Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Template:Su30

[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) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Su30 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Abandoned template. Originally probably meant just for one article Sukhoi Su-30, but not included there. Non-standard layout per WikiProject Aircraft. Kubanczyk (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Verbose

[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) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. No documentation. Damiens.rf 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Collapsible table

[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 as redundant to {{hidden begin}} plus a standard wikitable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One single, inappropriate transclusion at Harle Syke in contravention of MOS:COLLAPSE. Unneeded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 4 days old! How many transclusions would you expect it to have?? MOS:COLLAPSE is a problem, where can I find the discussion that led to this rule? I'm in the dark as to why this might be - it seems to me that a collapsible table is a great way of offering readers additonal info on a subject? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies: I didn't check the history, but simply assumed from the styling that it was old and unused. Collapsible content is less discoverable for readers (who may be unused to having to click a "show" button to see content), and in general it makes little sense to hide significant content from readers: in ancillary templates like infoboxes (which are only supposed to summarise articles) this is okay, but not in the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reading MOS:COLLAPSE again, I think that my intended use (See:Harle Syke and Weavers' Triangle), might be covered by the sentence “Collapsible sections may be used in navboxes or infoboxes, or in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose”. I’m new to creating templates and tables from scratch, and am aware that are probably better ways to do this, if people have any ideas, I’m all ears --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material in question is not covered in the prose. The material in the table should be rewritten as prose. That would be the best way of improving the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Large sections of prose suck! I realise that I would have to expand the prose to get around the problem. But failing that I would just remove the collapsibility. Anyone else with an opinion? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move each table, uncollapsed, to a separate article. Ensure that each entry is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion (the abr is lower than for a while article about a subject, but we don't need to list every Victorian commercial building). And use {{kml}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could work with this but a> Template:Collapse top says they're for talk pages, can I use them in an article; b> I would still want to use a template to hide as much of the formatting as possible, so surely I may as well rewrite this one? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, although this indicates otherwise. I have ammended my original comment with "if having a collapsible section is necessary". I don't think it's as much of an issue with the template, as it is with violating MOS:COLLAPSE. Weavers' Triangle isn't using "collapse top", but basically is using it, since the output is essentially the same as if it were. I agree with Andy Mabbett's suggestion in this particular case, that the need for a collapsible section is an indication of the need for a separate article. In this case, create an article called List of Mills in Harle Syke, then put a {{main|List of Mills in Harle Syke}} in the Harle Syke article. Do the same with a List of Buildings in the Weavers' Triangle for Weavers' Triangle. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – After some research, testing and refection I have decided the following: The styling might be iffy, the coding might be clunky, but it auto-expands for printing and displays reasonably in IE and Firefox and even mobile. When used as a base template it is customisable, and allows almost all of the formatting and table structure to be hidden from inexperienced editors, which I think is a plus. While I thank Frietjes for their help, neither of these solutions works as well (See: Harle Syke v Old & Weavers' Triangle v Old) I can get round MOS:COLLAPSE by putting a warning in the doc (that it should only be used to consolidate information covered in the prose). I also think (properly developed) this method could be better than using separate list articles in many cases. Finally I feel that anyone dumb enough to not figure out a show/hide link, needs our pity, not our help!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS Is it just me or does the mobile version of wikipedia violate MOS:COLLAPSE in its design??
How does any of that address the nominating rationale, which is that our guidelines prohobit its use for the only thing it's used for? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it explained it quite clearly, but I’ll have another go. It has been established that this is a brand new template that has so far only been experimentally used in a new article, so talk of its limited use is nonsensical. After that we’re on to a debate over what constitutes a violation of (clearly very important) MOS:COLLAPSE guideline. I agree that as it is, my experimental use of the template conflicts somewhat with this, however it obviously doesn’t mean that the template inherently violates it. This effectively means that the nomination was a mistake.
While I’m just about willing, to get involved in debate over meaning of MOS:COLLAPSE, I’m pretty sure this isn’t the forum for it.
The template was designed for collapsing large sections of prose. The Manual of Style renders that purpose invalid. For what reason does a template with no productive uses need to be kept around? We already have plenty of other templates with collapsing functionality for use in areas of the project where collapsing is useful. It was an evaluation of those other templates which led me to believe this one was surplus to requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you winding me up? – The template was blatantly designed collapse a sortable wikitable, (with a view to hiding the table structure on the articles it might get used in) what people put in it is optional, if it wasn’t I would of coded it into the template! Zero acceptable alternatives have been suggested here, so to “which plenty of other templates” do you refer?? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I'd been working on things elsewhere and had forgotten the implementation details here. My opinion is that as a simple collapsing table it is heavily overwrought compared to wikitable syntax, and that while we accept that tax on complexity in some meta-templates for the sake of consistency it doesn't make sense to accept it for a generalised piece of table code with no definitive use cases. Historically, we've come up with meta-templates by identifying lots of common cases where people are using tables in the same way and then coming up with a solution which fits all of them. We haven't cooked up the templates first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I had quite a few articles that I had planned to use it for, but I’m not going to list them here for fear what might happen to them. I have also come to the conclusion that in attempting to prevent the time and effort I spent creating this template, from becoming a waste, I am just wasting more of it here. I’ve said all I will about this, if the template gets deleted, I will get by without it --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ignoring the MOS:COLLAPSE argument, I still think this has disadvantages compared to already existing methods for collapsing tables: (1) The template is large, and has a hardcoded limit on the number of rows, (2) Inserting a new row requires renumbering all the rows following the new row, (3) It requires learning new syntax just to input the table information, (4) It requires using {{!!}} due to the problem with passing pipes as inputs to a template. Now, one could resolve most of the issues, but separating the inner table generation from the outer collapsible table code, but then you would just have {{hidden}} or {{hidden top}} or {{collapse top}} or one of many different collapsing templates. For example, I see now substantial rendering difference in Weavers' Triangle between hidden and this template, or in Harle Skye between hidden and this template. Minor differences in the code can be seen here, where this template was not deployed, but an untemplated version of {{hidden top}} was being used. Larger differences can be seen here, where the {{!!}} and row parameters have been replaced with standard wikitable markup. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:Collapsible box

[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. If someone wants to redirect it, go right ahead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to the more fully-featured {{navbox vertical}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Non-free Cartoon Network 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 Withdrawn (Non-admin closure). JJ98 (Talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Cartoon Network image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, superseded by {{Non-free television screenshot}}. JJ98 (Talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Speedy-Warn

[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedy-Warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded duplicate of Template:Uw-csd, which is part of the standardized User warning templates. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Speedy-decline

[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) 00:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedy-decline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded duplicate of Template:Speedy-Warn. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:User WikiProject The Boondocks

[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 speedy deleted by Rmhermen (talk · contribs), citing CSD G8. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject The Boondocks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The WikiProject that this template went with was deleted a couple months ago so there is no reason for this template. Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Class A article

[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, until there is consensus to use it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class A article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a top icon, similar to {{Featured article}} and {{Good article}}, intended to be added to A-Class articles. I am nominating it for deletion because there is no consensus currently to add a top icon to A-Class articles, largely because an assessment of "A-Class" usually does not involve a formal review process (compare with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Good article nominations). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although I see your point I think its useful to keep for the projects that do use it. --Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template currently is unused. Also, projects do not have a special claim over their articles, so I do not think that there is consensus to allow a project to indicate its assessment on the article page (rather than just the talk page). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A class articles do go through a review, such as this one for the SS Timothy Bloodworth article. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MILHIST is an exception in this regard; most projects do not (due to a lack of resources and participation) have a formal review process for A-class. Also, even for A-class articles reviewed by MILHIST, there is no project-wide consensus to add an "A-class" icon to the tops of articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we could use this in the future – no sense in deleting it when it is doing no harm. Also, some A-class articles do have a formal review process (WP:MH/A, etc.), albeit there is no Wikipedia-wide process. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since A-class is used by several projects, how is it not being used by their A-class articles?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, as an alternative, redirect to Template:Icon. Note that this is not a deletion request on A-Class itself, but just the topicon, which currently has no consensus for implementation. That is mainly due to the fact that an article can be A-Class and not a GA (i.e. current event, unstable) and hence could be lower than GA standing (though in most cases it's between GA and FA). –MuZemike 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I get the idea, but I think the line should be drawn at FA and GA, which are site-wide standards, rather than WikiProject standards. Each project has its own standards and some don't even use the A-class in accordance to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria. As a result, I don't the A-class label carries the same weight as GA and FA icons, and we should not display it to our general audience. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete I think Guy's comments above are perfectly in line with mine. A-class is a more subjective and project-specific ranking with differing standards and are primarily behind-the-scenes class labels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not every project has the same review process as MILHIST. Since this would be placed on every article page with A-class assement, I would not want it to appear from a project that had poor quality review.陣内Jinnai 18:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since A class is subjective and project dependent. This is not something we want to advertise. --Damiens.rf 18:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to non-use and confusion with a WikiProject's A-Class rating on an article's talk page. No need to advertise an "A" class article in the main namespace. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MuZemike is correct: The reader-visible topicon for A-Class does not have community consensus for being used, and considering the amount of opposition there was to add the icon to {{A-Class}} itself, it is likely it will never achieve that consensus. The existence of this template might give the impression of its use being accepted when that is not the case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- as per Kumioko .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A-Class seems to be wikiproject-specific, whereas featured and good are project-wide. If more wikiprojects than the military had working systems for review A-Class nominations, they would conflict each other: A-Class for military would follow one review, A-Class for country wikiproject would follow another, A-Class for historical period wikiproject would follow yet another one... So, unless we develop a new review system for A-Class articles "in general", as a third review between good and featured, this template has no use. MBelgrano (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about starting an RfC on the issue? We could also ask at the same time that all new A-class evaluations also must pass GA or have already passed GA. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I got off-topic. When and if A-Class is adopted as a project-wide thing, we may use a template like this. But whenever that should happen or not, is a discussion for somewhere else. For the purposes of this discussion, there isn't such a system right now, and without it the template has no reason to be. MBelgrano (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not used by any projects. A-class rating itself is used; but not the template. When and if we decide to use this for applicable projects, then the template can be restored. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per guy mostly, and because its existance implies consensus Bob House 884 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The A-Class rating is defined on a per-project basis and is not necessarily subject to the same level of peer review as the GA and FA processes. It does not have the same sitewide consensus as to quality as GA and FA articles. Such ratings should be indicated on talk pages, as they currently are, making this template unnecessary under the current assessment standards. --Kinu t/c 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a initative of a single (flag whore) user aimed at perverting the accepted article ratings system and has no support or backing prior to its creation.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't buy the idea that an ACR doesn't merit the same kind of notice an FA or GA does because the review was more limited in scope. A-class articles are usually reviewed with an eye more for content than for format, which is more valuable to the encyclopedia IMO. We should be encouraging this. Simply because not all projects have adopted A-class doesn't mean we should drag down the articles rated A-class into the same obscurity and lack of recognition (and abuses of the template can be done on a case-by-case basis). I think if we bothered to get a wider consensus, there would be more support than you would imagine. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you agree that there is no valid use for this template until such a consensus forms? If someone did indeed "bother to get a wider consensus", and it happened to favor having a top-icon for A-Class articles, then of course a template would be justified. Until then, however... -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those editors who want to see this information at the top of an article can use the Pyrospirit/metadata gadget listed in Preferences. "Class A" designation is useful to editors but can be misleading to readers in the absence of a review process. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a strong enough reason to keep or delete this template. However, good articles have a top icon, then if the article is improved it loses it's top icon until it then becomes an FA (ok this is not currently the only route to A-status but it is one possibility). That doesn't sound right and so I do think all articles above GA should have a top icon, provided a condition of A-status is that the article must have first been promoted to GA. Having said this I don't like the current design aesthetically so I'm leaning to Delete. I also think subclassing these icons in {{top icon}} as suggested by Chris Cunningham is a good idea. Polyamorph (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have in mind that both GA and FA icons are backed by Wikipedia process to select where is it applied and where it isn't. This icon is "in the air", there is no such process behind it, and this is not the place to discuss whnever to apply one. By the way, a good article may only loose the icon if it's either promoted to featured, or demoted. A good article that is expanded and improved to featured, will keep the GA icon during all the process until it's replaced by the other. MBelgrano (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that this is not the place to discuss such things. We discussing the usefulness and applicability of the template. As you can see I'm leaning to delete partly because I agree that there should be some sort of formal review for A-class articles. The idea that a GA will keep its icon when promoted to A-class is fine (although note that there are certainly articles where this is not the case 102nd Intelligence Wing, the example A-class article, does not have a top icon at all despite being promoted to A-class from GA by formal review) but then why not have a new icon to differentiate it from all the other GA's? And that doesn't get round the fact that an article promoted directly to A-class (whether is be via formal review or not) will not have a top-icon to indicate it's quality level whereas lesser GA quality articles would. that makes no sense hence I don't think that having a top icon for A-class articles is necessarily a bad thing! Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Bahamut. Keep in mind that A measures different things than GA or VGA do Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there is wider consensus to use it. Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_28&oldid=1141876288"