Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 20

< November 19	November 21 >

November 20

Template:Indian Highways

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Does not serve any purpose. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Used on a talk page and a test page Frozen4322 : Chat 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no obvious purpose. Robofish (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (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:Indian Economic Data

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Economic Data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Data keeps changing but not updated in long while and not transcluded. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant to {{Economy of India infobox}}. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (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:India Quizmaster Round1

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India Quizmaster Round1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test template. Final version is Template:India Quizmaster. This test template not used and abandoned. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant to the other template. On a related note, I just moved {{India Quizmaster}} to {{User India Quizmaster}}, per the guidance on userbox naming at WP:UBX. --RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused test template. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2009 (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:Roman Catholicism2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman Catholicism2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant with Template:Roman Catholicism. Only difference is minor sizing issues. Exact same content. Apparently this was a fork created out of some WP:LAME edit war. They couldn't agree on size, so they created two. Please work out the differences, and only use one template. Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because two users agree on size, one disagrees. The other template was only made smaller for articles with other items on them. Exactly what disturbance does this template cause? Who is suffering as a result of its existence? Why all this fuss? History2007 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or equivalently) Merge The purpose of templates is to make similar passages in different articles identical, so that they can be modified together; having two almost identical Roman Catholicism templates, which will tend to diverge with time, defeats this end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As explained ad nauseam to one individual, the larger template is there for a particular use - which is at the top of articles such as Catholic Church, where it acts as a useful infobox and navigation template combined, thereby avoiding duplication and enhancing the appearance of articles. For that it needs to be infobox sized and not a long thin strip with minute text such as one individual prefers. We therefore agreed to have two formats of the template, one for use in an article body and a second for use at the top of articles. I can't believe some people are so petty and pettifogging as to bring this matter here. If the template were deleted, it would just have to be recreated as either another template or infobox to serve the purpose it does. Xandar 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, someone created a fork template so it could be just slightly wider? If you can't come to an agreement on the width, then open an RfC or build parameters into the template to allow for alternative settings. Duplicating the entire content of a template just to have a stylistic variation is not a good solution. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since having alternative settings is less easy to use than having variant templates, I don't see any gain at all in that rather silly suggestion. Xandar 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had not realized that there were two templates, and the formatting differences between them seem very small. I've previewed Catholic Church to see how it would look with the original template, and I really don't see a problem with that - it still works just fine in the lead as a pseudo-infobox. This template is a content fork, and I don't see a good reason to justify that. (Note also that articles are not required to have infoboxes.) Karanacs (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other template is not the "original". It is one that was changed by a certain individual, and the template up for discussion now is more like the original - and kept for use at the head of pages to allow diversity. However if people really want to start ANOTHER big row, on the subject of templates this time - then voting to delete the template will start that, because we can then have a good long fight about what the one remaining template should look like. For the top of the article we need an info-box style template. I see no good reason to delete the one we've got so we can row about a new one. There are plenty of templates serving Wp articles which have multiple variants. Let's just keep the choice we have and spend our time on something important. I'm not very keen on people coming into an article which they've had very little or nothing to do with - ansd start messing it about for no good purpose.Xan dar 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two templates are problematic. This could lead to differing text in both templates, it can lead to confusion over which template to use. This should have been discussed and resolved months ago rather than creating a new template. I find the new solution (a parameter to specify which size to use) to be the cleanest and easiest to use. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RL0919 ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If each serves a different purpose, however subtle, there doesn't seem to be any great harm in having both. It appears not to be an issue of X likes this one, and Y likes that one. Each fills a different need. --anietor (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It creates a redundancy, which is explicitly listed as a reasonfor deletion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Anietor, two templates, two different purposes. We can use one for one type of page, another for another type, let's allow for this flexibility. NancyHeise ^talk 01:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two different templates for two different purposes. Xavier449 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, these "different templates" have identical content to the letter. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting it might have been taking up too much disk space. Like all this discussion does not? There is so much to clean up on Wikipedia and all this talk about a template that does not bite? Give me a break. By the way WP:LAME did not apply to that debate at all. It was WP:superLAME,a new category. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've implemented a |size=large switch in {{Roman Catholicism}}. I suggest to replace the contents of {{Roman Catholicism2}} with {{Roman Catholicism|size=large}} which would allow different sizing while addressing PMAnderson's point. --___A. di M. 21:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, A. di M., that should resolve everyone's worries - only one place to update content and the ability to display varying sizes. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where can we see the difference this produces? Xandar 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. I wasn't going to comment here, but I decided I wanted to be a member of the club whose behaviour is so eloquently described by Xandar as "not involved in positive work... want to cause trouble... silliness... disrupted by the destruction of a key template... unnecessary and probably lengthy/acrimonious debate... meddlesome distraction... some people are so petty and pettifogging...."[1][2] Really, if a position can attract that many ad hominem attacks, it must be right. Hesperian 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I think we have the beginnings of a new field of social psychology here. Grown adults acting in ways that may provide new insights into the workings of the human psyche under stress. Social clustering, acts of rebellion for rebellion's sake, etc. And all those students looking for PhD topic in psychology thought there was a shortage of material. Observing this discussion is really a good deal of fun. Thanks everyone. Please do continue. History2007 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief. Why do I get the feeling that content disputes for the article are now expressing themselves in TfD discussions? I have no strong preferences one way or another. IMO, template #2 is slightly better in appearance, with tighter linespacing and a cleaner appearance than template #1. However, I understand the desire to reduce the number of templates. Majoreditor (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the good grief. I apologize for bringing drama here. It was not my intention. I have no preference to which version is kept (and #2 I'm pretty sure can be found originally in the history of #1), and if a switch be implemented that produces both in a single template, so much the better. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge histories. This is certainly the correct venue to bring issues regarding the use of templates. There's sound technical reasons for having only one template, and a discussion on whether to reduce two to one is well within TfD's scope. The specifics of what goes in a template may or may not be. In this case, since the content is identical, with two purely aesthetic differences in an otherwise-identical layout, that is also within the remit. Given this fact, I'm curious as to what "different purpose" could possibly be being met here. I suspect that those arguments are being made because someone doesn't like the original. Stick to one template, and discuss the specifics on the talk page. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the "original" is closer to the template put up for deletion than the other. There may be a solution to the need for two types of usage in the dual size feature allegedly introduced, but I have yet to see it in practice. Xandar 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The switch which has been implemented was something that I proposed on the original template talk. This is a no-brainer, and were it not for the outright combatative nature of the two key opposers (to wit: Xandar outright refuses to engage in productive debate, while History2007's contributions are primarily personal attacks) this would have been settled amicably months ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 27 November 2009 (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:Indianlang infobox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indianlang infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Abandoned template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no article about that language exists. If t is created then a new infobox can easely be done. Dentren | ^Talk 20:24, 25 November 2009 (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:National sports teams of Sri Lanka

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National sports teams of Sri Lanka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Better one already exists {{Sri Lanka National Teams}} Blackknight12 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to the other template, which is used. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (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:Rachel Talalay

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rachel Talalay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough entries to warrant a navigation box, 3, and the director doesn't appear to be directing anymore films ς ح д r خ є 02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough links to justify a navbox. Could recreate in the future if she starts directing more films. --RL0919 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2009 (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:All pages

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. I will provide a brief summary of arguments for deletion: (1) The template places a highly visible box on an article or dab, which links to a long list of other articles (including redirects) largely unrelated to the first article. Such a template is useless for readers. (2) It clutters both articles and dabs, especially when placed on the top. (3) It inappropriately uses sister links formating, although it does not contain links to sister projects. (4) It may contradict some MOS guidelines. The template can reintroduced only after technical problems with it are fixed and a discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All pages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Functionally redundant with {{lookfrom}}, introduces yet another big blue box on disambiguation pages, many of which already have {{wiktionary}}. No prior discussion about whether such a template would be a good idea with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, which maintains disambiguation pages or at WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). older ≠ wiser 03:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template, redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion of a template unless it is redundant to a better-designed template. Whether or not {{lookfrom}} is actually better cannot possibly be determined through a TfD. It can only be determined through allowing the use of both for a long period of time, and watching discussion that is made about them. As for clutter, that is only a matter of opinion. This is more or less an argument of I just don't like it. I do not find it cluttersome to put this box on as well. Hellno2 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter is not a matter of opinion in the case of disambiguation pages. The manual of style for them specifically states that disambiguation pages are only to be used as navigational tools, and that they are not repositories of content, references, et cetera. In fact, WP:MOS-DAB says that "including images and templates is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question." By definition, this template is not an aid in selecting between articles on the search term; partial matches are excluded from the scope of disambiguation pages on the same MOS page. This leaves the template without an application. Delete. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral: I also dislike the clutter of this template at the top of dabs with wikt & TOCRight templates, but I think the template can be useful if applied case-by-case (not auto-bot-like) to the See also section of dabs that might otherwise use the {{lookfrom}} template. Updated 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC): Changing from Keep to Neutral based on technical notes from Thumperward and Johndburger. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. I don't like that it's pretending to be a sisterlink, and I don't like that it's a self-reference to Wikipedia and "pages". {{lookfrom}} is obviously a utility template: this appears to be expected to be used on articlespace, which is totally inappropriate. Looking through the transclusions, I'm uncomfortable with all of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just plain unprofessional, and an excuse for laziness. Do we really think that all, or even most, of the hundreds of results one gets from this template as used on BE are relevant to that term? Editors should carefully consider what belongs on the dab page, and add the entries one by one. I am also unhappy with the WP:SELFREF issues—this template introduces too much of Wikipedia's underpinnings for the average user. —johndburger 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments in favor of deletion seem to all be personal dislike. The nom left a message on my talk page prior to this proposal that said "I really don't like having yet another big blue box at the top of disambiguation pages." Under no circumstances is personal taste a valid reason to delete anything. And we cannot guage what is better when something is less than a day old. Hellno2 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last two dislikes appear to be technical dislikes, not personal dislikes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it is still a form of dislike. Hellno2 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... like when I revert vandalism because I dislike it? Hesperian 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note, there is a discussion here as to whether determining a template as being "better" is even possible in just a one-week discussion for a template that was around for just a day. Hellno2 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than plastering a new template in several dozen articles and hoping that the kinks will get worked out in article space, a more typical approach might be to develop the template first in a sandbox, then consult with any projects that might be interested to gauge support and/or to solicit suggestions for improvement. older ≠ wiser 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any opposition comment would be "disliking" something for technical or policy reasons by definition. If anyone is making personal arguments here it's the template author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having never noticed {{lookfrom}} before, I checked pages listed in What Links Here. I was looking for a while before I found the link {{lookfrom}} produces, and had to actually view the code to find it. I think the very value of this template is its visibility. It's not like this box shifts focus away from encyclopedic content. DAB page real-estate is specifically supposed to be devoted to helping people find other pages they might have been looking for. Equazcion (talk) 22:53, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Were this template confined solely to dab pages that would be a good point, but from what I can see it's being used indiscriminately on any page which happens to have a short title. In many cases none of the results have anything much to do with the subject of the page one is on. At the very least this needs to be restricted to dab pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not always useful, but can sometimes be a helpful template; it's effectively a variant to disambiguation pages, and prevents them from being filled with irrelevant links to articles that share part of a name, but aren't really related. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is for hatnotes, not for arbitrarily-placed floating boxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if disambiguation is needed, then a hatnote should lead the reader to a disambiguation page. That page may well include {{lookfrom}} in its See also section. I think that this extra disambiguation-like template will only serve to confuse readers and editors. PamD (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these is a hatnote. At hatnote is a template that is placed on top of a page that says something like "For other uses, see _____ (disambiguation)." It is not used for situations like these and has nothing to do with this at all. Hellno2 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is the only time that we should be directing users to potentially unrelated articles. If disambiguation was not the purpose here, then it is purely for the sake of curiosity - "look, here are some unrelated pages which happen to share some letters with this one!" - and is thus entirely inappropriate. At least {{lookfrom}} is discreet enough that it can be used on, say, projectspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rework lookfrom to look anywhere in a page name (for instance, it makes sense to disambiguate Strike with any page containing "strike" more than just any page beginning with "strike", eg. a use of "the strike" could refer to the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike). We should definitely delete All pages from Wikipedia.--STUART (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is far more practical to use a template like this than to list each page starting with the word/phrase. For example, if there is a common given name, it does not make sense to list everyone who has that name on a single page. This template will bring up a computer-generated list. Hellno2 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what {{lookfrom}} does now, and less obtrusively. Stuart, another template, {{intitle}} provides the functionality you describe and is also often used on disambiguation pages along with lookfrom. Besides being less unsightly than allpages, lookfrom and intitle are both properly marked as self-references. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this is better than {{lookfrom}}. "Lookfrom" should also be kept; different templates may work better for different pages. There are many cases of multiple templates that seem redundant, and some work better in some situations, and some better in others. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about how it is better? Quite apart from the aesthetics, currently it doesn't even function properly. It appears to ignore parameters and use whatever the title of the page is. If you place it on a page with "(disambiguation)", even if you use a parameter without the parenthetical, the lookfrom function still starts from pages that include the parenthetical. For example, see this version of Buckingham (disambiguation). It contains {{all pages|Buckingham}}, but the link takes you to pages that begin with Buckingham (disambiguation). Perhaps that could be fixed, but given there is already a template that actually works and is visually less clutterful, I don't see any need for this. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all those saying "Keep", what guidance would you give for usage? Only on disambiguation pages, or on articles as well? At the top of the page or in See Also? If at the top, should it go above or below the wiktionary link? Should this be used in addition to {{lookfrom}} on pages that already have lookfrom? Also consider that {{lookfrom}} is often paired with {{intitle}}. Both fit nicely and logically into the See also section (which is where MOSDAB guidance suggests that partial matches should go). If {{All pages}} replaces {{lookfrom}}, does {{intitle}} remain in See also, separated from the other template with similar functionality? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This box template could be modified to accommodate the functions of both {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}}. It could, in a single rectangle, provide links to all pages starting with X and all pages containing X in their title (the exact text, sounding simple and being easy to understand, would take same time to figure out, but it is doable). This would actually be better, as it would kill two birds with one stone. It would surely fit onto most disambiguation pages, and could also be used in some articles when the focus of the article is on the word, perhaps in a "see also" section. Hellno2 (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also . . . Really, besides technical differences, the only major difference between this and {{lookfrom}} is that lookfrom has been around longer. I have to say, I do agree with the nom's username, which states "older ≠ wiser." And likewise, older ≠ better. Hellno2 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the technical problems with the template? If you go ahead and do so, that might help this consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some agreement about usage and placement as well. I don't agree with placing it at the top of pages, unless there were some way to create a swiss army knife sort of dab utility template that combined links to Wiktionary and the functionality of lookfrom and intitle into a single box. Barring that, it might be unobjectionable if placed in the See also section. And there should be an understanding that the template shouldn't be dumped indiscriminately into multitudes of pages. Finally, in addition to simply making the template function properly in the first place, it should utilize some of the standard CSS classes for consistent formatting. For example it should not use the look and feel of {{sister}} since it is not linking to a sister project. It should identify itself as a self-reference. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and make changes: It sounds like the original nom is willing to have this template kept, provided certain changes are made. These changes would be better in the long run if discussed on the template's talk page rather than in the TfD format. All of us could then compromise somewhere. Some possible changes are:
- One idea I do like is to combine {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}} into the same box.
- Some people have objected to it looking like a sister template, but I see nothing wrong with that. If it really bothers some, it could be colored differently to look like something different. The shape is still fine.
- One of the objections is that it is placed on top of the sister templates. I don't see that as such a major problem, and to complain would be making a mountain out of a molehill. If on some pages, {{all pages}} came first, and on others, a sister template came first, it is no big deal.
- I do agree also that this could be left off of DAB pages for two-letter acronyms. It is harmless, but not of any help either.

Hellno2 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted above. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The objection isn't that it looks like a sister template. The objection is that it is a sister template: it transcludes {{sister}} in its coding. The coloring is irrelevant.

The other objection is that, when you were placing them indiscriminately you were pushing down the templates that needed to be at the top, namely the wiktionary and TOCRight templates. Since you find it no big deal and the disambiguation project guidelines disagree, will you move those placements down to the "See also" section (creating such a section if needed)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellno2, TfD is still the right place to discuss this. 1) The template doesn't actually even work properly and nothing has been done to try and fix that. 2) The template incorrectly transcludes the {{sister}} template when it does not link to a sister project 3) It does not identify itself as a self-reference. 4) There does not appear to be any agreement about acceptable uses or placement of the template. If anything, I suggest removing all instances of this in mainspace pages and moving the template to a sandbox or to userspace until the issues have been addressed. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why the formatting says "{{sister" is to make it appear like a box. If someone know of some other way to make the template appear the same without using the word "sister," that would solve this problem. Hellno2 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no work appears to be in process. I suggest removing all instances of this in mainspace pages and moving the template to a sandbox or to userspace until the issues have been addressed. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellno2, that's not a very good reason to use {{sister}}. You might look into the source code for the sister template, and from there use the {{side box}}, if you want a side box, like it does, without making the new template a sister template, since it's not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As another user said above: "Look, here are some unrelated pages which happen to share some letters with this one!" It's useless clutter on disambiguation pages and would be even worse in an article. The idea that the use of this template will serve as an answer to the problem of unrelated articles being listed on dab pages is laughable -- people will keep adding those articles to the page, whether or not this template is there or not, and meanwhile the page will look worse and be harder to use. Propaniac (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I already voted keep during the original listing, but in regard to guidelines: the template should be used prominently on DAB pages, and should be confined to the "see also" section on all other articles. As I said originally, DAB pages are meant to point people to other pages they might have been looking for, so placing this prominently on those pages makes sense. On other pages, the "see also" section would have white space on the right anyway, so it doesn't do much harm to fill it with this box, and the placement wouldn't be prominent enough to be a distraction. Equazcion (talk) 06:03, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to include it "prominently" on dabs either. WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name." If this template is included on a dab, it should be place in the "See also" section there as well. It does not point people to other pages they may have been looking for -- the articles listed in the linked results are not ambiguous with the dab title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a response to JHunterJ's second point to Hellno2 above. If this template had been placed in the "See Also" section on all the disambiguation pages where I found it, I would have considered it useless but not a significant detraction from the page. But placing it up top, especially above the wiktionary links and the TOC, is a significant problem, and for Hellno2 to dismiss that for no apparent reason except that he or she prefers to do it that way is a serious concern for me. The template and especially the usage/placement of the template should have been discussed at one of the disambiguation-related talk pages before the creator plastered it across Wikipedia. Propaniac (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. Templates like this would link to a list containing Title City, Title Hospital, and Title University, examples that are stated should not be included. But the list would also TITLE and Title and Title town and Title township, which it states should be included. It is useful, for example, for common names, for which it is impractical to create a page listing all the people with that name. Hellno2 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entities that are commonly known as "title" alone, regardless of how the article is titled in Wikipedia, should be listed on a disambiguation page for "title". Disambiguation pages generally do not list people with a given name, unless the name happens to be unusual or the person is very commonly known by only the name. On articles about given names, the {{Infobox given name}} template already incorporates link to look from functionality. This template is not needed for any of the purposes you have identified. older ≠ wiser 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per thumperward. Hesperian 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. per all the above keep comments. This is a very useful template that comes in handy in many places. Yes, it is newer than lookfrom, and newer is an improvement. It does need modification, and that is up to editorial work. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted above (and still have not answered my request for specifics there). How is "newer" an improvement? older ≠ wiser 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The huge listing of barely related pages are sure to overwhelm people. If we want people to dig around for the page they want, there's a search box on the left/top. Actually, maybe a link to Special:PrefixIndex should be included on Special:Search. I wouldn't be opposed tho that. Reach Out to the Truth 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does not need to be used on every DAB page, but can be used on at least some. I do oppose it being robotically added. It should be used on a case-by-case basis. But still, it should be kept around as an option for when it comes in handy rather than being deleted, just like lookfrom and intitle are. It should also include intitle. I see nothing wrong with the big blue boxes or the word "sister" in the formatting. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is s redundant (snd currently incorrecly-functioning) template be kept around as an option? The problem is not with the word sister -- the problem is that the way the template is incorrectly constructed falsely identifies it as a link to a sister project, which it is not. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who cares if it's yet another box? ResMar 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantly insensitive reasoning. Obviously hasn't resd the preceding or simply doesn't care that there quite obviously are editors who care. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it useful to readers? Readers are what editors are here for and readers are the biggest group of users of WP. Not sure how we can gauge its usefulness. If is is kept there should be a subtle difference made between it and the sisterlinks. Say a lighter or even white background? 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a number of these things you said. As you mentioned about a different color, I agree with that. There are countless colors to choose from; which one is the least of matters just as long as it is a different color. And that is an editorial decision. I do agree it is useful, at least on some DAB pages. It'll be even more useful if "intitle" is added to the box, also a minor editorial change. And most of all, I do believe it is useful to readers more than it is to editors. Readers, including those who never edit, are typically the ones who want to look for pages for similar names. For example, if there is a name that can be used as a given or surname, that's one place where it can come in handy. It can help find all the people with that name who have articles. Hellno2 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no effort whatsoever by anyone to make even the most simple of these so-called minor editorial changes, let alone fixing the template so that it actually works as intended. As for usefulness, a template that doesn't work and that no editors care enough to bother fixing is worse than no template at all. But in this case there are templates that work more than adequately. And as for surnames, allpages as currently configured would do absolutely nothing useful because the title of articles for people with a surname would not appear in a search listing pages that begin with a term. As for given names, as I've already said, those should not in general be included on disambiguation pages and the functionality of search beginning with the name is already incorporated into the template designed for use on given name pages {{Infobox given name}} -- this template would not be useful for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there will be an effort. It is something I plan to do myself. Since this template is in its infancy, few people know it exists yet. To delete it so soon is a failure to give it a chance. Few people who support it even know it exists well enough to comment here in favor of keeping it, or in a deletion review, should one inevitably take place if this is deleted. But it sure is something for which there is plenty of support out there. It takes lengthy discussion over the course of months to improve something, and deletion fails to recognize that. Hellno2 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my suggestion that it be removed from pages to a sandbox or userspace until you or someone actually bothers to make the effort to repair this template. Until then, having a defective template, without any clear guidance for appropriate usage, masquerading as useful template is worse than having no template. Foisting a defective template on the community in the hope that someone eventually will fix it is poor form. There would be no harm whatsoever in deleting it because it is completely redundant to other templates that do actually work correctly. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it remains on these few hundred pages where it is, it gives more people the opportunity to see what it is like, discuss changes that can be made, then make them. Changes can be made in a blink if need be - as you know, "wiki" means quick, and if something is out of place, all you do is hit edit, change the text, and save the changes. Deleting something means starting over, thereby rendering the work that has already been done useless. I already have in mind some changes I want to make, though I am waiting until this discussion is closed before doing them. I am under the impression that others have some good ideas too. Hellno2 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have so far refrained from removing it from the few hundred pages where it was added until this discussion is closed. It was bulk added, disrupted the lead of the articles, and is out of place on most of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellno2, if it is moved to a sandbox or to userspace, then you (or whomever) could continue to work on it at your leisure until such time that there is agreement about appropriate usage and it actually functions as expected. older ≠ wiser 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already do have a copy of it in my userspace. That is where I first created it. But I have already done the work of placing it in around 200 DAB pages. We have more points of view than just yours - including around 7-8 keeps, versus just 6 deletes. Though this is not a vote by numbers, it is far from being indicative of a clear consensus. Hellno2 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you want to talk about numbers, there appear to be 9 deletes (Bkonrad, Dekimasu, Thumperward, Johndburger, PamD, Stuart P. Bentley, Propaniac, Hesperian, and Reach Out to the Truth) and 6 keeps (Hellno2, Equazcion, Robofish, Xyz7890, Pink cloudy sky, and Resident Mario), with JHunterJ neutral. The bulk of the work involved is not really in placing the template on disambiguation pages, but on maintaining the disambiguation pages themselves and making sure they remain in accordance with the manual of style. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pages starting with the same prefix are not always related, and often return more redirects than actual useful links. We should be more precise when generating a list of "see also" links, and this just encourages laziness, which can be dangerous. The end of many of these articles is already cluttered with other sidebar boxes, and we don't need one more. What we need is more editors to take the time to help properly fill out the see also section. I could see a link of this sort as being useful as part of a "stub template", but not in a fully developed article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! A disambiguation page, by definition, is a listing of articles that have little or no relationship to one another. For example, nail (anatomy) and nail (fastener) are not related, or ban (law) and ban (title) or displayed together and have nothing to do with one another. By your kind of logic, we shouldn't even have disambiguation pages. Hellno2 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, by my logic we shouldn't have automatically generated disambiguation pages. Which, by the way, is something we don't have. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation pages are not automatically generated. They have been created manually, as you know. But we do have some special pages that display all pages containing the term in the disambiguation page. These are something that a reader may very likely want to see, and this is about providing an easy link to them. Hellno2 (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2009 (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:Population of the Philippines

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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless put to use. Robofish (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (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.