Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 21
March 21
editT-ara track list templates
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) 00:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Temptastic track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Jewelry Box track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:John Travolta Wannabe track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Day by Day track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Absolute First Album track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:T-ara album track list templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Minimal navigational function since most of the songs don't have their own articles and the ones that do are already better served by {{T-ara singles}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary, especially since {{T-ara singles}} exists. Gong show 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No navigational functionality. Used in only one article (the one song from the album that has an article) and the full track listing is only a click away by going to the album page. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; template not useful. Gong show 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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 to improve the project. (non-admin closure) Eyesnore (PC) 19:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This template is only used on project pages explaining how to use it. On all article talk pages, the WikiProject Canada banner is used with the toronto=yes and toronto-importance= parameters. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - There is no consensus to delete this template on the Wikiproject talk page. We should be stepping back, assessing how the use of the WikiProject Canada banner has worked for WikiProject Toronto. Sadly, WikiProject Toronto is relatively inactive, and one way we might re-energize the project is to increase our visibility. At a minimum, this deletion is premature. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The only objections on the project page were based on the precedent of WP:OKANAGAN, but that's not really a useful comparison because some of the Okanagan articles are not exclusive to WP:CANADA, so the templates cannot be merged. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not true at all. The only relevance of the WP:OKANAGAN discussion was that it was made clear that each Wikiproject itself can decide itself whether it wants to use the WPCANADA banner or not. Not only did I speak to the issue at WP:TORONTO of raising the visibility of the Toronto project, but you never responded and then quietly nominated this for deletion three months later. And your comment here suggests that you misunderstood the point I was making at the WP:OKANAGAN discussion (I specifically referred to the fact that some of the Okanagan articles are not exclusive to WP:CANADA). All this just reinforces the impression that this nomination is premature. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the WP:TORONTO project is all but dead, and if we have more flexibility than I initially would have thought, then it should be part of a larger discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- What flexibility are you looking for? The Canada template has all the features of this one. The only flexibility that we would be losing is the ability to tag something as part of WP:Toronto but not WP:Canada. That's a useful feature for the Okanagan banner, but when would this banner ever need it? I guess a separate banner would allow the option to add new parameters, like
|city=in Template:WikiProject Vancouver, but there is currently no discussion about doing so, and I imagine that such a feature could be added to the Canada template fairly easily. I don't see what is gained from separate templates, but I do see what's lost: projects get tagged in only one Canada project when they should be in two or more of them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)- Discussing the takeover of WPVANCOUVER in a WPTORONTO discussion is wrong. There's been no notice to WPVANCOUVER of anything to this effect. Removal of WPVANCOUVER's banner without even discussing it with WPVANCOUVER is imperialistic. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- You've misunderstood my argument, sorry for not being clear. I wasn't proposing to do anything to the Vancouver banner, I was just using that banner's
|city=parameter as an example of a feature that the WPTORONTO banner might hypothetically want to add. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- You've misunderstood my argument, sorry for not being clear. I wasn't proposing to do anything to the Vancouver banner, I was just using that banner's
- Discussing the takeover of WPVANCOUVER in a WPTORONTO discussion is wrong. There's been no notice to WPVANCOUVER of anything to this effect. Removal of WPVANCOUVER's banner without even discussing it with WPVANCOUVER is imperialistic. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- What flexibility are you looking for? The Canada template has all the features of this one. The only flexibility that we would be losing is the ability to tag something as part of WP:Toronto but not WP:Canada. That's a useful feature for the Okanagan banner, but when would this banner ever need it? I guess a separate banner would allow the option to add new parameters, like
- That's not true at all. The only relevance of the WP:OKANAGAN discussion was that it was made clear that each Wikiproject itself can decide itself whether it wants to use the WPCANADA banner or not. Not only did I speak to the issue at WP:TORONTO of raising the visibility of the Toronto project, but you never responded and then quietly nominated this for deletion three months later. And your comment here suggests that you misunderstood the point I was making at the WP:OKANAGAN discussion (I specifically referred to the fact that some of the Okanagan articles are not exclusive to WP:CANADA). All this just reinforces the impression that this nomination is premature. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the WP:TORONTO project is all but dead, and if we have more flexibility than I initially would have thought, then it should be part of a larger discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- A separate banner is evidently more visible than one incorprated as a line of text in the WP:CANADA banner. For a project that is so strangely inactive (so much so that it was proposed a few months back we simply redirect the talk page to WP:CANTALK), it seems to me that we should be discussing a range of options, including maintaining a separate banner with or without additional features (without needing to worry about how any such features could impact and/or be translated for Wikiproject Nova Scotia or Wikiproject Canadian Law). Maybe we'd never go this route, in which case nothing lost nothing gained, but that's I was suggesting this was premature. It's partially my own fault because I didn't follow up on this issue when I first raised it in December.Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- A separate banner would be more visible if it were ever in use. So far as I can tell, from what the gnome says, it isn't in use on article talk pages at all. There tends to be a fairly standard history to most WikiProjects, in that, over time, particularly after what the early editors involved with the project finish what they consider to be the most important content relative to the topic, the projects become less active or inactive, and the best way to ensure that there is any degree of attention in some organized fashion is to basically absorb it into the logical parent project. So far as I can tell, this has, more or less, been done already regarding the use of this banner, and the Toronto project's incorporation into the Canada project. I honestly cannot see any good reason to necessarily keep this banner, and not turn it into a redirect to the Canada banner, but under the circumstances if such is desired maybe tagging it as "historical" might work. But if the Toronto project is itself, apparently, moribund, and given that this particular banner has no particular individual characteristics, I really don't even see any particular need for that. It would make much more sense to try to turn the project into an active concern than it would to worry about keeping a banner which isn't apparently in use anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you completely miss the point. The fact that it's not in use today (as it was at one point) is the problem I am trying to remedy. And, in any event, your personal views on moribund Wikiprojects notwithstanding, there is nothing requiring us to delete tools that a Wikiproject may want to use. If this gets deleted, I am simply going to propose recreating it in some form as part of the effort to get the project going, so deleting it now is premature. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with John Carter, although to be fair to Skeezix, this did have some transclusions before I replaced them with the Canada banner, and I could undo those edits if need be (although the Canada banner with
|toronto=yesstill had more). I do like having independent wikiprojects for Canada topics; they give topics their own 1.0 tables and they give a page to list style and policy for that topic. While it would be nice if some users were actively working on the wikiproject page to improve Toronto articles, I don't think that a banner on the talk page is going to serve much advertizing purpose. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- And I believe the exact opposite, for a whole range of reasons. We can use it to identify priority projects, organized collaborations, task forces, etc., all flexibility and visibility we do not have as part of WP:CANADA. The fact is there was never consensus at WPTORONTO for the incorporation of its banner into the WPCANADA banner - a global decision was made with no consideration of what we might want to be doing at WPTORONTO on a go-forward basis. The future of this banner and the project is a discussion we should be trying to have at the Wikiproject, not here, which is why I raised it over there three months ago and why this nomination is premature (and surprising since no one questioned my thoughts when I raised them over there).Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- If a project is basically inactive, then, as someone who has dealt with several merger proposals over time, one might think that the first priority would be to reactivate it, rather than seek to use its banner. And what someone above calls my "personal opinions" are in fact shared by other editors who have been involved in dealing with dormant projects. In fact, I think the WikiProject Council in general more or less agrees with my "personal opinions" above. And, as someone who has recently proposed the merging of the Occult and Parapsychology projects, and have proposed and initiated several others earlier, if there is no activity on a page, and if the project is basically moribund, with little if any attention, then the one or two individuals who oppose it might be the only respondants. Under the circumstances, I think turning the existing page to a redirect to the Canada banner, with the possibility of restoring it as a separate banner if and when there actually is sufficient activity in the project itself, is probably the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Putting aside for a moment the tremendously high esteem that the Wikiproject Council holds you in, and your vast experience with unrelated Wikiprojects, I will take your patronizing comments to heart and try to explain myself again because I must not be expressing myself very well (being so unfamiliar with Wikiprojects and how Wikipedia works). I am interested in helping reenergize a project that has been somewhat dormant (I know, I know, you think I am tilting at windmills). I think the banner is part of the solution, and something that should be addressed at the beginning to help get the Wikiproject more active (crazy!!). For those reasons, I believe this nomination is premature, and these discussions are best had at the Wikiproject itself. Given how inexperienced I am compared to you, I am not sure why you insist on looking at this thru a chicken and egg lens, where one step must absolutely occur before anyone even thinks about the other one (also not sure why you seem so keen about Wikiproject Toronto never becoming active again), but I assume it is due to your superior judgment and knowledge. I wouldn't have thought there was a rush to deal with this, but apparently there is. Who knew! Honestly I don't care, since if it is deleted or redirected, I will just end up recreating a banner in the next few weeks as a proposal to assist with the discussions over at WPTORONTO. If you are really insistent that we must deal with this now, do what you want. At the end of the day, I'm simply becoming discouraged about doing anything. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also see you've been canvassing over at the Wikiproject Council to get input from "some editors experienced in the life cycle of WikiProjects", just to help make sure I know how silly I am being by thinking that WPTORONTO might be worth trying to envigorate. Well done! You really succeeded in putting me in my place. Good thing, because I naively might have put effort into WPTORONTO.Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- While noting your own instant reversion to sarcasm in the comments above, it should be noted that I came to this discussion by a notice on my talk page about this discussion. You see, if you bothered to look through the template's history here, you would notice that I was the one who created the banner in the first place, as I did for many of the WikiProjects I helped get off the ground when they were proposed for creation. And, of course, at no point did I make anything which would remotely rationally draw the conclusions you leapt to. Honestly, if you can't provide reasonable responses, it probably is better to just be quiet and not engage in the over-the-top hysterics I see above. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think you could get more condescending and negative than you were earlier, but I was wrong.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you seem to now be criticizing me for showing I was legitimately notified of this discussion, as the creator of the template in question, after you had previously challenged my input above. Honestly, you seem to show little if any capacity for directly addressing the topic at all. Please realize the XfD's are intended as places to discuss the possible debate, and not places to engage in completely unrelated, irrational, and irrelevant impugnings of others. Frankly, based on the behavior of one editor involved here, I would have very serious questions whether that individual would be able to revive any sort of collaborative effort, because, honestly, I have difficulty seeing why anyone would want to have any more contact with him than circumstances absolutely require, and, to forego the probable knee-jerk offtopic response, no, I am not talking about myself here. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't criticizing you for anything of the sort. I was pointing out how arrogant and insulting your comments here and on my talk page have been. You apparently feel free to apply all manner of adjectives to my behaviour, and then scold me when I take issue with your approach. I'm sorry you have chosen to make this discussion so difficult and have approached the whole issue so negatively. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you seem to now be criticizing me for showing I was legitimately notified of this discussion, as the creator of the template in question, after you had previously challenged my input above. Honestly, you seem to show little if any capacity for directly addressing the topic at all. Please realize the XfD's are intended as places to discuss the possible debate, and not places to engage in completely unrelated, irrational, and irrelevant impugnings of others. Frankly, based on the behavior of one editor involved here, I would have very serious questions whether that individual would be able to revive any sort of collaborative effort, because, honestly, I have difficulty seeing why anyone would want to have any more contact with him than circumstances absolutely require, and, to forego the probable knee-jerk offtopic response, no, I am not talking about myself here. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think you could get more condescending and negative than you were earlier, but I was wrong.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- While noting your own instant reversion to sarcasm in the comments above, it should be noted that I came to this discussion by a notice on my talk page about this discussion. You see, if you bothered to look through the template's history here, you would notice that I was the one who created the banner in the first place, as I did for many of the WikiProjects I helped get off the ground when they were proposed for creation. And, of course, at no point did I make anything which would remotely rationally draw the conclusions you leapt to. Honestly, if you can't provide reasonable responses, it probably is better to just be quiet and not engage in the over-the-top hysterics I see above. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also see you've been canvassing over at the Wikiproject Council to get input from "some editors experienced in the life cycle of WikiProjects", just to help make sure I know how silly I am being by thinking that WPTORONTO might be worth trying to envigorate. Well done! You really succeeded in putting me in my place. Good thing, because I naively might have put effort into WPTORONTO.Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Putting aside for a moment the tremendously high esteem that the Wikiproject Council holds you in, and your vast experience with unrelated Wikiprojects, I will take your patronizing comments to heart and try to explain myself again because I must not be expressing myself very well (being so unfamiliar with Wikiprojects and how Wikipedia works). I am interested in helping reenergize a project that has been somewhat dormant (I know, I know, you think I am tilting at windmills). I think the banner is part of the solution, and something that should be addressed at the beginning to help get the Wikiproject more active (crazy!!). For those reasons, I believe this nomination is premature, and these discussions are best had at the Wikiproject itself. Given how inexperienced I am compared to you, I am not sure why you insist on looking at this thru a chicken and egg lens, where one step must absolutely occur before anyone even thinks about the other one (also not sure why you seem so keen about Wikiproject Toronto never becoming active again), but I assume it is due to your superior judgment and knowledge. I wouldn't have thought there was a rush to deal with this, but apparently there is. Who knew! Honestly I don't care, since if it is deleted or redirected, I will just end up recreating a banner in the next few weeks as a proposal to assist with the discussions over at WPTORONTO. If you are really insistent that we must deal with this now, do what you want. At the end of the day, I'm simply becoming discouraged about doing anything. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to identify priority project and coordinate efforts using a merged banner (especially since the project has its own importance ranking). So I guess I just give less credit to how much work a separate banner does for advertising a project. The wikiprojects that I usually work at, like WP:CANELEC and WP:PPAP, don't have separate banners, and don't have constant discussion on their talk pages, but they still have useful policy pages and ongoing tasks, and they generally respond to questions quickly, so I'm having a hard time appreciating what you hope the WP:TORONTO project would gain by adding an extra banner to the talk pages of its articles. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just delete it. I withdraw my objection. I'm clearly trying to push a boulder up a hill here. Arctic, you've been very reasonable and measured in your responses, and I appreciate that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I try to me measured. Debates on this site can get ugly when we aren't careful with our language; it's important to remember that we're all working for the good of the project. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The plan to implement coloured importances for the subprojects that support importances should be implemented. WP:USA had a plan to do that before. It would give prominence to those items where WPTORONTO's importance is higher than WPCANADA's. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you can show me the details, I would be willing to try to implement the proposals for the US project on the Canada banner, if they're workable. I regret to say that even though I'm not that good of a code monkey, the primary reason I sought adminship was to be able to work on banners. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's here template:WikiProject United States/sandbox2 all workgroups have colourized importances, the same as the main importance parameter. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the more appropriate response is mute awe at the work of whoever put that thing together, or cringing terror at the prospect of trying to do anything similar myself. But I have to admit, it looks very good. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's here template:WikiProject United States/sandbox2 all workgroups have colourized importances, the same as the main importance parameter. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you can show me the details, I would be willing to try to implement the proposals for the US project on the Canada banner, if they're workable. I regret to say that even though I'm not that good of a code monkey, the primary reason I sought adminship was to be able to work on banners. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just delete it. I withdraw my objection. I'm clearly trying to push a boulder up a hill here. Arctic, you've been very reasonable and measured in your responses, and I appreciate that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- If a project is basically inactive, then, as someone who has dealt with several merger proposals over time, one might think that the first priority would be to reactivate it, rather than seek to use its banner. And what someone above calls my "personal opinions" are in fact shared by other editors who have been involved in dealing with dormant projects. In fact, I think the WikiProject Council in general more or less agrees with my "personal opinions" above. And, as someone who has recently proposed the merging of the Occult and Parapsychology projects, and have proposed and initiated several others earlier, if there is no activity on a page, and if the project is basically moribund, with little if any attention, then the one or two individuals who oppose it might be the only respondants. Under the circumstances, I think turning the existing page to a redirect to the Canada banner, with the possibility of restoring it as a separate banner if and when there actually is sufficient activity in the project itself, is probably the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- And I believe the exact opposite, for a whole range of reasons. We can use it to identify priority projects, organized collaborations, task forces, etc., all flexibility and visibility we do not have as part of WP:CANADA. The fact is there was never consensus at WPTORONTO for the incorporation of its banner into the WPCANADA banner - a global decision was made with no consideration of what we might want to be doing at WPTORONTO on a go-forward basis. The future of this banner and the project is a discussion we should be trying to have at the Wikiproject, not here, which is why I raised it over there three months ago and why this nomination is premature (and surprising since no one questioned my thoughts when I raised them over there).Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the note at WT:COUNCIL, which is the usual central place to announce XFDs involving WikiProject infrastructure, especially smaller groups. Although I'm willing to defer to any WikiProject's personal preference, I think that the best choice is to redirect this name into the bigger group's. Ideally, if you use the redirect, it would automagically set the
|toronto=to "yes". Although people often get attached to "their" banners, you get the same practical results (e.g., bot work and priority categories) from a properly implemented task force system. The only reason why we would really need to keep a separate banner is if WikiProject Toronto wants to support an article that WikiProject Canada has rejected as being out of scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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.