Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

edit

Template:Infobox NBA Development League Draft

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) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NBA Development League Draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by |dleague=true in template:Infobox NBA Draft. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 5 November 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:USCapitolComplex

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) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

replaced by template:infobox building. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 5 November 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 template is used in several articles

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, if there is a template with hundreds of transclusions or problems with uninformed editing or vandalism, then use some variant of an edit notice, {{high-use}} or simply have the template edit protected. It looks like Frietjes did clean up the substituted versions of this template, which will help with orphaning it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This template is used in several articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All templates are "used in several articles", and having this info/warning-box on a handful of templates (currently 117 transclusions of this and its main redirect) doesn't seem helpful. If a warning is necessary, then it would apply to all templates, and should be placed in an Editnotice for the entire Template: namespace. —Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{This template is used in several articles}} isn't used on any articles. However it is worth asking Jax why he created it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment so what about this list? Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't "articles." Look at [1]. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were "articles". this list is a list of all substituted versions of this same template. if this template is deleted, then the substituted versions should be deleted as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete No reason to create a template what can be used as plain text. Looks like the template is used by just one editor, especially at templates with just a few links. Gives the impression that the template is wider used then in reality. A template in a template seems a bit odd. The Banner talk 01:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template (or the wording therein) is apparently used in more than 700 articles, several of which I never created nor edited. Template:SA is simply shorthand for inserting a template that was already used on several navboxes (i.e. Metallica) before I even started inserting it. This is the reason I created both "SA" and the template in question. I feel that this template is a good reminder of how many pages can be affected by editing a template. I am on board with applying "SA" to ALL navboxes like Quiddity said. Entering "SA" is MUCH easier and less time consuming than memorizing the code for the whole ombox, or having to copy it from another navbox dozens of times.
Implementing "SA" on all navboxes is a gigantic undertaking, which is why it is only on dozens of navboxes. Regarding Template:Integrity (band), The Banner should pay closer attention to what I am writing. What I said was, that "navbox had 5 articles at the time of nomination", not albums. The rule about the backlink not counting toward the number of useful links was not implemented until September 2012. This was not proven until WP:NENAN was edited to clarify that this was the case. Not one of my navboxes that The Banner has nominated for deletion have been deleted.
If there is "No reason to create a template what can be used as plain text", then why isn't Template:Collapsible option being nominated?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not subst. Templates are supposed to appear in multiple articles, if they do not, they usually end up deleted, or they have a special notice saying that the template isn't used much. If we really want to keep this, it should be a switch in the template documentation template to turn it on. Better would be the nom's suggestion of an editnotice. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The template does appear in multiple articles. Again, if there is "No reason to create a template what can be used as plain text", then why isn't Template:Collapsible option being nominated? Entering "SA" is quicker than memorizing the code for the whole ombox, or having to copy it from another navbox dozens of times.--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said that. If you need such an advisory, it should be built into the template documentation template (activated by a switch), or in the editnotice, since almost every template is supposed to be used in multiple articles, or, and if they are not, they usually get deleted. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All templates should have several uses. Where the number of uses means editors have to be really careful with editing it, we already have {{high use}}. This template, however, isn't really about that: it's a fairly transparent attempt by Jax to get people to stop nominating his relentless navbox spam for deletion. We don't need a template for that: we need to find some way of persuading Jax to find something better to do with his time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @Chris - 1) Can you prove that this is "a fairly transparent attempt by Jax to get people to stop nominating his relentless navbox spam for deletion"? 2) Civility please. 3)For the most part, I am creating navboxes that link subjects with 6 or more articles, not creating "relentless navbox spam". 4)I don't see a problem with creating a six character entry to assist in the tedious repetitive task of adding "This template is used in several articles..."--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Is it a coincidence that you created the template in the middle of a mass-nomination of claimed templates, so you could expect me to take a critical look at the templates you created? And that it came after several nominations of my hand, normally with a WP:NENAN-argument? You have the nasty habit of creating templates with just a few links, and often with links to disambiguation pages. (Example: [2]) I have told you before that you should improve the quality of your work here, not the quantity. I can understand that Mr. Cunningham regards your flood of templates as "relentless navbox spam". 2) Pot <> Kettle 3) See 1. 4) Copy-paste will also work... The Banner talk 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the IP's argument. Templates are supposed to placed in several articles, that's kind of their purpose. No need to explain it unless it's going to be built in to every template automatically. If kept, the shortcut needs to be changed. The last thing I'm going to think what SA stands for is "several articles". Regarding "navbox spam", I'm not against Jax's creation of all the templates, but please put a little more effort in making them complete and useful rather than just enough to meet some arbitrary minimal suggested requirement. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 1. It is a coincidence. I started adding the wording when I saw similar wording on Template:Metallica. This means that it was used before I created Template:SA, which is short for "Several Articles". I got tired of having to open a new browser window to access a navbox with similar wording, hitting edit, copying the text, then pasting it. I therefore created Template:SA and Template:CO so I wouldn't have to remember the text nor go through those four steps over and over again. Even if I did put "SA" in the navbox, people could and would nominate the navbox for deletion anyway if there were a reason to do so, therefore, creating "SA" would not prevent the navboxes from being deleted, but would alert editors to the fact that a template is used in several articles. According to Wiktionary, one definition of several is "Consisting of a number more than two or three but not very many". If this is not the case, then the navbox does not pass the "rule of five". You are making another as of yet unproven assumption when you say that I "created the template in the middle of a mass-nomination of claimed templates, so you could expect me to take a critical look at the templates you created". Additionally, the reason I created the template is besides the point.
So I ask again, what proof is there that I did this, or that this is "a fairly transparent attempt by Jax to get people to stop nominating his relentless navbox spam for deletion"?
2. IMO, I have not acted uncivil, but have within my right defended allegations brought against me without sufficient evidence in violation of WP:AGF.
3. IMO, the navboxes I created do not fit the wiktionary definition of "spam". I have received a barnstar award for "creating and adding templates for industrial music articles".
4. Again, New Tab, Edit, Copy, Paste is tedious. If Template:SA should not exist, it should either be intergral with all navboxes as an option, or the wording should not be in any navboxes AT ALL.
WP:INVALID states that "For articles and other material..." and "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond [a stub], it should be kept". Putting ALL of Pigface's articles in a navbox would take forever.
In my opinion, the issues are as follows:
  1. Should the words "This template is used in several articles" be placed in ANY navbox AT ALL? If yes, why should Template:SA be deleted if it dramatically simplifies a tedious task in the same manner as bots? If no, then the text and the template both must be either integral to the base navbox templates, or should be deleted from all navboxes.
  2. If Template:SA is not a good title, what shorthand title should be used? Many acronyms are used for template titles.
  3. If Template:SA is deleted because it can be all written as text, why isn't Template:Collapsible option being nominated for TfD?

--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh. That makes sense. Basically, you wanted a permanent version of the custom ombox warning currently in Template:Metallica. The only thing we have close to that (in motivation) is {{high traffic}}, which is clearly not applicable. So, the answer is: That custom warning at {{Metallica}} is at the thin edge of acceptable because "this location actually needs a custom warning because people keep adding/changing stuff without reading the talkpage". But 99.9% of templates don't need a warning like this, and if the situation at {{Metallica}} changes then we'd prefer to remove it there, too. Zero extra warnings, is the ideal number. Essay-wise, see WP:Instruction creep. Make sense? :) —Quiddity (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we'd want a switch, as that would just encourage the spread of this warning-template, and we definitely do not want another thing to have to decide on, if we can avoid it.
    Eg, see massive templates such as Template:History of biology and Template:Statistics, which don't need an additional warning saying "Please think carefully before changing it", because ALL template changes should be thought carefully about! So, your intentions were good, but this template shouldn't exist. —Quiddity (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary section break
edit

Comment - Template:SA was just deleted from several navboxes before this TfD was dispositioned (the antithesis of consensus). If the wording of Template:SA should remain at Template:Metallica, then Template:SA should remain. If Template:SA should NOT remain at all, then the wording of Template:SA should NOT remain at Template:Metallica.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I removed a few. Although it is clear that your template will fail, you keep adding it. On the other hand: you are now also using an template "ombox" for your superflous comment. Evading the already known fate of your template? See for an example: Template:The Lounge Lizards The Banner talk 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CRYSTAL. The fate of this template will not be known until one week has passed. The Template:SA templates that The Banner deleted were added before this TfD was filed, and deleted before this TfD was closed. If I have added an "ombox", it is because it was in the template that I copied from. The Banner has removed more Template:SAs, which should not be removed until the TfD has been dispositioned. WP:BRD not WP:BDR.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should concentrate on the quality of your templates. By now I get difficulties with AGF. The Banner talk 00:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My actions have gone in the direction toward creating quality templates. The Banner's actions have consistently gone in the opposite direction of creating quality templates, supported by the fact that almost all TfD nominations by The Banner against my templates have resulted in the navbox being kept..--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you create quality templates, why are there so many with links to disambiguation pages? I only see them when they show up at the toolserver-listing "Templates with disambiguation links". I don't know how many I have already done... The Banner talk 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have cut down on the links to disambiguation pages, but mistakes happen from time to time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 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:Infobox tennis coach

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tennis coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I suggest that we merge this infobox with {{Infobox tennis biography}} the same way we did for footballers, volleyball players, etc. All coaches were players during their life. Magioladitis (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Toni Nadal and Richard Williams (tennis coach), the two biggest coach names in this sport. Not all sports work the same. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also this way you can distinguish the two careers within an article. E.g. if a coach was a player than he can have an infobox for each section and not an over-sized giant infobox that runs through the whole article. Also worth considering that this works well with other infoboxes, for example if a former tennis player turns out to be an office holder in a local/international tennis federation. See Giorgio de Stefani (he wasn't a coach but imagine a longer infobox it'd ruin the article). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a coach was a player or not shouldn't matter: {{infobox football biography}} copes with non-playing managers just fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use two infoboxes if you want to, regardless of the name of the infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge {{Infobox sportsperson}} would be preferable but {{Infobox tennis biography}} will be a step forward. Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Infobox sportsperson would seem to be way too generic. Just wondering, how would it work merged? Would we have an if/then query... like if coach=yes then the other info would become available? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nothing that complicated is necessary, you just add parameters like |CoachYears= and |CoachPlayers= to the biography box. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 13 November 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_November_5&oldid=1140227147"