Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

[edit]

Template:Killeen – Temple – Fort Hood metropolitan area Roads

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 23:42, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:Main section

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. There is consensus to delete this template after replacing it with an appropriate alternative, preferably {{main article}}. There is support to edit the {{main article}} template to provide an additional parameter indicating the target is a section, but no conclusive decision; further discussion should go to Template talk:Main article.

Ostensibly, this template could be used in place of {{main article}} where the target's a specific section rather than the whole article. However, {{main article}} itself includes functionality that automatically prettifies section links, and is widely used to link to sections. In fact, there are more uses of {{main article}} linking to sections, in featured articles alone, than all transclusions of this template. Given that this template's functionality is unneeded and its use clearly not preferred in practice, we should delete it, replacing its uses with ones of {{main article}}. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace/delete Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless "Main article: Article § Section" in {{Main article}} is changed to "The main section for this topic is on the page Article, in the section Section" (which is the rendered output when using {{Main section|Article|Section}}). These templates clearly don't have identical functionality and IMO the former section link is rather poorly specified, as it suggests that the "main section" for a topic is a "main article". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: I also support deleting the template and replacing every instance of the template with a hatnote analogous to The main section for this topic is on the page Article, in the section Section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seppi333: The output isn't identical, but it is clearly analogous, and covers the same use cases—and {{main article}}'s format is far more compact and readable (supported by the {{see section}} TfD mentioned earlier. Moreover, "article" vs. "section" seems a trivial distinction to make when we're referring a reader to a different article anyway. To adopt your style of example, we could say that "The main article for this section is Article" but we instead choose the more compact "Main article: Article"; equally, we can say that "The main article for this section is Article, and the relevant section in that article is Section", but it's far more compact to simply say "Main article: Article § Section". The suggestion of your further comment, substituting and deleting this template (using {{hatnote}} generically), is even worse; we should standardize hatnotes more rather than less for the consistency and ease of maintenance that the standard templates bring, and I've personally made thousands of edits to help put that into practice. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihiltres: Given that I dislike the section linking of {{Main article}}, I'm inclined to replace the 4 instances of {{Main section}} that I've added to articles with a custom hatnote if neither of my proposals are implemented. I agree that custom hatnotes are less desirable than templated ones for the sake of uniformity, but if you want me to uniformly adopt the main article template for section linking, it needs to be changed somehow; that's just my 2¢ on the matter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd even be okay with it just transcluding the text "Main section: Article § Section" instead of "Main article: Article § Section". The issue for me is that it says "Main article" when it links to a section of an article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Furthermore it would also be great if the {{Main article}} template would also detect redirects that point to a section and use the term "section" in these cases (it's often good to link to a redirect instead of specifying the section as it has the more appropriate name and might develop into an article at a later point. That's just a note and not really needed though. --Fixuture (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Similar to the See section TFD, the wording of {{main section}} is entirely too verbose, and breaks the overlinking guidelines (we really don't need a link to the article and the section). Second, given that the module implementing {{main article}} automatically converts # to §, it becomes very clear that it's referencing a section (i.e. there is no SURPRISE). Third, the keep !votes have a very ILIKEIT approach, and haven't really given a objective reason to keep the template. To summarize, this is a duplicate template that is not formatted well and can easily be replaced by a better template. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Asserting that my argument about {{Main section}} is that I "WP:LIKEIT" for being clearer is no different than me asserting that you "WP:DONTLIKEIT" for being too verbose. I'd appreciate it if you struck your third rationale. In any event, I'm open to finding an alternative solution (other than "Keep" or "Delete") in which we make the {{main article}} template "clearer" and get rid of the more "verbose" {{Main section}} template, since such a compromise would resolve both issues simultaneously. Do you find any of the alternative wording options for {{Main article}} that I've proposed above agreeable? "Main section: Article § Section" is clearer than the current wording and is the most succinct alternative that I've proposed here, although I'm open to considering other alternatives. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion was started at the module that implements {{main article}}, wherein initial thoughts are that such a change (making "Main article" read "Main section") would be impractical on multiple levels. I think for the moment, {{main article}} is going to remain unchanged, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seppi333: Concision is not merely a (DON'T)LIKEIT argument. The hatnote guideline supports concision in hatnotes, for example: When determining the content of the hatnote, keep in mind that it forms part of the user interface rather than the article content. Two applicable user interface design principles are clarity and conciseness. or hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible. While the guideline also supports clarity, the delete arguments here have included assertions that the differences in clarity are minimal. Moreover, even if we assume that it comes down to pure user preference, the recent {{see section}} TfD established clear support for the concise "§" style over the more verbose style. On the "main section" labelling issue, I invite you to participate at Template talk:Main article § Section, where that option's being discussed independently of this deletion discussion. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add an optional |type=section to {{main article}} to allow the user to override the default wording in special cases. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use parameter if needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (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).

Template:Cc-sa

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. While the template is unused, Godsy makes a valid point that this license is not forward-compatible. Thus, while it is unlikely, there could be an image originally released under CC-SA that would require this template added to it to maintain the appropriate licensing. NPASR if a discussion can demonstrate that we won't accept such files (or can provide another reason why we definitively don't need this template). Primefac (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Creative Commons has retired this license and does not recommend that it be applied to works: [1] FASTILY 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and deprecated. It's that simple. Karunamon ✉ 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is now in use (I'd been contemplating uploading a file for some time and this is the license I'd planned to release it under; I took the leap today). It is useful for releasing a file under the requirement that it is shared under the same license without requiring it be attributed. Furthermore, this license is not forward compatible, so something released solely under it can't be released under a newer license (If someone finds a file they want to upload that is released under this license, there is no need to make it hard for them to do so).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:Events at the 2016 ASEAN University Games

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:Disney's Zootopia

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:Back away

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful ephemara. I wrote the template as a humorous exposition on something Jimbo said on his talk page. Actually it was named {{Fuck off}} but someone moved it this name for civility. Fine, but that kind of spoils the joke, and anyway {{Fuck off}} remains as a redirect and it looks the its deletion discussion will end up with that redirect being kept. So the potential to be subtly insulting remains, I guess, so let's delete it.

I don't think the template has much use, or is going to be popular or much used. IFF the recipient is "in" on the joke (unlikely), she will read "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping..." and realize the person actually wrote "back away" or even "fuck off" (I believe she can look in the page history to see which? not sure), and be either amused or insulted according to her predilection. (If she's not "in" on the joke (likely), its all just a big yawn and not really useful.)

The counter-argument is that it lets someone blow off steam by typing "fuck off" (or "back away" I guess, although the steam-blowing value of that seems limited) without actually having anything insulting appear on the recipient page. Enh, that's a weak argument, and against that you have (assuming the recipient is aware of what was really written to produce "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping...") that the person might be actually insulted, and we don't need to host templates that could (theoretically anyway) actually hurt a person's feelings. Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:IPlocation

[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).

The result of the discussion was merge Primefac (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IPlocation with Template:Shared IP.
The IP location is a useful thing that {{SharedIP}} doesn't have. However, it doesn't need to have its own template. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My user sandbox currently contains a combination of {{SharedIP}}, {{IPlocation}}, and parts of {{Shared IP 1}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:History of Kerala Airports

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template has very little to no use in articles and is specific to just one state in India, Kerala which by large has a lesser history compared to the country as a whole. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes  LeoFrank , it may be true. Kerala is a small state in India with just 300,00,000+ population. But the state is already having 3 International airports, which is highest in the country and another International airport is under construction. The state is now all set to go for its 5th International airport, which is now in land acquisition state. Another thing is, Kerala state is considering three new airport projects other than the above mentioned 5.

By the completion of these projects, Kerala will become the one and only state in India having more than 5 commercial International airports. That means the airport article links in this template will go up soon. So, even if this represents a very less populated state, this template is really relevant due to the high number of passengers and commercial airports. - Thanks. Arunvrparavur (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This alone does not justify the reason to keep this template. It is rather a need for fans than an actual requirement providing any usefulness. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:03, 2 February 2017 (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).

Template:Bulgaria Squad EuroBasket 2009

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in FIBA EuroBasket 2009 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2011 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2013 squads, EuroBasket 2015 squads. see the discussions on January 8 for prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per prior discussion and WP:TCREEP. Renata (talk)
  • Strong keep on all - Again, these are the biggest international basketball tournaments, and much more important than other templates in basketball that are not deleted.Bluesangrel (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on all - Agree with Bluesangrel. When you want to delete something you must first delete those templates that are not important. You can not first delete MOST IMPORTANT basketball competitions on the WORLD. Non-basketball editors ruined Wikipedia.--Bozalegenda (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well the vast majority of the articles do not list all of the tournaments played in, and much less give details about them. If it's never been added in most articles, or is quite incomplete in most of the ones that do have it, then how is deleting the templates going to help? All that will do is make it much less likely the info is added into the prose of the article. Less likely, not more likely.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2017 (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).

Template:Baba Yadav

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep and trim to only directing roles. NPASR if the number of links becomes an issue. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film choreographer's navbox?! Seems trivial linking of articles failing WP:NAVBOX. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards "keep but modify" but if suggestions are followed only three links will remain. Relisting to garner more thoughts about that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (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).

Template:PiethorneValleyReservoirs

[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by template:River item box Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_28&oldid=1136430067"