Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 15

< September 14	September 16 >

September 15

Template:Eon Footer

Template:Eon Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Job is done better by {{geological eon}}. This is a duplication in fact. Check Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_6#Template:Phanerozoic_Footer for a similar template that was deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference help

Template:Reference help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; appears to be a help template, but Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a much better resource. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unused because it's designed to be substituted, presumably. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any clue as to how it is supposed to be used? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tell a lie. It actually looks like you're meant to physically copy and paste the generated markup. This isn't a useful use of templatespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Big Brother contestant

Template:Infobox Big Brother contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Big Brother contestant with Template:Infobox person.
I feel Infobox person would be a much better template for these people. The Big Brother contestant infobox gives hardly any information, and is used in fewer than 40 articles. The only differences are that the Big Brother infobox uses "season" or "series" to signify which series of Big Brother they were in, but this can be changed to the "known for" field, and "finish" to say in what position they finished in the show, but that may not be necessary as it will be mentioned in the article. Also I think the "location" parameter is being used for where the person lived rather than where they were born. But infobox person would give a lot more information, and several Big Brother contestants already use infobox person instead. Also several contestants are known for more than just Big Brother as they go on to gain notability afterwards, such as Jon Tickle. AnemoneProjectors 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What exactly to merge here? Just delet and create a redirect if necessary. "location" should change to "birthplace" or "birth_place". Only Infobox actor was using the "location" parameter and now this changed after the merging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refstart

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

This isn't a welcome, warning, badge or notifier: it's a complete manual which is redundant to just pointing someone at the actual documentation page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a better help page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They contain essentially the same information, so I fail to see how one can be better than the other. They can simply be used differently. It is not a help page: it is a help template that can be posted to user and article talk pages to focus attention on this vital activity much more potently than sending someone off to another page. We should have more help templates, not get rid of one. Ty 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple documents which say more or less the same thing not only increases the burden of maintenance but increases user confusion if they're out of sync. Indeed, you authored both, which makes it double confusing that you consider maintaining two copies of the same thing in two different namespaces to be worth your time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that anything that will help to improve the standard of referencing is worth time. I'm surprised you don't. It's easy enough for them to be "in synch" by simply copying across. Besides which there is more than one permissible approach to referencing anyway. You seem somewhat confused. Ty 01:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It has also proven to be very helpful with new editors, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is good too...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a proper help page in the correct namespace. There is absolutely no need to have a duplicate of this content in a template to get dumped on people's user pages. Just link them to the help page. I'd be alright with this being properly formatted into a welcome / user notice type template if it's genuinely necessary to have a template to link people to a manual, but not with this amorphous wad of text which doesn't resemble any other template in either format or purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep No reason whatsoever to delete and a very strong reason to keep - namely that it is used to help editors, especially new ones. WP:REFB is useful also, but sometimes it seems preferable to make something more obvious and easier to access for those who obviously have difficulty negotiating wikipedia's complexity. Referencing is one of the most vital activities, especially with WP:BLP issues, and anything that improves this must be a good thing. It is not a welcome notice, but it can be useful to supply it along with a welcome notice sometimes. The fact that it may not resemble other things on Wikipedia is neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is whether it is a net benefit to the project, and it clearly is. Ty 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a misuse of templatespace and a duplication of existing content. That's two good reasons to delete. WP:USEFUL, presented without addressing the reasons given for deletion, is no argument at all. I can't see what advantage this has over Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which is in the proper namespace for help documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a misuse of template space to have a template. That is what template space is for. I don't see any valid reason given in the nom for deletion. You say what it isn't, but you don't address the pertinent point that it benefits the project by being able to bring the guidance to the (usually new) editor, rather than expecting the editor to go somewhere to find it. You seem very rigid in your view of what parts of wikipedia are suitable for what tasks, but I'm not aware of anything beyond your own opinion that validates that stance. There is always room for innovation, if it provides a net benefit to the project. That point is the one that is most important of all, but you apply what you imagine to be rules over that. Ty 01:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only if redesigned. Potentially useful if trimmed to just a summary of salient points with a link to the proper help page. As it is I don't consider it acceptable to spam someone's talk page with this amount of information, even if it is collapsed. It's also counterproductive to maintain such a substantial duplication of the actual help page, and as Chris says, it's not what templatespace is for. PC78 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have {{Refref}} and {{Refref2}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those will be next on the list. None of the three are even categorised as help documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]