Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

edit

Template:Drawn Together

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) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drawn Together (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. All the character articles redirect to the character list. Take those away and this navigates only four articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (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:Easton Corbin

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Easton Corbin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. A little too soon, methinks. Wait until the second album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The box is useful for navigation. In general, I would agree that we shouldn't have navboxes with few links because they normally aren't useful/helpful, but this one is useful. All 3 of the singles have articles - it's helpful being able to navigate between those and to the album and artist articles. Also, there are loads of other similar musical artist navboxes which just link one album, the artist and the singles from it. I don't really see any reason to delete this sort of box. They are found to be useful by some users and, per the nom, it will just be recreated in the future. Mhiji (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (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:WarningsSmall

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antiquated such that now only transcluded on user pages. When this template was created, there were far fewer standardized user warning templates. Now, there are many. And this has been evolutionary. Calling everything vandalism, while it may be easy, isn't nearly as helpful as providing more relevant guidance for the specific conduct concerned. While this template may be convenient, it has the unfortunate side effect of encouraging laziness in selecting an appropriate user warning template. (That's why no Wikipedia namespace page continues to employ it.) It would be far better for users to simply visit (or transclude) WP:UTM, which is sufficiently organized to allow users to select the best template from the many options, instead of only three. Bsherr (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose its not mainspace anyways, and is also duly linked to the other warning, while serving as a short-cut for warning templates (which i used often)Lihaas (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how you use this, why the two templates featured in it were chosen above the others, why this template is better than, for example, Template:Tools, and why the "descriptions" of each warning template in this template contradict the documentation at WP:WARN? And what do you mean by its not mainspace anyways? --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This template helpfully lists the progression of the set of standard vandalism warnings. Other warning templates may exist, but these are the basic ones, and the ones listed at WP:VANDALISM, so they have the most recognizability. Deleting this template provides no benefit I can see.oknazevad (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (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:Star_Trek_Romulan_stories

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) 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A template that has a subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria and is unable to meet WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my illustration was too subtle for you; I did not pick this example by accident:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents → Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 11#Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob → Result: Keep — Kralizec! (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (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:Star_Trek_Vulcan_stories

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) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A template that has a subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria and is unable to meet WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (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:Star_Trek_Klingon_stories

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) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A template that has a subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria and is unable to meet WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (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:Star Trek time travel stories

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) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Trek time travel stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template that has a subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria and is unable to meet WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (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:Lahe Township

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, as the nomination has been withdrawn, and discussion is ongoing elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lahe Township (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with over fifty red links and only five blue links (of which four point to dab pages and one to an unrelated article). --Mepolypse (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Homalin Township. I am building coverage of Burma on here and will be tackling the main towns/villages of each township first. To delete the templates would be counterproductive, especially when they would only be restarted again. Have patience and allow things to develop. At some stage mass dabbing will be done, hopefully be a bot and linkes will be fixed and articles started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Are all of those villages in that township really notable enough to have their own articles per WP:N? --Mepolypse (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Perhaps you should view these images of the people who inhabit these villages. It might be a real eye opener.. But my intention is not to start every single village (at least not in the near future)... I've created templates so I can cross cut from one township to the other and start the most notable towns/villages first like Kutkai, Onbet etc. Building will take time and patience. Most townships will have at least 10 villages which have some information in a British Burmese gazeteer to make it a worthy stub..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was looking for that notability guideline at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines but didn't find it, since it appears to only be an essay, not a guideline. I don't have any experience with notability of places, it just seems to me that these villages may not be that notable. Hopefully someone else can comment on this. --Mepolypse (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have years of experience as a site developer... If Ambrosden is notable why is it so hard to believe that a similar sized settlement in any other country is notable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(What does site developer mean in this context? Are you talking about non-web sites, web sites in general, or this web site specifically)? I agree that places above a certain size threshold should generally be considered notable. I just have no way of knowing what size these places are, since for example Kyaukkwe (or the link from that article) don't claim that that place is any specific size, so from looking at the article I cannot tell if it is smaller or larger than Ambrosden. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of articles for what experience I have on here.. What I will do is survey each township on google maps. Identify the settlements which look sizeable visually and then use google nbooks to find some info about them. The best thing we can do in regards to Burma is start those which actually have sources available first and are the most notable settlements. Of course there is less likely to sources available on the Internet as "western" villages but you;ll just have to trust me on that one. See Allagappa that's the sort of village stub I'll be starting from township to township. That makes them much more worthwhile than a xxx is a village types stubs. In regards to verifiable populated settlements I believe the vast majority are notable. Bodinnick for instance is a small village as is Aberchalder. The vast majority of Burmese settlements are larger than Aberchalder but many won't have sources readily available on the web yet..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your point about being a site developer is. Why is your article count relevant? As for notability of these places, I'm not sure it's a good idea to base the decision of which places are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia on which dots look subjectively big on a map. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've started 68,000 articles which still exist. That should vouch for something in such a deletionist environment that I clearly have an idea of what is notable... You claim you have no experience in talking about settlement notability, I've had this conversation 10,000 times before.. Did you not read what I said? I said I will find settlements by google maps (by actual village size) and then find sources in google books to start them...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, it's a list of Wikipedians by number of articles started, I thought it was a list of Wikipedians by number of articles edited. The list doesn't make this especially clear, as "article count" is ambiguous. Either way, I fail to see what bearing this has on the arguments.) If you've had this discussion so many times previously I would expect you to have reasonable arguments. Just saying to trust you on the fact that villages are notable when no notability is claimed doesn't seem like a good argument. Yes, I read what you wrote. You said you "identify the settlements which look sizeable visually". You now also say you do so "by actual village size" (which you previously did not say). From this I assume you are judging notability based on the physical area of the populated area. This begs further questions: Are you looking at maps or satellite photos or both? How do you determine where the borders of the populated area are? Are you actually measuring the physical area and have an actual cut-off point (a fixed number of square meters/feet/whatever) or is it more of a shoot-from-the-hit decision whether you consider these places notable. You also say that you "then find sources in google books to start them". I fail to see the results of this last part on for example Kyaukkwe, for which no such sources are noted in the article. --Mepolypse (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to comment on a closed TfD, but I didn't have time to note here before this was closed that this conversation has been copied to and continued at WP:N/N#Notability of villages/towns/places if anyone is interested. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2011 (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:Uw-mos3

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-mos3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Uw-mos4 has been deleted making this series of templates obsolete. I believe that threatening users for violating the Manual of Style does no good. It is contrary to the blocking policy. I see blocking users for "persistently violating other policies or guidelines." but only in the context of severe disruptive editing. Editing is not disruptive if it is at least a little progressive. If this template is to be of any use it should at least be specific. A single-issue notice can suffice for notifying new editors. Marcus Qwertyus 07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as creator and the rational above. Khukri 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and possibly revise). I agree with all of Marcus's points, but they don't address the use of this template. Sometimes, there are users who contravene the manual of style in bad faith. The edit may consist entirely of changing compliant content to noncompliant content. One may have tried to explain previously in a personalized message (and the guidelines for the use of user warning templates do instruct to use a personalized message if necessary to explain an issue), but the user persists. Perhaps instead of immediately going to AN/I, a responding user seeks to quickly give one last warning to the disruptive user, informing them that a block may result from their disruptive editing. Perhaps there's a different way of wording this since it's an AN/I issue as opposed to an AIV issue, but there's a use for this template. --Bsherr (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need a templated warning series for every conceivable disruption. If someone is misbehaving, tell them. If they don't stop, block them. The templates are superfluous and unneccessary to the process. For the most common types of problems they may serve a purpose, but for the number of people likely to require blocking for persistant MOS violations, there will have been dialogue and noticeboard discussions and all sorts of other prior indication that a block is forthcoming. No need to have this template. --Jayron32 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst I accept that user warning templates (in general) are in need of a tidy up, this is one I think should stay. It is conceivable that repeated violations of MOS can be counted as disruptive and reported at WP:ANI. I believe a progressive series of templates is more appropriate than a single issue notice. I think this template is in need of revising, it is not alone in this regard. Pol430 talk to me 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The uw-mos series of templates serves as an easy way to provide escalating levels of warnings to new editors who persistently ignore our MOS guideline. It works in much the same way as the uw-tpv series warns editors not the re-factor talk page messages (in violation of the WP:TALK guideline) or the uw-spam series warns against adding spam links (in violation of the WP:SPAM guideline). Editors who ignore guidelines and insist that their own way of doing things should supersede consensus get blocked for disruptive editing. This template is a great shortcut for succinctly communicating that message to new editors. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Kralizec that although these are just guidelines that the user warning series templates are based off, they are important to the Wikipedia process; therefore, they should be improved and delivered when necessary to prevent disruptive editing rather than just deleted. There is some point at some time when many violations of the MOS do turn into disruptive editing, and so we apply the appropriate template to fit the need to quickly communicate with him or her. We should probably also redirect Template:Uw-mos4 to Template:Uw-generic4 for consistency, if that is required. (By the way, are you also including Template:Uw-mos1 for deletion? If so you should probably include it here as well. And you also forgot to notify WT:TW, which I have remedied.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reword. There is a manual of style that does not need to be followed. However it should not be deliberately gone against without special reason. Rich Farmbrough, 18:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep but reword. In my experience, among many of the editors who refuse to comply with MOS are non-native English editors who can't/won't read the MOS anyway. The uW templates are designed in an attempt to educate contributors before needing to take the issues to lengthy debates at AIV and/or ANI. A series of ignored uW whether understood or not, can be followed by a short procedural block.Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why have {{uw-mos1}} and {{uw-mos2}} also been given a {{tfd|Uw-mos3}}? Uw-mos2 is not mentioned above, and although uw-mos1 is, this was only as part of a question by TeleComNasSprVen. The {{tfd}} on both mentions {{uw-mos3}}, not the actual template which has been templated. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Wikipedia requires a certain level of competence. Editing in accordance with the MoS is an integral part of one’s WP competence. The uw-mos series of templates, in a way, give us a manner in which to bring this to the attention of new editors. — SpikeToronto 17:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have too many 'single-issue' warnings and cautions. Specificity is a good thing, and deliberately disregarding the MOS can be disruptive, if not tendentious. KrakatoaKatie 08:05, 7 January 2011 (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:CreationismAndScience

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) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. Kelly hi! 06:09, 2 January 2011 (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:Kaufmann's history

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) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kaufmann's history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, navigates only four articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:32, 2 January 2011 (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:PD-Germany

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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirect to {{PD-old-70}}. (This is what Commons has done.) Kelly hi! 01:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, delete. See below. Kelly hi! 05:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect' less harsh than a straight delete and with a similar outcome to both keep and delete Fasach Nua (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my nomination to "delete" on further consideration. Better to have uploaders pick the correct license at image upload here than to complicate the task of volunteers who are moving these images to Commons. {{PD-Germany}}, at this time, is not currently used on any images at en Wikipedia. (As of the time I'm writing this, there are still a handful, but they are all up for deletion, and if they survive they'll get a correct license tag.) Kelly hi! 05:19, 4 January 2011 (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/2011_January_2&oldid=1146550116"