Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 155.99.180.65 (talk) at 21:03, 6 November 2013 (→Template:Video game requirements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Template:Video game requirements

Template:Video game requirements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template should no longer be used on VG articles per consensus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#System_requirements and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#System_requirements) In short, WP:NOTFAQ Soetermans. T / C 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mention in a sentence like. Battlefield 4 utilises all 8 cores of the cpu of an AMD FX series. And not a list of everly limiting factor the game requires.—CKY2250 ταικ 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if they're all notable? - hahnchen 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can make a table for the page. You don't need a template since it wouldn't be used on other pages.—CKY2250 ταικ 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and WP:GAMECRUFT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical keep. Hello, guys. Transclusion report shows that this template is used outside video game articles, so its point-blank deletion without appropriate mitigation is detrimental to software articles. Extending consensus obtained in WikiProject Video Games beyond its purview requires a discussion that represents consensus from outside editors, because this hazardous area has adopted its own style in defiance to the broader manual of style used by the rest of Wikipedia.
But I agree that upon removal from video game articles, it can be trimmed down to fit our need. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa makes a good point. I'm not too technical like that, but could we maybe move the name of the template to, I don't know, software requirements or something and further explain on WP:VG that system requirements are no longer deemed necessary? --Soetermans. T / C 08:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to generate a list of articles where the VG template is used but where the article does not fall into the VG Project's pervue per the talk page banner? Scanning the first page of that list, I only see two entries that are non-games (one being Windows 2000). If this works out to be a trivial number of articles (on the order of a dozen), we can fix those others directly. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was reading the article Call of Duty: Ghosts, after hearing it on the news and I saw the "The template below (Video game requirements) is being considered for deletion." I followed the links here, and I don't agree that it should be deleted. The system requires aren't anymore technical in my opinion than the "Reception" template in the reviews section below. I don't agree with "for anyone else it's a trivial shopping guide". If that were true, the "Reception" template below should be deleted for the same reason. In my opinion, it's notable and objective information with respect to the constraints these games was developed in. What the news reports were reveling about was how these games are becoming increasingly "realistic", and part of the reason why this is possible is by increasing the system requirements. I came to Wikipedia because I was curious about this aspect of games. Finally, this information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as some have argued. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people. Anyways this is just my thoughts and opinion. 155.99.180.65 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria Portal

Template:Algeria Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Algeria topics. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Can't retire

Template:Can't retire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, unlike {{Retired}} and {{Semi-retired}}, is more for humor and has no real use. It is used on less that 15 unique user's userpages. It's more like a giant, humorous userbox than a useful maintenance template like the two aforementioned. As such, I am nominating this for deletion, but I am open to a move in to userspace. CRRaysHead90 | #OneMoreGame 07:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

s more for humor and has no real use....It's more like a giant, humorous userbox than a useful maintenance template like the two aforementioned. All templates need not be maintenance and the like, there is room for humor on Wikipedia, particularly in the userspace where this template is used. KonveyorBelt 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WLeague NUJ

Template:WLeague NUJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague BR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague CCM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague CU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague MV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague PG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague QR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague SFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WLeague WSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates only contains a piped wikilink, it is better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates. Articles that use these templates could substitute the templates, and the templates can be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 11:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. these template are used very frequently --> on all the pages of players who play (currently or in the past) in the W-League, as well as W-League pages, and W-League teams' season pages. They are typing-aid templates, and function like the A-League help templates. --SuperJew (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom, and redundant to {{fb team XX}}, which is also now deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates? the templates are first of all shorter, which is important, as they are used in many pages. secondly, it is easier to update the links if a page is moved for a reason (for example: Queensland Roar became Brisbane Roar, Newcastle United Jets became Newcastle Jets). Think of it as the principles of code reuse in programming - you don't want to type the same things a million times, but rather use constants or classes, so that if you make a change you only have to make it in one place. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is no need to update the links after a page is moved, that is what we have redirects for, and WP:NOTBROKEN actually discourages to do so. For instance, Template:ALeague QR produces [[Brisbane Roar FC|Queensland Roar]], but the readers would have gotten to the same page if the template was replaced by either [[Queensland Roar]] or [[Queensland Roar FC|Queensland Roar]]. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, redirects mess up bolding in templates and also when linked to a section anchor in an article. And anyway, I think the most important function of the template is the typing-aid it gives. --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These templates do absolutely nothing other than replace simple text/wikilinks. – PeeJay 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to ask you people who are for deletion what the reason really is? to clear room on the server? I doubt that is the problem.
    How much have you edited season pages of teams? It is a very useful typing aid which helps a lot, and it has also been around for a long time. --SuperJew (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - they could be substituted but why delete them if they help write articles? Christian75 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates are used and maintained by editors of the W-League articles. With no WP guideline presented in support of the deletion nomination, I see no valid reason why they should be deleted. Hmlarson (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Template:EU dependencies

Template:EU dependencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Outlying territories of European countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:EU dependencies with Template:Outlying territories of European countries.
EU version of the template is redundant to the European one. If there's a strong need to reflect EU membership in this template, footnotes or highlighting can accomplish the goal more effectively than another template. Fitnr (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One sees the motivation but it’s not so simple. The two templates are based on different principles as a result of which none of them is a proper subset of the other. In particular, the EU dependencies template entries Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not on the European outlying territories template. Apcbg (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proposed action is a merge. Is there a reason why the territories you mention wouldn't fit on a combined template that included all dependencies of European countries? Fitnr (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — You speak about "all dependencies of European countries", but "dependency" is a particular constitutional status and not all the outlying territories are dependencies, e.g. Reunion, Mayotte, French Guiana, Caribbean Netherlands and all the Italian, Portuguese and Spanish outlying territories are not dependencies. What might be the title of a merged template, and what would be its inclusion criteria? Apcbg (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One's a geographically determined template and one's a politically determined template. Gibraltar is a dependency but not an outlying territory, Guadeloupe is an outlying territory but not a dependency. CMD (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the other users said, these two templates have different inclusion criteria and can't be merged. The first lists dependent territories of European states and includes several ones located in Europe (e.g. Faroe Islands, Gibraltar). The second lists all territories of European states that are not in Europe, and includes areas that are actually part of their associated sovereign states, not dependencies (e.g. Bonaire, the Canaries).
That doesn't mean both templates should be left as is though. There are other templates listing all dependencies for each country, such as {{British dependencies}} and {{French overseas departments and territories}}. The {{EU dependencies}} template could also be expanded to include dependencies of all countries, including the U.S. insular areas, the Chinese SARs, etc. I doubt how useful {{Outlying territories of European countries}} actually is, but it is used in the articles of nearly all of its entries. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_5&oldid=580505318"