Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 14

< May 13	May 15 >

May 14

Template:Spinout

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) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spinout/title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spinout/link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a little used, broken template that isn't particularly useful and very awkward to use. First, it's broken because it doesn't bold the title like it's supposed to, see basic oxygen steelmaking and electric arc furnace. Second, it requires all sorts of crazy extra "onlyinclude" code, that is easy to break. Third, generally speaking, the introduction of an article isn't the best summary for a higher level article. For instance, the basic oxygen steelmaking article lists numerous other names for the process that should really be left out of the summary at steelmaking. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (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) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 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:Biopic fur

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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biopic fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Self-Nom: This appears to be an abandoned attempt to create a templated method of generating FUR for 'biographical' images. As this is seemingly unused and is a long way from being usable, I am nominating it so there is a debate about the need for a template like this.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (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) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 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:Arizona Spring Training

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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arizona Spring Training (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. This templates use seems exceptionally complicated which may be a reason it hasn't been used. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with caveat – It was originally on the Spring training page, along with Template:Florida Spring Training to show the location of all parks in relation to the rest of the state. It looks like they both were taken off that page. It should be determined if they have a place on that page before deleting either one. If they're no longer needed in that article, then I guess the best course of actions is, in fact, to delete them both. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 03:43, 4 May 2011 (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) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mabdul 11:21, 3 June 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:Former possessions of Norway

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former possessions of Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is problematic: it restates ancient territorial claims over current independent nations. What would happen if we did this all over the place: we would have a template {{Former possessions of Germany}} which would include both Norway, Denmark, France and Poland. Somehow I don't think that would fly. There is no reason to make a precedent for replaying territorial disputes through wikipedia templates by allowing this template to exist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listify it should be a list with explanations about their loss and acquisition and extent. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is problematic as it is, and it was a mistake to add it to articles covering current countries/territories. It could perhaps live on in articles covering former territories and settlements, like Erik the Red's Land and Western Settlement, but in hindsight I wouldn't mind if it was deleted. You are right than such templates could set an unfortunate precedence. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there is a danger that such a template may inflame nationalist politics, but I am a practical person and it is hard to imagine anyone is going to be unduly threatened by a modern form of Norwegian imperialism. The Viking incursions into Ireland, the Isle of Man and the islands of what are now Scotland, may have been very unwelcome at the time, but this was long ago and these territories have not been Norwegian for half a millennium or more. I recently came across this statement made by the Shetland authorities in a letter to King Haakon VII when Norway became independent again in 1906: "Today no 'foreign' flag is more familiar or more welcome in our voes and havens than that of Norway, and Shetlanders continue to look upon Norway as their mother-land, and recall with pride and affection the time when their forefathers were under the rule of the Kings of Norway." Comparisons with Nazi Germany are not apt, these territories are not matters of genuine dispute (to the best of my knowledge) and no ancient territorial claims are implied. It is a history template not a political one. Have there been actual objections - or are we imagining them on behalf of those with a connection to these places, who may be more likely to see this history in a positive light? Ben Mac Dui 12:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no similar templates for any other nation. This does set a precedent for making those. The statement of a Shetland official is largely irrelevant. I don't think the People of Iceland and Greenland are thrilled at being called "former possessions of Norway".·Maunus·ƛ· 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might care to look at Template:British overseas territories, which includes a sizeable proportion of the entire planet in its listed former territories. It is not the "statement of a Shetland official" but a letter from elected representatives on behalf of the people of Shetland. Do you have any evidence that it did not reflect their views? Ben Mac Dui 10:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Ben Mac Dui 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restructure: The current template is unhelpful and historically inaccurate, linking to modern states and everything Maunus has said. If this template exists, each territory needs to link to an appropriate article. The row titles need to link to different articles as well, which cover the time periods. Maybe it should just be merged with Template:Overseas territories of Norway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be easy enough to link the template to History of Iceland, History of Shetland, History of Orkney etc. and even the sections within them on Norwegian rule, which would emphasise the historical rather than modern aspect. Ben Mac Dui 10:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the concept isn't widely-used, and if it was widely-used it would be impractical (almost every nation in Europe would have a flurry of "former possessions of X" at the bottom). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the navbar is to quickly connect with other related articles on a particular aspect. This one does that. The current title is correct. Changing the title might help but what would one suggest? Perhaps: Historical contact with Norway, and then note within the navbox as to a former possession historically to Norway either as a footnoted number or a section to the left. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if we consider users who are not using the traditional web-browser on a desktop PC without the need for additional accessibility tools to compensate for disabilities (e.g. blindness, reduced eyesight) we should ask ourselves the question: is this navbox actually useful for the users, or can the navigation functionality be provided via other means? As Wikipedia is one of the primary results that comes up in search engines, we should consider the needs of all users and provide appropriate forms of navigation which will enhance the user experience, rather than satisfy some obsessive-compulsive desire to provide all forms of navigation whether appropriate or not. I am not convinced this is a set of articles that in the context of the English Wikipedia forms a prominent grouping, thus I wonder whether a navbox is really the best solution here, as opposed to a list article or "See also" section links. Icalanise (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (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) 18:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is hypertext, and should facilitate browsing by every reasonable way. It's not a question of what navigational device is best --rather, that we should fully employ all the types that we use, and use them consistently.The suggestion of the nom that we should do wone for former possessions of Germany is therefore a very good one. (personally,I think we use them a little unreasonably: in particular , a great deal too obtrusively, and should either use them less or find a simpler way or displaying them, but that's another matter). DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not necessarily display on all pages. Is this box relevant on the pages of Idre and Särna? Absolutely. On Jämtland? Probably. On Iceland? Probably not, but it could be well-placed on an article on Medieval Iceland. The Germany parallell would be similar: there could be a box, and it could be displayed on articles on obscure pacific islands and specific articles on colonies, but on pages on modern Namibia or modern Norway it probably would not be notable enough to be included. Jørgen (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undue weight. Iceland does not need a Norway navbox. ---- Selket ^Talk 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is already a Category there, and the template makes this same information more accessible. I don't find the dangerous precedent argument very compelling here; it sounds too much like the domino theory. And does a Germany box belong on the Namibia page? You've never heard of the Hereros? Sure it belongs there. Varlaam (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the template could be of use in the case of Norway, making visible its colonial history, and although I do not feel it would re-open historic sensitivities in this case, this template surely does raise sensitivities if applied accross the board. If we use such a template with Norway, consistency would require we use similar templates with each country. Controversies will certainly arise and will harm Wikipedia. Israel as a former British or Ottoman (Turkish) territory? Australia as a former British or even Aboriginal territory? Spain as both a former Italian (Roman) and a former Arab territory? Turkey and Afghanistan as former Greek territories (under Alexander the Great)? Can you image the trouble? Don't do it. Delete this template. Loranchet (talk ) 22:28, 07 June 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:Saturn Award for Best Special Effects

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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saturn Award for Best Special Effects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary new template highlighting only one specific award from an award program with multiple categories - undue weight. Not used in any articles at this time. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Σ _☭^★ 02:59, 17 May 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:Infobox SSR

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. Replace with other infoboxes where appropriate. Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has outlived its purpose from the days before the standardized infobox templates and it could be replaced with either {{Infobox former country}} and {{Infobox former subdivision}} as they contain many more options fields. Discussed at talk with no objections raised. --ddima .talk 16:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:51, 28 May 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.