Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 18

< March 17	March 19 >

March 18

Template:This user

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 redirect to {{userpage}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Goes against one of the principal guidelines of hatnotes, which is don't add disambiguation notes to titles that are not ambiguous. No reader looking for Purodha (just to grab the first page in What Links Here) would type in User:Purodha, so these hatnotes are unnecessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As archived on this discussion and that discussion, there is a problem with user pages, whose usernames that are identical to articles, popping up near the top of Google and other search engines. And doing a Google search of "Purodha" now, this user's pages also appear at the top before the Purodha article.[1] Therefore, the template was made so it would help not confuse those using the search engines. An alternative could be to replace/redirect this template to {{NOINDEX}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got the widely-deployed {{userpage}} to act as a boilerplate "this is not an article" disclaimer. If we're going to redirect then it should be to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was not aware of that issue, and I agree that there does need to be something to deal with people finding these userpages from search engines. But I think redirecting to {{NOINDEX}} or {{userpage}} (and concurrently updating the text at {userpage}, since it doesn't currently serve as disambiguation) would be better solutions to the problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is actually an interesting discussion. I was expecting to say "delete" on this one until I read the comment regarding Google. While it would probably be a good idea for users in this situation to noindex their userpage(s), I don't see a problem with them adding a hatnote. This is the user namespace, after all, and such hatnotes would have no negative consequences to the encyclopedia. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this needed in addition to {{userpage}}, though? Of the current transclusions it's hard to argue that a reader is likely to accidentally find himself there instead of an article page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change appearance or Redirect to {{userpage}}. The only difference in functionality between this template and userpage are the links directing readers to the article and disambiguation page, but since it adds __NOINDEX__, it reduces the traffic from search engines and hence the need for the template itself. You can see by the Purodha google search link above that the results are from other wikis' userpages that don't have __NOINDEX__ on them, not from en.wikipedia.org. Normally I wouldn't care, since it's a userspace template, but I don't think it should look identical to mainspace hatnotes. Put it in a pretty box or something, but otherwise it's confusing to readers familiar with the look and feel of Wikipedia articles. — Bility (talk) 23:04, 25 March 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:Town/population

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) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Town/population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Town/patron (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere. Created in 2005, never modified, original author inactive since 2008. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{Town/patron}}, created the same day and likewise orphaned and without utility. Both templates appear to have been earmarked for use in a parent template that was deleted last year. — Bility (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused. {{Infobox settlement}} is the proper template for such information to be added to articles anyway. Also, for the record, the nominator did not add {{TfD}} to the template page, so I have now done so. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphaned, meant for a now deleted template and never finished anyway. — Bility (talk) 23:24, 25 March 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:Civil Conflict Infobox style

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, after merging with template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil Conflict Infobox style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ill-advised fork of {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} with no attribution created during this discussion. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} exists because historically the MILHIST templates were collected into an agreed default style before {{infobox}} was widely used: we should not encourage further projects to go copying this scheme when they can just use the {{infobox}} defaults like almost all infoboxes do these days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a single infobox (in addition to the poor color choice, which should not be simlar to the color used for military conflicts). Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-vote (so far): What do you suggest instead? ~~I also see it as redundant currently as it hasn't been modified yet.~~ update: I've begun modifying the template and therefore it's no longer redundant. The idea was based on thoughts by user:thumperward who said "...it absolutely should not be inheriting its styling from MILHIST, which sends out entirely the wrong impression" and later he calls it "ill-advised" as above. Perhaps he has another thing in mind. Until the fate of the main template is decided, these are the basic choices:

(1) Embed the style directly into {{Infobox Civil Conflict}}.

(2) Use the style from {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}.

(3) Fork and modify {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} (current solution).

Option 1, makes the template difficult to modify. But it does get rid of the small template in question here.

Option 2, makes reference to the {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} template has the effect of possibly showing some association between {{Infobox Civil Conflict}} and {{Infobox Military Conflict}}.

Option 3, makes a new template. But it does allow us to modify the colors and general style of the template. I see it important to have the ability to modify the colors and style independently of {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have omitted the quite sensible option #4, which is "just use the default styling provided by class="infobox" like practically every infobox other than the MILHIST ones". This was in fact what I suggested in the discussion you refer to, and I have no idea how you misinterpreted it in the manner that you did. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does inherit from class="infobox"like practically every infobox including MILHIST ones. See code for {{Civil_Conflict_Infobox_style}}, it's the first line of the switch statement. The misinterpreted stems from the word infobox being overloaded. There is firstly the CSS class "infobox", there is secondly the template:infobox, and there is thirdly the concept of an infobox which is a summary of the article in a box at the top right of an article. By my previous and current reading, I interpret that you were taking about the second meaning of an infobox. It's ridiculious to say that the additional CSS in {{Infobox Civil Conflict}} "is actively confusing to readers", as you state. Please provide some/any evidence that the CSS style is actively confusing to the readers. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words "just" and "default" do actually have some meaning in my previous statement. You are deliberately overriding the defaults given by class="infobox" by manually specifying new widths and font-sizes and in the process losing much of the benefit of the work to centralise styling in the first place. I've yet to see you make any compelling argument for why that is necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the arguments so far for deleting do not hold any water. The arguments so far (note: I may be wrong) have been (1) it's redundant, (2) no attribution, (3) it should inherit from class="infobox", (4) additional CSS in {{Infobox Civil Conflict}} "is actively confusing to readers", (5) "poor color choice". In summary to those five, (1) it was redundant before the modifications started and it's now it's own template no longer is an exact copy of its predecessor, (2) is does have attribution, (3) it does inherit from class="infobox" and then it adds more CSS mainly to handle the option of two and three sides which can exist in a conflict, (4) The assertion that the CSS "is actively confusing to readers" is purely ridiculous w/ absolutely no evidence given and the original basis style has 92,645 transclusions into articles, (5) as was always the plan, the color is now different from its predecessor; if you'd like to discuss color, go to the talk page. There are no issues raised here which shouldn't be discussed on the talk page. Finally, this is merely a trivially small style template, of which many, many (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...) exist which makes it easier to modify the main template. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One at a time:
  1. "Redundant" in this case means "were the template deleted there would be no adverse effect on the inheriting template". I don't see that you've actually addressed that point.
  2. The lack of attribution was not an argument to delete the template but rather simply a point of fact at the time.
  3. See my reply above. The whole point of picking sensible defaults is to use them. This template overrides font size, field colours and template width for no reason yet explained. Indeed, that is its whole purpose.
  4. At the time of nomination this template inherited all of its styling from the MILHIST template system, which confused readers into believing that the civil conflicts covered by the inheriting infoboxes were of a military nature. Now, the template uses all of the MILHIST styling except for using a slightly different shade of blue, drawn (quite perplexingly) from the navigation templates used on the Manual of Style: is this supposed to suggest to readers that the civil conflicts covered by the inheriting template are Wikipedia style guidelines? As with the comments above, there has yet to be an argument advanced as to why the defaults need overridden at all, let alone in completely arbitrary ways.
  5. Covered in the answer above. The exact shade chosen is not the important issue here (although it does factor in when the colour chosen is actively misleading). The question is why the defaults need overridden at all, and when that is the only reason this template exists it leads one to question the need for such a template at all.
- Regarding the example templates given at the end of the above comment: all but the first pertain to a deeply convoluted system used to style railway templates which has been in place for several years and cannot be easily altered at this time. {{WPWR Infobox style}} is just as pointless as this template and I have now nominated it for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) If it were simply removed, as you suggest, it would have great adverse effects on the inheriting template and the articles instantiating it. I setup the template test cases to show the effect this would have of relying merely upon the class="infobox".
    (2) Ok, agreed, not an issue.
    (3) There are no strict standards for infoboxes, only recommendations, and unequivocally not policy. For instance, template sizes are recommended 300px, this one is 5% larger to support the idea that a conflict may have three distinct sides. Many larger ones and smaller ones are widely used.
    (4) The idea that the color confused any person is ridiculous as stated before. Please show some/any evidence for this. The idea of classifying infobox colors into topics was attempted a few years ago, the idea died and was never official policy; quote: "..certainly not an official policy, you cannot bind users with specific styles". Are you saying that these people, places and things (Michael Phelps, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Château d'Yquem, Brendan Cusack, Matthew Mitcham, Chocolate-covered bacon, Roberto Rosetti, Paul Darragh, Gene Roddenberry, Brian O'Driscoll, Hunan cuisine, 2010 Penrith Panthers season, National Bravery Award, Talita Antunes, Front kick, Russians, John Wayne Gacy) are "military conflicts"? Each of those represent a different infobox, all of which (and many more) use the same color as {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}. Were you confused that the circus was a military battle because of the template color? There is no way you can defend this argument. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. That's a coding problem with the template, again due to its having been originally copied from a codebase which is several years behind the cutting edge of infobox development. I'll fix that myself when this is closed.
      3. The lack of a policy prohibiting something should not be seen as carte blanche to do it. You have yet failed to offer one single reason for deviating from the default styling. Over the last three years the vast majority of the encyclopedia's infobox templates have moved towards the default styling and I don't believe any have moved away from it. It would take a strong rationale to explain why a brand new template deliberately opted out from them.
      4. The onus should be on the implementor to explain why the defaults are not acceptable. I've offered what I believe to be a reasonable argument that they could be confusing, and indeed you at least agreed with this far enough to change them from the MILHIST defaults.
    - Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1) If you're interested in fixing it, why not code up the fixes now and we can see if they are better. Use the sandbox. Then we'll see if it's an improvement and discuss. Your ordering is faulty; if you wish to improve it, do so. update: I see you tried a few things. Thanks much. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (2) Wikipedia values (which may be above policy) tells of freedoms to modify and innovate and this extends to not be locked into an inflexible regime of defaults that you suggest and WP:BEBOLD guideline details this "carte blanche" to innovate as one sees fit. Your comment of "You have yet failed to offer one single reason..." is deceiving/wrong as I discussed the reasoning for the infobox-width being 5% larger than recommended defaults. You have thus far failed to provided any evidence why the style is poor and should be deleted. And ALL of the top 10 most used infoboxes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) use custom CSS for layout and style customization in their templates to "override defaults". An overwhelming majority of the top 100 infoboxes are against your argument (I've seen only one counter example in the list). I do believe the onus is on you to show why all of these templates should just use the defaults and nothing else. Some of the top templates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) also use the exact same style sub-templates as seen here. If you believe that all templates should be using strictly-the-defaults, why are you not making that suggestion to the top infoboxes?
        (3) It's quite presumptuous to misrepresent me and shows flawed thinking to state I "agreed" with your argument; all else being equal along with a suggestion to change it is why it was altered and in no way because there is any merit to your argument that the infobox style "is actively confusing to readers". You haven't put forth an argument for why a person could be confused, you simply stated it, as if fact, and had the idea formally trounced with your key premise refuted with strong history and examples.
        ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DEL#REASON Policy states: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):", of the list, only "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" would even come anywhere close and that's no longer relevant. The reasons stated in Template deletion guidelines also do not fit. As far I can tell, there is no policy or guideline to suggest deletion of this template. And no other strong argument for removal has been stated. At best there are suggestions for improvement, most debatable. All the deletion arguments "are based on opinion rather than fact" or "is no longer relevant" (quote from: WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS guidelines). I believe this page was nominated for deletion to interfere with and distract from the main template's TfD and continues to fit my WP:KEEP request.
~ Justin Ormont (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. As you can see, I'm working on the civil conflict infobox myself rather than expecting you to cooperate. I've said my piece: the template under nomination here is a pointless piece of ancillary code, and assuming I get the parent template fixed up it should be obvious why it is neither necessary nor desirable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:18, 24 March 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.