Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

June 20

[edit]

Template:Confusing

[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, a "reason" parameter has now been added to make it more specific. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is way too unspecific in what needs to be improved and simply will sit on an article for years. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not specify what exactly needs clarification and how it needs to be clarified and therefore is of no help for those who want to perform this clarification. So this request for clarification is not "clear" as you say. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not improve, rather than delete? GiantSnowman 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every article not being a GA or FA needs some kind of improvement. However a template simply calling for global improvement of the article without specifically addressing what needs to be improved and how is not helpful. And most editors who see the article not being a GA or FA will be aware that something needs improvement, so this template is simply a useless distraction. We already have Template:Clarify for specific issues which should be used instead of this one. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many many GA and FA articles have problems.Curb Chain (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Toshio - according to Wikipedia:Please clarify, which I have already linked above, {{clarify}} is for "individual phrases or sentences" while {{confusing}} is for "sections". GiantSnowman 22:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator - This template would be useful, if, for example, it contained the possibility to include some kind of additional information. I think a useful addition would be an option to include (instead of or in addition to the talk page link) something like {{Confusing|reason=technical terms x and y should be explained in the article's or section's context}}. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that with some improvement, this template could be very useful indeed. GiantSnowman 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like many other things on Wikipedia, this template isn't always used properly, or as well as it could be. That doesn't mean we should delete this template, any more than we should delete every article it's attached to. As others have said, a more constructive approach would be to start by improving the template to be more specific. Additionally, sometimes commentary is provided in the edit history or on the talk page. Finally, when an article is confusing, it's often hard to get specific -- almost by definition, things are unclear. Ultimately I don't see ground for deletion here. At most, a drive to improve application of this template. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not confusing if the problem is present on the talk page. Maybe it can be improved but not deleted. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator - Just to give an example of what my concern with this template is: The article List of aperiodic sets of tiles has been tagged with this template since August 2010 and I still have no idea what exactly is confusing about this article or what needs improvement. Since I am the creator of the article, I have some knowledge of the subject and would improve the article, if I knew, what exactly is confusing there. However in my opinion, the introduction really contains everything one has to know in order to understand the article. Thus I cannot address the problem the template is trying to point out, but I also don't want to remove the template. This this template will simply continue to sit on the article, perhaps for years. I still don't see how this is useful in any way. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lede is all in one paragraph and is a little jargon-heavy: furthermore, the details of exactly what is happening in the image belong in the image caption rather than the lede. All it probably needs is some paragraph breaks and the moving of some details into the caption, but I can see why it was tagged. And actually, that you weren't sure of what exactly needed to be done to fix it is precisely the point of this template: as an inexpert reader it took me several passes to figure out what was going on there, and this is a general "I don't even really know what to make of this" tag for content which obviously has encyclopedic value but needs restructuring for clarity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved some of the information from the lead section into the image caption. And I agree it is better this way. But still it is impossible for me to read this out of this template. Therefore this template is not helpful for those who are not experts in the field of aperiodic sets of tiles, but it is not helpful for those who have some knowledge of the subject either (I am not a mathematician, but have some knowledge about Aperiodic sets of tiles), since it is nearly impossible for me to figure out what needs improvement from the template alone. Now that you have told me, I was at least able to address the problem with the image caption. However, in which way was the template helpful in leading to this improvement. Easy answer: It wasn't at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The solution for unexplained drive-by-tagging is to remove the tag. Maybe contact the tagger for clarification if that's feasible. Editors not expected to be psychic. • It would appear that tagging that article with {{confusing}} lead to it being improved. It would appear the template served its purpose, albeit in an unexpected way. HHOS. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The solution for drive-by tagging (what an ABF term!) is to fix the article. If the tag seems inappropriate contact the tagger - I get hundreds of messages about articles I haven't tagged (but SmackBot has dated), almost always the tag was valid when added - in fact I can't think of an example where it palpably was not. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. This is of specific use where articles or subjects that don't flow or overuse jargon to the extent that understanding is impeded. That the nominator doesn't like someone using it on one of his articles is neither here nor there. Maybe you could ask the tagger User:Nolelover what they found confusing in the article, consider expanding the explanation of the article (there's only little prose), or just removing it if it actually doesn't apply. Fences&Windows 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve, the template lives up to it's name and while I do use it it would be best to give reason. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve with a template argument for specifics, and then promote the articles transcluding it in a to-do list somewhere so that people who are good at simplification can have a good list of articles that need it. 76.254.22.47 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The list exists: it is Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep {{{reason}}} parameter has been added. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Per all above. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Used correctly, can be useful. —Fitoschido [shout] \\ 24 June, 2011 [20:36]
  • Delete Replace it with a template admitting that the editor who places the template is confused, or one noting that although that editor is not confused, he is so much more clever than average that he expects many other people not to keep up. Midgley (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 76.254.22.47 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per Rich Farmbrough. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per Rich Farmbrough. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and reality check: Re: "{{Confusing|reason=technical terms x and y should be explained in the article's or section's context}}" and "{{{reason}}} parameter has been added." - Um, all of the inline cleanup/dispute templates (and, well, all templates for that matter, that do not repurpose |reason= for something else) support the {{{reason}}} parameter. It's a de facto template standard. Templates' /doc pages should mention it. Actually, you could just copy paste the following into the parameter list documentation of 99.9% of all dispute and cleanup templates on the system, and maybe we should do exactly that: "*{{para|reason}} - a one-sentence reason for the template being used; if a longer rationale is needed, use the talk page". And no code needs to be added to the template at all; the |reason=your reason here just sits there as a comment explaining to any editor why the cleanup/dispute tag was put there in the first place. It's a really, really bad idea to make |reason= be a parameter that displays something inline, since this is disruptive to reading (e.g. "He served for two years in the war.[confusing - Which war? He was alive and able-bodied during both World War II and the Korean War.] After his tour of duty, he...". Having it do a pop-up tooltip spell out the reason is kinda nifty, for browsers that support that, and in templates that do not already make use of that feature for something else. But no template needs that. And the idea of deleting this template in particular because it doesn't shove a reason in all readers' faces is not reasonable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:55, 27 June 2011 (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.

Ghana Squad 1978 Africa Cup of Nations

[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) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ghana Squad 1978 Africa Cup of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ghana Squad 1980 Africa Cup of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ghana Squad 1982 Africa Cup of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ghana Squad 1984 Africa Cup of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are empty, and therefore redundant. GiantSnowman 15:13, 20 June 2011 (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:US 85

[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) 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US 85 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. Detcin (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—no, it navigates five articles: US 85, US 185, US 285, US 385 and US 485. If there is a list of alternate/business routes related to US 85, that should be added to make six. As it stands, four separate highways is enough, in my mind, to justify the navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons stated above. However, I see no evidence yet that any of those routes have bannered auxiliaries, although a Pecos, Texas bypass has been proposed for over a decade. Fortguy (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortguy, bannered auxiliaries wouldn't be listed in this template, because they're a level further removed from the subject, US 85. the US 31 template doesn't link to the list of US 131 business loops, only to its own list of business routes. Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template has enough links to be useful. Dough4872 20:28, 22 June 2011 (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:Haiku Components

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Haiku Components (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this navbox. "Add-Ons" are unlikely to get their own articles; "Kits" are entirely redirects to a single article, BeOS API; "Servers" are articles that this template should not be included on. JaGatalk 04:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to save the both the template and fix up the BeOS API article. However I do not have the time right now; so I have saved the template to a subuser page. I am fine with it being deleted for the time being. Dlpkbr (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2011 (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:13

[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) 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Author of these templates also created the following similar templates: {{Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not}}, {{Favourite worst nightmare}}, and {{Humbug}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (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:Blur (album)

[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) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blur (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created by user:Samhuddy, a pretty new editor, we don't use templates that list information already in the article. These templates are linked more cohesively by the artist's template.Curb Chain (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. Adrian (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In which articles can be included? Two? Nav templates are useful if they include all relevant links for a band, for example. We dón’t need an specific nav template for each album on the pedia. —Fitoschido [shout] \\ 24 June, 2011 [20:38]
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:The Great Escape

[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) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Great Escape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 20 June 2011 (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:Parklife

[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) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only navigates four songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 20 June 2011 (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:Leisure

[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) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only navigates three songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 20 June 2011 (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:Modern Life is Rubbish

[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) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Life is Rubbish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three songs--most of the template is plain text without links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 20 June 2011 (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/2011_June_20&oldid=1138970592"