Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 4

< March 3	March 5 >

March 4

Template:Infobox user 54321

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox user 54321 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox user}}. Only two, userspace, transclusions. Could be SUBSTd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to {{infobox user}} because of the redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to {{infobox user}}; didn't see any additional parameters. mabdul 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant (and replace the two transclusions with Template:Infobox user); do not redirect as the title is not a likely or plausible search term for Template:Infobox user. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:57, 9 March 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:Infobox wikipedian

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 merge and redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox user}}. Only two, userspace, transclusions. Could be SUBSTd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to {{infobox user}} because of the redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, per Imzadi1979's reasoning --TBrandley (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{infobox user}} (three parameters under the header "Account statistics" are missing). mabdul 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Madbul. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: Mabdul =/= Madbul ;) mabdul 16:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to template:Infobox user per comments above. - jc37 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I finally merged the missing 3 parameters. mabdul 12:58, 10 March 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:Infobox UK ice hockey team

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) 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK ice hockey team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox hockey team}}; only 36 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. mabdul 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wouldn't an NHL Team infobox/template only have about 30 transclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~That is the point - there is no NHL specific infobox.~~ Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I am wrong! Why not NHL too? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Mostly historical implementational reasons. Sports popular in the US often had US-specific infoboxes to begin with, and NHL / NFL / NBA still do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be merged. So there's now also {{Infobox hockey team}}, {{Pro hockey team}} and {{NHL Team}} all covering North American teams. I think the NHL is pro too, but perhaps not the Leafs :) Do want to take on the whole world of hockey? It looks like something that a knowledgeable lad like you could tackle. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:30, 11 March 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:Infobox sport club

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sport club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (I replaced the only three instances), redundant to {{Infobox organization}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if it'd be better to keep and improve this, as presently our coverage of "sports clubs" is a bit of a mess. Such clubs are common umbrella organisations in European sport, and at present we've got hacks like the custom infobox at Galatasaray S.K. and a generic box would be an improvement. And I'd rather that the template hadn't been orphaned prior to nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 10 March 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:Infobox Sportverband

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused (I replaced the only instance), non-English wrapper for {{Infobox sport club}} (see above). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a foreign wrapper. mabdul 13:34, 10 March 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:Infobox computer underground

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) 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox computer underground (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox organization}}; only 66 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. mabdul 13:43, 10 March 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:Infobox student group

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) 00:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox student group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox organization}}; only 26 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it looks identical to Template:Infobox organization to me. Yaminator ^talk 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant: following parameters of the student group template can simply be transformed
- honorary president
- president
- vice president
- treasurer
- honorary treasurer
- secretary
- honorary secretary
- faculty advisor
- ceo
- other officers
by using key_people and the leader titles of the organization template. mabdul 13:54, 10 March 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:Category TOC lower case

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category TOC lower case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem much point to displaying the category links in lowercase rather than uppercase as they both work the same. Not very widely used either. WOSlinker (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cat sorting has been case-insensitive for almost a year now. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly redundant and useless. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to maintain history. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All remaining (three!) uses now replaced with {{Category TOC|uppercase=no|lowercase=yes}}: suggest redirect if we really need to preserve history otherwise delete. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:56, 9 March 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:Infobox school club

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. WOSlinker (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox school club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unsurprisingly, unused. In the unlikely event that we have an article about a notable school club, it can use {{Infobox organization}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mabdul 22:01, 6 March 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:GoldenGlobeTVComedy 2020-2009

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 Deleted as T3. WOSlinker (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoldenGlobeTVComedy 2020-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unneeded template due to Template:GoldenGlobeTVComedy_2010–2029 J36miles (talk) 19:34, 4 March 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:Smallcaps all

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 to merge, but consensus to fix improper transclusions, and to make improvements to make the template closer to complying with accessibility guidelines. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallcaps all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Smallcaps all with Template:Smallcaps.
This is exactly the same issue as with Template:Sc, which was merged a month ago. Template:Smallcaps all, like Template:Sc before it, forces a bunch of text into uppercase, which is very poor accessibility, per MOS:ACCESS and MOS:TEXT. The similar template Template:Smallcaps uses CSS to style the small-caps, which is both better accessibility and (importantly for people with visual impairments like myself) can be overridden in a user CSS. So I'm proposing deleting Template:Smallcaps all in favour of merging all uses of it into uses of Template:Smallcaps instead. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for accessibility reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and delete: per the accessibility problems. Just the fact that its documentation says something as user-unfriendly as "the caps are permanent, regardless of user preferences" is clear sign this is a Bad Thing. This is going to be tricky because the template supports input in the forms {{smallcaps all|H|ello}} and the merge-to template does not (and should not; the functionality was only needed in the merge-from template because of the bad things it did). This means the text of the template is going to have to be changed to {{smallcaps|{{{1}}}{{{2}}}}}} and subst'ed in every case in which it is used this way. After that, the template can be redirected to Template:smallcaps, or better yet, changed to {{smallcaps|{{{1}}}}}}, subst'ed in all remaining uses, and just deleted. There is no reason to keep such a weirdly named redirect. There are about 4,000 transcluding pages, but the vast majority of these are application of {{smallcaps all}} to BCE, CE, BC and AD. After those are eliminated, tracking down the {{smallcaps all|X|y}} cases for subst'ing should be easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

"user-unfriendly" documentation, and an argument for deletion? To me it is "clear factual" documentation, and anyway not an argument here. Documentation to be improved, fine. The rest of your post is about how to merge, while ignoring the core function of the template (see my keep-argument below). -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether or not it's factual that's under dispute, it's that almost nothing on this site should be wholly immune from user preferences. That I cannot override the capitalisation is the nub of the accessibility problem; were that not the case, I wouldn't have listed it here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owen, does that take care of the CSS issue? — kwami (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking here... — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per Andy. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem the proposer does not understand the purpose of the template. AFAICT, there are no accessibility problems. The template performs a valid function: small caps without introducing the errors that {{smallcaps}} does in many cases. SMcCandlish objected to the caps being permanent, saying that's "unfriendly", but it's both correct and necessary: "LORD" is a different name from "Lord", and we don't want "AIDS" to be copy-pasted as aids, or "SAT" as sat, or "PIN" as pin. Permanent caps are correct because full caps are correct, and if readers should be able to override it, then they should be able to override all caps in WP. No-one complains about "accessibility issues" because NASA is written in caps and the reader cannot override it. Anyplace this template is used where LC would be acceptable is an incorrect usage of the template, and it should be changed to {{smallcaps}}.

I've gone through all transclusions of {{smallcaps all}}, and changed them to {{smallcaps}} where appropriate. In fact, I was reverted in some cases where it turned out {{smallcaps}} was incorrect.

As for the name, that's irrelevant for the current discussion, though I did move it (to 'hard smallcaps') and was reverted.

If we delete the template, what do we do for situations where small caps are wanted, but caps are required? An example is the interlinear glossing of linguistic texts. Grammatical abbreviations are written in caps, but full caps mixed in with lower case are overpowering (they draw undue attention to the grammatical endings), so small caps are frequently desired. Without a template, we'd be forced to do this manually, which would do nothing for "accessibility" issues, but would make editing a pain in the ass. I suppose we could create a couple hundred new templates along the lines of {{LORD}}, but that would be silly.

If we delete the template, then people will use {{smallcaps}} where caps are required and introduce errors into the text; that will either cause constant problems with that template, or require that this template be recreated. The consequence of what the proposer is asking is effectively that small caps not be used on WP. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the specific exception of {{LORD}}, these are things where plain old regular capital letters are perfectly suitable. In fact, it's the opposite scenario that is troublesome right now: rather than writing {{smallcaps|pin}} or {{smallcaps|aids}}, editors should simply be writing PIN or AIDS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course {{smallcaps|pin}} is not acceptable: that's the whole point of this template.

How is "LORD" an exception? That can be written with full caps as well. Should we delete that template, and convert all instances of LORD to LORD? The difference is only stylistic, like the use of small caps in linguistic glossing.

Yes, full caps are generally suitable, but using the template correctly causes no harm, and it does not cause the accessibility problems claimed.

One thing we might think about is allowing only caps as input. That way if the template were removed, there would be no change in the underlying text. That way people wouldn't write {{smallcaps all|pin}} either: they would have to write {{smallcaps all|PIN}}. — kwami (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{LORD}} is an exception because there's consensus that it's an exception (which is why it has its own template). People feel quite strongly about that one, apparently. There's no such consensus for general use of that sort. The "harm" that purely presentational markup which is applied in arbitrary cases does should be self-evident. We should endeavour to avoid markup without meaning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why biblical articles should be allowed to use small caps, but articles on other topics not be allowed to use them. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having that debate here. Suffice to say that people have argued for {{LORD}} to be a specific objection, and that's where we stand now. That should not be generalised into a general approval for presentational markup like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is essentially different from {{smallcaps}}. Stripped to its bare code, it does this: {{smallcaps|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}}}. The "lc:" word is the difference, and hence the name. The second feature is that when no smallcaps available, it shows uppercases. If this is undesired - the template should not be used. But e.g. in Pronunciation respelling for English and {{respell}} capitalisation is used to mark stressed syllables, which otherwise would be lost when no small caps are available. Put simply: if these effects are not desired, just don't use the template. From here on, the discussion should continue at Template Talk:smallcaps all, since it is only about improvements of the template.

And also it is different from {{sc}} at the time of TfD/merge (the merge I performed btw) by these same reasons. Please don't get distracted by the "Initial capital" option (using parameter 2). That is not relevant for deletion nor for the essential differences with template smallcaps. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a template to indicate the semantics of stress in pronunciation we should make one specifically for that purpose and mark it up with an appropriate set of classes to indicate its semantic function. We should not simply use some arbitrary bit of presentational markup with this purpose, especially as said markup is then abused to mark up random other bits of text which could and should simply use upper case in the wikitext in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "should simply use upper case". I've read several claims that small caps are said to violate one policy or another, but when I go to those policies, they are not mentioned at all. Can you show us some support for those claims?

You also seem to fear the template being abused. But any template can be abused. That's simply a matter of good copy editing and policing our articles, not a reason to delete the template. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Avoid small caps" is stated quite plainly in the two main MoS pages on markup: MOS:BADEMPHASIS and MOS:SMALLCAPS. Furthermore, my rationale is not that they can be abused: it is that they are for the most part pointless presentational markup, and that the specific exceptions that have been cited as good uses for them do not require a generalised solution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Avoid small caps for emphasis" is the text. Bad quoting, thumperward. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that "avoid small caps for emphasis" somehow implies "... but if it's not for emphasis and you're just doing it because you like the effect, that's fine"? Additionally, there's nothing selective about the text at WP:SMALLCAPS, which states in its entirety "change small caps to title case". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading the MOS. It says the same thing for full caps. It then goes on to say that there are legitimate reasons for using all caps, such as initialisms. It obviously means that we should avoid all caps for emphasis, titles, and the like, not that they shouldn't be used ever. We even have citation templates that automatically puts authors' names in small caps, and that's never been an MOS problem. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurdly poor form to edit a guideline in your favour (with naught as much as an edit summary!) while we're discussing it (the material in question was added two and a half years ago). I'm going to assume that the closer of this TfD takes that act of pretty flagrant bad faith into account. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Kwami had edited it to support his arguments, the closer should only take the issues (and consensus) into account, not behaviour of the parties. Tsk tsk. Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't change it "in my favour", I consolidating the wording and made it more explicit. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my Keep argument thread, and I find it abhorrible that users thumperward (or whichever name) and Rich Farmbrough troll this into a red herring. User:thumperward: you misquoted. Now can go apologise and come back, or stay away. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own your subthreads, and you're bang out of line in both throwing around accusations of trolling and making demands of others.. Anyway, I've undone the MoS change, so we're back where we were, with MOS:SMALLCAPS stating unequivocally that small caps should simply be replaced by title case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I excuse for my edit behaviour. Struck. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Kwami here: Where does a MOS say we cannot use small caps this way? (and Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward): the MOS quote is clear. I note that you first misquoted, and secondly you turn it into a "absured" and "misreading MOS" -- all in all you are not helping the discussion. I still don't get your logical point.) -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is quite clear that all caps are disallowed and that small caps should be replace with title case. See WP:CAPSACRS and MOS:ALLCAPS / MOS:SMALLCAPS for the specific text. Acronyms and initialisms are set in regular capitals in the Wikipedia, small capitals are not used. Small caps that force themselves into capitals are definitely not used, both as a matter of accessibility and consistency. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way too primitive logic, OwenBlacker. This says nothing about using {{smallcaps}} (allowed by everyone and their god, but really it only does the lowercase characters) and basic {{smallcaps all}}, for every character (lc and uc included) put into small caps. So, (again I think), they are not the same templates. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being primitive. {{smallcaps}} is allowed for the very rare occasions when small caps are appropriate in the Wikipedia. The important difference, though is that {{smallcaps}} renders lowercase text to the page, whereas {{smallcaps all}} renders capitals, which are very poor for accessibility. There are almost no circumstances in which this is necessary, so compromising the accessibility brings no benefit other than æsthetic, which is a poor reason to impede the accessibility of articles. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I completely understand the difference between {{sc}}, {{smallcaps}} and {{smallcaps all}}. I'm simply saying that they are inappropriate.

We should set aside the issue of {{LORD}} for the moment (personally, I would prefer to be able to use my user CSS to have that displayed to me as Lord and I don't really care whether uncustomised / logged out users get Lord, LORD or LORD), as that evidently has stronger feelings around. Part of the problem I have, though, is with {{Respell}}, for example, where I would like to be able to force lowercase (as bold is also used to emphasise stress); that could be resolved if {{smallcaps all}} didn't add actual inline CSS (and in capitals, because it uses the {{uc: }} magic word!):

<span class="SMALLCAPS" style="FONT-VARIANT:SMALL-CAPS;"><span style="TEXT-TRANSFORM:LOWERCASE;">FEWM</span></span>

The example of words like AIDS, NATO and PIN, however is invalid — MOS:SMALLCAPS explicitly states that these should not be set in small caps. (As it happens, Aids and Nato would be perfectly valid British English, though we would use PIN, not Pin, just to be contrary about it ;o)

So I'm completely with Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) on this one. The very few occasions where small caps are legitimate (and in compliance with the MoS) can have their own templates and I won't complain in the slightest (particularly if they have CSS classes on them so that I can override them in my user CSS).

Just to emphasise, though, this isn't some hypothetical accessibility issue. I suffer from a strong astigmatism (and apparently one in three people do suffer from such, to varying extents). If text is set in all-capitals or small-capitals, I will struggle to read it. That is why I use my user CSS to override {{smallcaps}}. I actively want to be able to override any such templates but, partly because of how {{smallcaps all}} is written, that option is not open to me. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you do not oppose the templates into-lowercase initial part (to get all smallcaps text). So that means you want different code, not deletion. On top of this, whether there are "very few" or lots of transclusions: no reason for deletion at all (and, different from your writing, you do not want to get rid of {{smallcaps}}, do you? You reproducing which cases are "legal" would clarify a lot). And possible "abuse" - another non-deleting reason. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly"? There are (a small number of) legitimate uses for {{Smallcaps}}, such as in {{Respell}}. There are no legitimate uses for {{Smallcaps all}} that I can see other than perhaps the æsthetic desire to see LORD in all caps (converting that to Lord is, imho, precisely the kind of transformation that the MoS allows and, indeed, recommends, but I know I'm never going to win that discussion and, frankly, have better things to do than argue it). The "possible 'abuse'", however, is quite a real possibility, particularly when the template documentation encourages use proscribed by the MoS. With no use that does not contravene the MoS and lots of use that does contravene the MoS, I am entirely comfortable with my vote to delete, particularly given that the only rationale for this template's existence that I have seen espoused here is that some people prefer the way smallcaps look, despite that the MoS does not. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Respell}} requires {{smallcaps all}}, not {{smallcaps}}. With the latter, copying the text would introduce errors. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re OwenBlacker: There are no legitimate uses for {{Smallcaps all}} that I can see other than perhaps the æsthetic desire to see .... No. It is not "æsthetic". It is about capitals and lowercase, and the Font can take care of that. -DePiep (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not æsthetic? Text that should be all capitals, like NASA should be entered as all capitals and displayed as all capitals — not as small capitals, per the MoS. Your desire to see acronyms as smallcaps is æsthetic, nothing more. It is also not supported by the MoS. —OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix: Add a <span class="smallcaps-all">...</span> around it so that users can do this in their skin.css files:

.smallcaps-all{
    text-transform: lowercase !important;
    font-variant: normal !important;
}

That way, we will still have the copy/paste functionality, but vision-impaired users could get nice lowercase text. --N Y Kevin @993, i.e. 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems perfect. I'm perfectly willing to fix the template to allow CSS overrides. And as for whether NATO shouldn't ever be in small caps, again, that's a matter of using the template inappropriately. So, in cases where small caps are appropriate, and we want to retains caps in copy-paste, can you propose a full rewrite of the template code, so we can fix it now? (I'd rather not mess with it, since I don't know exactly what you want.) — kwami (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is adding additional markup for dubious aesthetic gain, not simply that small caps are allegedly difficult to read. Rewriting the template won't help with that, though the solution used would be well-applied to the likes of {{LORD}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that problem applies equally to {{smallcaps}}. Why delete one and not the other? — kwami (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't eliminate the markup templates entirely for the time being due to the legitimate uses already in place, but we can certainly push back on newly-created ones designed for aesthetic use in article bodies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you propose replacing "legitimate use", as you put it, with incorrect use. I don't get it. Why purposefully introduce errors? — kwami (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "incorrect use" here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When caps are being used to distinguish things from LC, as in respellings, glossings, and initialisms, then replacing them with LC would be incorrect. You propose doing just that. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but I fail to see the value in copy/pasted text being forced into all-caps, which is still an accessibility problem. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, OwenBlacker: we can remove the uc: from the template, and still keep it. This is Template code talk, not Deletion talk. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But removing the uc: makes it essentially the same as {{smallcaps}}. Hence listing the template here for merging. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re OwenBlacker: "But removing the uc: makes it essentially the same as {{smallcaps}}".
No, No, No. NOT NOT. Not the same. lc: will be there, as intended and supported by the template name. -DePiep (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have no problem with {{smallcaps}} being able to accept mixed-case text and avoiding the lc: call. My objection is to a template that forces output into uppercase and the accessibility problems that come with that. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no problem with {{smallcaps}}? Nobody has. But hey, we are talking another template here, remember. Did you read my post you just reacted to? I said like: "delete the uc: envelope", and still it is a different template. And after that it has not the access-issue you mention. You are asking for an edit, not for a deletion. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that this template should be deleted and the legitimate instances of its use should be replaced by {{smallcaps}}, the illegitimate uses should be removed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OwenBlacker: "illegitimate uses"? Please Proof the illegimitmacy (and see the actual differences):

{{smallcaps|Hello World}} → Hello World
{{smallcaps all|Hello World}} → HELLO WORLD
{{smallcaps|{{lc:Hello World}}}} → hello world

That's all I expect -- but nothing less. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to force caps, because LC is incorrect! If you wish to override all captitals, so that "USA" becomes "usa", that's fine, but we shouldn't do that to everybody. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, abbreviations like USA should be in proper capitals, not smallcaps, as per the Manual of Style. The occasions where we need smallcaps that render to the page are very rare — {{Respell}} is the only ones that springs to mind. Rare exceptions can have their own templates. But abbreviations like USA or NASA should be set in all-capitals (as abbreviations), not smallcaps. The Manual of Style does not permit small caps in this instance, not least for the sake of consistency. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare exceptions can have their own templates". So, you propose deleting this template, and then recreating it. What does that accomplish? — kwami (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I propose deleting this template, that gets used more widely than it should for inappropriate, inaccessible purposes. Specific examples such as {{LORD}} are purpose specific and can be set to be accessible, using {{smallcaps}} so that the text rendered to the page is lowercase, not uppercase, avoiding the accessibility problems. I'm proposing deleting the general template, that has almost no MoS-compliant uses and replacing it with purpose-specific templates for the appropriate uses. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For "legitimite" uses of this template, {{smallcaps}} does not fit. For Illegimate uses, this template does not fit. Just use it when appropriate. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 22 March 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:Estarchitecture

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a transclusion of {{Culture of Estonia}} with an attached image; nothing more. It's used on one article, itself a stub. I can see a potential need for an Architecture of Estonia template but, not only is the need not yet here, this template doesn't satisfy it. Claret Ash 12:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mabdul 22:04, 6 March 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:Filet-O-Fish

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) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filet-O-Fish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While I am not questioning the good faith of the creator of this template, I think it is inappropriate and excessively promotional to have a WikiAward that promotes a specific trademarked product by a specific company. –Grondemar 02:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are dozens of awards that use trademarks in Wikipedia. Since they are almost exclusively used in userspace, they are perfectly acceptable when used with discretion. To institute a policy which prohibits awards using trademarks would be draconian. Some awards associated with trademarks found here [1] include: Steiner Beer, NASCAR, Wuerzburger Hofbraue, Ballantine's Finest whiskey, Guinness, Mobil oil. Who hasn't spent hours wikilawyering at ANI just to find an icecold Guiness waiting for them on their talkpage! Ah the joy! We also have {{Hershey Bar}}. This is a fun template that helps spread Wikilove. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our policies against advertising and promotion apply equally to user space as article space. I don't believe that all trademarks must always be avoided in userspace templates, but this particular template is far too promotional. If it was {{Fish sandwich}} and didn't mention a specific brand I probably wouldn't object. I would say that other WikiAwards should be changed to be brand-neutral, but this is a discussion regarding this specific template, not all templates in that category. –Grondemar 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like an endorsement of the McDonald's Filet-o-Fish by Wikipedia, so is overly promotional. Could also be construed as an advertisement. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about article space that would be one thing. Can you cite a policy which prohibits trademarks in user space? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to User:Toa Nidhiki05 below. –Grondemar 02:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy reason to delete so this is really seems like an DONTLIKEIT nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant policy is WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (italics added). Promoting a specific company's product as an award, and then describing it as "add[ing] flavor to your day" is not appropriate. –Grondemar 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Lionel and Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) Keep per Lionel. I don't like McDonald's, either as a foodstuff or as a corporate organisation. But I don't see the harm in Wikilove awards mentioning specific brands. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this is genericized to remove the trademark and promotional issues. As Grondemar points out, templates and user pages need to adhere to our advertising policy. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia saddens me sometimes. It's Monday morning, and here I am defending the existence of one of these daft WikiLove barnstars. This does not run counter to our policy on advertising (which quite plainly requires intent), and genericising it would be the most inane form of bowdlerising I've seen on here for some time. If someone states that I deserve a Ferrari for some cleanup work I did the other day, will we run around making a fuss that WP:ADVERT demands editors only offer me "expensive sports cars"? In a way this TfD is actually beneficial if it helps to ensure people don't get confused as to what is and is not an appropriate use of a trademark, I suppose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not choose a historic thing that is no longer produced? Like a Dusenburg or a deLorean instead of a Ferrari. A dish instead of a specific product -- Fish and Chips instead of Filet-O-Fish ; A D-rat (WWII goody handed out by GIs to wartorn children (US military chocolate bar)) instead of a Hershey Bar. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like Hersheys. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not sing public domain songs from antiquity instead of Happy Birthday to You? Because it's absurd, is why. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't sing "Happy Birthday to You" without paying the licensing fee, if you do it at a public venue (like doing a stunt at a baseball game, hiring a skywriter, etc) Besides, people also sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow". {{Hershey Bar}} and {{Filet-O-Fish}} refer to current products, but historically, D-rations are much more linked to good feeling of handing out chocolate bars (especially in WWII Europe), and Fish and Chips garners alot more comfort food feeling than Filet-O-Fish, considering that McDonald's is actively scorned by some groups of people for its nutritional shortcomings, so giving such a sandwich to someone could be taken with bad feeling. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or remove brand marks Yes most people know it as the brand name (just like Kleenex, Q-Tip, and Coke) however we should be enforcing trademark and copyright just as much as the article space. I have no problem with the generic term, but it being listed as the company's name and brand on the template is not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of a cease and desist notice, and in the absence of an official legal opinion. The template is obviously not intended to damage McDonalds' reputation or business so if they have a problem with it, it's up to them to tell us. We can police ourselves to a degree but we can't anticipate every minor issue they could possibly find fault with. Secondly, what is the difference between transcluding {{Filet-O-Fish}} and someone manually writing the words offering such a product? Is it the fact that a template can be policed (i.e. deleted) but individual users offering cyber-food cannot? Claret Ash 07:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- McDonald's is not going to issue a "cease-and-desist" because of this template. In fact, they would be *thrilled* that Wikipedia is endorsing their product in a template that is given to users as an award. I can imagine they might even be willing to pay a small amount of money to ensure that this template continues to mention the Filet-O-Fish® and not, say, Burger King's Big Fish™ sandwich. I'll address your second point below. –Grondemar 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Send my royalties to Lionelt, 1234 Main St., Gotham City NY 80056. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's cute, but we have LOTS of awards, and I think one could be cobbled together saying something similar without all the McD's referencing. - jc37 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just it. The WikiLove tool allows the user to create their own (non-templated) barnstar. Deleting this template will achieve nothing as the barnstar in question can be recreated endlessly. If one user wishes to give another user an item of branded food (or whatever), how is it anyone's concern other than that of the two users? Also, how do we extrapolate a private individual's possible preference for a given product to being an endorsement of that product by Wikipedia? Claret Ash 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without getting into WP:BEANS territory, if individual users use the WikiLove tool to spam users with ads, they can be blocked like any other spammer. Individual users can be warned if they give inappropriate awards, and blocked if they persist. Individual users can certainly indicate their preference for branded products; I believe that is specifically permitted in userboxes. However, it is not appropriate for those users to spam other users with those preferences. By the very fact we tolerate the existence of a template called {{Filet-O-Fish}} on Wikipedia, and indicate that it is to be given out as an award for good editing, we are de facto endorsing the product as a community. This is not consistent with this project's mission: to build a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia. –Grondemar 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect your tortured logic doesn't cut the Heintz Mustard, available at Ralphs Grocery Stores. (And yes, Ralphs did pay me not to mention CostCo.) There is no intent to spam: the intent is to share Wikilove. And if someone does intend to spam we can call Larry H. Parker and he'll get us all $1,000,000. Wikipedia is not endorsing anything. It is being tolerant: just like we're being tolerant with you ;-) – Lionel ^(talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Grondemar, nothing in our trademarks guidelines prohibits the use of trademarked terms in userspace. If you want to propose that WikiLove "gofts" not be labelled with brand names, then please do so centrally, rather than attempting to create policy through selective enforcement at a TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, this somewhat came up in the userbox wars of the past. The placing of userboxes on someone else's page was considered disruptive. I think that's part of the distinction Grondemar is making here. It's not that you can't or shouldn't place this on your own page, but that you shouldn't be placing it on someone else's. And since these Wikilove templates are, by design, to be placed on someone else's talk page, they probably shouldn't have any "promotional" material. Regardless of intent. - jc37 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Userboxes purport to "speak" for a user, and placing them on other users' pages is of course obnoxious. WikiLove templates speak only for the person placing them, though. Again, the question is whether or not we are going to enforce this outside of templates by asking editors not to ever include trademarks in WikiLove declarations, and as that plainly does not seem to be the case right now it would be daft to enforce it here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: let's change the name of the template to: [[template:
A delicious cheesy and tartary (sic) fish sammwich (sic) on a perfectly steamed bun that you can find at an international fast-food chain that has served billions and billions of customers and has a clown with red hair as a mascot which is sure to raise your cholesterol to new highs and cause your premature demise should this sammwich (sic) not be eaten in moderation
]]? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Innocent fun, as several users have discussed. If this really were advertising, it would fall under CSD G11, which ii clearly does not. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template isn't for advertising. It is a WikiLove template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grondemar. There is no good argument given above that warrants an obvious Ignore of the Wikipedia policy of NOTADVERTISING. – PIE ( CLIMAX! ) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR? mabdul 13:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lionelt, et. al. It's not an advert and there are lots of precedents. (Am I supposed to disclose my COI because I just received a Filet-O-Fish?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the relevant guideline would appear to be Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_in_my_user_pages.3F, WP:UP#PROMO, in particular. - jc37 04:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without intent, though, there's little to suggest that "gifts" of this sort are intended promotionally. Use of a trademark is not automatically promotion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure there's intent. When one gives one of these, it's with the presumption that giving a filet-o-fish sandwich is a good thing. (Or are we suggesting wikilove isn't a good thing?) It's not considered neutral, but a good thing. It's not negative like a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking, but considered a good thing. Therefore, the intent indeed is to promote it as a good thing, and thereby, that the giver is giving a good thing to the recipient. That indeed is promotion. And as someone noted above, companies pay big money to ad agencies to have people suggest that their product is a good thing. Simply, this is positively promoting a company's product. And AFAICT, that would seem to be contrary to policy. - jc37 04:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be under the impression that recommending something as a consumer of it is the same as advertising it on behalf of its manufacturer. That's not how we interpret it. What it sounds like here is that WP:UP#PROMO needs to make this clearer so that we don't get any more TfDs of this sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Category:Soft drink user templates appears to be a category of userboxes. Didn't you comment above already that you felt userboxes were different than WikiLove templates due to self-placement? - jc37 11:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The comment I was replying to made a quite novel assertion as to our consensus on what constitutes "promotion". If we do not count "this user loves Coca-Cola and drinks it every day" as promotion (and we plainly don't, as three quarters of our userboxes are of that format), then it would seem that the assertion in question was incorrect. My comment about userboxes and wikilove templates being different from one another was a matter of the different between ascribing beliefs to oneself and ascribing those to others, not about "promotion". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 19 March 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:2011 Southeastern Conference football navbox

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) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Southeastern Conference football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this navbox, along with all similar yearly football conference articles (will add the full list shortly) as I do not believe it serves as a useful tool for navigation. Currently this type of navbox is used on two different types of articles: individual team season articles and bowl game articles.

For individual team season articles, the template is redundant to links contained within the body of the articles. Virtually every one of these articles will have a standings table similar to the one in 2011 Southeastern Conference football season that links to every single conference team season article. With that in place there is nothing gained by placing the same links in a navbox at the bottom of the page.
For bowl game articles, the navbox is redundant to the bowl game season navboxes, which list every bowl game placed by every team in a single season. Additionally, very few users navigate through bowl game articles by conference per year. By team or by individual game is much more common; that is why we have those navboxes. –Grondemar 01:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification to the closer that I am in favor of deletion of all templates listed below as of the timestamp of my signature, even if I wasn't the one who added the templates to the discussion. –Grondemar 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of nominated templates for deletion:

Delete all I agree. These are navbox overkill. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Way too specific for navbox. They do not aid the reader is navigating through anything--GrapedApe (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the advertising implications. E.g., The first one I looked at was Template:2012 Big Ten Conference football navbox. I see no logo or promotion. Also, there is a third type of article where this template is useful: Conference Championship games.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding conference championship games: there is (or should be; I didn't check each one) a navbox for each championship game series. If a team participates in that year's championship game, there will be links in the bodies of the team articles and the championship game article to each other. Other team articles are probably indifferent to the championship game if they did not participate in it. Either way, if a reader wants to learn about the conference season, they can navigate to that article. –Grondemar 03:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom. I too agree these are navbox overkill and unnecessary. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really care I get the argument that all the links are already in the article, but I do think it's useful to have all the links in one place. So if they get deleted it won't matter to me. Seems weird responding with I don't care but I do make a ton of College Football edits so I figured it would be useful to have an opinion from someone who will be on those pages a bunch.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Okays, guys, I just clicked through the entire list of navboxes above (yes, every damn one of them). In EVERY instance there is already a conference season standings infobox/table that includes a link to every conference member team's season article or member team's main article if the season article doesn't exist. That means that these bottom-of-the-page horizontal navboxes DUPLICATE the major purpose of the conference season standings infoboxes/tables. We do not need two navboxes/tables/infoboxes that serve nearly identical purposes on every team season article. That having been said, these navboxes are far more attractive graphically than the season standings tables----can someone who is knowledgeable about wikicoding PLEASE improve the quality of the graphics of the season standings tables? The graphics of the season standings tables look absolutely primitive----we really need to discuss this further on the WP:CBB and WP:CFB project talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just ran into Category:World Hockey Association seasons by team navigational boxes while doing another task on WP. I see that we have Category:NCAA Division I basketball conference season navigational boxes. I also see kinds of other leagues with similar navbox systems such as Category:National Hockey League seasons by team navigational boxes, Category:National Basketball Association season by team navigational boxes, Category:National Football League season navigational boxes, Category:Major League Baseball teams by season navigational boxes. Basically, it seems that eliminating these conference templates will put the football project at odds with all other major sports leagues and college basketball.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at a few of these. I would argue that most of these are navbox overkill as well, although maybe to a lesser degree when we're talking about professional sports leagues with multiple divisions and 30+ teams. I would support getting rid of the college basketball templates as well, for the same basic reasons as stated above (of course, that is a different deletion debate). I'd have to consider regarding the professional sports leagues. Just because we have a lot of something doesn't mean that it is useful and should be used in all circumstances. –Grondemar 03:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant with the season standings templates. Toohool (talk) 04:56, 12 March 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.