Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 6

< April 5	April 7 >

April 6

Template:Peoples of the world

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) 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peoples of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doubtfull if this is a usefull template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:41, 6 April 2012 (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:Sar

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. Consensus that the template was too complex and so inhibited editor involvement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Over-engineered boilerplate generator which adds bullet points to a see also section. It is vastly simpler both conceptually and technically simply to take the article title, stick the words "Outline of" or "Index of" in front of it, and to manually construct the links than it it to have to remember this template exists, remember its syntax, and have said template perform a half-dozen operations to spit out the three bullets it's primarily used for. Pretty much all additional functionality is overkill, best handled by manual editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teemu Leisti (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This vendetta is getting a bit personal and repetitive (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Satop). Template:Sar creates links for the outlines, bibliographies, and indexes relevant to an article. This template supports the efforts of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes. It is also invoked by Template:Satop. Please do not delete this template. Buaidh 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "vendetta". It was plainly stated in the last round of deletions that this was a multi-stage process as you had created multiple overlapping layers of these templates, all linking to one another, and so it was impractical to nominate them all at once as it would be unclear how to resolve the deletions. {{Satop}} is already nominated, so its existence obviously isn't a barrier. For the rest of it, I know full well what the template's purpose is, but there are significant and insurmountable problems with the implementation (namely that it unnecessarily complicates a trivial task) which mean we would be best off without it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could not disagree with you more. You seem determined to add as much manual coding as possible to Wikipedia, leaving only the templates that thumperwad and his mates created. God forbid that a template invoke another template. Do you understand what a metatemplate is? Buaidh 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't a meta-template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what joke is word called "over enginered" rather deleting this and that try to improve.Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not possible to improve this in a way which would address the fundamental problem with it, which is that it serves as a hard-coded bit of text substitution which is either too simple to warrant keeping around (as editors would be just as well off manually adding the links) or so complicated that it's actually longer than the text it inserts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Chris. This is a complicated way of getting a very simple output so it's unnecessarily intimidating and confusing to unexperienced or not-so-tech-savvy editors. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The documentation provides a very simple explanation of how this template functions. Those who understand it may use it, those who do not understand need not use it. Buaidh 14:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are seriously underestimating the number of editors who do not know what a template is and see transclusions as something that only the Wikigeeks should handle. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using this template is no easier than writing the equivalent manual markup, but creates an additional barrier to further contributions to the article by other editors. Kanguole 15:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this template discourages anyone from adding links. Buaidh 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In most articles, where the See also section consists of a plain list of links, it is easy for editors to add, remove, modify or re-order links. If this simple markup is hidden behind a template, they need to understand how this particular template works in order to make the changes they want. Kanguole 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless template. It is used solely to make a simple operation (adding bullet points) more cryptic. One of the project's major challenges is to make our syntax more n00b-friendly, and this template contradicts that goal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should be more novice-friendly by avoiding insider terms like n00b. Buaidh 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template cannot be deleted at this time. The result of the deletion discussion for Template:Satop was:

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement with {{Sar}}, {{Portal}}, and {{Wikipedia books}}.

Therefore if a decision is made to delete Template:Sar, the discussion of the deletion of Template:Satop will need to be reopened. Buaidh 18:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. That {{satop}} is still in the holding pen for deletion doesn't change anything about this nomination. It simply means that this template cannot be deleted until the work to remove {{satop}} has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete confusing and serves no purpose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template basically produces three links. Often See Also's aren't needed, and links are present in navboxes, so making them seem needed is unproductive. CMD (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator's arguments. LK (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (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:Osmrelation

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 redirect to {{Osmrelation-inline}} or move {{Osmrelation-inline}} to {{Osmrelation}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely non-standard large box cluttering the external links section and making the impression that this is a WMF project. Per Wikipedia:External links: "Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites, even if these websites are also wikis." Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the rule at Wikipedia:External links you cite may not be added per real consensus (but I did not really watch it lately). In case someone really does not like it I propose redirect to {{Osmrelation-inline}}.--Kozuch (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. I thought we'd done away with all of these. We've a strong consensus not to use the {{sisterlinks}}-style placement for anything other than a specific set of WMF sister sites. The correct move will be to move {{osmrelation-inline}} over this template after substituting existing instances with a bullet in front (a trivial transformation). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, per above, that www.openstreetmap.org has nothing to do with Wikipedia or sister sites, this seems a clear delete to me. Too much prominence for this external site, almost like an ad. 86.160.85.108 (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; then replace per Chris C. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Liam987 20:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and follow Chris Cuningham/Thumperward's suggestion. This isn't a sister project, so shouldn't exist. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 13:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—whatever is done with this template needs to be done to {{Osmway}} as well. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, along with turning that hairy mess into something maintainable (even though it's only used on two pages). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2012 (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:Cite DMPN

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) 02:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite DMPN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, easily replaced by cite book Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Liam987 20:03, 9 April 2012 (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:W-screen-static

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; deleted as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:W-screen-static (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{w-screen|static=true}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created this template to get rid of that annoying bouncing ball. It makes sense to implement it as a special case of {{W-screen}}. In fact, I have requested speedy deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (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:Fooers from Algeria

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) 02:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooers from Algeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary since this is covered by {{Fooian fooers}}. Pichpich (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 13:42, 10 April 2012 (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.