Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

[edit]

Template:The Magnificent Seven

[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 Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Magnificent Seven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to have a template for this series of movies. The fictional characters are not notable out of universe and the template obviously would lend to much weight to these particular movies if applied to the biographies of the actors involved. That only leaves the four movies, where a "see also" section would be enough to link to the other three. Crusio (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You are right to discount the actor links (because this navbox won't actually be used on their articles), but it would have been better to see how the prods of the character articles turned out before nominating the navbox. If the character articles were already deleted, you would have a much stronger case for disposing of the navbox. But at the moment there are enough articles linked with this I'm not willing to actually !vote "delete" for it. If the character articles are deleted before this discussion closes, I may change my stance. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC) See update below. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection. All those characters (even those who yet have no personal article - Vin and Chico) have their pages on IMDB. There are dozens of books in english, spanish, russian, french, german, etc., which are describe everything to the smallest details. And I think, You, Mr.Crusio, could modify these articles, due to your perfect knowledge of Nederlands, Deutsch and Français languages, instead of this deletion-bent trial. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no debates around this template. Does anybody have any other arguments to delete it? Epress them. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is useful to have a formal arrangement to link to the four films. Also, there is potential to have character articles, so I think we should especially hold off on this TfD until we can see what we can do with the character articles. Erik (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Characters' notability was prooven. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the prods and AFDs completed, there are still six non-redirect blue links in this navbox, which is enough for me. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough valid links to justify a navbox for the series. Reach Out to the Truth
  • Keep — navbox will help with navigation. Airplaneman talk 02:24, 21 March 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:Created with GIMP

[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 both and replace with {{Createdwith}}. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Created with GIMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Created with Inkscape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. There is no benefit to either readers or editors in advertising the software used to create an image. Images are usually uploaded in a format editable by any of a wide range of software, so the information is irrelevant to anyone who wants to modify the image. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep As per Avenue. This template is descriptive and it serves to encourage people to use inkscape to contribute to Wikipedia. Like Avenue, this template was what spurred my first use of the program, which I have used to make images for Wikipedia and elsewhere. What's more, it's not like people are sticking in advertisements for something into an article, they are crediting a tool they used to make their contribution. I think it falls under the same idea of applying a "source" or "author" to the image description: Inkscape was used and that should be recognized. I am really horrified at the thought of removing this template - we should be doing everything we can to encourage image contributions, particularly svg images. I'd be fine with a more general purpose template, but I like the simplicity and general look of the existing one. TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. If an editor needs to learn about available SVG editors, they should be looking at SVG which already has a comprehensive list including this program. That is the place for this information and not just happening to run across a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If source program information is useful, then put it in the description or perhaps a generic source template, but a series of templates for different tools (including ones that are apparently rarely used) is overkill. --RL0919 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a more generalized template. I'd point out, though, that the inkscape one is used quite a lot. I've also got a question - obviously this doesn't pertain to the commons version of this template. That's the one I always use... Are things going to get screwed up for that template if this one is deleted? It also begs the question of why you guys want to delete these templates when they are both widely and happily used on commons. TastyCakes (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion here should have no effect on Commons. I started a generalized template at {{Createdwith}} (which can itself be deleted if no one wants to use it), which could potentially be used to replace all the templates of this type. Feedback about it is of course welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 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:Infobox EastEnders character 2

[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 Keep. See below. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same basic issue as the Neighbours infobox below: it is redundant to more general infoboxes ({{Infobox character}} and {{Infobox soap character}}), which should be used instead to create more consistency and ease of maintenance across the numerous soap opera character articles. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the template is well maintained and includes fields that are absent from other templates like soap character. It is being used in hundreds of articles. it is not redundant, but many of the fields included in the more general infoboxes are as they have been constructed with other genres or US soap operas in mind.GunGagdinMoan 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template is clear, very easy to understand and is well-maintained. --5 albert square (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per GunGagdin, 5asq and the same reasons I gave for keeping the Neighbours one below. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't just the reasons that are the same: it is the identical infobox with a different name. Why would every show need a duplicate template with the same parameters, instead of standardizing on one that they can share? If you just moved one of the existing show-specific infoboxes to {{Infobox soap character 2}} and started using that across the different shows, that would be a dramatic improvement over having Balkanized copycat templates. --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mostly agree with many of the keeps, and I feel that editors of UK soaps-related articles (including the Australiam ones broadcast in the UK) dislike {{Infobox soap character}}, and I think it might be better to create {{Infobox soap character 2}} by moving one of them (I'd suggest the EastEnders one as it has the most history, the others are just copied from it). After that's been done then any further issues can be addressed. It would mean fewer infoboxes and less chance of more being created, and I think everyone would be happy. The existing templates are similar, but there are a few differences, and if there are any problems with those differences, it would be easier to address them this way. anemoneprojectors talk 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with most of the above, but AnemoneProjectors idea seems like the best way to solve this. UK and US soap operas are vastly different, and require separate infoboxes to accommodate in my opinion. Keep or merge, but most certainly not delete. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 00:34, 13 March 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:Infobox Neighbours character

[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 Keep. Please, consider merging with {{Infobox EastEnders character 2}} and creating one unified template ({{Infobox soap character 2}}). Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Neighbours character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just created. Redundant of {{Infobox soap character}}, probably a copy of another old or deleted template. Having templates like that is against standardisation. It has a lot of parameters that should not be in infoboxes anyway like "great great great great aunts" (how many articles really need this and for what?) Magioladitis (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2. I am aware that other stuff exists. Nonetheless, it is exactly the same. I suggest a 'merge' into Template:Infobox soap character 2 or similiar, in which you can change the name of the show. It wouldn't be very hard; I could make it. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of a Template:Infobox soap character 2, which would allow you to change the name of the soap/show and that contains all the necessary parameters. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the characters need the extra parameters, as they have large families and links to many others charcters. I'll admit that the 'great great great great aunt' parameter probably isn't needed. The new template also stops the bracketed notes being placed next to a name because the template doesn't support that particular parameter, i.e Elle Robinson (half sister), Helen Daniels (Great Grandmother), etc. They take up room in the box and the new template makes the family ties look a lot neater. The {{Infobox soap character}} needs some serious work to improve it and allow editors to add all the information available. Creating a seperate template from {{Infobox soap character}} isn't new, other shows have them too. Btw, since so many Neighbours infoboxes have already been changed over, can the nominator go and change them all back if this template is deleted? :P - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a similar situation to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 6#Template:Infobox Coronation Street character, which was deleted in favor of {{Infobox character}}. Looks like the EastEnders box may be the one that started this pattern, but it should be stopped because individual infoboxes for each show is unnecessary, can create inconsistencies across similar articles, and adds to the maintenance effort when something needs to be changed across all the different boxes. The only novelty in these boxes is the endless list of fields for tenuous (and, need I remind, entirely fictional) family relationships, which if they are truly valuable could be added to a more generic infobox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion this info box serves a better purpose. It's far less confusing than the other ones also to be honest if a new viewer looked at a character article, they would be fooled into thinking certain characters are real siblings. If an everyday reader looks at the article, they won't even see the contents of relationships, as it's hidden. The images look extra tidy, better than the the other in terms of layout, other soap operas from around the world have there own so I'd be more inclined to say a strong keep until those issues are adressed as it isn't a said rule that there needs to be one universal character box. Also I think it is unfair on those who have done work on artices thinking they were making it better, maybe the nominator can change them all back.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion the new infoboxes are far less confusing than the old ones. The older ones were far too detailed, I found them very confusing, they didn't make it clear who was related to who. Other soaps like EastEnders have their own infoboxes so why can't Neighbours? Or would the nominator like to nominate all the other soaps info boxes for deletion as well? If the info boxes are the same I don't see why Neighbours should get theirs deleted and all the other soaps be able to keep theirs. I would be willing to consider Alex's suggestion though.

As a side note, if it is deleted maybe the nominator can change the infoboxes back themselves? After all there will be some 25 years worth of characters to change back and I remember it took a few of us editors a couple of days to change all the infoboxes as we thought we were improving the articles --5 albert square (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Interested editors might like to call in at the EastEnders WikiProject talkpage, where there's a fairly extensive discussion underway about how the {{Infobox soap character}} template could be improved, or a {{Infobox soap character 2}} template could be created, to better meet the needs of the UK soap projects. Frickative 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to the idea of a new common infobox that would cover a range of shows that have needs unmet by any current generic infobox. But having a separate character infobox template for every show is a bad idea. No one has yet to make any argument for why each specific show needs a different infobox, other than "other shows have their own so we should have one too", which frankly is a very bad argument (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It is obvious that these boxes were copied from one another, so coming up with a common design shouldn't be terribly difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mostly agree with many of the keeps, and I feel that editors of UK soaps-related articles (including the Australiam ones broadcast in the UK) dislike {{Infobox soap character}}, and I think it might be better to create {{Infobox soap character 2}} by moving one of them (I'd suggest the EastEnders one as it has the most history, the others are just copied from it). After that's been done then any further issues can be addressed. It would mean fewer infoboxes and less chance of more being created, and I think everyone would be happy. The existing templates are similar, but there are a few differences, and if there are any problems with those differences, it would be easier to address them this way. anemoneprojectors talk 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • On the discussion part: This is not a majority vote (I am stating the obvious).
    • On the relationships part: Per WP:SOAPS and per general consensus infoboxes should not contain every single detail on the character. Check discussion in {{Infobox character}} of how and why we minimised a lot of parameters. I do recognise that relationships play more important role in soaps than in weekly series, etc. and that's why I undestand why we have two different infoboxes but this has nothing to do with this template.
    • The characters were perfectlly covered until today from Infobox soap character. What did it change? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully a regular Neighbours editor will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem is that the characters weren't perfectly covered until today. Relations between characters in soap operas can obviously be very complex, and I think it comes down to a difference between an infobox displaying narrowly defined parameters and having editors then try and explain the intricacies of relationships in brackets, or having an infobox display a broader range of parameters with more nuance. For instance, the difference between:
I tend to think that the infobox isn't the best place to describe such intricacies, and that if a relationship is truly important it should be detailed in the body of the article anyway. But regardless of my opinion, soap opera article infoboxes are full of qualifications as with the first example, and it usually ends up a confusing mess. The second example is a neater, clearer way of presenting it, so I understand why editors would prefer it. That said, I don't think it necessitates a different infobox for each different soap opera, but I think the suggested {{Infobox soap character 2}} would, (within reason, of course, there's still no need for great great grand uncles 18 times removed however you spin it!) be a good compromise. Frickative 01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Frickative on all of the above. I've already said that I think a new {{Infobox soap character 2}} would be a good idea. Perhaps based on the current EastEnders template, without all the great great grand aunts obviously, that way they'll be less need to create other infobox templates if all the shows/soaps use the same one that covers everything they need. I know most relationships should be covered in the body of the article, but I think it's like the lead of an article. Sometimes a reader will only read the beginning to get a general idea of what the subject is about. Readers of a character article can take a quick look at the infobox and see that X is related to Y instead of looking through the whole article for it. They also stop the creation of family trees at the bottom of the article, which take up room. I know myself and another Neighbours editor had to go round and remove a lot of them. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the creation of a general use Infobox soap character 2 template for British/Australian soaps.... agree that the soap infobox, as it is, is very clunky in appearance and does not make for an easily readable layout - the prime purpose of an infoxbox. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 23:18, 10 March 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:European Poker Awards Staff Person of the Year

[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) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European Poker Awards Staff Person of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only links from one article, every other winner being a non-notable redlink. A joining template is not needed for this. –– Lid(Talk) 06:49, 9 March 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:Scottish English

[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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with my other nominations, as this is substantially similar to British English according to Scottish English, except in phonology and the vernacular, which are irrelevant to a print/digital text encyclopedia. Note also that "Scottish English" may also include (Lowland) Scots, of which there is an entirely separate Wikipedia, so this is even more confusing, as it may imply that an en.wp article is written in sco.wp style. Alternately, merge to {{British English|scottish=yes}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are numerous examples of the anti-Scottish brigade routinely trolling round Scotland-related articles, systematically removing distinctively Scottish vocabulary and expressions. For example the great "outwith" purge, when that word was systematically removed from all articles, simply cos a "better" word existed in English English. As the Americans say: go figure! Another favourite is trolling round Scottish biographical or church articles replacing the (correct) word "Episcopalian" with the English English term "Anglican", which is totally misleading in the Scottish context. Template:Scottish English was created as part of an attempt to stop such vandalism and bullying. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per rationale at comment at RFD for Hiberno-English template. -- RA (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also per rationale at comment at RFD for Hiberno-English template. ENGVAR reminds us that not everyone uses the same variety of English and that diversity is encouraged. The purpose of the template is to dissuade those who think that GB or US English is the only acceptable version from removing perfectly valid words and phrases from articles. Ben MacDui 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. -Bill Reid | (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the border between Scots and Scottish English is hard to define indeed but there are items in Scottish English that would warrant such a tag; for example loch is clearly /lɔx/ for speakers of Scottish English but /lɔk/ in BE. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - differences between Scottish and British English are certainly not limited to phonology, vernacular usage or inclusions of Scots. There are numerous examples of terms and grammar in formal usage, legal, governmental and ecclesiastical terms that differ. A very necessary template to deflect those unfamiliar with Scottish usage from in-correcting valid text. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mutt Lunker et al. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scottish English has the same relevance as American or English English. Also, it was disgraceful that "outwith" was ousted from Wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 16:43, 9 March 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:Hiberno-English

[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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hiberno-English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to Hiberno-English, this is substantially similar to British English, except in phonology, turns of phrase, and vernacular grammar, all of which would be irrelevant to a print/digital text encyclopedia. Alternatively, merge to {{British English|irish=yes}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's a valid dialect of English, so appropriate for having an WP:ENGVAR template. From the article on the dialect, it has a distinct grammar and preserves older forms not in current use in British RP Queen's English. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first sight, I would agree - though mainly because I think all these templates are pointless talk page cruft and should be deleted. Ultimately, though, if we are going to keep one then we should keep them all. Hiberno-English, Scottish English and British (viz. English) English are all largely off the same stock but difference exit between them none-the-less. There's no benefit to encouraging editors to change "should"→"ought", or "will"→"shall", to shift prepositions around, or to 'correct' American-influenced spellings or words→quaint British (viz. English) ones. So, keep per WP:ENGVAR. -- RA (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's sufficient for any reader noting the shamrock symbol at the bottom of an article to expect that he should in turn expect to find Hiberno-English in use in the article. When in Rome ... It's not reasonable to expect that articles dealing exclusively with Irish issues would not be written by Irish people. That being the case, it's reasonable to expect such Irish people to use Hiberno-English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 70.29.210.242 et al. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:25, 9 March 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:New Zealand English

[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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As New Zealand English explains, this is very similar to Australian English, except in pronunciation, which would be irrelevant to a print/digital text encyclopedia. Possibly merge this and {{Australian English}}? Alternatively, make {{Australian English|nz=yes}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the implication that Australian English and New Zealand English are the same would doubtless provoke drama. Per the article and comments above, there is a credible distinction between the two. TheFeds 16:57, 9 March 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:Pakistani English

[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 Keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to Pakistani English, it is virtually identical to Indian English and the examples that they give are largely colloquial or otherwise inappropriate for the tone of an encyclopedia. Change all transclusions to {{Indian English}} instead? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal Merge this and {{Indian English}} into {{South Asian English}}? Possibly create {{South Asian English|india=yes}} and {{South Asian English|pakistan=yes}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with {{Indian English}}. AFAICT, WP:ENGVAR is only supposed to native speaking places, or at least to places where English is spoken regularly. Nowadays, India has an almost negligible number of native speakers, and a smaller fraction of people able to speak English than (say) Germany has, and Pakistan more so, so such templates make less sense than, say, {{German English}} would. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with that assessment of WP:ENGVAR, and consequently the additional proposal regarding Indian English. English is spoken as a second language by a hundred million Indians, is the de facto language of commerce, and is (along with Hindi) accepted as a means of communication between people who speak incompatible first languages—this is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that it is a characteristic national variety of English as described by WP:ENGVAR. TheFeds 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the Pakistani English article makes a credible assertion that Pakistani English is distinct from Indian English. If it can be demonstrated (e.g. by reliable sources referenced in the article) that they're virtually the same, I could be convinced to support a merge. (Though "South Asian English" would probably imply inclusion of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh—I don't know the degree to which English is used there, or whether they are distinct. Nevertheless, it would probably be culturally insensitive to simply label Pakistani-English-related articles as being in Indian English, so I do see the value in a neutral name.) TheFeds 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're keeping all of the others, then there's really no other choice then to Keep this as well. Besides, it's an easy case to make that "Pakistani English" as a legitimate dialect, so the single delete reasoning given above ends up being faulty on it's face. The merge into a broader "South Asian English" template is worth considering, but in the end it'll likely be too broad to be meaningful. ...on the other hand, I completely support getting rid of all of these idiotic "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" style templates. None of these are conducive to collegial editing relationships, but that's par for the course now on English Wikipedia these days.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above - they developed somewhat separately, especially in modern times, and have been driven by different influences. As others have said, it's analogous to Australian and NZ English. Orderinchaos 18:38, 16 March 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:That '80s Show

[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) 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:That '80s Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 9 March 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:Ref N

[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) 02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref N (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with and directly replaceable by {{Ref}} / {{Note}}. If consensus is to delete this template, I will perform the article updates. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All uses now updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete. I do not mind the template deleted. However, my advise is to keep it until Gadget850, as he promised, replace the transclusions with {{ref}}. Then, speedy-delete the template.

    A word of advise for Gadget850: I say you get busy now and start replacing them.

    Fleet Command (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to other note systems. The number of transclusions is relatively low (less than 50 pages at the moment), so replacing them should not be a big problem. I'm glad to see someone finally tackling the excess of different note templates. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 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:Note N

[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) 02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Note N (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with and directly replaceable by {{Ref}} / {{Note}}. If consensus is to delete this template, I will perform the article updates. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All uses now updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:26, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_9&oldid=1140238403"