Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 8
| < December 7 | December 9 > |
|---|
December 8
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to {{Professional Baseball}}. NSH002 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Associated with Oak Park and River Forest High School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No need for a navigation template between alumni of a local school. can be solved with normal wikilinks and a alumni section in the article about the school. To make it even more difficult: in most cases the articles about the listed people don't offer proof that the person went to the school. The Banner talk 12:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. A template linking to several (arbitrarily chosen) alumni of a local high school is against standard practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (SNOW) Nominator deleted one of the templates. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Windows component (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox OS component (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Windows component with Template:Infobox OS component.
I have created Template:Infobox OS component to serve as an OS-neutral successor to this template. I'd like to get the ball rolling on this and see if we need any more fields added before we roll it out. Aside from the "os" field (which would have to be added for existing transclusions) and the optional "license" field, its a drop-in replacement. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Hi. I am afraid I feel my dear friend ViperSnake151 does not know what dangerous game he is playing. If you'd think it is safe to walk into a Mac OS-related or Linux-related article and change its infobox to {{Infobox OS component}}, I am afraid I must disagree with you. There is 50% probability that the editor who do that is reverted to the point that he or she start shouting "Socks! Socks! All socks!" – even though his action might seem rational right now.
- My answer is: Do the switch, dear Viper; if it was successful, I'll guarantee helping you merge the two. Patience and caring about order and precedence are two virtues of an encyclopedia editor. Merging? It can always be done. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. For four reasons:
- 1) Why do this at all? Where's the pressing need? You didn't say. This seems like a make-work job instead of fundamentally improving the actual encyclopedic content in some way.
- 2) I've mentioned this before on another discussion and I'll mention it again -- the subject of Windows is positively massive -- no other operating system is as well-covered on Wikipedia -- so there's some value in having a template tuned for the needs of that operating system.
- 3) Windows (and Mac OS X) have the weird distinction of being the only major operating systems we cover widely that have a lot of components that aren't widely available for all operating systems.
- 4) You can't really describe "components" in most other operating systems using the same lingo as Windows. With Unix/Linux systems (which is what the majority of operating systems are these days), most of the tools you'll actually use (shells, package mangement, X.Org, etc.etc.), aren't considered "components"; they're distinct, standalone pieces of software that just happen to be included with some distributions. And even if you tried, what operating system would you list in the "os" parameter? Would you even put Template:Infobox OS component on an article like apt? It's already got Template:Infobox software. Warren -talk- 15:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm having it speedy deleted again. It violates our practices per Warren. Why we didn't delete Infobox Windows component earlier, I will never know. They are all technically software, and should be treated as such. Welcome to Wikipedia, where our logic never makes sense. Why we give certain platforms special treatment instead of staying standardized. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.