Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

March 3

Template:R to poet

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 speedy delete, per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R to poet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The occupation of the target article's subject is a sub-optimal way to identify and organize redirects. The fact that the subject of the target article is/was a poet says nothing about the redirect: what purpose it serves or in what way its title differs from the title of the target. (Template creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 6 transclusions. Don't see any real use of it. Reh man 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I maybe missing something here, but I see no real purpose that isn't already performed elsewhere. Who (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Who. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I only created this template to populate Category:Poet redirects. If this template is deleted, the category needs to be deleted too. However, I would like to point out that the general emptiness of a redirect category is not a good reason to delete because redirect categories have plenty of room for expansion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:32, 5 March 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:Guangfo Metro

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) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guangfo Metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Guangzhou Metro|lineGF=yes}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. — Bility (talk) 01:27, 11 March 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:Eidi-century

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) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eidi-century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Full of redlinks - the specified category system does not exist, and should not exist. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Mostly red links. Reh man 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:00, 4 March 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:Emil Pawlik M65 Pentathlon

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) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emil Pawlik M65 Pentathlon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused athletics record template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused template. Reh man 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific. Seems if it were used, it would be only 1 or 2 articles. A template it need not be. Who (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Who. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:01, 4 March 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:Elementbox isotopes decay2 (2 2)

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elementbox isotopes decay2 (2 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obscure template. Unused; given the complexity and extensive coverage of this topic area on Wikipedia, it probably will not be used in the future. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused. Looks broken to me. Reh man 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, this was part of an attempt to fix the somewhat misleading template used in most, but not all, element pages. This is one of a few templates I created, but I think the only one that didn't get used. I keep meaning to finish, but am not likely to soon. That said, if I ever get the time, I will use it, if it is still here, as a starting point, or replace it should you decide to delete it. As it isn't that big of a deal either way, and I will likely have to rework parts of it regardless, I leave this to others to decide. naturalnumber (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy SpinningSpark 16:09, 4 March 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:Electric circuit basic elements

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) 03:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electric circuit basic elements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{Electronic component}}. Inclusion criteria unclear (the memristor is hardly a "basic electronic component"). Unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant, per nom. Reh man 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basic electronic components. Memristor is a basic electronic component. The inclusion criteria are very clear, since it only includes the basic forms. Memristor#Theory clearly explains it, if you didn't take physics in highschool. (ofcourse, this particular component didn't exist when I went to highschool, but my prof did explain that there was a hole where a component should exist but didn't) -- thermal, electrical and mechanical systems have equivalent basic components, which allows you to model a mechanical system using electrical components and vice versa. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mmm-memrister. Not used and not likely to be used. --Selket ^Talk 07:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I notice that this template includes Capacitor and Memristor, neither of which are included in {{Electronic component}}. Thus it is not fully redundant to that template. These are the electronic components which have only two leads (and no other inputs) and act in a "passive" way. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added them to that template which fixes the redundancy issue. Your definition of criteria for inclusion on this template is flawed. There are many more passive 2-poles such as tuned circuits (built as a single component in a tin can and helical resonator is a single component). Even diode fits your criteria as strictly speaking it is passive, even though it is non-linear. SpinningSpark 08:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and how could anyone have failed to include capacitor when that template was created. Only the most common electronic component ever. SpinningSpark 10:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

fundamental passive elements: (NATURE abstract) -- (it doesn't mention "conductor", but should) 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The fourth element (p42)" also shows this (and also lacks "conductor"). 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And last month's American Scientist also shows the basic elements being resistor, capacitor, inductor and memristor... 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no point keeping an unused template, especially one as misguided as this is. Element does not equate to component. The elements are abstract constructs used as the building blocks of network analysis and describe a property. The entries should be resistance, capacitance, inductance etc. Components (resistors, capacitors, inductors) are often designed to have mostly one element but in reality possess all of them to some extent. The inclusion of memristor is also misguided, and not only because of the component/element thing. The term basic elements should be taken to mean those elements that are required for linear network analysis. Memristance only becomes differentiated from the basic elements, and has any meaning, in a non-linear network. {{Network analysis navigation}} is also available and includes the elements. SpinningSpark 08:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -> Delete. Who (talk) 11:00, 4 March 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:Family Matters

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) 03:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Matters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unnecessary. Four of the five named character articles are redirects to the same character list. The four actual articles are linked through the show's article and each other. Lafe Smith (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With its redirects and links to information which is readily accessible without the navbox, there's just not enough usage of this template for it to be kept. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:19, 6 March 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:Launching

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 (non-admin closure) —Gƒoley Four— 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Affected templates

Template:Launching/Proton (Khrunichev) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Launching/Core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete, in accordance with WP:DFUTURE. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this is a current event template not a future event template. DFUTURE does not apply. This was discussed when DFUTURE was initially implemented. --G W… 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, my rationale is: in accordance with WP:CET, it should only be placed on pages which are edited at a great rate, and the use has become depreciated with its too often use. 117Avenue (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; predicting which pages will or will not be "edited at a great rate" is hard to determine in advance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, WP:CET does not say anything remotely similar to "should only be placed on pages which are edited at a great rate"; that is the intention of that notice but it is not a rationale for removing this template. Second, this template is used as a notice that an event is scheduled to occur, which does not violate DFUTURE because it does not label the information as speculative, nor is it redundant to CET because the information may not change rapidly, but does bring notice to the event. I see no issue with this template. It is localized to spaceflight articles and does not pose a risk of overuse, as was the rationale for DFUTURE. This is a non-issue. --Xession (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an even bigger problem here, per this discussion it seems the proposer has had these templates added to the checklist of a bot that deletes templates from what it considers "stale" articles. It has just removed the Current Spaceflight templates from a number of articles all of which are still current events. Am I the only one who finds a problem with the stated bot objective? It is effectively enforcing a guideline that doesn't exist...and that's supposed to be non-controversial? ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you certainly aren't. I think the use of bots for almost any task on Wikipedia is potentially problematic, detrimental when they are commanded to delete items, and potentially devastating when they are deleting templates that are in use. Wikipedia is for human consumption and as such, should be a product of human creativity, ingenuity, and thoughtfulness. Asking a computer to consider what should and should not be important is like asking a brick to care if you live (dramatization).--Xession (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the template contained a feature that allowed it to be easily transcluded into the correct articles without the need to make large numbers of edits. The bot has just taken a sledgehammer approach, and removed every single instance where this has been applied. Am I right in thinking that the mass removal of templates listed at TfD is considered disruptive editing? --G W… 07:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems clearly disruptive to me, especially while this discussion was occurring. I've since undone the damage. GW, I didn't take the time to review which pages should remove the template. Those will need to be redone unfortunately, but at a less impact than the bot surely. I cannot express enough that the usage of bots to remove material prior to discussion is nothing but disruptive and can truly be detrimental. --Xession (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Oh and for the record, Speedy keep: rationale clearly invalid. ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Invalid rationale, plus I don't want to see a useful template like this deleted just because a bot suggested it. Colds7ream (talk) 08:08, 3 March 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:Current spaceflight

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current spaceflight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Current spaceflight with Template:Current.
Serves no additional purpose. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template was intended to provide WikiProject-specific handling like many of the other subject-specific temporal templates. Time has diluted this somewhat, but that is nothing that cannot be resolved by simply editing the template. Deletion argument sounds like WP:USELESS. --G W… 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other subject-specific temporal templates? This is the only one. 117Avenue (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current disaster, current sports event, etc. There used to be a lot more, the numbers seem to have decreased somewhat, but the point still stands. --G W… 00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't place the article in Category:Current events like the others. 117Avenue (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...why not? Keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems related to this CfD, regarding the deleted Category:Current spaceflights; notice that Category:Current events is currently populated almost solely by spaceflights. Mlm42 (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not our problem, there's nothing there that shouldn't be. ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would point out that most of the people involved in the use of this template were opposed to that CfD, and I for one would have absolutely no objection to bringing back the separate category. --G W… 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a template is useless and has no scope for future use is indeed a valid argument for deleting templates, as items in template space are only necessary if they are in fact useful for some purpose. However, this template appears to be useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are next to no other Wikiproject-specific current event templates left. Actually, Template:Current sport is the only one that's still being used. That's it. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the templates are intended to serve to help users improve the articles, rather than as disclaimers, it seems logical that they should include information on the projects and policies related to that subject. The lack of similar templates is in of itself not a valid reason to delete. --G W… 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, I was just refuting your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. :) And as I said below, a parameter on Template:Current would solve this just as easily. Considering there's not exactly a lot of news-worthy space flights out there at any one point, it makes sense to me to merge the two extremely similar templates. --Conti|✉ 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is useful beyond T:CET where long spaceflights may be occurring. The use of WP:CET is intended for short durations where a great many editors may be adding new and potentially incorrect information; it is much more of a warning. T:Spaceflight is otherwise used for displaying a notice that information may be out of date because the event is ongoing. This is not the same intent as CET and should be used in different circumstances.--Xession (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why does Template:Current spaceflight say that "it should not usually be displayed for more than a few days, unless the mission is still generating news, or details are still rapidly changing"? And if that's incorrect, what on earth is the template trying to tell our readers? That "information may be out of date because the event is ongoing", as you say? Information may be out of date before the mission started, too. Information may be out of date after the mission ended, too. Information may always be out of date, because that's the very nature of a manually updated Wiki. There is a reason almost all current event templates were deleted, because they all gave this silly, blatantly obvious warning. --Conti|✉ 15:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a non-issue. I see no reason why this template should be merged with CET. Just because you prefer for it to not exist, or see no additional benefit, is not a rationale for deletion. --Xession (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Again, poor rationale. Can see no reason why it must be merged. ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful template, violates no policies, no reason to delete. Colds7ream (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of the above users explain to me why we need this template in addition to Template:Current? The different message can be achieved by using a parameter. --Conti|✉ 12:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify why it isn't needed? Nowhere is it mandated that WP:CET can be the only template used to bring notice to a current event. The documentation for Template:Current even lists several other templates that an editor may choose to use if preferred. This appears to be nothing more than an attempt at trying to find a problem that does not exist. --Xession (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's really not how it works. You don't use templates because you don't see a reason not to use them, you use them because there is a reason to use them in the first place. And I'm trying to figure that one out. :) --Conti|✉ 15:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the usage above. I am sorry if it and the provided documentation is still unclear to you. It still does not change that many here feel the usage is justified, necessary and warranted. --Xession (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you feel that way, but it would be even nicer if you could explain the usage of the template. :) As it stands, the templates guidelines are contradicting your explanation. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...it should not usually be displayed for more than a few days, unless the mission is still generating news, or details are still rapidly changing". The second portion of this line, as you quoted above indicates the usage for articles where manned spaceflights are ongoing. The usage is for such articles as those discussing flight teams on the ISS where information on the page may be changed if further information comes to light. This is the intent of the template, and is agreed upon by a statement in the guidelines you quoted. --Xession (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a significant difference between "rapidly changing" and "is an ongoing manned mission". When details are changing rapidly, so do the articles (that, or we're talking about rapidly changing details that aren't noteworthy). So if an article hasn't been edited in days, that's a pretty clear indication that there are no rapid changes going on, no? Either way, that, too, is exactly what Template:Current is for, the only difference here seems to be the definition of "rapidly changing". --Conti|✉ 15:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is being very selective in reading the statement. Missions to the ISS do generate a fair amount of related news, as do Soyuz and Space Shuttle flights, and as such the template usage is justified by noting, "unless the mission is still generating news". --Xession (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what has been agreed upon for Template:Current, at least. If there are different standards for this template, it would be good to clearly state that to avoid confusion. I still don't see the "fair amount of related news", though. What fair amount of related news did Soyuz TMA-20 create recently, for instance? That article did not receive a content edit in months. That mission is clearly not still generating news (or at least none that are worth adding to the article). --Conti|✉ 16:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All very good reasons to keep stated above. However, if it seriously has to go, consider not just merging with Template:Current, but also using some creative wiki-programming to allow Template:Current to be multi-use based on parameters. That way it would it could be customized to be specific to several current topics. Who (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just what a merge would do, right? Otherwise it would be a redirect and not a merge. :) --Conti|✉ 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I was thinking, see the Current sandbox and testcases, I'd like to have some feedback. 117Avenue (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because templates can be merged is not a good argument, in itself, for merging. An additional parameter just to get back to the starting point of the original template is yet more markup complication for the uninitiated to have to learn. It also makes life difficult for the template users if they wish to diverge in any way from the parent template. No one, as far as I can see, has stated a benefit to the encyclopedia or its readers of a template merge. If it is working fine as it is then leave it alone. SpinningSpark 16:23, 4 March 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.