Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 3

February 3

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

totally unnecessary template, and a real bad idea to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackie Chan Adventures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links into four articles. Unnecessary template. JJ98 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Armed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no active links other than the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 3 February 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.
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 under G8, G6 and T3, template related to redlinked artist. (non-admin closure) Purplewowies (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Akai Shiori (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article exists for the band or artist. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 3 February 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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro and con list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another overly specific issue. Pro and con lists seem to be an issue rare enough not to warrant their own template. Furthermore, pros and cons can be presented in a neutral set of paragraphs, so including them is not inherently bad. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 3 February 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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lacking overview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion. Doesn't seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant its own template. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: It isn't very old, and I can think of several articles I've run into even just recently for which this would have been an appropriate cleanup tag. It probably just needs to be "advertised" a bit, like included in the list of cleanup templates. It seems very different from the one immediately below, Template:Cleanup-chartable, since how many character tables can there be requiring such serious cleanup they need to be tagged for it? By contrast, loads of stubby articles are actually collections of pretty spotty, random information with no focused narrative that gives the reader any sense of a cohesive topic. It's not just lack of a proper lead section, but an article-wide issue. (See Women's cue sports in Australia (which I tried to improve myself), Women's fishing in Australia and many other AfD-contender articles in the same category for a bunch of examples, though of a course a few like Women's association football in Australia are better developed and make sense). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one because the problem is utterly rampant (contrary to the nomination statement, articles which consist primarily of examples with little supporting text are very commonplace in my experience) , but we've already got a few templates which are more broadly deployed and which overlap with it ({{tooshort}}, {{prose}}, {{examplefarm}}). I think this should probably be given a chance after being added to the appropriate lists (and perhaps Twinkle) so people know about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am baffled by the nominating statement: this is a widespread, endemic problem in Wikipedia. I have remarked elsewhere that it is an inevitable problem for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, because it is far easier to accumulate tidbits and factoids than to research and write an effective summary or encyclopedic overview. As Chris notes, there are other templates with overlapping coverage. (Also {{Inadequate lead}}, {{Cleanup-laundry}}, {{Bad summary}}, {{Summarize}}, {{Summarize section}})

    I am not sure how effective this template will be, but I am generally supportive of trying new ideas for helping people understand encyclopedic writing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautious keep: If this template is relatively new and unadvertised, as per above, I suggest that we keep it for now and that its advertising be improved. If there is still cause for deletion in six months, then we can revisit the issue. - Jorgath (talk) 21:30, 10 February 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.
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-chartable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific, only one transclusion. Doesn't seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant its own template. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One use in three and a half years suggests this is a classic case of a useless template, like making a template for "Fix Johnson's birth date" in the article on Bob Johnson. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{Cleanup}} Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I created the template to flag ill-formatted character set tables. At the time, there were several code page tables badly in need of reformatting. I suppose there are only a handful of such tables left now (and which, it seems, are not flagged with this clean-up tag), so a case could be made that this specific tag is no longer needed. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following Loadmaster once had a use, no longer has one.--Salix (talk): 10:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Loadmaster's comment. Jorgath (talk) 21:11, 10 February 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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malformed template (mostly used through its weirdly named Template:G redirect) that opens a <small> that never closes. The entire content of the template is <small style="line-height:1.15em;"> There is no corresponding close/end template as far as I can determine (no Template:!g, no Template:End allsmall, etc. – there's no documentation, so I just had to go looking around). The template is not used as a spanning template, like {{Allsmall|some content here}}. It just opens markup and never closes it, letting its typographic effect run wild until the end of some other, surrounding element terminates it forcibly (we hope - there's no guarantee this will work properly across browsers and platforms). I've not seen anything like this since the earliest days of the Web. Terminating this broken thing will have no negative effect of any kind, other than making some <small> text normal size. In the few placea this will actually make any difference, it'll take whoever cares all of 10 seconds to put <small>...</small> or {{small}} around the content that was actually supposed to be constrained by this template-without-end. In any instance where someone actually cared about the "line-height:1.15em;", they can simply add that to the new markup in the instance(s) they need it. In case it's not clear: The principal deletion rationale is that it is worse than useless, and directly harmful by filling Wikipedia pages with invalid markup and unpredictable text formatting effects that depend on the sheer randomness of where they're placed, in order to ever stop. The template could conceivably be used without harm in the form {{g}}Blah blah blah</small> but I have yet to find a single instance of this, and bizarre mixed markup requirements like that are not helpful to editors, making the template useless even in that case. It does have a fair number of transclusions, simply because {{g}} was quicker than {{small}}, but my feeling on this is "So what?", since the negative effects of deletion will essentially be harmless and the positive ones obvious. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Works for me, though I think Vanisaac means inherently usable for malicious purposes (which is true), not inherently only usable for (i.e. intended for) malicious purposes, which in this cases seems very unlikely. It's just really bad code, and disused anyway, presumably because it's dysfunctional. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:59, 8 February 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.