Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 17

< March 16	March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Template:Interrupted[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although old, and transcended 261 times, I think this is a bad template due to its purposes in breaking apart other people's posts. It's use breaks the principle that you shouldn't edit within another's post. Either subst all historical uses and delete, or archive to discourage continued use. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a user's comment is in point form, and people respond to the various bullet points, I see in many discussions, that they just insert a sub-bullet indentation in the middle of other people's bulletted larger comment. (Indeed, this has happened to my comments, where people insert reply bullets directly below the bullet where I point something out, instead of after the entire comment, leaving the bullet hanging without a signature) So this should be useful and should be used in such cases. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "principle that you shouldn't edit within another's post" is not a policy, but a personal opinion of nominator. No reason is given for this opinion – a symptom of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Presumably the opinion stems from oral communication, where interruptions are at least impolite, and often detrimental to a reasoned and calm conversation. Unfortunately the name of the template contributes to that perception. But the purpose and effect of this template has been the opposite: I created it to streamline the often very convoluted conversations in mediation cases. It allowed us to help the struggling parties in fierce conflicts to focus on the issues at hand, rather than muddling them all together, and had thus a calming and educating effect. We used it in many cases (such as here, here, and here), and even for inserting an editorial comment before people start voting, as done here. In all those cases, it has proven very useful. Conversely, I have not heard a single complaint about any of its uses. — Sebastian 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can be useful in many cases. GA reviews come to mind. ~ Rob^Talk 23:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful for those cases where posts are interrupted —PC-XT+ 03:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Refactoring is a part of effective use of talk pages, though not a frequent one. This version of how to do it isn't the most common, but it can be practical when needed. I used it once when someone posted something like 2 screenfuls of commentary, on multiple distinct points that were actually worth addressing, but it was all one super-mega-paragraph. And probably once or twice a month I end up forking an off-topic part of a post into a new thread if it's a discussion that needs to be had but shouldn't hijack the first, in which case I manually fix the attribution and such. Because I use paragraph-based posting, people pretty often fork my posts to interleave comments (often without fixing the attribution, which I correct later). The need interleave simply does arise, so we shouldn't nuke an attribution-preserving template. Anyway, if something like a rationale could be teased from the underlying concern behind the WP:IDONLIKEIT nomination, it would probably be WP:DE – the theory that such interruptive refactoring disrupts talk page discussions and might even irritat particular editors into ranting in response, thus more disruption, or something like that. But there's no actual evidence of any such ill effect; such refactoring is generally a boon, because it's undertaken when the discussion structure is muddled. If unconstructive people mess with others' posts, they get reverted, so again: no big deal. Even playing devil's advocate, I can't see a rationale here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no DE issue. I have seen others' take offense at post-breaking, but never an ongoing dispute. I just see it as encouraging very bad practice, threading posts within posts. Somewhere, I forget already, someone was doing it to my posts. They were not TLDR. I consider that it amounts to altering someones post. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is a needed template, especially for high-traffic noticeboards, when it's common for someone to make a long post, for someone inexperienced to come in and thread in the middle of that post, and for subsequent people to keep replying without reverting or refactoring the previous person's post. When the original poster comes back in 2 hours and finds his original post shredded by a bunch of other comments, woe be unto him should he just delete or refactor a threaded discussion that people have made sense of. It is far less disruptive to just note that a post has been interrupted and continues below. All that said, I think we should subst all instances and require the template be substed from here on out for the same reason we require it of {{unsigned}} and other similar templates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making it subst-only like similar templates would probably be a good idea. —PC-XT+ 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a good idea. See Template talk:Interrupted#Substing. — Sebastian 15:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And when was the template last updated? And if it is updated, why should we want those changes to cascade to other, archived conversations? It ought to be substed. Minor changes to the template are going to be needless changes for archived instances. Major changes to the template are going to probably break archived instances. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty ugly and hard to read/decipher template, fairly rarely used. If it is such a good idea, maybe it will used more, seen more, and these problems improved. Substing removes the ability to track its uses, and makes the edit window more confusing to the author of the split post. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (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).

Template:Better image needed[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).

The result of the discussion was delete then redirect to {{Cleanup image}}, as this would clearly be a useful redirect. ~ Rob^Talk 05:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Better image needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this template was created the day before the TFD nomination was made. Unused, yes, but for a brand-new template, that shouldn't be the criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this can be accomplished with {{Cleanup-image}} specifying better quality -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused/redundant —PC-XT+ 08:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm retracting my !vote to allow it to develop, per below suggestion —PC-XT+ 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Specific use case (although it could be updated to actually use the correct style of message). ViperSnake151 Talk 03:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was nominated the day after it was made, so the fact that it was unused mattered little at the time. It's now a month later and no transclusions have been added. Pinging PC-XT and ViperSnake151 in case they care to weigh in on whether this should be kept or deleted given the lack of adoption. ~ Rob^Talk 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 02:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a wrapper or redirect would be better. I don't really see how this could be made non-redundant, but I'm willing to listen to someone who thinks this is possible or needed. (I didn't get a ping, so I'm also repinging ViperSnake151.) —PC-XT+ 03:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after fixing any extant transclusions to give the reason parameter. It is redundant, but the name of the nominated one is a very reasonable guess any editor would make for a template to flag the particular issue. The {{Cleanup image}} template's own wording and documentation are clear that |reason= is needed. If someone transcluding the redirect doesn't notice that, any later will automatically know what the missing parameter's value should be, from the name of the redirect. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:13, 19 March 2016 (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).

Template:WikiProject Handball[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).

The result of the discussion was merge. ~ Rob^Talk 05:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Handball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Handball with Template:WikiProject Sports.
WikiProject Handball transcludes WikiProject Sports with the parameter Handball=yes, but WikiProject Sports does not have a Handball parameter. GoingBatty (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created this many years ago as a redirect. No objection to it returning to same as long as this is done in such a way as to allow "handball" to be broken out in future whenever the handball fans get sufficiently organised to have their own sports subproject. Globally handball is pretty big, so we should allow for the possibility that its fans will eventually organise here. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our assumption was that the WP Sports template would mimic the behavior of e.g. Template:WikiProject Africa. So can someone with spare time just implement a stub of that on WP Sports instead? No links to 'task forces' or 'portals', just the indicator which sport it's about, like the indicator for |auto=. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Can you clarify that request please? I'm skeptical you mean WP:STUB or WP:SPORTS. I'm both a template editor and WP:SPORTS editor, so I'm probably who you're looking for to fix this (please ping though, I'm not watchlisting this). PS: The <tt>...</tt> element no longer exists in HTML and hasn't in years. The continued use of it here is a maintenance headache; please use <code>...</code>. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish:, I'm saying there should be a template parameter on the WP Sports template that will allow editors to tag which sport a tagging is about. Just "Sport" is very generic and we should enable editors to sort it out sooner rather than later, otherwise we're just setting ourselves up for another instance of near-endless tedious cleanups, like we've had with e.g. {{bio-stub}} a few years back.

(Good catch for the HTML tag, I actually didn't notice it was finally phased out. But I was merely interested in formatting a reference to a template parameter, and ISTR we actually have a template specifically for that, but I can't remember its name.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes. That is worth implementing for sports that have their own taskforces/workgroups. I'm kind of shocked that feature is not there yet. I will add that to my to-do list. Bedtime for me, its at top of my list since a quick fix and TfDs don't stay open forever. PS: The template you want is {{para}}. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:27, 19 March 2016 (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).