Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Template:Revised paid contributions[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 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[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 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[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 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[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 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[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 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[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) 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[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 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]
          • It is not a dark corner, as it has an edit button on it. It has seen lively editing, even by IPs. It is quite clear that it is not "hidden in a dark corner". RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 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]
  • Speedy Keep Per the arguments given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about nominating this template, myself. Fixing the missing reflist would be simple with noinclude tags, but trying to fix the broken reference names would either duplicate or remove the actual cites from the article. If this can be resolved, I'd say maybe move to a project page or keep for now. With reference errors, this should not last long. Allowing this stuff would keep the backlog categories too full. —PC-XT+ 00:07, 12 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]
  • Keep Too large for the main article.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after substitution, as a hard-coded, single-use instance of another infobox (note that we have a speedy deletion criterion for this). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template makes editing a lot easier. B14709 (talk) 21:20, 18 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]
  • Keep TFD doesn't need to be micro-manging Talk:2014 Crimean crisis. If the editors of that article want to put the infobox code directly on the article again, they can do so. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a short time, then subst/hardcode and delete Right now, this article is going to be edited so heavily that this may be useful to have as a separate entity. When the dust settles on this, it can be put into the page: there's no need for a template with one transclusion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe template tries to cover lots of "facts" which are highly disputed such facts need to be covered in the body of the article where it can be made clear who claims what.Dejvid (talk) 17:31, 22 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[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 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]
  • Keep: As discussed in a thread on the template's talk page, deleting the template would be acceptable only if it's impossible for us to get its code appropriately refactored. With the latest few edits on a test version and their merge into the template (what included Thumperward's original improvements), I'd say this template is good to stay with us. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete template is used just two times, what means that there is no progress in use since the last nomination which ended in a "no consensus"-verdict by Plastikspork (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Template:Linux_layers. Info can be moved by copy and paste. No need for a template. The Banner talk 01:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the purpose of templates to deduplicate code and avoid copy&paste? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates are for use in many templatesarticles, not one or two as in this case (usually five is the threshold) The Banner talk 02:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense whatsoever, and I see no such restrictions in Help:Template. Could you, please, provide a pointer to the manual section backing your claim? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When you don't know how to use templates, I suggest that you start reading here: Help:Template and Help:A quick guide to templates The Banner talk 11:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a reference to your "Templates are for use in many templates". Presumably, you meant "Templates are for use in many articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oopsie... The Banner talk 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: Beside making you sound like an arrogant person, you still haven't answered my question. Please, provide a pointer to the manual section stating that at least five usages are required for something to become a template, as suggested Help:A quick guide to templates also doesn't describe such restrictions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides making you sound stubborn and unwilling, the threshold of five is indeed not an official one but one of common practice. But the fact that templates should be used in many articles is in the links I gave you. The Banner talk 09:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter what's common or not, it's plain stupid to go and copy&paste three times a quite complicated table like this one. Of course, you may call that part of my reasoning stubborn, if you wish. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While we generally prefer not to have templates for things that aren't widely transcluded, we've precedent for templates used on only a single article. My itself this is not a strong argument for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update, this template is currently used in three articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not deleted, this will needs major changes to met our accessibility requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing, it can always be better; any chances, please, for a few suggestions regarding further improvements? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:21, 26 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[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 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]

  • Comment is it really better to have two templates instead of one? At other instances here at TFD, it's gone the other way around, merging the templates together, instead of splitting them apart. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My driving point is that Template:Sports at the Olympics covers the "X at the Olympics" articles which have a high level of link relevance across both Games. This relevance is diminished when considering the sports at a main article level, thus my proposal. Don't really have anything else to add. SFB
      • Which can be accomplished with a ((#switch:)) or ((#if:)) statement. You'd only need to track one template instead of two. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its been split; its time is up. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep {{Olympic sports}} and delete recently created {{Winter Olympic sports}} and {{Summer Olympic sports}} as duplicate templates. It was keep here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 17#Template:Olympic sports. No reason to have two navbox instead of one! It was a good navigation between ALL Olympic sports. I don't see what a reason to split this navbox. There are many (maybe all!) Olympic navboxes have navigation between all Olympic Games including Summer and Winter, see templates from this category. NickSt (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That category actually supports my reasoning. All but two of the templates in the category contain links where the Olympics are the primary topic – the sole two templates that do not have links where the Olympics is the primary topic are split by Summer and Winter to improve link relevance ({{Olympic Summer Games Host Cities}} and {{Olympic Winter Games Host Cities}}). Note that I am not advocating a split of {{Sports at the Olympics}}. From your point of view, are Skeleton and Swimming related enough (via the Olympics) as to warrant a link between the two sports? SFB 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course. They are related as Olympic sports! We have a reliable source: see the official site of the IOC with full (!) list of sports: [1] NickSt (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I agree with NickSt. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{Olympic sports}} to {{Sports at the Olympics}}, delete {{Summer Olympic sports}} and {{Winter Olympic sports}} (do those new templates need to be nominated separately?). If we're going to have a navbox which includes top-level sports articles, might as well have a generic {{Sports}} or similar navbox. There is otherwise no inherent connection between two arbitrary top-level sports articles, and whether the sport is Olympic or not is really not strong enough to warrant a navbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.236.97 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 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]
  • Keep, mostly per SFB's comment at a TfD-related discussion at the template's talk page – to quote it, "those on the main sport article are much more likely to want to look through sports which occur in the same Olympics". APerson (talk!) 18:14, 21 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[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) 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"