Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

edit

Template:Ester Dean

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ester Dean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind talk 22:03, 8 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:This is a redirect

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. No consensus to delete at this time. So, let's wait at least until problems with {{Redirect template}} are resolved. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This is a redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is unnecessary when we already have {{redirect template}}. The two are designed to be used together, but it's not at all clear that this template does any more than {{redirect template}} on its own. It has an order of magnitude fewer transclusions too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template is transcluded in a number of other Redirect Templates. Can you please elucidate exactly how the two templates are supposed to be used together, so that we can make an informed judgment? Bwrs (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template provides an {{ambox}}-style wrapper around other redirect templates. The explanatory text is contained within the templates it wraps (which outnumber it by ~20:1), and thus this is superfluous. This template dates back to 2008, but has never had much uptake. We do need to properly standardise how we present explanatory text on redirects, but this doesn't seem to be the way to do it, nor even a basis for doing so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Chris. Redundant to a more popular template. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I use this template frequently to add RCATs to redirects. I consider it a step in the right direction toward improved category notation. The fact that it cannot yet be seen on a redirect page, but only on the diff pages, is a MediaWiki issue that is still ongoing and has nothing to do with the use of templates to categorize redirects. One fault of this template derives from the use of the pipe symbol (|) in some Rcats, e.g., {{Redirect from plural}}. This Rcat normally categorizes a redirect in the Redirects from plurals and Unprintworthy redirects cats. When a pipe separator is used, in this case {{R from plural|printworthy}}, the Unprintworthy cat is subdued, and the redirect populates the Printworthy redirects category. Since the {{This is a redirect}} template also uses pipe separators, one cannot use it when one wants to categorize with an Rcat and its own piped parameter. So this is an area that needs improvement. There are other minor items in this template that need improvement; however, when the MediaWiki bug is fixed, this template with any future improvements will be an even more useful tool than it is now. And I consider it a very useful shortcut to use when I add Rcats to a redirect! – p i e (Climax!)  16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare:
#REDIRECT [[(target page)]] {{R protected}} {{move}} {{R mod}} {{R nick}} {{R printworthy}}
to:
#REDIRECT [[(target page)]]
(blank line)
{{Redr|protected|move|mod|nick|printworthy}}
({{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template) – p i e (Climax!)  17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. This template is linked extensively on Rcat /doc pages!
I maybe wasn't clear enough as to the point of the nomination. There is no reason this functionality cannot be baked directly into {{redirect template}}, which has the added advantage that it actually works already. Redirect categories are typically discouraged anyway, so there's little reason to go creating a whole wrapper template just to make adding them easier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were clear enough, Chris, we simply disagree. First, there are over 3300 transclusions of this template, and while there are over 57000 transclusions of {{Redirect template}}, it is used twice with a parser function each time it's rendered, so this template's usage is nearly 12% the usage of {{Redirect template}}, and that's growing. Secondly, both templates work well together, as noted on the /doc page of {{Redirect template}}. Redirect cats are no longer discouraged. The MediaWiki software's been upgraded several times since that was so. If you doubt this, just check out the growing list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages of Rcats that are designed specifically to categorize redirects. This "wrapper template" is, in my opinion, an enhancement to the process of categorizing redirects. It really should be kept and improved! – p i e (Climax!)  16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Most redirects should not be categorized" (emphasis in the original) is incongruous with "redirect cats are no longer discouraged". And no technical (or otherwise) arguments have been put forward to explain why a wrapper is needed here rather than just directly improving {{redirect template}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, with all due respect, that "guideline" is outdated. In several years, now, I have not come across a redirect that did not need some type of categorization. It might be from a move or a merge, it might be a x-namespace redirect or a shortcut, a protected or semi-protected redirect, indeed all Main namespace redirects require at the very least to be categorized as printworthy or unprintworthy so that Jimbo's wish for a hardcopy Wikipedia will be easier to implement. Forgive me if my arguments in favor of this template do not meet your standards. When you look closely at the {{Redirect template}} template, you will find that it has been designed to utilize the {{This is a redirect}} template, so in a sense, they are already "baked in" to each other. Every transclusion of the {{This is a redirect}} template may include up to five embedded transclusions of {{Redirect template}}. So in addition to making an editor's job easier and quicker, which becomes important when one finds a category full of redirects that require further categorization, the {{This is a redirect}} template will be a more professional rendering of redirect categories on redirect pages when the enhancement to the WikiMedia software is made than the simple text rendering of the {{Redirect template}} template. I honestly feel that keeping and improving this template is the way to improve Wikipedia. Maybe it would help for you to see the initial explanations of the code that were removed about a year ago, which are found on this edit screen. – p i e (Climax!)  10:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Redirect template}} is vastly more complicated than it needs to be right now, but that's a different issue. There is no compelling argument for there being an entirely separate template which is only called by it which is documented elsewhere: even if the current use case were to be kept, the best thing would be for the implementation to be rolled into the parent template. As for the "simple text rendering", this has been the predominant way of formatting redirect text on Wikipedia for many years now, and the relatively minor use of an ambox-type layout should not be enforced in its stead without central consensus to do so. But even if it were to be enforced, doing so directly in {{redirect template}} would mean that all redirects would benefit from this style rather than just those which had been manually tweaked to call some external template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you call {{Redirect template}} vastly more complicated than it needs to be, then say that's a different issue. And you would have {{This is a redirect}}'s functionality included within {{Redirect template}} thereby making it still more complicated? {{Redirect template}} already has issues as shown on its Talk page. {{This is a redirect}} has its own set of issues as shown on its Talk page and in its documentation. I fail to see what good it would do to merge these two templates. It would be better to leave them separate and improve both of them. There are many templates like these on Wikipedia, templates that call other templates and templates that are called by other templates. There is no compelling reason to either delete this template or to combine it with the other template. They are both functional just as they are, and both can stand improvement. Let us be clear: The {{This is a redirect}} template calls up to five redirect category templates, each of which in turn may call the {{Redirect template}} template. This is one reason why there are a lot more transclusions of {{Redirect template}} than there are of the {{This is a redirect}} template. – p i e (Climax!)  03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusion count lists the number of pages a template is transcluded on, not the total number of times a template is transcluded. Even if it is transcluded five times on one page that only counts for one in the transclusion count. {{redirect template}} simply has ~15 times as many transclusions, and that number will increase when I convert various hand-hacked redirect notes to use it. Truth be told the entire domain of redirect templates is a complete mess and has been in desperate need of cleanup for some time: the first step in that process is to make sure {{redirect template}} is used consistently, and that requires merging a comparatively seldom-used sub-template into it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you say that the transclusion count is limited to the page count rather than the actual number count of transclusions. May I ask how you came across that info? This leads me to suspect the "transclusion count" to be misnamed. We definitely agree that there are still many, many redirect category templates that need improvement. I know this to be true because I have worked to improve them for a very long time. We definitely disagree on the facility of merging {{This is a redirect}} and {{Redirect template}}. I would be interested to know how that would be done while achieving the same functionality that both templates now possess working together. I'm not sure why you call it a "sub-template", because {{This is a redirect}} is presently a master template that calls redirect category templates, some of which in turn call the {{Redirect template}} template. To be concise, {{Redirect template}} is a subtemplate of several master templates (the redirect category templates), which are in turn subtemplates of the master template, {{This is a redirect}}. In my opinion, the first step to achieve consistency of usage of {{Redirect template}} would be to add it to the many (protected) redirect category templates that still do not use it. Most if not all of the redirect category templates that do not require editors to call the {{Editprotected}} template to edit are presently equipped with the {{Redirect template}} subtemplate. – p i e (Climax!)  12:05, 1 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) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that there are problems with {{Redirect template}}. There is also a problem or two with the {{This is a redirect}} template. It's difficult for me to see how these could be merged even if there were no problems. One, the {{Redirect template}} template, is called by some redirect category templates, and the other, the {{This is a redirect}} template, calls one, two or even up to five of those redirect category templates. The two templates seem to have completely different functionalities—they do a similar job, but they do that job in very different ways. How could they be merged? Wouldn't it be better to keep them separate and continue to improve them? Also, do you know of any open bug reports that deal with {{Redirect template}}'s problems? – p i e (Climax!)  21:16, 12 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:Buriram United F.C.

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. Now it does not contain only links to one article. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buriram United F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem to require a template, non-standard use of link to current season, link to section on main page, plus two related links. Cloudz679 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why this should be deleted at all, it's a pretty standard part of a club with multiple articles to have a navigational box linking those interconnected articles.Borgarde (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But in this case the links are all in the main article, templates like this are generally helpful for bigger clubs with many different pages. Stadium and current season isn't enough IMO. Cloudz679 07:23, 31 March 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) 20:02, 8 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:Music of the Sun track listing

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) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music of the Sun track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is barely useless. From twelve songs, only 2 of them have their own article, the third one is a covered song, that mentions only one sentence about covering the song by Rihanna. By my opinion it should be deleted. — Tomica (talk) 17:19, 8 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:2011 USL PRO International Division table

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 Speedy Delete. Meets Speedy criteria T3: Unused, redundant template --Trödel 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 USL PRO International Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and defunct. 64.134.156.208 (talk) 15:48, 8 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:Fb si header2

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) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb si header2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb si player2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

forks of template:fb si header and template:fb si player. 64.134.156.208 (talk) 14:20, 8 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:Talk That Talk

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) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk That Talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template based off an entire album? Not worthy at all. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:29, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_8&oldid=1146549884"