Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 27
April 27
[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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Delete icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to [[Image:Octagon delete.svg|15px]] Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I had forgotten creating the template, and had to read my talk page entry to recall creating it, and its purpose. I found it useful for maint work on the hundreds of pages of the List of people by name, which has since been deleted, but as is implicit on my talk page remarks, its uses are inherently transient in nature, as we hope all cleanup-oriented Tls will be, and being orphaned most of the time can simply indicate diligence by those who place it, in removing the tagged entry when the template has done its job. It is useful on any list page that is either sufficiently large, or part of any collection of lists too large for someone who edits it to recall which red-linked entries are new and which the result of recent deletions. I oppose deletion simply for the reason that the sole rationale for deletion that has been offered ("Orphaned template") indicates, in this case, nothing whatsoever about the value of the template: if it's doing its job well enuf, it will often be orphaned.
--Jerzy•t 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, where exactly do you plan to use it next? I'm glad I am able to help you find your lost templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- From this comment it appears I have offended you. This was not meant as sarcasm. I genuinely want to know where you plan to use it next. I am also genuinely glad that I was able to help you find a template that you had forgotten about. Often this allows for the template to be properly documented and put to use by the author and others in the future. This is why I took the time to provide some testcases as documentation below. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- So, where exactly do you plan to use it next? I'm glad I am able to help you find your lost templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, now i feel the need to explain my reaction. I'd indeed "lost" it in the sense that i couldn't have come up with the title from memory, but on being remind of it, i expected pretty much as i now find: that it took me maybe 10 minutes to find in my template-namespace contribs the three edits that sounded like the sort of name i would have given that template. (That's despite a now astounding couple of pages of template activity by me in Feb. '09, which leaves me vaguely curious as to which "somewhat bizarre set of circumstances" led me to undertake those edits.) So i don't feel entirely dim for being surprised anyone would think it was worth helping me find it again. But since you did think so, thanks for the thot.
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, now i feel the need to explain my reaction. I'd indeed "lost" it in the sense that i couldn't have come up with the title from memory, but on being remind of it, i expected pretty much as i now find: that it took me maybe 10 minutes to find in my template-namespace contribs the three edits that sounded like the sort of name i would have given that template. (That's despite a now astounding couple of pages of template activity by me in Feb. '09, which leaves me vaguely curious as to which "somewhat bizarre set of circumstances" led me to undertake those edits.) So i don't feel entirely dim for being surprised anyone would think it was worth helping me find it again. But since you did think so, thanks for the thot.
- Comment: Since the usage is undocumented, here are some examples
| Code | Result |
|---|---|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|2}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|2}}
|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|2|3}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|2|3}}
|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|2|3|4}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|2|3|4}}
|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2}}
|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2|3}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2|3}}
|
| {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2|3|4}} | {{Deln trk list entry|1|bad2|3|4}}
|
- I would say this is a bad idea to use in article space, as it is obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding WP:REDLINKS. I'm going to put the TFD tag inside a noinclude to make this a bit more clear. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think your reference to
- ...obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding WP:REDLINKS"
- means or presumes
- Rdlks serve a legitimate purpose in soliciting articles
- which is true when no one has tried writing an article, but not when deletion of an example has been carried out, premised on the claim that no valid article can be written due to non-notability.
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Without poking into the markup i created so long ago, i'd have to guess that your examples above will be (no fault of yours) at least as unenlightening to others as they are to me. My initial edit's summary --
- Template to display lk & its accompanying text while it exists, but only an unobtrusive lk to it once its expected deletion occurs
- -- may or not make it clearer to some than what i've said earlier. There must be something conditional directly on the value or existence of one of the arguments, and something conditional on whether a main-namespace page with a given title exists, bcz here, from memory, are roughly the design requirements:
- When the given page exists, Tl must format a line with a bullet, an internal link to a page whose title is one of the arguments and whose piping is another arg, and the remaining non-switch arg as the remainder of the line.
- When the given page is non-existent, in the normal case (which includes the line being neither the first nor last of its section, and one of those two boundary conditions), the Tl must render as a lk to the page, piped by single blank, at the end of the preceding line on the page.
- When the given page is non-existent, but the non-normal boundary condition applies, the editor will code another parameter indicating that condition, and the Tl will render something that is no more obtrusive than the blank-piped rd-lk of condition 2.
- AFAI recall, the non-normal boundary condition must have been first line of the section (so that there's no preceding line for the rd-lk to go at the end of), and the solution was probably for the editor to code up both the first and second lines in args of the same transclusion of the Tl, which would display two lines as long as the first line's lk'd pg existed, and put the piped rdlk at the end of the 2nd line's entry (in effect out of alpha order) when the first line's pg was deleted.
Usage note: The logic of all this is that the tree rooted at List of people by name regularly attracted entries contributed at the same time as a non-notable bio. Red-link'd entries were not permitted, under the definition promulgated for the structure (in 2001, IIRC, or maybe 2002), and i inspected pages w/ new entries to delete the red lk'd ones and consider new blue lks, and put unworthy-looking ones on the "deletion track" (perhaps CSD, reviewed by another admin; if not or if refused, ProD, and if objected to, usually AfD), but it was not practical to patrol all the pages on a short cycle for red lks due to deletions -- which don't show up as changes to the page bearing the corresponding newly red lk. The template permitted modifying entries, whose bio-articles' likelihood of deletion i knew of, so that they would become barely visible rd lks upon deletion, rather than standing on the page as redlks for extended periods, encouraging additional editors to say "Oh, good idea, i'll create a [red-lk] entry to notify the readers that i [or my dad or lover or exciting freshman sociology prof] deserve(s) a WP bio article."
Another edit summary indicates to me that i failed to initially consider the relatively rare case of a probably unworthy bio where the name didn't call for piping to put the surname first; presumably the current revision handles that conveniently.
OK, let's see; adapting your table (and using each time a pair of respectively existing & non-existing {{Deln trk list entry}}-ed targets to simulate the before- and after-deletion conditions), here's a selection of formats:
- I would say this is a bad idea to use in article space, as it is obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding WP:REDLINKS. I'm going to put the TFD tag inside a noinclude to make this a bit more clear. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
| Code | Result |
|---|---|
|
* [[Ray Charles|Charles, Ray]] (1930–2004), American musician {{Deln trk list entry| * Che, a.k.a. |Che Guevara|| (1928–1967), Argentine activist}} |
|
| * [[Ray Charles|Charles, Ray]] (1930–2004), American musician {{Deln trk list entry| * Che-Che, a.k.a. |Che-che Buenotiempo|| (1950–1980), Argentine dancer}} |
|
|
* [[Ray Charles|Charles, Ray]] (1930–2004), American musician {{Deln trk list entry| * |Tina Charles (singer)|Charles, Tina| (born 1954), British musician}} |
|
|
* [[Ray Charles|Charles, Ray]] (1930–2004), American musician {{Deln trk list entry| * |Tiny Charles|Charles, Tiny| (1968-1988), American fighter}} |
|
| * [[Arthur Sullivan|Sullivan, Arthur]] (1842–1900), British musician {{Deln trk list entry| * |Sun Tzu|| (544- c. 496 BCE), Chinese soldier & writer}} |
|
| * [[Arthur Sullivan|Sullivan, Arthur]] (1842–1900), British musician {{Deln trk list entry| * |Sunzu Borat|| (fl. 1987-88), Kazakhistani journalist}} |
|
- I don't think you've demonstrated whatever parameter configuration handles the "first-in-section goes onto deletion track" boundary condition, and i'm pretty damn sure i faced that, and coded a provision for it, so perhaps you ignored a parameter that seemed to have no effect in the cases paralleling the context-free ones you exhibited above.
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you've demonstrated whatever parameter configuration handles the "first-in-section goes onto deletion track" boundary condition, and i'm pretty damn sure i faced that, and coded a provision for it, so perhaps you ignored a parameter that seemed to have no effect in the cases paralleling the context-free ones you exhibited above.
- Delete. After reading the explanations above, I think this template is well-intentioned, but ultimately counterproductive. The best solution for undesirable redlinks is for passing editors to remove or delink them, and this template actually interferes with that process by hiding the content without actually removing it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. After reading this and thinking about it for a while, I'm voting delete basically per RL's rationale. Airplaneman ✈ 23:14, 9 May 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Delni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Deni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template with very bright colors Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 27 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Most all of the links are anchors to a single page. Currently orphaned. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 27 April 2010 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Derry City F.C. 1989 Treble Winning Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned winning squad template, not sure if this level of navigation box is desired. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clutter. The teammates any one athlete plays with in a given season, even a championship one, is not a defining characteristic of that player. Resolute 13:48, 28 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Derby skater (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template, probably redundant to {{infobox person}} or {{infobox athlete}} if there are any notable derby skaters. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:05, 27 April 2010 (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned template with a very broad scope Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. This is much better suited to a category rather than a template. Welshleprechaun 10:56, 28 April 2010 (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 Userfy per request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant to {{Mancala board}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to create a template in my private namespace now? This template apparently has some features that Mancala board does not. Been a really long time since I worked on these, though. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you just put what would be in the template in say User:Kevin Saff/Mancala board, then call it just like you would a template, with {{User:Kevin Saff/Mancala board|2|3|5|7}}. I would be happy to help you move any of them to user space. In fact, I was thinking we could probably merge all the Mancala board pages into one with a variable indicating the board size. What do you think? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 30 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The individual track list articles were merged into single season track list articles, so this per episode template is no longer needed. Otherwise, it is basically redundant to a succession box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:50, 27 April 2010 (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) 00:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete template. All of its information is now included on {{Swansea City A.F.C.}} Welshleprechaun 19:08, 27 April 2010 (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) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused template that duplicates Template:Belize Super League Chrism would like to hear from you 18:03, 27 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Périphériques (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 27 April 2010 (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. RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:R to member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Appears to depend on a deleted category Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused template for a type of redirect that is generally deprecated. Redirects from the general/group to the particular/member (the reverse of {{R with possibilities}}} or {{R from member}}) are generally misleading, and are discouraged by Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #9: "In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink." ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Pyramid row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:22, 27 April 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:PubBan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned template, not sure if it is still of any use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting. The last publication ban I can think of (in a Western country ... I assume this isn't meant for Myanamar articles) was a Canada terrorism case. Perhaps some Canadian lawyers can opine. Actually, Publication ban may be of interest. As well as this.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The template was actually used on that Canadian terrorism case, until the publication ban was largely lifted. It would have been illegal for a Canadian to edit in the name of some of the accused, even though others were free to do so. Similar use would have been on the Gomery Commission article, where again, Americans had the information that was illegal for Canadians to publish. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NDA. It is not the responsibility of WP to enforce legal restrictions on content unless the restriction specifically applies to the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g., because the WMF has facilities in the relevant jurisdiction), and in those rare cases the WMF is perfectly capable of making the situation known. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per RL, who sums it up nicely. Have nothing to add. Airplaneman ✈ 05:12, 9 May 2010 (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.