Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

Template:Round in circles (2nd nomination)

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I thought consensus might have changed, and it did—just not the way I hoped. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round in circles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The previous TfD for this template was closed as no consensus, but it seemed to be leaning toward deletion. Five years on, I think it's worth revisiting. As discussed then, this template does little besides discourage discussion. It reminds me of the road signs I see periodically here in the US that say "Do not pass" in zones where double solid lines already indicate you can't pass. It's always a good idea to search talk pages to see if an issue has come up before. On the other hand, searching archives can be fairly difficult, especially if you're using search terms that will commonly occur outside of the issue you're investigating. The template's documentation says Template:FAQ can be used as an alternative to this one; I think it always should be. What good does it do a new editor to say "we've talked about some things before" when you can tell them what has been discussed? --BDD (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments raised in the previous discussion are still valid here: it doesn't discourage discussion and actually encourages new ideas. I don't see much harm in requesting that new editors to a page review previous discussions to see if their concern has already been addressed. While I'll agree with you that in many cases, recurrent concerns can be more adequately addressed by an article FAQ, you also seem to assume that there's a willing editor(s) that's able to write them, which can itself be a bit of a time-consuming thing. (Having helped write some myself, I can confirm it's occasionally a mess in terms of satisfying everyone.) Deleting this template would harm discussion on pages which do not have a FAQ and are not likely to have one in the near future. Also, "do not pass" road signs exist because some people wouldn't pay attention to the lines if the sign wasn't there, and sometimes being a bit redundant is the safer option. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No obvious reason for deletion AFAIAC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a drive to replace these templates with proper FAQs before it is deleted. While it is true that it is somewhat contradictory to our goal of participation, it is broadly accepted that we would like for talk pages not to endlessly debate the same issues. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to do legwork. Rather than outright deletion, we could mark it deprecated and work on replacing existing instances. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a futile attempt. First, it should not be deprecated. Second, it will require discussion to determine what would pass to be on a talk page's FAQ.Curb Chain (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd be happy with deprecation. That's progress towards what I think is generally agreed should be the right approach. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This template is good for new users. They are likely to go first to the articles about controversial topics, and edit or discuss the controversial information first. It is possible that the current wording of such an article is the result of long discussions between users who pointed the different POV, and managed to reach a compromise on how to describe things in a neutral manner... and the new user begins to change it to fit his own POV as an elephant in a glass shop. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2012 (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:Video rationale

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) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Non-free use rationale video cover (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Video rationale with Template:Non-free use rationale video cover.
Very similar, and not currently used on any articles. {{Video rationale}} allows up to 5 articles to be entered but I do not think this would be useful. It is also restricted to Infobox whereas the other one allows other purposes. It includes two extra sentences in the purpose statement for "infobox" (The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.) which could be merged. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (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:Téméraire class characteristics

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 after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Téméraire class characteristics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much in the spirit of the Charles F. Adams class nominations below, this template adds all characteristics relating to a class of ship to the infobox. Problematic for all the reasons discussed there, but also because while a degree of standardisation is expected today, in the age of sail there were dramatic differences ship to ship. Detailed measurements of ships taken by the Royal Navy survive, showing differences in tons burthen, length, breadth, etc between ships of the same class. So the Duquesne was actually measured at 182ft 2in long, while the Duguay-Trouin was 181ft 6in. Having a template introduce boilerplate text hides this. Benea (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the template, I agree with Benea that the template is not supposed to hide differences between individual ships. In particular, there were different subclasses of Téméraire class ships, which I am trying to take into account. I am all in favour of particular units not using the general template if specific values are known.

On the other hand, we should also think of what the differences between ships can mean. The dimensions of one particular ship could change over time due to dilatation of the timbers, replacement of parts, or even adjustments during building; do we consider that the "canonical" dimensions for the ship are those of the plans, those measured at launch, at refit?

The use of feet as a measurement unit is also problematic, as there were several different "feet" in use at the time; I think that this is one good reason to prefer metric units (besides the obvious idiosyncratic nature of the feet/inch system).

The Téméraire class amounts to over one hundred ships, so I think that it would make lots of sense to use a system where informations can be improved from a centralised location. The existence of a template does not make its use mendatory for special cases, and templates absolutely do allow flexibility anyway. Rama (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete boilerplate text -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete. This is an inappropriate use of templates. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (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:Drug

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) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a failed proposal from 2011 -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is a related template Template:Drug/83915-83-7 which is dependant on this one -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a failed proposal. The proposal was put on hold pending merger of the drug and chem info boxes. Boghog (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Drugbox}} - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:09, 14 July 2012 (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:Donut

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 moving to donut award. If someone still wants to delete it, then feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't cookies and barnstars supposed to be substituted? This looks like a weirdly formatted wikifriendship thing. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and easily confused with template:doughnut. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be an oddly-formatted barnstar. Fix the formatting, move it to Template:Donut award or something similar and hold on to it. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2012 (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:Dqm

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) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because placing disambiguation entries in templates like this can make the actual link unavailable to some of the editing tools used by editors who disambiguate incoming links to dab pages. This template's buddies, {{Di}} and {{Dqi}}, have already been deleted.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sound rationale. bd2412 T 05:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Currently a silly thing. By may replacing quotes "{{{1}}}" with italic markup {{{1}}} give a more viable presentation? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, that would just make it what the deleted {{Di}} was, and still unnecessary--more obstuctive (per my initial comment above) than helpful.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (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.