Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 4 August 6 >

August 5

[edit]


Template:Municipalities of the Dominican Republic

[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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of the Dominican Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is too big. Each use should be replaced by a template from Category:Dominican Republic provinces templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO all of the provinces have templates made? Because they are not in most of the articles..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The additional links in the new set of templates provide a good point in their favour. The geo features/landmarks issue isn't a red herring though. A replacement system should offer much more than a smaller box size. There are 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, so of course they're not all in one navbox. It's a little surprising that you've tried to compare the Dominican Republic with the United Kingdom. Rubywine . talk 16:34, 6 August 2011 (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:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster

[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 histmerge. JPG-GR (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster with Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster.
Merge 2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster template, an unused and redundent template, into RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster. Originally placed for Speedy deletion under T3 unused and duplicate, but better practice to merge histories now that I look at it. In addition WP:Ice Hockey precedent is to have one main roster template per team, rather than individual season rosters across the higher levels of hockey such as junior, college, minor pro, and NHL. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect? It keeps the history in tact. I think its been done in the past with other templates in this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how are we supposed to transclude the template if it's redirected or merged? Powers T 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template in question was named "Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster" before it was renamed incorrectly to the name- "Template:2010-11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster", meanwhile a new "Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster" was created. What should be done: is the template named Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster should be deleted then move Template:2010-11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster back to that name and then the history will continue. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if you do that, it becomes impossible to transclude the prior-year roster. Powers T 01:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The prior season(s) will still be in the template history. The templates need to be merged under the name before June 3, 2011, Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster. Once we have that one template we can continue updating and preparing that template for the upcoming season. The edits you made on June 3, 2011 split the template up against the precedent to have one main roster per hockey team, and doing a quick look, it appears that other sport wikiprojects follow the same format. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying? You can't transclude prior versions of a template. So if a page wants to transclude only a prior-year roster, as 2009–10 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey season does with Template:2009–10 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster, and you merge that template into the main current-year template, then the information becomes inaccurate. Powers T 14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I missunderstood what you were asking, generally previous season rosters are not in tempate form, the info on the final roster is placed directly into the article such as example- 2010-11 New York Rangers season. Also since seasons for college hockey teams are generally discourage (some have been AfDed in the past) there's not a big need. The only reason I left Template:2009–10 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster because it is at least used on an article, unlike Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster. Also rather than just a straight roster for previous seasons, it's more informative to the roster in a Player statistics format, such as 2008–09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season or 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey team. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More informative? Only if you feel goals, assists, and PIMs are more important than major and academic year. Anyway, the problem with hard-coding is that it obscures the attribution history of the data in the table if it's substed or copied from the main template. Powers T 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a historical season: goals, assists, PIMs are much more important than academic major (esp since that can change), academic year is a good idea to add for those college hockey season examples. But that's cosmetic, nothing should just be copied from the main template but it can be a good starting point/template for what an editor want to have on the historical season article space. Look if we created rosters for every season for all the major college and pro sports teams we'd have 1,000s of unused or single-use templates. At first I thought your edits to split the roster up by season was against WP:Hockey's precedent but it goes beyond hockey Ex/ 2010 Chicago Cubs season and Template:Chicago Cubs roster, 2010–11 Boston Celtics season and Template:Boston Celtics roster, etc...Bhockey10 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
College athletics is meant to support the academics, so basic data like major and hometown are far more important than on-ice statistics. Powers T 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can be bold and do whatever you want to a roster when making a season article. I like your ideas of adding major because it's an academic related article, but also stats would be important because it's a sports related article. But that's off the subject. We just need one main roster template. It makes rosters easy to update, and player movement is easy to follow through edits/history. A user shouldn't just copy a historical roster into a season article, but use the template as a starting point and adapt the for the article (such as adding stats, majors, etc...) Having separate templates for each season is redundant and confusing to users. One roster per team is a long-standing precedent across all the major sport wikiprojects. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (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.

Copyvionote

[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 G12. How ironic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvionote/en (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Copyvionote/heading/en (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Copyvionote/lang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Copyvionote/layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As far as I can tell, these are not used anywhere and are a duplication of other copyvio templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones specifically?Curb Chain (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (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:TemplateBox

[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) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

After this TFD, this template is no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2011 (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:Fallback

[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) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

After this TFD, this template is no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2011 (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:A-League finals bracket

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A-League finals bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not used in articles and redundant to other bracket templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2011 (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:LookupNWT

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LookupNWT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LookupNWT-Comma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LookupNWT-Dash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and broken since they depend on a previously deleted template. Could qualify under CSD:G6 or CSD:G7. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2011 (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.

New Zealand Squad OFC Nations Cup 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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand Squad 1998 OFC Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand Squad 2000 OFC Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand Squad 2002 OFC Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand Squad 2008 OFC Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are blank and therefore pointless. GiantSnowman 13:42, 5 August 2011 (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:The Marcoses

[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 no action at this time. Based on the discussion, the template is in need of some work but not necessarily deletion at this time. Editors are encouraged to continue this discussion on the template's talk page. JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This navbox contains a hodge-podge of information vaguely related to the Marcoses. Essentially, it is a concordance of links from the two articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos. Linking is already present and sufficient, and this navbox is unnecessary and redundant. Perhaps it could be turned into a "Marcos family" navbox, allowing for navigation between articles on different members of this notable family. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Dead-ends aplenty, too diverse. violet/riga [talk] 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two vast, sprawling articles on the Marcoses do not render this box redundant. The navbox certainly isn't wonderful. It could be cleaned up and retitled. However, it is still a compact and potentially useful set of starting points for students researching the 20-year Marcos regime. Deleting it without providing a better replacement would serve no useful purpose. The proposal to replace this box with a "Marcos family" box is just ridiculous. Rubywine . talk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links in the Marcos articles provide a sufficiently useful starting point for anyone researching the Marcoses. Also, why is my proposal ridiculous? It would avoid the dead-end problem mentioned by violetriga. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gosh, you're obviously very knowledgable about this notable family, as you call them. Hmm, I wonder how many people reading the Marcos article are looking for help in navigating to Bongbong. What do you reckon? Rubywine . talk 14:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone looking for Bongbong will much more likely find him by 1) search (1st on the list) or 2) Hatnote on the father's article; Both much more likely than spotting a name at the bottom of an article in the middle of tens os links. - Nabla (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking again at the article Ferdinand Marcos I am absolutely shocked to see that despite your description of this box as a concordance of links from its two headline articles, and your repeated assertion that linking is already present and sufficient, this is all very far from being true. Links to some of the most relevant articles in Wikipedia are missing from Ferdinand Marcos (and, obviously, Imelda Marcos) and appear only in this navbox which you are trivialising and seeking to delete. These include Insurgency in the Philippines, New People's Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, NAMFREL and People Power Revolution. Also, Constitution of the Philippines is a link hidden underneath alternative text, and Rolex 12 only appears without elaboration under "See also". One or two of these very important articles are close to being orphans. Moreover, it is totally inappropriate that this navbox has been concealed, since December 2010, along with several others, inside a larger shell entitled "Links to related articles" which itself is virtually hidden in the "External Links" section. These are not External links! And yet despite having been mislocated and concealed, it is still getting used 30-40 times per month according to Wikipedia article traffic statistics. How in the name of heaven do you justify what you are trying to do here? And what other templates have you decided to delete as redundant junk? Rubywine . talk 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about this one The thing is the vast majority of the articles are general, not about the Marcoses themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this navbox is appropriately named, because it's not. But look at the important issues: it is the only navbox with content related to the Marcos regime, and it contains the only links in the article to several of Marcos's political opponents and collaborators. If deleted without corrective editing, some of these highly relevant articles would be orphaned from the Marcos article. To me, it seems very obvious that what is needed is to move the box to a better name like Marcos Presidency and to delete all the general links which don't relate directly to his presidency. Rubywine . talk 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a keep providing it was renamed to the Marcos presidency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 14 August 2011 (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:Expand language

[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, by original submitter. I still feel like this template could be overused but it clearly has a use. I would suggest that a) it is always used on the article, not the talk page, and b) some thought is given to ensure that its use is at least in some way limited. However, those matters are now for WP:TRANSLATE to decide. violet/riga [talk] 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion is similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 5#Template:WikiProject Echo.

It could be argued that a million of the articles in the English Wiki could be expanded by translating from an another language. That might seem exaggerated but {{Expand French}} has 10195 tagged all by itself.[1] It is assumed that articles can be expanded if they are not FAs (or perhaps GAs) and this merely serves to highlight one source which is relevant only to the relatively low number of bilingual people. Indeed, it could be said to go against WP:PSTS. This massively open usage detracts from the translation system - we should be more focussed or have a wider policy of encouraging people to look at interwikis to compare coverage.

As I do not have much to do with WP:TRANSLATION I can't really say how effective this system is, but then such data would be hard to come by. If the argument is that it is useful then I would welcome a decision about whether it should be used in the article itself or on the talk page - at the moment it is either. violet/riga [talk] 10:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Having this template gives undue-weight to the to specific language for sourcing, which would bias our content from that language"? Bias? This template and translation from another wikipedia is the biggest thing we can possibly do to towards quite the opposite and remove systematic bias and try to get a more even coverage. The irony of your statement.16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to use this template just like there is no reason to use {{expand}} because it is know with out extra verbiage that if there is information in another language, that it should be translated and information needs to be sourced anyways; if we are to take another language's links for sourcing, I don't think that would be the preferred method.Curb Chain (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We should have a wider policy of encouraging people to engage with all aspects of translation work. As you point out, there is a huge backlog of outstanding requests, many of which must reflect situations where good quality English-language sources are unavailable. Locating the Expand Language template on the article page is a necessary part of engaging with potential translators, although much more needs to be done in this respect. There is no reason to believe that bilingual people are in a minority on Wikipedia, since bilingual and multilingual people greatly outnumber monolingual people in the world's population [2]. I cannot see any basis for claiming that translation undertaken by fluently bilingual or multilingual speakers goes against WP:PSTS or gives "undue weight" to the source language. A large proportion of the material which meets the existing requirement that good quality English-language sources must be unavailable will derive originally from the culture of the source language. Rubywine . talk 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bi/Multilingual does not have to include English so you're statistics are somewhat biased. I would say that a tiny minority of people here are capable of translating encyclopaedic text. I applaud those who do the translations though as I believe it to be a very worthwhile process; I just believe that this template is not the way to organise such things. violet/riga [talk] 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This essay by Calliopejen1 (talk) appears to provide a good starting point for understanding the broader set of issues: Wikipedia:Translation/Overhaul. Rubywine . talk 14:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep This nomination is a violation of WP:POINT and a childlish case of sour grapes just because Calliopejen said something negative about Violet's WP:ECHO which was the dead system which existed before this. Pathetic. This is the most important template on wikipedia, for bridging the gap between wikipedias. If we can't get content started. tranlsated and sources then what is the point of wikipedia. We desperatenly need articles translated from other wikipedia and to attract to contributors to translate these articles. The translation instructions say to source translated material if possible anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the most important template on wikipedia" is somewhat hyperbolic. There are other ways of doing this without tagging a million articles (intentionally hyperbolic). Of course I would welcome your comments about article/talk page location. violet/riga [talk] 15:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum after user edited their comment: Childish? Have WP:AGF to go along with your WP:NPA. ECHO was not my project but yes FAOL was started by me. I don't resort to such behaviour though so please try to conduct yourself with in more respectful manner when it comes to disagreements. violet/riga [talk] 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is incredibly ignorant of you to ignore the fact that wikipedia would be millions of articles better off with a much fuller content if we acknowledge other wikipedias are better than us on many topics, especially related to their own countries. Example Segovia Offensive needs translation urgently from here. Remove the tags and you would be one dumb son of a bitch. These translation tags are the bridge that was long needed between wikipedias. The whole point of these tags is so articles like this can be put into english. Having the tag there at least maximises the chances of an editor who speaks the language to come along and transfer the content and add their own sources. For instance Lohfelden literally points the reader to this version and actually offers a google translation of more information anyway if the article is lacking (which it is).♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, please consult WP:NPA. "Millions of articles better off" is wrong because this issue is simply about articles that do already exist. I fully support translation, just don't want tens of thousands of articles plastered with this template. violet/riga [talk] 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is only nominally about articles which already exist. They must exist in other Wikipedias, but the English-language article may only exist in stub form, and may only have been created in order to enable the placement of the template. Rubywine . talk 15:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SO you are disputing the fact that Lohfelden wouldn't be better off with the German version put in english. Without the German version made clear in the link who is going to look on German wiki. We need these templates precisely because articles look better without them and that by translating the article will be much improved, especially once expanded and the template removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I actually said "I fully support translation" in the previous comment! Of course it would benefit, but so would many thousands of articles. Shall we tag every article "This isn't completed yet"? Yes I want people to translate but not with these templates everywhere. violet/riga [talk] 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. But how exactly do you think editors are to be alerted to the other wikipedias if there is no tag there directing them to translate it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense? Hey, this is a German town I wonder if the German wiki has anything about it... violet/riga [talk] 16:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Weak keep The rationale for deleting these templates isn’t validfair?. English is not the only language and many articles can be expanded by others. Just make the template less outstanding (f.e., put it in talk page [talk pages are for discussing about article’s development]) —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 5 August, 2011 [15:35]
    • Out of interest Fitoschido given that you are more active at the Spanish wiki could you tell us what similar template systems you have in place there? It would be useful to know how other languages approach this. violet/riga [talk] 15:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not have templates to specify from which language to translate the articles; instead, we have Traducción de la semana (“translation of the week”) and we choose articles to expand (but there’s a long queue of articles, though). In an article that is being translated, we put a template and, when the process ends, in the article’s talk page we put another template regarding from where the article was translated. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 5 August, 2011 [15:48]
        • If we place the template in the talk page, it becomes limited to project oriented efforts, because it is projects that work through talk page categories. In the article space, this template can tell anyone, not only translator-volunteers, "you can find more about this topic in the X wikipedia", which can be of help. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. These templates, ideally, identify articles which can be expanded a lot, not just a little. It's a nice, glaring, large way of getting someone's attention and saying, "Hey, if you look over there there's a lot more information you can work with." --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ideally all tags for each language would be spread evenly. Just we've got around to more French articles than other countries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you have missed the point. If the French template is used almost entirely to say "This France-centric article has quite a lot of information on the French wiki" then it's quite pointless - it should be common sense that fr.wiki (in this example) has worthwhile, translatable content especially when you are looking at a single sentence stub. violet/riga [talk] 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your views why the hell do we need any templates on wikipedia? Why do we need a BLP unreferenced tag. People can see its a living people and unsourced. Why do we need a unreferenced tag if anybody can see it is unsourced. Why do we need a cleanup tag if it is obvious the the reader the article needs cleanup. Why do we need a bare URL tag if it is obvious to the reader than bare urls look scruffy and need to be formatted. Why do we have a PROD tag to tell editors there article is unwanted. Why?? Because such tags direct an editor and assert that it needs to be done.Without them people are more likely to not treat the issues as urgent. Of course anybody can see these articles need expanding, but many casual editors will be unaware of what exists on oanother wikipedia and are unlikely to look but for a tag, it maximises the chances that somebody will listen to the message. And we have many examples of where editors did listen to the tag and made a wonderful translation. Any example Ser Amantion or Jen you can remember?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is one user whose first contribution was a translation from West Frisian on an article with a tag. He went on for about a week, translating about 20 articles from West Frisian. This is the kind of editor that I think can only be reached with an article-space tag. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this says it all. The first article happened to have that tag but none of the others did. While it is a possibility that he started doing translations because of this tag on the first article I seriously doubt it and I think that proves that the system works without these templates. violet/riga [talk] 17:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How bout you let the editor come in and let him say for himself that he did indeed translate that page BECAUSE that tag was there?Curb Chain (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more than just a possibility. I think some of the later articles have tags too, but I saw at least one that didn't so I didn't want to make any misrepresentations. This is just one example in any event. I agree that some editors know the need for translation without the tags, but not all will. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, identifying even one editor whose first contribution was the translation of a tagged article and whose subsequent contributions consisted of ~20 consecutive translations is a powerful argument for this template. If the later articles had no tags, then the tag on the initial article provided enormously good value as a recruitment tool. Rubywine . talk 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many translations justifies this? Just one is not enough when there are thousands of articles that have the template. There may have been more but there are lots that have been done without that template. violet/riga [talk] 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really relevant. The point is that this template has proved its value, not that it is the only conceivable method for attracting translators. If you think it could be made more effective then why not make some constructive suggestions? Personally I think it could be improved by a visual redesign to match the equivalent on frWiki, fr:Modèle:Demande de traduction/preload, just for starters. Rubywine . talk 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually play with a few ideas including a variant of {{Link FA}} but concluded that my preferred way of doing this was to have it on the talk page if anywhere. violet/riga [talk] 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more IPs/new editors who have expanded articles with this tag: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's just guess work - there are bound to be examples like that, but I'm convinced that there are more translations done on pages without such tags by people who haven't ever seen them. violet/riga [talk] 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going too far with that. Those tags highlight problems with an article rather than say "go look elsewhere". As noted, if you want to write about a tiny German place then it's obvious that de.wiki will have content or at least be worth looking at. violet/riga [talk] 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But not all French articles, even on French topics, are better than English articles. This tag is pointing out where a French article is better. And not all casual editors are even necessarily aware of the existence of interwiki links. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a very short amount of time to click on the interwiki link and look at what is available. violet/riga [talk] 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is many editors, especially newbies or casual editors normally DO NOT LOOK ON OTHER WIKIPEDIAS..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the majority of people do not want to translate. That's unfortunate, I agree, but covering hundreds of thousands of articles with this template is not the solution you want it to be. violet/riga [talk] 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this scenario as sad as it is, would we stand more of a chance of getting an article translated if the request was there directeing them to or would be have more of chance of it being translated if we did not alert the reader to the foreign article and simply prayed that they might look on another wikipedia and even realise they were permitted to translate its material. Sorry but if I was a booky I know which odds would be the best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite so. It is important to make the need for translation as visible as possible. Actually, nothing has been said against this template that makes any sense. It alerts the reader to the existence of a non-English article of superior quality, and to the need for translation, and it places the article underneath Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias where it can be found by translators actively looking for work. What has been said against the template? Essentially, one person's opinion that amounts to "I don't like this template appearing all over the place." Not even the beginning of a case to delete.
Unfortunately, most users with the requisite language skills will be completely unaware that their help is required, and will also lack experience with Wiki markup. It is unfortunate that translators need to be experienced Wikipedians before they can contribute. It would be worth thinking about ways to support capable translators who are not confident editors. Rubywine . talk 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have argued before about the need of making the template somewhat smaller and its text more wisely effective. Even if the way we go about motivating translators and/or getting articles translated should be reconsidered, deleting this template does not solve our problem. There are many many articles that can can be improved by translations, but this template, or a redesigned version of it, is meant to mark the stubs that can become significantly improved by translating some other-language version available. Hoverfish Talk 16:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These tags are important to get editors to translate content, which is an underused process on Wikipedia. It's not just highlighting "one source", it's highlighting a free encyclopedia article of superior quality that can simply be translated. Translating content is much faster than starting research and writing from scratch, and leverages the work other Wikipedians have already done. How would just asking editors to compare interwikis be more focused? This tag indicates that someone has already done the comparison and has found another article to be superior. It means that I (although I can't read German) could notice that Andreas Alföldi is way better in German, and leave the tag for a German-speaker to improve later. I agree that somewhat fewer readers would be able to act on the tag, as compared to other maintenance tags. However, I think when employed properly, the tag is still beneficial. One method that I would still oppose, but which I think would address all the concerns of the nominator, would be to move the tag to the talk page of the article. (Two problems with this approach is that tags on the talk page generally do not get removed as quickly when they become stale [i.e. when the english article surpasses the foreign-language one], and obviously that they are less visible to casual editors who might be able to help.) As it is currently, I generally only place the tag on the main article page where the article is a tiny stub, so it's not really hurting anything, or where the article is more start-class but probably of interest to people who are decently likely to be bilingual. (Think - a person interested in some tiny municipality in Peru is much more likely than the average reader to have some knowledge of Spanish.) On better-quality articles, I tend to put the tag on the talk page. Anyways, I think the tag is helpful for even for monolingual readers. The tag was recently edited so this functionality is collapsed (though this change could be reversed), but it automatically generates a link to the machine translation of the foreign wiki article. This points our monolingual readers to an accessible (if imperfect) free source of information. Is it better for a reader to arrive at a stub and think, wow, too bad wikipedia doesn't have any information on what I'm looking for, or to think, oh look, Wikipedia has this content, it's just in a foreign language, I'll just have to machine translate it, and maybe it will be a bit garbled. Refuting a couple of incorrect criticisms: The undue weight comment makes no sense at all. If there is a topic that has strong ties to a certain language community, of course the sources will be in that language. (For example, most of the sources about a cathedral in Spain will be in Spanish.) See WP:NONENG for the actual policy about the use of non-English sources. It is not a violation of WP:PSTS either, because the other wiki is not a source for facts, it is a source for content/language. Of course the content brought from the other wiki must be referenced, or at least ultimately verifiable against other (non-wiki) reliable sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple side comments: As far as the French tags go, IMO many of those tags should be removed by bot/AWB because they were applied mechanically to French communes, which sometimes have better content in French but not always. A similar effort was also undertaken with Argentine villages, which I started AWB detagging but haven't finished. I'd look to the articles in other languages to get a better sample of how this tag is generally applied and should be applied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry but much of your comment is about translation generally rather than the use of this particular template. I go back to my point about it being redundant. violet/riga [talk] 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to what? The fact that the interwiki link exists? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And common sense as noted above. violet/riga [talk] 16:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Dr. Blofeld's bolded text above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When used in conjunction with en.Wikipedia's guidelines toward verifiability and sourcing, the template acts to improve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't really see a point to having these templates. Anyone who sees them would need to qualify under these three criteria before being able to act on the request: know the language of the source, be interested in working on the topic which the article is about, and be knowledgeable enough about it to assess whether the article in that language is actually worth being translated. Arguably, if a person meets all three of these criteria, s/he would check the foreign language article anyway, whether there is an expand language request or not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2011; 18:46 (UTC)
    It would seem to boil down to "is an editor seeing the template editor able to do a translation, or even care to improve an article so tagged." Such an opinion for deletion can just as easily be applied to ANY maintenance template used in en.Wikipedia. Such tags improve the project by encouraging regular editing. To state a person "would check the foreign language article anyway", is a wonderful good faith assumption, but is an assumption none-the-less. Yes, there are involved editors who will indeed look in as many places as possible when improving an article, but why wait for a drive-by when we can be just a little pro-active and use the template to bring attention of possibilities for improvement to those who are not already doing so... and by so doing, improve the project? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it can, which is why I am generally a fan of not using maintenance templates at all. If an article is unsourced, for example, that fact is easily established by just looking at the article—the "this article has no sources" banner" is simply redundant. Editors not interested in the topic would be unlikely to start looking for the sources, and editors who are interested would do it regardless of whether there is a banner or not. All in all, it boils down to whether, for any given maintenance template, there is a sufficient number of editors who are actually looking for articles to be sourced/translated/copyedited/what-else-have-you and for whom these templates (and the cats they generate) are helpful. From my experience, I didn't notice that to be the case with many (although not all) maintenance templates. With the translation request templates in particular, the ones I take notice of (translation from Russian) are mostly useless—while a good number of articles in the Russian Wikipedia are well-written and have more material than their en-wiki counterparts, they are also rarely sourced properly and all too often are uncaught copyvios. Those few folks who routinely go through the translation request category and translate this stuff (without necessarily knowing much or anything about the subject) would carry over those problems to en-wiki as well, so the net result is often more harmful than useful. Again, this is regarding the Russian translation requests in particular, and the situation may be different with other languages, but I didn't get that impression from the comments here so far.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2011; 20:58 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't like it and I subscribe to the argument, that the interwikilink is the obvious place to look. But that is not enaugh policy reason to delete an obviously used template therefore: Keep - A few observations I made over time. In the past I often found deWiki articles badly sourced so not really sutable for translation. Being bilingual myself I can also say that translation skills do not normally come with being bi-lingual, but bi-lingual people are the one who will frequent frWiki and then take a peek at how we do it over here. They will will start to add to articles. Forcing the idea to translate might get more articles sorted but as far as quality is concerned I think organically articles are better. Agathoclea (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is whole wikiproject WP:INTERTRANSWIKI and translation guidelines which explains that poorly sourced articles must be verified by reliable sources if the editor is translating the material. The whole point of them is that the well written articles are very valuable and would certainly do as a starting point. I';ve translated some bad quality ones from Spanish wiki and have found reliable sources to back it up and improve it. If you weigh up the sum of what is one other wikipedias compared to english that is the point of them Ezhiki. We need to try to make english wikipedia as resourceful as possible. And there are some gems on other wikipedias needing translation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes certainly surprising - found a Pembrokeshire article on deWiki far exceeding the content of the enWiki article, then the next town over was totally missing. Agathoclea (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blof, I'm not saying there are no gems in other Wikipedias. I am, however, questioning whether the translation request templates (and the way they are currently being applied) make it much easier to locate those gems. Based on what I've seen with the Russian translation requests, most lead to articles which are not worth translating, even when they are longer and more detailed and better written—there are other issues, which are not necessarily obvious to a person doing the translation (even if they know the language well). People often slap maintenance templates without thinking, which may be why this particular one showed up on this TfD. If the issues with applying these templates mindlessly are addressed, then, of course, the template itself would be worth keeping. But right now, with few exceptions, it is simply redundant to interwiki links (where GAs and FAs are already clearly marked).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2011; 21:39 (UTC)
  • Oh god, don't get me going on that template. We used to have that system and it was the worst one in the world. Maybe something to visually match it would be fine, but the French-style system is a freaking mess. If you want, I can elaborate about this elsewher. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only meant a visual redesign. I just think it looks great. I haven't peered below the surface of it. Yes thanks I'm curious and interested to know what makes the French system such a freaking mess. Please either visit my talk page or I'll visit yours. Rubywine . talk 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sigh) Strong keep - per above, I can't get how this is even proposed for deletion. Shahid • Talk2me 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep, to encourage the translation process of sourced content between wikis. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I raised some similar concerns regarding this template at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Should we have the Expand language template?. At that time the wording was encouraging machine translations and to simply copy text from other language Wikis without consideration of the relevant guidelines and policies. After discussion I amended the wording to make people aware of the policies, and to encourage a more reflective approach to translation. It is inappropriate and against policy to simply translate text from a Wiki source - what we should be doing is examining the sources used to ensure that the text is accurate and legal. And on the English language Wiki we should be using English language sources in preference to foreign language sources. I changed the wording to read: "A corresponding article in [other language] Wikipedia may contain information and sources useful in building this article. As our policy is not to use Wikipedia itself as a source for articles, please ensure you do not use any uncited statements. Also, check the sources on cited statements before using - replacing foreign language sources where possible with English language ones". This seemed reasonable guidance in line with policy. The question then was regarding where to put the template. My feeling was/is that as the template was not informing readers or editors about the condition of the English article, is not a maintenance template or an alert regarding legal/notability/source concerns, and is not essential, that placing it on the talkpage alongside other information such as Peer Reviews and the WikiProjects involved in maintaining the article was appropriate. The template is merely offering one source among others, and is in line with (but rather less useful) than the {{find}} template. I have heard the arguments in favour of this template, and I think it does have a use, but I am concerned that the policies and guidelines that impact on this template have been removed, and the current wording is both problematic and against appropriate guidance and policy. I wouldn't object to deleting the template as I feel it has a very limited use by a very small and specialised group of editors, and as currently used on the article page is intrusive and against consensus regarding the use of source material/external links on articles; however, I feel that appropriately worded and placed on the talkpage it does have some use. I would urge consideration of restoring my wording, particularly "as our policy is not to use Wikipedia itself as a source for articles, please ensure you do not use any uncited statements", and of making it clear the template is suggesting a source, and so should only be placed on the talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Placing it on the talkpage would be as useless as the nominator claims it to currently be. Any visitor is as likely to visit the foreign article as they are the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job so far Fetch. Can you clear one thing. Would you have likely started on this if there was no notice alerting you to the French version?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I usually don't check interwiki links for every article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is an extremely useful template. The argument that material from other languages can always be translated to improve the current article seems to miss the point of this template completely. It's used when an article has strong ties to a particular language Wikipedia but the other languages are roughly stubs. It's extremely valuable to point people to the original language article to learn about the topic, search for references, and then possibly translate. Why are we even discussing this? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Expand template increases chances of improving the article by many folds actually. When it comes to languages, the general reader has a natural "block" against reading in other languages. This is even worse when the other language uses a different alphabet. Templates actually "encourage" us to look further in French or Spanish or Italian, EVEN IF we don't want to contribute anything in terms of translation. The template is a strong indication that there is a far more comprehensive article on this specific subject in another language. werldwayd (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I work mainly on plant articles. I have found that this template has been used by editors in a very productive way, namely when there is a major improvement possible via use of translated material. As an example, I expanded Asparagales from the Spanish version. Contrary to what some editors have written above, at least for a scientific/technical article it's not necessary to have a really good knowledge of the language (my Spanish is quite basic); Google translate + an understanding of the subject matter has worked well for me. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forwards

It would appear that this discussion will result in the confirmation that this template is useful. Good. I'm happy that we have established this but my original concerns remain - will it appear on hundreds of thousands of articles? Under the current system it could do (10k for the French template already) and I really think that we need to avoid this. Can we establish some sort of criteria for its usage that doesn't violate WP:CREEP? Off the top of my head (and I don't fully think that these are immediately workable):

  • Only use it to highlight GAs/FAs on other articles, or...
  • Only use it where no references/external links are present, or...
  • Only use it when it's not obvious that there would be useful info (eg. the German page about the English cricket team, a Russian page about a French town)

These options would reduce the number of pages being tagged while still making it a potentially useful template. violet/riga [talk] 19:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yes. In reality, no. Tags should be applied to articles which are of a relative high standard on other wikis, sourced if possible. Given that by far most articles on other wikipedias are not beyond stubs, I mean I'm talking about Indonesia wikipedia, Afrikaans etc then it rules out most articles. But there should be a major focus on translating articles from German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Polish, Italian and Japanese in particular as these contain the majority of the quality content which could be transferred.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm in publishing some guidelines along those lines though. violet/riga [talk] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting a small Expand template just 2 inches wide immediately below the language concerned in the Languages column on the left. It makes the template a less obstructive feature... werldwayd (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I know that this template is very useful because some of the article in the English Wikipedia is lack of content and may be rich in foreign language and also some citation or references may also not included in English Wikipedia but included in foreign language version. In addition, this template is also useful for to notify the translator to translate the article as long as useful and has resources. I strongly support to keep this template. WPSamson (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was in faour of deleting {{Expand}} but this one gives an exact roadmap of what to do and how. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (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:Navbox long

[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 the community allows and wants a template that can handle 20+ rows, the necessary modifications can be made to Template:Navbox. JPG-GR (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox long (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sub-template created from {{navbox}} for no good reason other than that a limit of 20 rows was put in place for {{navbox}} long ago and then someone decided they needed more than 20 rows anyway. The required extra row code should be added into the parent template properly (rather than using a child navbox hack) and the documentation updated to suggest that while >20 rows is technically possible it is strongly discouraged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteper nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the guy who originally decided on the length of the Navbox. I made this decision after running extensive tests with Navboxes on long pages. The code for Navbox is quite complex, and takes the server a non-trivial amount of time to render. For pages with 5 or more Navboxes (which there are great many of), it can take a few seconds to handle the Navboxes. If we double the number of rows in the main Navbox template, this will further slow down all pages that use Navbox, even though only a handful out of the million or so Navbox pages use more than 20 rows. The processing time is proportional to the number of potential rows, not the number of used rows. Note that dependent templates, like {{Navbox subgroup}}, and {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} use Navboxes (and sometimes many) in them, which will also receive a performance penalty. I know we're not supposed to worry about performance, but for a template like this, it actually does have real effects. Besides, this also discourages people from using ridiculous numbers of rows. --CapitalR (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If performance is a issue for long navboxes, and if people should not be encouraged to use 'ridiculous numbers of rows' - and they should not as long anvboxes fail their purpose - then do not give them the tools to do it. - Nabla (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No analysis has been given in support of deletion. Has any analysis been done? It looks unlikely that Template:Navbox long contributes to a significant performance problem, since it is rarely used. CapitalR's argument shows that this proposal is far more likely to create a performance problem than to remove one, and that concern is paramount. Moreover I have looked at four usages of the sub-template i.e. Template:Ploceidae, Template:Portuguese infantes, Template:London churches and Template:Professional Baseball, and only one of them strikes me as unnecessary. Some navbox collections are large for good reason. I found no evidence that this sub-template is being overused, or misused. Deletion would create a large amount of reconstructive work for editors who appear not to have been consulted, and would reduce the quality of articles relying on the sub-template, with no plausible proposal for replacement. Rubywine . talk 22:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but this is a red herring. The argument that so many empty rows is hammering the servers a) seems to come from anecdotal evidence from early 2008: since then we've rolled out {{infobox}} to half the pages on the encyclopedia (which supports eighty rows) and {{infobox3cols}} (117 rows) to over 100k pages without a peep of dissent on performance. And not only do we not care about performance, but the performance argument is bogus anyway when we are outright telling editors "look, you can't use this for over 20 rows because it'll kill kittens impact server performance, but here's an even less efficient template which does what you want". Either we allow for >20 rows or we don't. It is the worst of both worlds to deliberately support it in a hackish way which is even slower. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chanting of the magic word "hack" doesn't impress. The decision made about the existing system was considered, thought through, based on testing, and has been explained. The parent template could be modified without affecting performance, according to you. But as CaptainR said, only a handful out of the million or so Navbox pages use more than 20 rows. You want to impact a million navboxes to get a handful into a form that makes you happy. What about all the other issues? What's the rollout plan? What happens to the handful of very large navboxes that would need to be reimplemented? Who is expected to reimplement them, and when? Before the deletion, or afterwards? All somebody else's problem? I don't think so. Rubywine . talk 01:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Hack" is simply a description of the implementation, which is a clever workaround but certainly not the simplest or most elegant. Even if we were to go the simple route of adding another bunch of rows to {{navbox}}'s support, "a million or so navboxes" would be "impacted" only to the extent of an anecdotal performance hit using figures from at least three years ago which doesn't appear to have undergone any particularly deep scrutiny. However, even that is probably not necessary, because unless I'm counting wrongly there are exactly two templates which use {{navbox long}} and there's a very good argument that both of them would be far better reworked to contain a less insane amount of content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks yes I'm familiar with the word "hack". If you are confident about the performance impact, then fine. But I think the priority should be to migrate the remaining dependent templates before deletion. I'd be happy to change my vote if that were done. Lichen genera taxonomy is far too important to go off-line. It's interesting that you mention that only two templates now use {{navbox long}}. When I commented about this on 7 August there were more. The four examples I gave - Ploceidae, Portuguese infantes, London churches and Professional Baseball - were all moved to {{navbox}} on 8 August, anonymously and without relevant edit summaries. [8][9][10][11] Isn't that interesting? Rubywine . talk 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for missing the alterations to some of the transcluding templates. However, looking at those edits, they're precisely the way this should be fixed, obviating the need for this template. In addition, while the 153.2 IP may be "anonymous", the user behind it evidently knows what he's doing with template coding and is extremely active at TfD, so it's certainly not "interesting" in any sinister sense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMHO it could be useful for eventual navboxes with more than 20 rows. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as fundamentally flawed. Since it "fakes" a long navbox by splicing together two shorter navboxes, it fails to align the group labels. A much much better method would be to have all the rows in the "same html table", which would allow the group labels to align. Something like this is surely possible, but this navbox is not the answer. In addition, it appears to be of very limited use, since we generally discourage navigation boxes which are longer than 20 rows. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (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.

Stepped 3RR warnings

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-3rr1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-3rr2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-3rr3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-3rr4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This series of user warning templates seems to be a situation where the warnings just go too far. The problem is that for the first template, you're just harassing someone who is simply reverting content. A single reversion does not indicate an edit war. An edit war requires multiple reversions by more than one person (takes two to tango, after all). By the time user behavior is identifiable as an edit war, the person is likely about to come up against and/or surpass 3RR. Thus a single-issue warning, which exists as Template:Uw-3rr, will suffice, as a way of saying, "Are you sure you want to continue in this way?" Then the final warning in this series is harassment again. The purpose of a warning is to attempt to give a user an opportunity to change a behavior that is detrimental to the creation of an encyclopedia. Sending a message to a user saying that they have gone past the point of no return and are going to get blocked is not productive. It's harassment. If a situation is really that bad, a user who would issue such a warning would be better off going to WP:ANI and asking for that block rather than taunting the user. Thus these templates appear not to serve a purpose that we want served. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 5 August 2011 (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:Backtalk

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where is this template used? I've never seen it. I think it's not necessary, and can be deleted. Nathan2055talk 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone so eager to brag about their awesome skillz should just learn how to edit their talk page header. Rubywine . talk 12:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to an author’s subpage, and redirect or delete from Template namespace. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 5 August, 2011 [15:51]
  • Delete as uncivil; a good way to loose editors. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't want it in my userspace. I think {{User:MZMcBride/backtalk}} isn't nearly as memorable or usable as {{backtalk}}, so there's really little point. I don't have an objection to the template being deleted or "userfied" to another user's userspace. And, for the record, I think the comments that this template is "uncivil" are rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this template seems more like a bit of gentle snarkiness than call-ArbCom-for-an-emergency-injunction incivility. With that said, I don't think it makes sense to decide that a template is uncivil enough to be banished from the Template namespace but is still welcome in the User namespace (where it would be used in exactly the same way for exactly the same purpose). —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snarkiness is still incivility. I don't think you can let this slide and let wikipedia turn into a slippery slope.Curb Chain (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let this slide into a slippery sloppy Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2011 (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/2011_August_5&oldid=1141876408"