Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25

Template:Infobox Belgian railway station

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Belgian railway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}, as evidenced by this replacement. Only 8 instances remain. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the parameters are basically the same, except one that uses code to an external link that does not work. I have already been working on the conversion, and it is my edit you cite above. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (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:Yano (toy)

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yano (toy) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template without any practical use Jarkeld (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (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:¬Yano

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:¬Yano (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template without any practical use whatsoever Jarkeld (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (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:Sezen Aksu

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sezen Aksu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly one-year old musician navigational box full of red links Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (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:Justin Theroux

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Justin Theroux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Actors should not have templates for their films/tv shows, per previous consensus - this and this. Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (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:Australian premiers

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. Redundant template. I will also be moving Template:AustralianPremiers to Template:Australian premiers per Andy Mabbett's suggestion. Airplaneman ✈ 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian premiers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:AustralianPremiers. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whichever version is kept, {{Australian premiers}} is the correct name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:39, 25 August 2010 (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:Australian governors

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. Redundant template. I will be moving Template:AustralianGovernors to Template:Australian governors as well and keep the redirect. Airplaneman ✈ 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian governors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:AustralianGovernors. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whichever version is kept, {{Australian governors}} is the correct name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:39, 25 August 2010 (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:Gozo First Division 2008-09

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. Airplaneman ✈ 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gozo First Division 2008-09 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for individual templates for every league season. —Chrisportelli (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God help a team that has existed for 100 years if a template like this became the norm. Reso lute 15:07, 29 August 2010 (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:Wallpaper

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) 03:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wallpaper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to have fallen out of use and is no longer transcluded in any image pages. In any case, I don't see much reason for its existence; do we really need to point out to users that high-resolution images with proportions matching those of their monitor can be used as wallpapers? Waltham, The Duke of 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, we don't. We are not an advice site for how to gussy up your computer. Herostratus (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus. This is an encyclopedia, not an advice site. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those images that are free images (a requirement to become a featured picture) can be moved to Commons, and they have special categories and templates for images featured here and suitable as computer wallpaper. There's no point to separately maintain such a category on this wiki. PleaseStand ^(talk) 06:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's quite nice on Commons, but here, it's really off topic. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The template is no longer needed. JJ98 (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (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:R printworthy

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. No consensus to delete. Airplaneman ✈ 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R printworthy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This category contains no documentation or explaination of what it does. It seems to only add Category:Printworthy redirects. What is the point of a template that just adds a category? One may as well just add the category like normal. The same applies for {{R unprintworthy}} McLerristarr / Mclay1 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep templates for automatic categorization are hugely useful. "I don't understand it" is not a good reason to seek deletion for something. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it hugely useful? And, yes, "I don't understand" is a very good reason to nominate. If I , and every other user, completely understood the importance or unimportance of every template, there would be no need for these discussions – we would already know the answer. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons completely unrelated to the nom, a paper wiki is highly impractical and not likely to happen. Other "R from..." templates should be kept.—Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "paper wiki" is already in place, albeit on CD-ROM instead (as a read-only resource that can be distributed to areas without net access - take a look at the OLPC project). Listing printworthy redirects is a particularly useful aspect for a read-only wiki like that, as the redirect (tagged as a notable topic) won't be turning into a future article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the value here; this adds semantic value to our redirects and despite the pronouncement that a paper WP is "not likely to happen", we shouldn't be specifically deleting things which would be useful for that purpose. The documentation does indeed need to be improved, but this looks like a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy and Chris. Imzadi 1979 → 07:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please actually explain why this should be kept? This is meant to be a discussion not just a vote. McLerristarr / Mclay1 07:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What should be kept? The category, or the template?

The category is useful because it adds semantics to a redirect. In particular, it adds the annotation, "This redirect has been assessed and isn't an unimportant redirect for showing in direct human-readable lists". Many of our redirects (spelling mistake catchers etc.) are unimportant for such lists and should be excluded from display to humans whenever possible. As our default has to be "Display unless known otherwise", it's perhaps {{R unprintworthy}} that's the more crucial here, however management of the editing process is assisted if the huge majority of unknown & uncategorized can be obviously labelled one way or the other as "done" (i.e. templates are needed for both).

As to why we use the template and not the category, that's a question of abstraction. Ask a programmer to explain - it always puzzles me (with my old dinosaur mentality that everyone on the intawebs built their own RFCs) why wikipedia generally doesn't appreciate the importance of this (in several places, including redirects and self-links too). Any programmer "gets it", because it's a well-known technique of huge value for the long-term maintenance of complicated systems of source code and implementation.

We have two problems here: to note the redir as being in some state (requirement), and to make that state automatically processable afterwards (implementation). We use templates for one, categories for the other. The editor adding the annotation thus doesn't need to know how the categorization scheme is set up - the template can handle that for them automatically and invisibly. Even more importantly, we can change this implementation in the future without affecting the use of the template. One change inside the template, rather than a squillion changes to all the pages using it. A system as big as WP can't survive without abstraction mechanisms like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a semantic difference between a redirect which is there for minor differences in capitalisation and formatting, and a redirect which is there because a person changed his name. The latter would possibly get its own entry in a paper book, saying "see this title". The former would not. Marking up that semantic difference is low-cost and can be potentially useful in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the categories should be deleted; I can see the usefulness of them. It's the templates that I don't understand – {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} are the only ones I'm questioning; I get the others. The templates in question don't add a note that says what they mean or why the template is categorised the way it is; all they do is add a category. They just seem a bit pointless and most times, an editor is just going to add the category without bothering to add the template. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, that's a problem to be fixed by editing the template, not deleting it. Changing it to say "this redirect is useful to printed versions of Wikipedia, as the redirect target has a substantially different title which may not be obvious to a reader looking for the subject" would do the trick, I'd imagine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, keep. McLerristarr / Mclay1 08:43, 2 September 2010 (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.