Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmenkus (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 2 October 2010 (→Template:Unsolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 28 September 30 >

September 29

Template:SockmasterProven

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

Deprecated template and rarely used anywhere. Suggest a redirect to {{Blocked user}}. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting - There are three different redirect suggestions and one merge suggestion here. Relisting here to gain consensus on which suggestion should be followed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ga'Hoole 2

Template:Ga'Hoole 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the links on this template are already included on Template:Ga'Hoole. There is no reason to duplicate the links on a separate template and add a section full of unlinked text. Neelix (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SockpuppetArrested

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

I don't think there is a need for this template, nor does it seem very appropriate.  - EdoDodo talk 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as inappropriate. Goes against the spirit of basic respect (even for socks, vandals, and those too immature or incompetent to edit well) underlying WP, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, WP:DENY, and DNFTT. On top of which, it doesn't seem to help us any. Kill it now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahah. Delete. --Bsherr (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Shouldn't this be nominated at MfD? It's a userbox in disguise, IIRC MfD handles those even if they happen to be in template-space. The editors who best know about userbox keep/delete criteria (and I'm not one of them) would be more likely to know about what to do with the template than TFD regulars. --ais523 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it meets the definition of a user box per WP:User boxes, because it's not about the user; rather, it's someone else who has tagged a user page because of a process executed on that user. I think it stays here on TfD. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still looks like a userbox to me. If people are tagging other people's userpages with it, that's a problem in itself, but I'm not sure it's inherently the fault of the template. --ais523 21:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I hear that. I don't think it strictly meets the definition, but to the extent that it is one, I think it's fine to WP:IAR and consider it here. I'm not sure that MfD has any greater expertise than we do here on it, and we've already begun discussing it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sindh jurisdiction

Template:Infobox Sindh jurisdiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A crude copy of the Infobox Indian jurisdiction template, so far used only once. It gives the false impression that Sindh is part of India. Sindh articles would be better served by using Infobox settlement. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There used to exist a seperate 'Pakistan' infobox concerning such articles. However, it was later deleted as redundant to the more effective Infobox settlement. This template should be deleted as articles concerning Sindh are no different. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsolved

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

As currently formatted this template does not provide any genuine encyclopedic content, rather it poses a question to the reader in a manner that seems both unhelpful and unprofessional. The "problem" should be discussed properly in the article text, and if it is necessary to direct the reader to a related list of unsolved problems then this should be done with a {{see also}} hatnote or similar. PC78 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles

Template:British Isles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deletion reason number 4 - template violates a policy such as NPOV. This template is called British Isles. It is itended as a navigation template linking all articles related to British Isles. After this discussion, thanks to a small number of editors who completely misunderstand WP:NPOV and want to apply it to the British Isles naming dispute (itself a wholly disputed article), to mean that readers can be presented with a different world view depending on the page they are reading, the template has been changed from the standard format - presenting the title simply as British Isles on all articles where the template is used, it now has some gobbledygook implementation where it has three or four different apparent names if it being used on an article where the title is 'offensive', and in those cases, the notional parent article is then relegated to the body of the template. This is a clear violation of NPOV - it is a complete and utter fantasy that the way NPOV is achieved is by changing content in this manner. If the template cannot be presented in a uniform manner that is of use to both readers and editors, who rightly expect all navigation templates to follow this simple format, then it should not exist at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - with the nomination sentiment, however feel that deletion solves nothing, so for the time being I am not going to !vote on this. I have kept out of matters relating to British Isles over the last few weeks, but it is an inescapable fact that to the vast majority of the English speaking world the archipelago is called the "British Isles". It is unfortunate that an extremely small number of people take offence because they fell that calling it that some how implies that the island of Ireland somehow "belongs" to the United Kingdom, but that does not excuse the amount of disruption to WP, the amount of admin time taken up on this dispute that only barely exists. I freely concede that there are a number of cases where well meaning editors have used British Isles when referring to either GB or the UK with out understanding their mistake and it is right and proper that these be fixed. We are all meant to be here to build a encyclopaedia, and this sort of issue really brings WP into disrepute. Codf1977 (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree The template was changed slightly following the discussion linked to above but not in the way described. The ability to change the heading of the template on certain pages has been a feature of the template since its first use in 2006 (12 December 2006). It is an unusual feature but one that has worked well for the past four years on a contentious subject and is in no way a violation of NPOV. Compare its appearance on Great Britain and Ireland for example. Calling for the template to be deleted is utterly OTT. --RA (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Prove it. Show me exactly where this sort of screwing around with templates and presenting different world views in different articles is "in no way a violation of NPOV". Prove it using a policy wording or comparable precedent, don't waste any more time rehashing the same points as was done in that discussion, which have absolutely nothing to do with navigation templates. I want specific proof you know what you are talking about in this specific case. You've been asked repeatedly to do that, you've even been invited to prove your interpretation was correct by consulting with Jimbo, and you've completely refused to do anything of the sort. And this recent change was not a small change, the previous implementation simply pipelinked 'Britain and Ireland' in the title to British Isles. While that is completely innaccurate, it is nowhere near as bad as what has followed. The fact that it being like that went unnoticed for years is evidence of absolutely nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I love the way some people consider using anything other than BI as a POV. Proof it. Show me exactly where this sort of screwing around with templates and presenting different world views in different articles is "a violation of NPOV". Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What was supposed to be the substance of this rationale? You haven't made any sense at all as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dido Mick dido. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you know the sense behind my nomination, you just do not want to accept it, which is your right, if a little misguided, and certainly not backed by anything of substance or by policy, unless some evidence arrives soon. Your rationale by contrast really is just incomprehensible, I have not one single idea what you are attempting to say, and can only assume it will be ignored as an invalid justavote. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you should assume Mick is good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and go somewhere else - I don't see any reason to destroy a fine template over a disagreement on what it should be named. You all have to settle on a naming convention, a task that has proved impossible so far but which I hope, like peace in the Middle East and independence from fossil fuels, will be achieved sometime shortly after my lifetime. Meanwhile, you're disturbing the peace here. Find a talk page and fight there. (My Goode's World Atlas says British Isles. Ethnocentric bastards.) --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid geographic region, and archipelago. Renaming templates does not occur at TFD. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Codf1977's non-!voting rationale. The template is called "British Isles" and my belief is that that name should be the name used. I believe the controversial parameter that prompted this should be used to append alternative names, not hide the template name to appease editors' sensibilities. "British Isles - also called 'Britain and Ireland'" (or similar alternatives) seems to me to be a perfectly workable solution, and it's unfortunate that neither "side" seem prepared to compromise. However deletion is not the answer. TFOWR 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mick - help me out here understanding what you are suggesting. You're saying that you disagree with the ability to "rename" the template, so why delete it? Why not argue for removing the ability, or changing the ability as per TFWOR above - and if that's already happened, simply accept consensus. Your making a case for deletion seem connected with the ability to rename the article, but that doesn't mean the template isn't of value. --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the benefit for those that missed it, the reason for deletion is that the template violates NPOV. This is not a request to rename it, it is a request to delete it. And if you click on the provided link, violating NPOV is very much a valid reason to delete a template. A template that violates NPOV is not 'useful' in the slightest, unless of course, it meets someone's personal POV. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but if the extent of the POV is just the name of the template, why not just rename it? Why must it be deleted if it can be adjusted by less drastic measures? --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeking a rename. The displayed title of the template is being changed in certain places where it is used, to reflect different world views based on what article you are reading, contrary to NPOV. If this if removed and the template is changed to use just the standard and perfectly normal implementaion used by every other template out there, then deletion won't be necessary. If it doesn't though, it still patently violates NPOV, which is a clear justification for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do the variable titles violate NPOV? --Bsherr (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And why can't the template just be edited to eliminate the variable title? --Bsherr (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it presents a different POV of the term for readers, based on what article the template is placed on. The theory behind this is the entirely flawed assumption that readers of one POV read one set of articles, and vice versa, and NPOV exists to ensure readers are only presented with 'their' POV on 'their' articles. This is of course absolute garbage - Wikipedia's NPOV policy is there to ensure that it presents the same view, the neutral view, irrespective of what article you are reading. This view changing implementation is an example of Wikipedia taking a side in the dispute, rather than neutrally documenting the dispute. This is of course a fundemental violation of NPOV.
          • Due to the inability of one side of the dispute to realise their understanding of NPOV is flawed, and their complete unwillingess and inability to have their view checked or reinforced by outside, neutral, input, from the community. I made the suggestion that if their view of NPOV was so right, then Jimbo would have no problem agreeing with it. The response to that was incredible tbh. In the face of such craziness, there's no option left but to delete the template, because it fails NPOV, and cannot be fixed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Amazing Race contestant

Template:The Amazing Race contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Infobox person}} is a much better template for these people. This infobox gives hardly any information, and is used in fewer than 10 articles. Check Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_15 for a similar discussion. Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I get that some of these people are notable for appearing on a reality TV show, but we don't need such overly specific infoboxes for each and every show, filled with trivial details such as who a person was teamed up with. We should also consider {{Infobox Survivor contestant}} and {{Project Runway contestant}} on the same basis. PC78 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, most Amazing Race contestants with articles are otherwise notable (mostly pageant winners, a couple of Survivor/Big Brother winners, Harlem Globetrotters, etc). The vast majority of them do not have any articles here. (Not that I'm saying keep it, I'm just saying, most if not all of them have articles for reasons other than TAR. In fact, that's a big argument for not having the template.) --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_29&oldid=388348203"