Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Template:Infobox English law firm

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) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox English law firm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox law firm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox English law firm with Template:Infobox law firm.
Unnecessary duplication. Only difference is the English one uses "lawyers" instead of "attorneys". Either they could be merged and both parameters are put in the same template (with a comment saying only use one) or an additional parameter |british=yes could be added so that the word lawyers is used instead. {{Infobox English law firm}} is rarely used (only 20 transclusions). Also, if not merged, surely this should be "UK" law firm instead of "English". Mhiji (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Easiest way is to add a num_lawyers parameter to the Infobox law firm template and then redirect Infobox English law firm to Infobox law firm. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that sounds good. Mhiji (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. IMO no need to redirect as there are no links to it. Rehman 10:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there were some transclusions before but since there aren't any now should be deleted. Mhiji (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were but User:134.253.26.6 has updated the template & the articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. It seemed simple enough and not conversial given the direction of the discussion. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 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 voucher

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 baleeted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template. Only one transclusion since it was created 2 years ago. Should be substituted then deleted. Mhiji (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, including the redirect, per nom. Rehman 10:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now orphaned. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 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 Bund

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:57, 6 December 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:Doctor Who boxed set

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who boxed set (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed What articles is this linked to? Are there any reliable replacement templates that will work? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not used at all... Mhiji (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since not used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unused. Rehman 10:57, 1 December 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:Errormsg

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little to no transclusions and trivial history with redundancy to Template:Error. Suggest deletion and redirection. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If you look closely at the histories: Amalthea hijacked Template:Error about a year after I created Template:Errormsg. — Dispenser 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I don't get what Dispenser is trying to say. Error was created before this template. IMO, there is little history and not much use in this template (no offence meant). Rehman 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Error was originally an ambox when I created errormsg. It later got redirected/merged to Template:Disputed and then changed to its current use. — Dispenser 02:28, 2 December 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:Wikipedia container category

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia container category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikipedia category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Wikipedia container category with Template:Wikipedia category.

Oppose a container category contains only categories, a Wikipedia category can contain things other than categories. I do think that "Wikipedia container category" may be redundant with having {{container category}} and {{Wikipedia category}} together. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why it should stay separated, nor do I see why it shouldn't... Rehman 11:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Wikipedia category}} takes the parameter "parent" (and I've already requested that "container" be made an alternate name) which, if specified, produces the same text as {{Wikipedia container category}}. So, replace all transclusions with {{Wikipedia category|container=yes}} and delete. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should request the opposite: Rename {{Container category}} to {{Parent category}}. All categories are containers by definition, so it's stupid to equate "container" with "no articles". —Coder Dan (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Parent category" already has another, more general, meaning on Wikipedia: any category which has one or more subcategories, irrespective of whether it contains non-category pages. See Wikipedia:Categorization#The category system: "A is said to be a parent category of B when B is a subcategory of A." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good, at least you know what "parent" means. The real problem is that we're misusing the word "container", which is more general than "parent", not less. The meaning of the template is that the category's member articles aren't listed on the category's page, so the template's name should indicate that explicitly, using standard English instead of made-up Wikipedia definitions. —Coder Dan (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an odd statement (of course I know the meaning of "parent")... In any case, the word "container" has no specific meaning in relation to categories, except how we have chosen to define it. I realize that "container" is not the ideal word but I haven't seen a better alternative offered yet which would clearly and concisely capture the intent of the template: a category which contains only or primarily other categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        > of course I know the meaning of "parent"
        
        But you're misusing the word "container". All categories are sets, and all sets are containers. Even a topic category is just the set of things that are related to the topic. Any wikiuse of "container" should conform to standard English usage.
        
        > a category which contains only or primarily other categories
        
        That's not the intent of the template. Every category "contains" its member articles, either explicitly by listing them on its wikipage or implicitly through its subcategories. Anyway, bottom-level categories are containers of articles just as much as parents are containers of other categories. The point of the template is that the category's member articles are not listed on the category's wikipage. The difference is listing articles, not containing. Even in the context of category wikipages rather than the categories themselves, the difference is whether the page contains article links or category links, and the word "container" says nothing about what kind of things are contained. —Coder Dan (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand what you're saying—that all categories are containers in a sense—but the specialized usage of "container category" is not incorrect per se (e.g., here is an off-wiki example with the same meaning).
        
        Modify my comment to substitute "which contains" with "which ought to contain", and I think we are both saying the same thing. A "category which ought to contain only other categories" and a "category which ought not to list articles directly" is essentially the same thing when all bottom-level categories list articles directly (i.e., they contain only non-category pages). Your explanatory approach does, admittedly, make it easier to understand why a few directly related non-category pages may be placed in a container category.
        
        Coming back to the issue of the name... I have no objection to discontinuing the use of "container" if a better alternative can be proposed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My point has nothing to do with "ought to". A category is a set of articles, not a web page. Every category "contains" all of the articles in all of its subcategories as its members, even if they're not listed on its wikipage, and every parent category "contains" subcategories as subsets. The word "contain" implies that bottom-level categories are not containers, but I don't see what they do other than containing articles. The only question is whether articles are listed on the parent's wikipage, so I would call the template something like {{no article list}}. —Coder Dan (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps it would be better as {{contains no pages}} or {{contains only categories}} ? ... though some containers contain a small amount of pages as well (like the {{catmore}} article) 65.93.12.108 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The direct subcategories of a "container category", narrowly defined, are still pages. The "set" to which Coder Dan refers to above can be made a subcategory of another category only through the category description page. "No article list" is, I think, too ambiguous, especially since articles constitute only one of many types of pages (e.g., lists, talk pages, basic namespace page in other namespaces). I'm afraid I can't offer a better name, though. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 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:Container category

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 as is. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Container category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikipedia category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Container category with Template:Wikipedia category.
Redundant categories that give basically the same messages. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose it is most certainly not the same message. A Container category is not necessarily a Project category. Article heirarchy categories can be container categories. Wikipedia categories are certainly not all container categories. Wikipedia categories are not article heirarchy categories, and should not contain articles or article heirarchy categories. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom doesn't realize that these two templates suggest very different things. "Container" categories are categories primarily for subcategories, not for individual pages. For instance, Category:Wikipedians by religion is a container category, since individual Wikipedian user pages shouldn't be placed in there directly. "Wikipedia" categories can mean something completely different. Wikipedia categories are stuff like Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion or something that is related to the project side of things rather than the content side of things. A category can be both a container category and a Wikipedia category, it could be one or the other, or it could be neither. Suggest withdrawal of nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:04, 1 December 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:Container text

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 neutral close. After sitting and looking at this for probably too long, I can't figure out what this nomination is even trying to ask. Do you want to delete? Merge? Just edit? Either way, I can't see where deletion comes into play, and so any changes that someone desires can be accomplished via regular editing. It may be worth noting, however, that the template is not currently employed in any useful fashion, and thus may be eligible for speedy deletion after the proper waiting period for T3 candidates. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Container category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikipedia category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose including Template:Container text in Template:Container category and Template:Wikipedia category to insert the duplicated text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coder Dan (talk • contribs)

Is this necessary? The text itself is fairly stable and can be used in only two templates. {{Wikipedia category}} already takes a parameter which would display the container text. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not that big a deal. —Coder Dan (talk) 00:20, 2 December 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.