What is so significant about the length of a song that it needs a maintenance category template? This category is pure encouragement of trivia.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) - Corrected my edit. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2014 (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:Canadian Confederation[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 relisted on 2014 January 24 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Confederation (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Constitution of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
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:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity II[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 Subst & delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity II (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

nonsense template The Banner talk 00:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree. Nxavar (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep because the nominator gave an incorrect and misleading rationale. It's not nonsense; it's boilerplate similar to the one nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion. Discussion should probably be centralized there. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, what a great argument to defend a template that needs 48 characters of template-title to add just 12 characters of template-text. The Banner talk 19:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • tentative keep, I don't see any real reason to delete it. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion —PC-XT+ 07:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete. Templates should not be used in articles as a substitute for regular wikitext when there is no special functionality involved. This is a longstanding guidance from WP:TMP: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." The use of a template in such a case makes it harder for normal editors, many of whom no little about templates, to work with the text. In this case the displayed content of the template is nothing but plain text, not even any wiki markup. The existing transclusions should be substituted and the template deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete Templates usually have four main purposes:
  1. to standardize input
  2. to make repetitions ease (especially when it is complex)
  3. to aid in constantly changing (updating) one thing across several articles
  4. to divert editing traffic from the article(s) to template.
I doubt the capacity of a troop transport changes over time, so reasons #3 and #4 are out of question. The template also accepts no input (#1 does not apply) and typing 3,343 troops is easier than typing the name of the template
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity[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 Subst & delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:General G. O. Squier class troop capacity (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

nonsense template The Banner talk 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree. Nxavar (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep because the nominator gave an incorrect and misleading rationale. It's not nonsense; it's boilerplate similar to the one nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion. Discussion should probably be centralized there. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, what a great argument to defend a template that needs 46 characters of template-title to add just 12 characters of template-text. The Banner talk 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • tentative keep, I don't see any real reason to delete it. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion —PC-XT+ 07:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete. Templates should not be used in articles as a substitute for regular wikitext when there is no special functionality involved. This is a longstanding guidance from WP:TMP: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." The use of a template in such a case makes it harder for normal editors, many of whom no little about templates, to work with the text. In this case the displayed content of the template is nothing but plain text, not even any wiki markup. The existing transclusions should be substituted and the template deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete Templates usually have four main purposes:
  1. to standardize input
  2. to make repetitions ease (especially when it is complex)
  3. to aid in constantly changing (updating) one thing across several articles
  4. to divert editing traffic from the article(s) to template.
I doubt the capacity of a troop transport changes over time, so reasons #3 and #4 are out of question. The template also accepts no input (#1 does not apply) and typing 3,343 troops is easier than typing the name of the template
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (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:General G. O. Squier class propulsion[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) 12:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:General G. O. Squier class propulsion (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This is too lazy and user-unfriendly. Copy and paste works quicker than this template. The Banner talk 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not at all the point of templates. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete boilerplate text should not be a template -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If the content doesn't vary between the articles then this provides a useful function by keeping information within a template consistent. I don't see a problem with that usage. If it were used in the article text that might be a different matter. After all we have templates for railway gauges even though one could easily copy-and-paste those. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Similar templates are being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 4. These are comparable to other templates in Category:United States military ship infobox templates and a couple parent categories, though this name is probably the longest. —PC-XT+ 00:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • tentative keep, I don't see any real reason to delete it. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - They possibly could be merged together, but that would make the code longer and harder to edit... —PC-XT+ 03:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete. Templates should not be used in articles as a substitute for regular wikitext when there is no special functionality involved. This is a longstanding guidance from WP:TMP: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." The use of a template in such a case makes it harder for normal editors, many of whom no little about templates, to work with the text. In this case the only special functionality is carried out by a {{convert}} template that embedded inside this one alongside some very plain wikitext. The existing transclusions should be substituted and the template deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Question: Can this be transferred to WikiData? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment why would we want this on WikiData? It's expressly data for Wikipedia articles. If we do use WikiData for this, then the data in our articles will come from off-Wikipedia for a whole range of articles that have statistics or standardized values in them. (such as aircraft articles, cars, trains, engines, generators, wheels, tires, screws, etc) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete. Does nothing but obfuscating a small portion of an article in exchange for no benefit of any sort. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete boilerplate text. The entire Category:General G. O. Squier infobox templates set of templates should all be subst-and-deleted. The General G. O. Squier-class transport are only a total of 30 ships, built 1942-1945, so a maximum of 30 articles, and these stats will never change, and there will never be any new ships of this class. These are just boilerplate text with no template functionality, no interlinkage, nada. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per 76.65.128.112, as unlikely to be needed as a template (previous !vote struck) —PC-XT+ 18:54, 10 January 2014 (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.