Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

November 19

Template:German

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find attributing across different language Wikipedias uncalled for. The whole concept of displaying interlanguage links in the left margin should indicate quite clearly that infornation is likely to be shared across Wikipedias. Also, no other languages than German have adopted this procedure, which indicates that it is an anomaly. Alternatively, I would condone that the template be changed into a talk page template. meco 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I yield to the consensus seeing this should form a precedent for other languages and other Wikipedias. I do however still question the choice to place it on the article front page instead of on the talk page. __meco 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attribution is used in a lot of other places, like for when we copy text from PD sources. Interwiki links provide no indication that the text was used to create the article, only that it exists. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I think this is an excellent idea. Ideally we would have a generic template that allowed you to attribute any language's Wikipedia by use of an ISO code field, so the same template could be used regardless of whether the translated text was from the de wiki, or the eo wiki, or the zh wiki, etc. --tjstrf talk 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, attribution template just like {{1911}}, {{Planetmath}} or similar. Note that WP:TIE asks for every translation to acknowledge its source on the article page. There just don't seem to be templates to do it for other languages. Kusma (討論) 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, GDFL Attribution. Agathoclea 10:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma and Agathoclea, unless someone comes up with a generic "translated from XX" template per tjstrf's suggestion, in which case I would say delete in favor of that new template. —An gr 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. - Ekki01 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Interwiki links are probably the best thing about Wikipedia. They allow you to learn so much about an issue beyond the entry at hand and beyond conventional dictionary functions. For instance, Germans call RCA cables "Cinch-Kabel" - different words, same things, and the German looks like it was taken from the English. The English for "Lebensabschnittsgefährte" is "significant other," though the English contains connotations of what Germans call "Bezugsperson" that are not in "Lebensabschnittsgefährte". In other words, Wikipedia has the potential to be an amazing multi-dictionary almost by accident. It even provides evidence of Saussure 's argument that bread is not the same as French "pain" or German "Brot" because each of these cultures has different images when they hear the word, and bread has a different cultural standing in each of these cultures. Wikipedia provides pictures, histories, etc., not just definitions, and for those of us who can read more than one language the comparisons are enlightening. There is always potential for different value judgements, which alone makes cross-referencing worthwhile. Finally, it is simply not true that "no other languages than German have adopted this procedure". See the Dutch, French, etc. cmorris35
- This isn't about interwiki links though; it's about a separate template identifying the article as having been translated from the German article. —An gr 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Template:De. One of them is probably redundant. Punkmorten 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say Template:De is less useful, since it doesn't provide the name of the original German article or the date of translation. However, it's being used in hundreds of articles, and I for one don't want to go through them one by one and convert them to this template, which would mean not only adding the name of the German article, but also burrowing through the history to figure out the date of the German article that the translation is based on. —An gr 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Kusma and the others above. Badbilltucker 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template now has usage instructions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. Baristarim 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma. --Boson 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kusma and the above arguments. Olessi 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How can we reference something from German Wikipedia if we don't have a template? Kingjeff 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's good to have this kind of source information, we need to keep in mind that a wiki page does not meet WP:RS. If sources are not provided in the source text, they need to be sought out independently (if they are provided, they can just be translated along with everything else). Not sure if that's what you meant, but thought I'd mention it. -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea is not to suggest that the German original is a reliable source. A translated page without any sources will still have to be tagged {{unsourced}}. (And this will usually be the case with articles translated out of German, since German Wikipedia seems to have some sort of phobia against sources.) But it isn't just "a good idea" to inform readers that the page was translated from the German article; it's probably required by the GFDL, since the original author of all GFDL-licensed text has to be traceable, and translating isn't considered original authorship. —Angr 12:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that can also be done through the edit summary (that's how I've usually noted it), or on the Talk page... however, I agree that this template is a good idea, and should be replicated for other languages. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But wouldn't a great German article have sources like a great English article? Therefore, it should be perfectly ok to have this template. If an article in German Wikipedia doesn't meet the standards of policy, then it's thei problem, not ours. Kingjeff 14:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should, but might not. (From what I understand, standard practice on DE is to mention sources only in the edit summary, which creates a WP:V nightmare). Also, depending on the topic area and the weakness of EN's coverage thereof, it is often worth translating even articles that are far from great. -- Visviva 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to something that can be consistent with other languages. Am sympathetic to the argument that it should be on the talk page, but similar source templates mostly are not. May go create Template:From Korean Wikipedia now. :-) -- Visviva 11:39, 26 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:TooMany

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not useful, and could constitute nonsense. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see it applied before I make up my mind to delete it. __meco 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who decides what constitutes "too many templates"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, see Template:Toomanyboxes, a related, if more frivolous version of same. 68.39.174.238 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or see User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes if you aren't an admin. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete We have {{skiptotoctalk}} if the boxes get that bad. Hbdragon88 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that the template should be deleted, but I don't think skiptotoctalk should be used. There virtually never needs to be that many templates on a page, and the unnecessary templates should simply be deleted instead (the large ones should be trimmed, as well). The skiptotoctalk adds another template and enables the keeping of frivolous templates. -- Kjkolb 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's too many templates, logic indicates that adding one more will not alleviate the situation. Delete. (Radiant) 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not as good as the userfied version I linked above, and inappropriate in most namespaces. --ais523 11:49, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Recreation of twice deleted and BJAODN'd template. --cesarb 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously, we had people who were too lazy to clean things up, and placed a template instead. Now, we apparently have people who are too lazy to even remove templates?! What next? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Jahangard 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has too many delete recommendations. Please add more. Chris talk back 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a magical template-eating template using CarnivoreFunctions. If CarnivoreFunctions haven't been invented yet, just delete. -- Visviva 11:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to me that if an article is overusing templates, a talk page discussion would be a better way to handle it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 27 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Football club2

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 page.

The result of the debate was merge M a rtinp23 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant with {{Infobox Football club}}. Rolando 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with {{Infobox Football club}}. My guess here would be that whoever designed their infobox doesn't know how to do parser functions, so someone decided they needed a separate infobox for teams with 3 color sets. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 19 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:ArticleAssist

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an inferior duplicate of {{expert}}. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's hideous and useless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my eyes! Delete. Ugly, useless, what Night Gyr said. pschemp | talk 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. __meco 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gah, shoot it now! Redundant, and Ghu help us if it spreads! Xtifr _tälk 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure that the creator never passes their graphic design classes. Black on brick red? Ouch! --tjstrf talk 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, could we just redirect this to {{expert}}? It's not a bad alternate title. Plus, editorial solutions are generally better than all-or-nothing decisions that require administrator enforcement. --tjstrf talk 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought template redirects, while supported, were strongly discouraged. And the template is unused. Might be better/easier to just delete it while we still have a chance. Xtifr _tälk 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you certain? There are redirects for many of our most used tags like {{cn}}, {{bv}}, and {{template link}} to name a few. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but basically, it's a question of how likely the template is to need replacement someday. Core templates would be basically exempt, but {{expert}} might get replaced with {{expert-since}} if it was decided to track these by date (as has happened to several other cleanup templates). It's at the bottom of Wikipedia:Redirect. Xtifr _tälk 11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Destroy. Exterminate. [That colour scheme is really bad!] ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it quick. Chris talk back 01:33, 23 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Notoc

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:100110100 with reason "there is already syntax for the NOTOCs." Does it really help to type {{notoc}} rather than __NOTOC__? TimBentley (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a template for __NOTOC__?100110100 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thryduulf 18:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh noes, I have to type 0 more characters to just use __NOTOC__. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just learned how to use the syntax command instead. Cyberia23 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep __NOTOC__ seems weird to use. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please don't hide magic words behind an unnecessary template that can be vandalized and uses 0.0001% more server load for no positive effect. Kusma (討論) 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How is that easier to remember than the original syntax? Will just slow down database. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people know it and use it, and the case for deletion is unconvincing. Making things easier is worth a mere 0.0001% (one ten thousandth of a percent) increase in server load. If vandalism is a problem, just put it in permanent, full protection. -- Kjkolb 00:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant, worthless. pschemp | talk 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how does this make anything easier? ~~ N (t/c) 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many fewer people are aware of the "__" syntax for magic words than are aware of the "{{" syntax. Thus, there is a *slight* convenience factor here. -- Visviva 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless redundancy. —An gr 12:23, 26 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Reality TV

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and relatively exclusive template, with a bias towards American TV shows. I can't see it doing anything other than adding a massive list to whatever article it gets added onto. Wafulz 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it would be a useful template to American viewers of American reality shows, and they would be the primary viewers of these articles as well, so the bias would be lost on the target audience. It's a little peculiar that the template hasn't been added to any articles yet, however, assuming this will take place, my vote is to keep the template. __meco 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are too many reality shows to include all of them, so this is bound to be flawed either way. Each show can have links to its own series and to a general list of reality shows, but you don't need to put a link on every one to every other. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be useful. Reality TV has been a huge phonemena. The sub-development of a template should not be the basis for its deletion. Baristarim 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When considering the inclusion of all reality TV shows of even one genre, check out the length of List of reality television programs. There is really no way to keep the template's size practical without compromising its neutrality. --Wafulz 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shows should not be lumped in by genre. No bias against splitting this off into a separate template for each show, but this is going to get big really, really fast. Hbdragon88 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Category:Reality_television_series and subcategories for everything that could end up in here! Per Night Gyr, Create templates for each individual show as needed (like Template:Big Brother UK) --Stoive 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme burninate before it gets too big. Templates for each programme might be useful, but not a huge reality TV one. Especially since reality TV adheres to the Holy Roman Empire nomenclature (in being neither reality nor television). Chris talk back 01:36, 23 November 2006 (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 page.