Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10

[edit]

Template:Gi

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Gi with Template:Tq.
Both of these templates are used for quoting text on talk pages, presenting it in green. However, {{Tq}} applies a useful CSS class and a serif style for the benefit of color-blind editors, while {{Gi}} doesn't. -- Hex [t/c] 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The two templates incorporate substantially different styling and often serve slightly different purposes (identifying material adopted from an outside source vs. separating comments to which one is responding).
    You stated that "{{tq}} applies a useful CSS class and a serif style for the benefit of color-blind editors, while {{gi}} doesn't." But {{gi}} uses italic text for differentiation, and a CSS class easily can be added. —David Levy 23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you can demonstrate that they serve a different purpose. If you can, please provide evidence here. You're right about the italics, but if you add in the CSS the template will be even more redundant with {{Tq}}.
I also notice that you were arguing ferociously to keep this template, when it was nominated for deletion mere days after it was created... by you. Going through the list of places where the template is used, most of its uses seem, again, to be you. I think there is a clear ownership issue happening here, and that other voices need to be heard on this matter. -- Hex [t/c] 08:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you can demonstrate that they serve a different purpose. If you can, please provide evidence here.
I can only note that when I examine random instances of {{tq}}, they tend to be in the form of "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?", with no line breaks used (as in the example provided in the template's documentation). This, of course, isn't a requirement.
You're right about the italics, but if you add in the CSS the template will be even more redundant with {{Tq}}.
By making it more accessible? Because both are used for quotation?
One template generates dark green, serif text (more suitable in the absence of a line break). The other generates medium green, italic text (more suitable in the presence of a line break). Why must one of these things be stopped? What harm is being caused?
It's important to keep in mind that neither template is used in articles, so this isn't a matter of maintaining consistency within the encyclopedia. It's a matter of users' personal formatting decisions when writing talk page messages.
If the templates are merged, certain transclusions (either containing or lacking italic markup, depending on which style is retained) will be distorted.
I also notice that you were arguing ferociously to keep this template, when it was nominated for deletion mere days after it was created... by you.
By standard procedure, a template's creator is "invited to comment". Then, like now, I expressed my honest opinion in good faith. Are you suggesting that I've done something wrong?
Going through the list of places where the template is used, most of its uses seem, again, to be you.
For years (long before either template existed), I used HTML to insert the exact styling now provided by {{gi}} (which stands for "green italic"). When SMcCandlish created {{tq}} in February, he brought it to my attention. I appreciated its convenience, but its style doesn't jibe with my quotation format; when separated from other text via a line break, its text simply doesn't stand out sufficiently (making messages more difficult to read and comprehend).
I continued to use HTML, but some users complained about the raw code's clutter. So four months ago, I created {{gi}} to address this concern. I didn't advertise it or make any attempt to promote its use. I wanted nothing more than a means of inserting my longstanding quotation style without annoying people. And if others wanted to adopt it, great. (And other editors have been using it; the transclusion list contains numerous talk pages that I've never visited.)
I think there is a clear ownership issue happening here,
How so? I've done nothing more than advocate the template's continued existence. At no point have I claimed to possess special authority or attempted to suppress others' input. I've even supported the idea of modifying the template (via the insertion of CSS) to address the accessibility concern that you brought to light. —David Levy 14:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I never said it was only you using it, as the word most in my comment clearly indicates. I looked at about a random selection of about 20 of the 80-odd transclusions of this template and easily three quarters of them were you.
I notified you of this TfD as it's part of procedure. Normally I would expect a template creator to immediately indicate in their comment that they were the person who made the template; I note that you didn't. My concern here is the defensive nature of your comments, which I discovered in the previous TfD after filing this.
So, you got called out for using inappropriate formatting, then as a response, you created a template for your personal formatting decisions. (Incidentally, no offense intended, but your assertion about line breaks is, frankly, absurd and entirely subjective.) You say this isn't a matter of maintaining consistency within the encyclopedia, well, that's a straw man. I never suggested anything of the kind. What it is is a matter of not cluttering up the template namespace with junk. Following your logic, everyone could create a template for their own personal formatting decisions with a different color, different font, anything. That would be ridiculous beyond measure. We have one perfectly adequate talk quotation template, which produces an effect that's visually consistent with our template for producing example text. We don't need any more. -- Hex [t/c] 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I never said it was only you using it, as the word most in my comment clearly indicates. I looked at about a random selection of about 20 of the 80-odd transclusions of this template and easily three quarters of them were you.
I wasn't trying to contradict your statement. As noted above, it's a four-month-old template whose use I've made no attempt to promote.
I notified you of this TfD as it's part of procedure.
And I appreciate it. The previous TfD nominator (who just commented below) didn't do that.
Normally I would expect a template creator to immediately indicate in their comment that they were the person who made the template; I note that you didn't.
This was an oversight on my part. As you can see from my initial response to the previous TfD listing, I've made no attempt to conceal or downplay the fact that I created the template.
My concern here is the defensive nature of your comments, which I discovered in the previous TfD after filing this.
How, in your view, are my comments inappropriate? I'm simply arguing that both templates are useful and should be kept (which is my honest opinion). What should I do?
So, you got called out for using inappropriate formatting,
Sorry, I was unclear. No one complained about my use of HTML in particular. I encountered comments about the clutter caused by the use of such markup in general.
I wasn't doing anything "inappropriate" (i.e. inconsistent with Wikipedia's accepted practices). I could have ignored others' concerns and continued using HTML for this purpose. But I wanted to be considerate of their views, despite knowing that I'd be inconvenienced if someone sought the template's elimination.
Incidentally, no offense intended, but your assertion about line breaks is, frankly, absurd and entirely subjective.
What assertion have you deemed "absurd"? Do you dispute that {{tq}} usually is used without a line break and {{gi}} usually is used with one?
The two templates incorporate objectively different styles. Compared to {{gi}}, text generated via {{tq}} is closer in appearance to ordinary text. This works well when no line break is used (as in the example provided in the template's documentation) because of the non-quoted text's proximity.
But when a line break is used, the visual differences are less obvious (so the quoted text fails to stand out). That's when {{gi}} is a better fit.
Yes, this is a subjective opinion (and perhaps you disagree), but that doesn't make it "absurd".
You say this isn't a matter of maintaining consistency within the encyclopedia, well, that's a straw man.
No, I'm not referring to an argument on your part. I'm citing a scenario in which it would be important to seek uniformity. My point is that this isn't one. The coexistence of {{tq}} and {{gi}} causes no harm.
What it is is a matter of not cluttering up the template namespace with junk.
What, in your view, constitutes "cluttering up the template namespace"?
Certainly, redundancies can be problematic when editors become confused as to which templates to use in articles or edit war over the color of the bike shed. But when it comes to talk page messages, these concerns simply aren't relevant. If some editors use template x and other editors prefer template y, what's the problem?
Following your logic, everyone could create a template for their own personal formatting decisions with a different color, different font, anything.
No, that isn't my logic. Obviously, the line must be drawn somewhere.
It would be silly, in any context, to retain otherwise identical templates utilizing #008000 coloration and #008001 coloration (and I doubt that anyone acting in good faith would argue that this constitutes a significant distinction).
In this instance, substantial style differences exist, as does a good-faith assertion (reflected in actual use) that each of the two templates is preferable in a certain circumstance. What problem would merging them solve? (I've already noted that it would cause a problem in which transclusions reliant upon either the presence or absence of italic markup are distorted.)
We have one perfectly adequate talk quotation template, which produces an effect that's visually consistent with our template for producing example text.
How is that relevant? —David Levy 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asking me to explain to you why consistency is good? Really?
Anyway, you've made another straw man argument here; nobody is suggesting we keep templates that differ only by a single color unit. And your assertion about different circumstances suiting each of the templates is pure hand-waving, based on no kind of facts at all. Regarding line breaks, you've moved on from a straw man to begging the question: that's a usage introduced by you, because most of the usage of this template is by you!
You ask what the problem is. There's not just one problem, there's two.
  1. Drowning in a massive set of conflicting templates is not conducive to usability. Poor usability caused by complexity is one of the noted impediments to becoming involved with this project that the Foundation is attempting to address in its aim of attracting and retaining new editors. We, as the people who build and operate this system, need to be acutely aware of that and strive to keep our template system as lean as possible.
  2. As Chris told you last time,
As for what harm it causes, arbitrary inconsistency makes things harder to read, always.... For the sake of allowing people some sense of self-expression, we permit a limited degree of personalisation of discourse outside of articlespace (for instance, signature style), but that is not intended to give people carte blanche to style the rest of their input however they please.
That is exactly what you are doing, here, now, with this template. -- Hex [t/c] 11:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asking me to explain to you why consistency is good? Really?
No. I'm asking you to explain why consistency between two largely unrelated things is good. I see no reason why maintaining the same style for example text and talk page quotations is beneficial (or detrimental).
A consistent talk page quotation format would be beneficial, but we won't have one until it's added to MediaWiki (which apparently is unlikely to occur in the near future). In the meantime, editors are left to quote (or not quote) as they see fit. Relatively few even use a template for this purpose. There is no consistency to break.
Anyway, you've made another straw man argument here; nobody is suggesting we keep templates that differ only by a single color unit.
A straw man argument is based upon a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Once again, I wasn't describing (or claiming to describe) your position via the statement in question. In this instance, I was addressing my position.
You asserted that "following [my] logic, everyone could create a template for their own personal formatting decisions with a different color, different font, anything." My point is that I don't condone the limitless creation of such templates; you and I simply draw the line in different places.
And your assertion about different circumstances suiting each of the templates is pure hand-waving, based on no kind of facts at all.
I've explicitly acknowledged that it's a subjective determination. Why are you treating this as a point of contention?
Regarding line breaks, you've moved on from a straw man to begging the question: that's a usage introduced by you, because most of the usage of this template is by you!
I explicitly acknowledged that too.
Again, it's a four-month-old template whose use I've made no attempt to promote. I created it because I believe that its style (which I inserted manually for years) works better when line breaks are present.
Some other editors have utilized the template in the same manner (i.e. with line breaks). Whether this quotation style will gradually catch on or remain the practice of a small number of users, I can't say. In neither scenario would it be invalid, which appears to be your implication.
Drowning in a massive set of conflicting templates is not conducive to usability.
Agreed. And if I believed that {{tq}} and {{gi}} were fully interchangeable, I would support merging them.
I understand that you disagree with the distinction that's been drawn, but you've gone a step further. You appear to claim that it's downright fictitious (i.e. that I'm lying about it for some reason). I assure you that I'm being sincere. You obviously believe that I'm wrong, and that's fine. But please refrain from suggesting that I advocate the incriminate collection of "junk".
As Chris told you last time,
"As for what harm it causes, arbitrary inconsistency makes things harder to read, always.... For the sake of allowing people some sense of self-expression, we permit a limited degree of personalisation of discourse outside of articlespace (for instance, signature style), but that is not intended to give people carte blanche to style the rest of their input however they please."
As I replied at the time, "this template isn't used for frivolous decoration; it's used for differentiation between quoted text and responses thereto, which makes messages easier to read and understand. The community hasn't codified a format for this purpose, so it's been left to editors' discretion."
Chris and I agreed that a MediaWiki-native quotation method would be ideal, but it doesn't exist.
That is exactly what you are doing, here, now, with this template.
By continuing to employ the exact quotation format that I've used for years (since long before either template existed)?
As noted above, the community hasn't selected a talk page quotation style. Are you suggesting that I should be required to switch to the one generated by {{tq}}, simply because someone happened to create that template in February? (To be clear, I'm not criticising SMcCandlish in any way.)
Or do you simply mean that we should settle on a single style (not necessarily that one)? —David Levy 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't merely a matter of aesthetics. Depending on whether a line break is inserted, the choice of which template is used affects readability. —David Levy 14:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say your line-by-line quoting style is a detriment to readability, which is possibly why virtually nobody else does it. -- Hex [t/c] 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. How does my quotation style make replies more difficult to read? —David Levy 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes my eyes ache. Subjective assessment? You bet. It's backed up with exactly as much evidence as you provide for your claims about readability. -- Hex [t/c] 11:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly acknowledged that said opinion is subjective, so I don't know why you're treating this as a point of contention.
I'm sorry that you dislike my quotation format. Over the years, it's received both criticism and praise. —David Levy 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Neither template has an implicit line break, and therefore there is no underlying technical disctinction between their use at all. it is purely one of personal aesthetics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated above. Compared with {{gi}}, the styling of text generated via {{tq}} is less distinct from ordinary text. It stands out when the two are directly adjacent, but it's much less obvious when they're separated by a line break.
This, of course, is a subjective determination. My point is that it isn't based on aesthetic considerations (i.e. a desire to make things prettier). —David Levy 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, which hasn't changed in that regard, it is based entirely on aesthetics. We had multiple existing ways of marking up quotes by other editors before you created this template, which happens to also include a nearly-identical templatespace counterpart. This template exists solely because you prefer to quote other editors in green italics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood. I took your use of "aesthetics" to mean that the preference "relates to pure beauty rather than to other considerations". (As I've noted, I aspire to make the messages easier to read and comprehend, not prettier.) If you actually were referring to "a principle of taste or style adopted by a particular person, group, or culture", that's an accurate statement. As I've acknowledged repeatedly, the determination that the style generated by {{gi}} works better in the presence of line breaks is subjective. —David Levy 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Style is not a science. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, arguments over style boil down to personal preference. If you care to substitute "arbitrary personal preference" for "aesthetics" in my previous comments then feel free to, but I don't see that it strengthens your argument at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Style is not a science. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, arguments over style boil down to personal preference.
Agreed. As I've acknowledged repeatedly, this is a subjective matter.
In my opinion, when quoted text generated via {{tq}} is separated from ordinary text (as in the case of a line break), the difference in styling is too subtle. As a result, the distinction is unclear, making the message more difficult to read and comprehend (because which portion of the text is a quotation is insufficiently obvious).
Others might disagree, which is perfectly reasonable. I don't seek to dictate how anyone styles their talk page messages. I simply wish to continue styling mine in the manner that I believe best facilitates communication (with others acting in kind if they so choose).
If you care to substitute "arbitrary personal preference" for "aesthetics" in my previous comments then feel free to, but I don't see that it strengthens your argument at all.
That's because I'm not arguing that my preference is objectively correct (an impossibility). Each of us misunderstood what the other meant by "aesthetics". (I meant that my concern relates to readability, not attractiveness.)
However, there are objective differences. The shade of green used in {{tq}} factually is closer to black than the shade used in {{gi}} is. And I think that most people would agree that the visual disparity between italic and non-italic text is greater than that between non-italic text in serif and sans-serif typefaces.
But yes, whether these differences make {{gi}} more suitable under certain conditions is subjective (and I don't claim otherwise). I'm simply explaining why I possess that opinion. —David Levy 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the above discussion? A CSS class easily can be added to {{gi}}. That isn't an intrinsic difference between the two templates. —David Levy 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a CSS class, so that difference no longer exists. —David Levy 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've improved {{gi}}'s code to incorporate a CSS class, namespace detection (to prevent the template's use in articles) and example text.
    I realize, of course, that these changes have no bearing on whether the template should be merged with {{tq}}. But if there is consensus for such a merger, the determination of what styling to retain/combine can be made independently of those technical considerations. —David Levy 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just noticed that SMcCandlish (Template:Tq's creator) wasn't notified of this discussion. (I was wondering why he hadn't participated.)
    I don't know whether he'll agree with the nominator or with me, but he certainly should have been invited to comment. (I've done so.) —David Levy 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without losing functionality: I do see these as essentially redundant. Their features should simply be merged, with italics as an |i=y option, and {{gi}} made to consist entirely of "{{tq|i=y}}" (though {{tqi}} might be a more memorable shortcut for it). Then the baked goods are both consumed yet retained, as if by magic, for all. Heh. I don't see a rationale for forcing people to use the serif instead of italic appearance simply to be consistent with the {{xt}}-family templates. I made {{tq}} consistent with them for a reason, but that reason does not override everything in the universe.  ;-) That said, however, there's no reason to keep two distinct codebases to serve the exact same trivial markup function, thus merge. Just make sure the italics are actual italics not emphasis, and do it in CSS, not with <i>...</i> or ''...'', to keep the code simpler (i.e. the template language if-statement for |i=y (and/or |italics=yes, for the long-winded) would simply tweak the CSS code to produce italics instead of the font-face change). I think this would be an overall improvement to the template, because it will allow differentiating the text for color-blind users in more circumstances (e.g., you could switch to the italic style when quoting something that already has serif in it due to {{xt}} or whatever, or use the serif style when quoting something that already has italics in it). The CSS class is important to retain (we only need one, not two), because anyone who forcibly styles everything in serif in their user CSS can still make use of the template's features by differentiating it some other way. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for commenting and sharing your coding expertise. I have no objections to the type of merger that you've described, so I've retracted my opposition. —David Levy 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not notifying you, that was an oversight on my part from not having started a TfD before. Your solution is very good. -- Hex [t/c] 14:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a test version with the changes described above (although not the option to use either "i" or "italics" as a parameter name, my templating isn't that good) at {{User:Hex/tq}}. Please examine it and make changes if necessary; if people are happy with it we can do the merge. Offering this as an olive branch, since clearly some off-on-the-wrong-foot-getting happened above. Best wishes. -- Hex [t/c] 08:32, 18 September 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:Scouts Royale Brotherhood

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as text from a declined article Scouts Royale Brotherhood. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scouts Royale Brotherhood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 10 September 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:Eisenhower High Oklahoma Championship Titles

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eisenhower High Oklahoma Championship Titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eisenhower Eagles Oklahoma Championship Titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MacArthur Highlanders Oklahoma Championship Titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 10 September 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:Dr Pepper-flavored sodas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, but consider renaming. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dr Pepper-flavored sodas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this CFD. Calling any of these pops "Dr Pepper-flavored" is inherently original research. Even if they have "Dr. Whatever" in their name. (As an aside, there's a "Dr. Enuf" which in no way resembles Dr Pepper.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Well-known category of sodas; no different that grouping together colas. May need a better name that doesn't refer specifically to one brand, but that isn't a reason to delete it. See here for an example of the category being used. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Notice this is cross-posted between the TFD and CFD). Having "Dr. Whatever" in the name is prima facie evidence that a soda is intended to be Dr. Pepper flavored; Dr. Enuf may be the exception that disproves the rule. Most of the pages have a specific (usually unsourced, except for Pibb Xtra) claim that the soda is supposed to be Dr. Pepper flavored. The solution to this problem is to source the pages better, not to delete the category and template. It's not original research - the people who made the soda either did or did not make it to resemble a highly-recognizable international brand name, the question is merely whether or not they wrote it down someplace where we can hyperlink to it. As we don't put sources in templates/categories, this is a problem for the original articles, not the category/template. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sorry 10#H, I agree with the consistent non-elf above that it is the articles require improvement. Their lack of quality does not mean the template and cat should go. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While our coverage of the subject is as poor as our coverage of most pop culture, I can certainly see the argument that we should be able to rustle up enough reliable sources to establish this as a notable "genre" of soft drinks. Yes, we should have an article first and a supporting network of categories and navboxes later, but in this case deletion is probably a waste of time considering that they'll be eventually recreated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand the nominator's rationale but I disagree with the notion it is original research. If the issue is the name of the template, then a more appropriate course of action or less drastic action would be renaming it or proposing alternative succinct names on the talkpage. Maybe Dr Pepper inspired sodas or Dr Pepper influenced/based sodas. Also, when the related articles gets populated, deleting the template will just means it will have to recreated at a future time to tie in everything together --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 03:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename - Per Visik. As per the CfD, we could go with Pepper-flavored sodas or something on the same level. ZappaOMati 00:38, 18 September 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:Rugby union squad start

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby union squad start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 10 September 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:Record progression list

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Record progression list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 10 September 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:Model year

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per CSD G7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Model year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused hatnote.Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created this as a possible solution for the every continuing model years (US) vs calendar years (rest of the world) debate at the Automobiles project. It didn't find favour, so it can now be deleted.  Stepho  talk  23:20, 10 September 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.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, better to just remove or comment out the link with a note. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 10 September 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:Protection

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused, replaced by automatic protection templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 10 September 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:Kite

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

not enough links. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 10 September 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:CurtCo Media

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CurtCo Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not enough links. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 10 September 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:بحارنة

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and blanked. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 10 September 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:Sl

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

All this does is replace a standard link with a complex and confusingly named template that does nothing except use a non-standard colour/style for links to self. Should be replaced with standard links. Last of a set with the previously deleted {{Ll}} and {{Csl}}. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June_25#Template:Ll and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 7#Template:Csl. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top of Template:User Scotland/doc1 says "This page provides documentation for templates in Category:Scotland user templates." In Category:Scotland user templates you will find that the documentation for all of the templates of the form "Template:User something Scotland" invoke Template:User Scotland/doc1 to create their documentation. Template:User Scotland/doc1 and hundreds of pages like it use Template:Sl to de-emphasize and disable the internal link to the target template rather than the bold emphasis normally created by a standard Wiki internal link. That is what is meant by reusable, and that is why Template:Sl appears on thousands of pages. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain the template as though the rest of us were idiots? No one else seems to understand its use. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back before the Internet at the dawn of graphical user interfaces, it became a standard practice to de-emphasize a disabled menu option by making the option text or symbol gray. This practice was later adopted by Apple, Microsoft, and many other companies. Later when Wiki was developed, it was decided to make an internal link red if the target does not exist and bold if the target is the instant page. These two emphases greatly simplified Wiki maintenance.
Unfortunately, there are occasions where you may wish to de-emphasize rather than emphasize a link to the instant page, e.g., a list of links to states of the European Union that may be placed inside a target article. That is why I created Template:Sl. Template:Sl creates a gray reference to the instant page and a normal Wiki internal link to all other pages. Template:Sl is not intended to replace the standard Wiki internal link, but only to provide a de-emphasis option in those few cases where that may be more appropriate. In the Template:User Scotland/doc1 example above, Template:Sl is reused by the documentation pages of several related templates. I hope that explains my reasoning. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does clear the matter up. It doesn't sound especially useful to me, but I'll abstain on the vote. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: To dispatch a bot to remove all the invocations of Template:Sl, please follow the procedure below:
  1. Replace the "{{sl|" with "[[" in article namespace, or "[[Template:" in template namespace.
  2. Replace an included "||" with a "|".
  3. Replace only the terminating "}}" with "]]".
That's all there is to it. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template has been used on thousands of pages for the past year without complaint. The same half dozen editors now find this template intolerable. Perhaps the real objection is to the author.  Buaidh  17:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's been around for a while" isn't a valid argument to keep something. If consensus forms that a template needs changing, it gets changed. In this case, I'm seeing a small consensus that this template is a bad idea (and not some kind of personal vendetta, so please don't suggest that). If you think more people need to be involved, use {{relist}}. -- Hex [t/c] 14:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to change my username to something more benign (or Saxon.) Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:42, 19 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_10&oldid=1146800506"