Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21

[edit]

Template:Media Players (free and open-source software)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Media Players (free and open-source software) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is a redundant fork of Template:Media player (application software), full of red links. I don't think even a merge is needed. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The red links shall be an incentive to write articles, because people see what article are missing.Template:Media player (application software) mixes freeware with free software; 'nough said. Instead of cleaning up that mess and then additionally bothering with people like Codename Lisa, I created a new template. I am very sure, the people who care for the articles linked, will like it. Thank you for your time. ScotXW (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDNOT: Red links are not navbox material.
"People who care of articles linked" is a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Linux fans. Plus, I care for the articles linked but I don't like the template itself.
Fleet Command (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, free software != freeware and free software users are not only Linux users. This template is of much use to many people who *care* about the difference.
31.11.178.152 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "Linux fan", calling me that, outs you, but I do use free and open-source software. And sometimes, I wish I would find stuff am looking for much quicker. This template serves exactly this purpose. And that is indeed the purpose of the navboxes. Navigation through related articles. All articles in the navbox are related. The other navbox is useless: not only does it mix freeware and free software, it also does not distinguish between the used toolkits. The difference between Qt and GTK+ may not be that important, but between a program without a graphical interface and without are! So are the differences between simple players and ones with a database. It is the better navbox, else I would not have bothered to create it. Regarding "red link" have a look here: hu:Sablon:KDE. I see no problem. ScotXW (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no use in having both of these. Template:Media player (application software) is in broad use and already covers free software/freeware. Problems or potential improvements should be discussed/made at the established template, not forked to a new template. If there are currently entries missing from one or the other, then merge but without redirect, otherwise articles could easily end up containing both on a regular basis. equazcion (talk) 23:18, 21 Sep 2013 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete Never in my life had I seen such a biased and carelessly built navbox in Wikipedia. This navbox has used every excuse it could to include more links. It includes not media players but also tag editors, CD rippers, lists, red links and even irrelevant stuff like FFmpeg to accumulate size. The "free and open-source" property that they all share is is evidently a bias here. The categorization and formatting is also an eyesore. The groups are geeky terms that appeal a small readership (i.e. geeks) and a lot of icons are used in violation of WP:NOICONS. In one case, over-strike is used but I can't see why, because it is an article name, not a personal attack or revoked assertion. Fleet Command (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. FWIW, I don't believe navbox should be full of redlinks either....William 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would say "merge", but since there seems to be nothing to merge, delete per User:FleetCommand. Keφr 17:55, 28 September 2013 (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:GitHub top icon

[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GitHub top icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Maybe I'm wrong or have missed something, but I don't think it is appropriate to have a template whose sole purpose is to put a cute little icon that links to another website on people's userpages. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because those are tools people use here, not just links to another website. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Rschen7754 said above, GitHub is a repository where people store the code for the tools that are used here and not just a link to another website. Technical 13 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's useful but belongs only in userspace, it could be userified.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's used by more than one user, userfication to a particular user would be bad. User:user-subpage or user:UBX-subpage would be the place to move it -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was purely on-wiki information, why was it suppressed? (If the information is posted on-wiki, then suppression or even revision deletion is incorrect. I cannot see anywhere that the information was posted other than by you.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much a Github account qualifies as personal information. Yeah, he shouldn't have done it, but it's not such a big deal that we need to keep talking about it, especially here. He's been warned, let's move on. equazcion (talk) 09:04, 22 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Let me make myself clearer: I believe that Technical 13 acted in the best of faith. I do not believe for an instant that he intended to out anybody. In fact, the sole reason I added that comment here is so people don't vote "delete" for that reason and claim that the reason for deletion is for some other reason. I do not want Technical 13 blocked. I am merely pointing out a better remedy than deleting the template if and only if he were to continue (which I am 100% confident he won't). My first reply was made because, if Technical 13 used on-wiki information to post his links, then that invalidates my entire second comment and my oppose on WT:EF, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would point out my (and the oversighter's) error so I can correct my comments and vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if Technical 13 used on-wiki information", yes, he did. No, the oversighter did not make a mistake. Legoktm (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I was not aware this change occurred, I was pleasantly surprised to see this kind of usage. I express the agreement of others that Technical 13 needs to not make the linkage and say "if you disagree, remove". At that point the link is made and takes suppression/oversight to remove if if people don't want all of their lives interlinked. T13 can prompt editors who he suspects are github users, but the final decision to use the top icon (and the explicit linking of accounts) should be on the editor to take action. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My set of users for this template were the developers of the WP:AFCH as were listed on its page. I did not add the user in question that there was an issue about to that page. I've no intent of adding this to any others' pages. I've had email contact with GitHub requesting their permission to use a better and more accurate icon image, and am still waiting for them to convey their approval to OTRS. Meanwhile, the PD "text" version does just fine. Technical 13 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note, you may want to toss in some rationale for why this template shouldn't be deleted. You know, as long as you're here. :) equazcion� | 20:03, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      • If users want to self identify that way there's no reason to not let them. Not good enough for you? Per Above supports. :P Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to respond to your edit summary, I didn't mean to sound annoyed. I was going for facetious, might have failed. equazcion� | 21:12, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Noodle

[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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noodle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chinese noodles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pasta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Languages of the 8th Schedule to the Indian constitution

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge and delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages of the 8th Schedule to the Indian constitution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge into the two articles it's transcluded in and delete. Content shouldn't be tucked away in Template space. — Lfdder (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:15, 21 September 2013 (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:Mona the Vampire

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mona the Vampire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. After removing all of the inappropriate links (redlinks, multiple links to the main article and external links) only two links remain. One of these is the link to the main article and the other is the series creator, who is already linked in the infobox and article lead. AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mona the Vampire}} only has 2 valid links, which is not enough links to justify its existence. List of Mona the Vampire characters should never have been split from Mona the Vampire. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 22 September 2013 (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:Sydney Metroads

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney Metroads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer required, what routes have become others should just be listed on the page which covers the Metroads. This navbox has reached the end of its useful life -- Nbound (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres already an existing Sydney roads template so it can and should be used instead, this one is metroad specific; and now that they no longer exist, is also fairly pointless. -- Nbound (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which template are you talking about? Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Road infrastructure in Sydney -- Nbound (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used on pages where the other template already exists - a redirect is relatively pointless - Theres little point keeping it around for the templates edit history as its fairly basic. - Nbound (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirects help discourage recreation and preserve the parallel history, since this one predates the other one. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: There wont be a need to recreate this template as its successor routes are already in the other navbox. Originally they werent, but now the merge is already done. Theres no point preserving the "history" of a run-of-the-mill navbox either. Is there any specific reason as to why the history of this template is in some way significant? Deletion would also have the same discouraging effect as a redirect (as most editors think twice when they see the red previously deleted bar at the top of a window) -- Nbound (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the history goes back to 2005, which is pretty old by WP standards. the red deletion history only works if you exactly type in the name of the old deleted template, redirects are suggested in the search results. if you really hate this template and its history that much, you can always send the redirect to RFD later. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not skip the paperwork and delete it now? [Hell I could have changed it to a redirect myself and done the same - but that would be sneaky]. I have no hatred for it (i actually updated its shielding and re-purposed it as a "former Metroads" template a few months ago when the routes where initially decommisioned). But now theres no longer a need for it -- Nbound (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose deletion of the redirect, so an RfD would be necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the Metroad # pages exist, except as redirects, so the {{Road infrastructure in Sydney}} navbox is more useful as a navigational aid, though a link to the Metroad article should probably be included there. Redirecting does not seem to be useful, given that 6 of the template's 8 transclusions are immediately before or after the Road infrastructure in Sydney navbox. - Evad37 (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could see some small value in retaining this template, which is now titled "Former Sydney Metroads", if the roads had simply been renamed/reallocated but only half of of the former metroads directly correspond to newer allocations. The other half have been absorbed into other roads, as explained at Metroad#Former Sydney Metroads, so it isn't very useful anymore, especially as it seems redundant to {{Road infrastructure in Sydney}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 25 September 2013 (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/2013_September_21&oldid=1078575078"