Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11

Template:Revised paid contributions

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 2014 March 19 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 19 March 2014 (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:Paid contributions

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 2014 March 19 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:46, 19 March 2014 (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:Infobox professorship

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox professorship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

22 transclusions, redundant to Template:Infobox official post. All fields match except two: founder can be added to official post, while notable should probably be removed as similar fields are not appropriate for an infobox. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2014 (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:Crimean Crisis of 2014

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 2014 March 23 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:48, 23 March 2014 (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:U-Bahn

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 2014 March 23 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U-Bahn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Underground rapid transit in the European Union (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:Meryl Streep sidebar

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) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meryl Streep sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three pages (one twice), which are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 11 March 2014 (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:2014 Crimean crisis infobox

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 Crimean crisis infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This infobox was split from the 2014 Crimean crisis article and should be merged back with it. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - It is common practice for infoboxes with huge amounts of code and text to be transcluded as templates, as this makes editing them easier. For example, take a look at Template:WW1InfoBox. RGloucester — ☎ 03:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, it's a common practice for hardcoded infoboxes to be deleted, and there are many precedents for this.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you planning on deleting the long-standing Great War infobox cited above? Do you not see the advantages of separating a huge block of infobox text from the article itself? RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The WWI infobox might or might not be deleted; as we all know, WP:OTHERSTUFF will always exist. But I really don't see any benefit from hiding a bloated template into a separate sub-page, which is effectively what is happening here. The template namespace is for bits of wikicode that need to be called many times, which is not the case for this infobox (the transclusion count is currently one). On the other hand, I can think of at least two drawbacks: inexperienced editors will find it harder to change any inaccuracies in the infobox when it is hidden in a separate page, and Wikidata bots will not be able to harvest claims from the infobox. The only proper way to deal with clutter is a proper cleanup, stashing it in a dark corner of Wikipedia is no solution.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (speedy). This template was created for technical reasons: the 2014 Crimean crisis is experiencing an inordinate amount of constant editing due to its wide coverage; including its WP:LEDE. As we have been editing the article's lead in order to combat POV, editing the lead was becoming cumbersome since the infobox's text is quite long. Every time we were updating the lead we were submitting not only the lead itself but the infobox's text as well. I understand that this template may be deleted in the future, but not at this time. Besides, I don't see any compelling arguments from the nominator besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Therefore, I think that's what's best for Wikipedia is to keep this template as is. Nominator is encouraged to re-nominate it for deletion once more in the distant future once the event passes to our history books. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and substitute. Only one inclusion. Many red errors in reflist after splitting. NickSt (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The red errors only appear on the template page, not in the article, as the names of the various citations are defined only on the article page. I could easily fix this by hiding the ref list on the template page. This is not a concern. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The template is in neither of those categories. Furthermore, the issue does not appear in the actual article. Regardless, I can fix the problem, if it is bad to look at on the template page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all referencing issues. RGloucester — ☎ 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the reference issues. The template is no longer in those categories, but it was when I posted the above. They are hidden categories, so they only appear on the page if you have that preference set, just like Category:Templates needing substitution checking, which this template is also in. (You can see the template listed near the beginning of the category.) These categories should ideally be empty except for a few error demonstrations. For my !vote, I'll say keep for now until it is convenient to substitute back into the article. —PC-XT+ 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 03:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for informing me about those categories. I'll have to set the preference properly. If there is one thing I don't mind doing, it is filling out and fixing references. RGloucester — ☎ 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Help reducing the backlog is always welcome! Happy editing! —PC-XT+ 01:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: - I don't think you were paying attention to what this page is. It isn't a spinoff of either of those. It literally is a filled-in version of Template:Infobox civil conflict. It isn't meant to be used on other pages. It is just a subpage so that the infobox can be edited without interfering with the main page, because it is an incredibly long infobox. It is no different than Template:scwinfobox for the Syrian Civil War, or Template:WW1InfoBox for the Great War. It is NOT a new infobox template itself. RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, even though I doubt it will be a much-used template, currently looks like the 2014 Crimean crisis is the only mainspace page where it's used. Perhaps some events, warranting standalone articles with this template, will pop up after Crimean referendum, but, fortunately, at this moment it's not the same scale as the aforementioned Template:WW1InfoBox, for example. I abstain. Brandmeistertalk 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When one has people editing constantly, as new events break, having the full infobox code on the article page leads to long page loading times, and delays between edits, which messes everything up. Furthermore, the infobox can easily be broken unwittingly by people editing the lead, as it takes up so much space. The intent is not for it to be used on any page other than the Crimean crisis page. However, I understand your position on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly an exception to that criteria, per WP:IAR, as are the Syrian Civil War and Great War templates. This template provides a valuable service to the 2014 Crimean crisis article, by allowing it to be edited in a swift and coherent manner. If it were not providing any use value, perhaps your argument would be correct. However, it is providing use value, and hence, should be kept. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an infobox. You can edit it, like anyone else, and change the "facts" in it. Even if this is deleted, there would still be an infobox. It would merely be clogging up the page, and would be difficult to revert without screwing up stuff in the main article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. Replacing the current POV selection of facts by another set of facts implying a different POV would not solve the problem. For instance having a section called "causes" can not be handled in a neutral way because one person's cause is another person's false pretext. If that sort of thing is included as a section of the main article it can be done neutrally as you do things like say "x claims the cause is this but y claims the cause is that". Cut all the stuff that really should never be in an info box and the small amount left can be handled with existing info boxes. As it is, whatever gets put in the info box will gain an aura of objectivity which in the current context is false.Dejvid (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a problem with the template itself. This is an existing infobox. It is called Template:Infobox civil conflict. That would not change, regardless of whether this template would be deleted. If you want to remove that stuff from the infobox, you can do so without deleting the template. I am not defending the contents of the infobox itself, merely the necessity of the template for the sake of easily editing the infobox and correcting the mistakes that you mention RGloucester — ☎ 23:27, 22 March 2014 (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:Linux layers

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linux layers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

serious abuse of table markup for presentation. The similar SVG image is already on use in one of the two transclusions and could be applied to the other one as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep The table form with clickable links to existing articles and the fact that it is a template, are both highly useful to convey information.
As stated in the page history, originally I copied de:Vorlage:Linux Schichten, added links and changed the background-colors.
I agree that my choice of colors is wayward. For a better color choice of colors, see e.g. this template: Template:Intel processor roadmap, it used an SVG-file, not a colored wikitable-table. Also, some stuff could be changed. I know now more than I knew at the time I copied the template from the german WP. Any other takers to do this, I am a bit busy ATM? ScotXW (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just found some time to edit, please check ScotXW (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks good. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (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) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (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:Olympic sports

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previous nominations have questioned the relevance of the links between the sports on this template. I have improved this relevance by dividing the links into Summer and Winter subsets now (Athletics to Swimming is a reasonable link, as is Luge to Curling -- Swimming to Curling is less so) at Template:Summer Olympic sports and Template:Winter Olympic sports. These supersede this template and resolve this ongoing issue. SFB 21:24, 27 February 2014 (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) 02:17, 11 March 2014 (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:Baltic universities

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) 21:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baltic universities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need for templates for universities by group of countries. there already exists templates for universities by individual countries. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.236.97 (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2014 (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/2014_March_11&oldid=1083550708"