Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland)

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

The result of the discussion was keep but rewrite. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template tries to do too much, and is far too busy to be useful. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment - There is a use here, but it is lost in the expanse of information presented in one medium. I would propose exclusionary measures more than deletion as there is potential for use if trimmed. As it sits now it is useful to the researching reader, too much information in a single template however. Pros: Well constructed and thorough, functioning for the dedicated reader or researcher as mentioned prior. Cons: A bit long for a Template, exhaustive; approaches the level of a directory which is discouraged by WP:NOT. Deletion outright of dedicated work by many contributors would be a shame in the name of being too expansive. For those interested: Transclusions Judicatus | Talk 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "researching reader" can use the articles themselves to locate the links they need. They should all be present unless our articles on one of the most important royal dynasties in Western history are exceptionally inept. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in the seven days that this is open a party interested in whittling this down to something sane (or indeed reconstructing this from scratch) should be able to find half an hour to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely what I meant, it is excessive except for the researcher, which as you pointed out would find the material anyway. Again trimming would be very effective. Judicatus | Talk 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Delete the section called "Monarchs, their queens and issue". 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, far too much here to be useful. I would supporting looking at a streamlined version, which might be worth keeping.--SabreBD (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - the question is what to exclude? I'd suggest deleting the numerous "issue" but keeping the individual monarchs and their spouses. See also the probably redundant Template:House of Stuart sidebar. Ben Mac Dui 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also seem to duplicate Template:Children of Robert II of Scotland, Template:Children of Robert III of Scotland, and Template:Children of James I of Scotland. I think the function of the template is better served by the Category:House of Stuart (and sub-categories) and by the House of Stuart article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that much of the information is overload and duplicated in other nav boxes but this is the second time this has been nominated for deletion and from memory the agreed solution was for a greatly simplified version—this seems not to have been followed up on. So on the whole keep but not in present form. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Black days

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

The result of the discussion was delete per consensus and redundant to {{coloured dates}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black days (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If these were fundamentally related subjects then this would be a useful navigation tool, but they're disambiguation pages. The correct place for potentially interesting but tangential links is the see also section, not a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unrelated like starfish, cuttlefish, jellyfish and microfiche. Here's where this list belongs. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from dab pages, and delete if otherwise unused. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't use these on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mmmh, not sure, tending to keep since we could easily add to all disamb./list pages the links of the template into a see also section... mabdul 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Mozilla Firefox

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. WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla Firefox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old Firefox template with only one transclusion, suspended by/redundant to {{Mozilla}}, {{Firefox TOC}}, and {{web browsers}}. mabdul 13:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Judicatus | Talk 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template: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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used template which does the same thing as {{anchor}} only in a different way, presumably because someone could. {{Anchor}} is both massively more prevalent and more capable (as it accepts multiple arguments). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template has been at TFD on 6 January 2011. Nothing has changed since; it's a lot less expensive than {{Anchor}} (that's why it makes sense to use it in large numbers in long lists – see Template talk:Section#Should be avoided?), and it can emit a second parameter which Anchor can't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A low-participation TfD from over a year ago is mostly irrelevant. If list of Latin phrases (C) is what is deemed to be a pathological case here then I don't think there's anything to answer for, as using {{anchor}}s there would certainly not adversely affect the experiences of any readers and minor backed gains are not our problem to work around. TIMTOWTDI is not a good paradigm for encouraging maintainable code, nearly nobody uses this, and there is no sensible use case where {{anchor}} cannot be used to the same effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves {{Section}}'s feature to emit a visible text (|2=), much like {{Visible anchor}}. Is it possible to determine on which pages Section is used that way? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were all of them, that's less than a hundred in total. And all of them could be trivially converted to {{visible anchor}} or, even better, simply unlinked (Horus Heresy (novels) uses them for absolutely no reason, as the page contains no internal links to the anchor title, and if anchors were required then they could simply name the sections normally). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that someone will inspect the articles and lists which use Section and determine its best replacement before it gets deleted? I think this is a lot of effort for very little gain. As for "absolutely no reason": the Section targets in the Lists of Latin phrases are created systematically for every entry; many correspond to an existing REDIRECT, others are used directly in piped links in articles, but some are probably orphaned targets, as it were. They are still useful should a REDIRECT into the list be desired. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a lot of effort for very little gain" is trying to preserve cross-article section anchors on a long term basis. We shouldn't be doing it by habit anyway, and the amount of additional markup (not to mention editor knowledge) required for it isn't really worth keeping around multiple overlapping implementations for. I trust that conversion from {{section}} to a more widespread format won't be difficult post-TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's the exact same thing as {{visible anchor}}, except it can only produce one anchor instead of up to ten. — Bility (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. mabdul 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Comment

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) 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An alternative for plain HTML comment markup which hacks the parser (the comment is used as an argument to {{null}}, which does nothing). There is no reason that HTML comment markup cannot be used directly, and this is massively more prevalent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this template is stupidly coded. Why does it call null? It shouldn't call null, that just adds processor strain. It should be completely blank and empty. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way it's at least one extra template call for absolutely no gain over plain HTML markup except that it won't show up when viewing the page source (and that is probably a bad idea in the first place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and replace with standard markup, which is included in the edittools below the edit window. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and inefficient. mabdul 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada

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) 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:10, 8 April 2012 (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) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:KISS WP:LAZY. This could easily be integrated into the articles in a concise and beneficial manner compared to lazily slapping them into a template and repeatedly inserting it on articles. We need quality, not template clutter. Judicatus | Talk 13:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:McClain Sisters

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:McClain Sisters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only has four links and is trancluded to two articles. I just don't think it needs a navbox quite yet. Purplewowies (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and my prior reasoning on this TFD. Judicatus | Talk 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Comedy Night Done Right

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comedy Night Done Right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide 91.10.46.102 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:27, 13 April 2012 (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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation of accepted policy WP:NOT, as no use is apparent for the template which is valid besides uselessly cluttering. Articles which use the template have it placed at the bottom of the page, with what is usually a whole pack of other templates thrown there. "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera". If it had valid use I would be neutral, but as it stands it should be deleted. Judicatus | Talk 12:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Judicatus, who sums it up quite nicely. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not how we navigate, as Judicatus pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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