Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 23

October 23

RefX family

Template:Ref A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ref C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ref D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ref I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ref R (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates for an old citation system that is no longer used; redundant to the {{Ref label}} system and other citation methods. No transclusions for any of these. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Paleozoic

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

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

Unused templates for a wikiproject that has been inactive since 2007. Siblings of {{Precambrian}}, nominated by another editor below. RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. These seem to have been superseded by {{Geological era}} etc, so there's no particular reason to keep them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:RR

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

Short, practically unused template, could be confusing due to short name. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and abandoned. It has no talk and no edits since it was created in 2004, and its only transclusion is on a userpage of the editor who created it, who hasn't edited on WP since 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Precambrian

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

Unused infobox Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused template for a wikiproject that has been inactive since 2007. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. These seem to have been superseded by {{Geological eon}} etc, so there's no particular reason to keep them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:2003 Cincinnati Reds season game log

Template:2003 Cincinnati Reds season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused template. Could possibly be substituted on 2003 Cincinnati Reds season if it is of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:All plot

Template:All plot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge to {{Plot}}; both templates serve essentially the same function - to notify that an article has too much plot - and I see no valid reason to have two separate templates. Both put articles in the same category. This appears to be more of a wording/POV split made during disagreements about the word of the Plot template. Plot is the older and far more widely used, so suggesting this template be merged there. Merging of the wording should not be a big issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Please see the related discussions at Template talk:Plot#Requested move. The current wording of {{Plot}} appears to have consensus and the two templates do indeed address distinct issues and cannot be plausibly merged. Moreover, the current version of {{Plot}} is what is novel. Almost all of its active transclusions date back to the original wording, which is far more like the current template:All plot. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From your explanation, All Plot is basically the "old" plot template despite consensus approving the new wording. That, to me, would indicate a pointy or non-neutral forking to retain the preferred old wording. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus relating to the "old" wording is to be found in policy, at WP:PLOT. If anything, the new wording of Plot is not based on policy. But I think the new wording does have its, if more style-related than policy-based, justification. Central to my opposition here is that the meaning of the current All plot template is the one built on a far longer-lasting and deeper-rooted consensus (despite aggressive attempts by a vocal minority to enable all-plot summary "articles"). So long as {{Plot}} does not relate to WP:PLOT, we need a different template to address that very distinct issue. Tbh, I really don't understand your vigorous opposition to my initial move request for {{Plot}}, much less your subsequent deletion request here. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{allplot}} is considerably stronger than {{plot}}: compare {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}}, or {{too many images}} and {{cleanup-gallery}}. I don't believe that a merge would be appropriate, as it would dilute the meaning where {{allplot}} is applicable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how. If it has too much plot, it has too much plot, regardless of percentage of article it takes up. It would be just as easy to even put a flag in plot to switch between a stronger wording of "all plot" versus "too much" and to put in any article/section switches. If its purely strength of language, I see no reason the stronger language of all plot can't be merged into plot, which could use it anyway. Plot's wording was, however, changed by "consensus", so someone creating a new template that goes back to the older wording against that consensus seems very inappropriate versus resolving the issue with further discussion. Further, All Plot may have "stronger" wording, but it is not well used or well known. Never heard of it myself and even having now seen it, I'd still just use plot for the same purposes even if an article was nothing but "this is about x" followed by 3 pages of plot summary. Both address the same core issue. Unref and refimprove are two different issues - one indicates a total lack of references while the other indicates that more are needed and can be applicable even when there are 20+. Too many images would also seem to be fairly unnecessary - that's what nonfree is for. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and take your response at face value. There are many articles that consist of concise (in and of themselves entirely appropriate) plot summaries, but which consist of nothing but the plot summary. Those articles couldn't plausibly be tagged with the current version of {{Plot}}. The old version used to do that, and now that function has simply been moved to All plot which contains the all-relevant mention and link to the policy at its core. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree with the reason given by Collectonian. After reading the arguments made in favor of {{All plot}}, I'm even more convinced that they should be merged. It is not quite clear the difference between the two and I really don't see a reason to have two similarly named templates which are used for a similar function. There are other templates to complement the function of {{Plot}}, like {{Incomplete}}, {{Overdetailed}} or {{Sub-sections}}, so I don't think there is a specific need for {{All plot}}. Jfgslo (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I've shown, there very clearly is. Let me repeat myself: There are many articles that consist of concise (in and of themselves entirely appropriate) plot summaries, but which consist of nothing but the plot summary. The argument that such articles should be deleted rather than tagged is also invalid, since such an article might well be expanded with real-world info. A cleanup template encouraging users to do so is more than in order. Indeed, practically all transclusions of Template:Plot date back to when the template's wording was based on WP:PLOT -- a function which has been shifted to All plot. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that. Why only the plot and not other data? I understand that you are mostly referring to articles in which the plot is essentially okay, but that lack any other section. But dedicating a single template for that is confusing. A template which ask for other sections would work better instead of a plot specific template, in my opinion, because there are other articles which probably have a good developed section of some other data, let's say reviews or reception, but that lack a plot. Shouldn't that also merit its own template? I think not. My point is, {{All plot}} is way too easily confused with {{Plot}}, and I also don't think that an specific template for articles which only have plot is needed. I'd rather have a template that indicated that other sections are needed in an article instead of focusing only on the plot section. Jfgslo (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep They serve two completely distinct functions, in the way that warning levels do. {{Plot}} is basically saying that an article is unbalanced, this one is saying "there is nothing else here - this is a deletion candidate". Black Kite 17:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Plot}} is basically saying that an article is unbalanced -- No, it isn't saying that. The difference is that Plot is addressing stylistic issues of the plot summary itself, while All plot is addressing the policy-based issue of WP:PLOT. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a merger because both templates do not serve essentially the same function. {{Allplot}} is a tag placed at the top of the article to indicate the bulk of it is merely a synopsis of the film's plot and it needs to be expanded with pertinent data. {{Plot}} is a tag placed at the top of the plot synopsis section to indicate it exceeds the suggested word limit and needs to be trimmed. There is a very distinct difference between an article having a plot synopsis that's too long and an article being nothing more than a plot synopsis without production notes, a cast list, critical reception and awards and nominations sections, etc. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot is not placed purely at the top of a plot section, it is placed more often at the top of the article to indicate the article has too much plot, including exceeding word counts and having more plot that real-world context. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not reflect the current wording, which I believe was arrived at after it became evident that the tag was being used contextually in articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. They serve completely different purposes. {{tl:All plot}} addresses articles that have all plot, i.e. no or minimal real world content. {{tl:Plot}} marks a plot section as being unbalanced in comparison to the rest of the article, or the subject that the plot is describing. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. {{allplot}} can be used for stub/start articles where its basically a few paragraphs of consise prose that isn't too long or overly detailed.陣内_Jinnai 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bioprotocols

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

Violates WP:SELF inherently and has been applied to a number of articles despite being incomplete and broken. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a new template and I did not posses the knowledge to fix the bug (thanks for fixing it), I have removed the violating part.
The reason why it was mentioning that "wikipedia was created as an encyclopedia, so cannot contain protocols, which can be found at these sites" was to explain why there are no protocols (=a scientific cookbook-like list: deemed How-to) in the methods (=description) pages, which always baffles those who are not aware of this problem (both readers and editors). I however think that to make it clearer this should be exempted by the rule of self-referencing to increase user-freindliness, which is more important. --Squidonius (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than referring to external sources (because links aren't useful in print) perhaps the protocol should be described with prose rather than a step-by-step recipe. Someone who is looking to understand how to do a Southern blot wouldn't read an encyclopedia article on it (they'd go to college), but someone looking to understand what it is or how it works would. Does that make sense? 70.91.178.185 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Collins class submarine and related characteristics template

Template:Collins class submarine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine propulsion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine beam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine draught (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine speed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine complement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine EW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine sensors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Collins class submarine armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are unused and have been made redundant by {{Australian submarines}} in the case of the first, and plain text or the conversion template in the articles themselves for all the others. -- saberwyn 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Otheruses templates

Template:Otheruses9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Otheruses7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are unused and easily replaced with {{about}}. — sligocki (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• REdirect these were previously documented hatnote templates, therefore a redirect is appropriate. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox binomial

Template:Taxobox binomial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox authority botany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox authority opt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox authority parens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox ordo entry authority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox begin synonyms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox begin placement virus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and deprecated members of the old taxobox (i.e., {{taxobox begin}} {{taxobox end}}) group of templates. The new {{taxobox}} does not use these templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox Subfamilia entry

Template:Taxobox Subfamilia entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox superfamilia entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox infraclassis entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subclassis entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox superclassis entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox superdivisio entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subgenus entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox superordo entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subordo entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox superphylum entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subphylum entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subregnum entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subspecies entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox subtribus entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox infraordo entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox alliance entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxobox unranked entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (or very few uses) and deprecated members of the old taxobox (i.e., {{taxobox begin}} {{taxobox end}}) group of templates. The new {{taxobox}} does not use these templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to the new template (ie. add these levels to the template) 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell all these levels are in {{Taxobox}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange

Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently orphaned and untouched since 2004. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)