Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

[edit]

Template:Google translation

[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. Consensus states that this while this template may be useful for references, that other translation services may be good to include. Discussion about this can continue on the template talk page. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google translation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template encourages people to put in machine translations, which are deprecated. Many end up at WP:PNT. While Wikipedia should encourage contributions, substandartd contributions from machine translations make the Wikipedia worse and require considerable, usually unrewarded, effort from multilingual speakers to put them straight. This should be deleted and salted, or at the very least, the list of language codes should be removed. If someone can't navigate to the list of language codes then they have no business attempting to insert a translation. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is valuable when citing references that are not available in English, and for providing useful ELs where no English equivalent is available. I agree that it should not be used in main text in the article body, but that's best handled with documentation. I'm not sure how the template encourages WP:PNT instances. Can you give an example? TJRC (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Keep per TJRC; Expand to cover all commonly used free online machine translation services (like Bing translate; or other popular ones from Machine_translation#Online_translator_links, etc) to not have bias concerning the source of the translation. This template can be used in discussions, where the source material (references, source passages, etc) is not in English, on such things as Talk Pages, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty good idea actually. The template language is, to me, pretty arcane and frustrating, but now that we have Lua modules, this sounds doable, and gives me an excuse to learn some Lua. I may give this a go, unless someone beats me to it. TJRC (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2015 (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:Simanta khataniar

[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 speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simanta khataniar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mistaken creation of user page as template? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2015 (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:Cleanup

[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 suggestion has been made that the template generate an error message if it is used without a reason. However, there is no way to determine every way in which an article can fail, therefore, discussion can continue on the template talk page. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously, the main problem with this template was that it was getting drive-by tagged without the tagger ever explaining what needed cleaning up. This seems to have been at least somewhat remedied by adding a "reason" field… and while people are at least bothering to fill in that field now, I'm still seeing rampant misuse.

A search of some recent transclusions (articles in ‪Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 201‬4)

I could go on and on, but the template's problems are still manifold. This template seems to fall under the same pitfalls as the deprecated {{wikify}} or {{expand}}, in that it's too broad in scope. Many in previous AFD's argued that WP:ITSUSEFUL which makes no sense. Most of the arguments in the last AFD in 2012 were suggesting that the "reason" field be made mandatory. But the samplings above show that, even if the "reason" field is used, there is always at least one other template that gives the exact same message.

In short, the template is way too broad and vague to serve a specific purpose anymore. 99.9% forms of cleanup have their own template, so there's no reason to shoehorn something like "this article needs copy editing" into this generic template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Having a single well-known template with a free-text "reason" parameter makes it easy for editors to tag articles, without sorting through a bewildering array of tags. It doesn't matter to me what the tag is, as long as it's tagged with something, so it gets noticed by cleanup editors and warns/apologizes to readers. -- Beland (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beland WP:NOTBURO, Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy, making all editors know every kind of cleanup template is bureaucratic. Instead editors versed in the cleanup message system can go through and replace cleanup as necessary with more specific templates, as editors already do with {{stub}} template trees. Further, expecting that all possible cases of cleanup are covered by some existing template is folly, there's no mathematical way anyone can prove such an assertion (a mathematically complete proof), since it would require knowing every single way an article can fail (one would have to prove there are no unknown unknowns, and no known unknowns). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the keepers on this. It appears redundant, except that no one of the other templates can tag for everything this one can. This template does tag a mess, but much of that mess would simply be left for someone else to tag, otherwise. I do think this template should prominently link to copyedit and other tags in its documentation to encourage better category sorting, but I'm unconvinced that this one should be deleted at this time. It's like {{db}}. —PC-XT+ 08:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: very important, or User:TenPoundHammer is doing vandalisms?--333-blue 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahaha, he's not a vandal, quite the opposite. He just thinks that editors should be required to use the more specific templates available, instead of this one. —PC-XT+ 10:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've been here years and spend a lot of time in areas that may result in a clean-up tag also being required (like Special:UncategorizedPages). I still find myself having to half-guess, half-remember the right template. I can't imagine how confusing it is for somebody new(ish). I also thing the unintended consequence would be for the wrong specific template to be applied or no template at all to be applied neither of which can be better than the current situation surely? QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per QuiteUnusual. Nothing wrong with the duplications given above, and it will help the people who don't remember the specific template. Yes, it's useful. WP:USEFUL is all about actual articles; when we're talking about a cleanup template, usefulness is the only thing we need to consider. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but turn "No cleanup reason has been specified" into an error message, since otherwise it is unclear what the tagger wants to be done to the article and the template is pointless. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 13:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important issue tag for seeking major edits on a messed up article. VandVictory (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while there's (usually) always a better (set of) template(s), this doesn't require everyone who wants to point out an improvement be familiar with the whole array of alternatives. Per Jc86035, generate an error message when no reason is provided.SBaker43 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As annoying as it may be that this template is often used without a specified reason, I agree with the others that this is incredibly helpful to avoid having to hunt for the right template. If there's no cleanup message specified, it should generate an error and not be visible on the page. AHeneen (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2015 (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:2015 WTA 125K series tournaments

[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 move to userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2015 WTA 125K series tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consists entirely of redlinks. At the very least a case of WP:TOOSOON. ...William 13:04, 8 January 2015 (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:Hamilton, Ontario City Councillors

[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamilton, Ontario City Councillors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. AFD last year upheld the consensus that Hamilton, Ontario is not a large or internationally prominent enough city to confer an automatic presumption of encyclopedic notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. The handful of minimally sourced articles that did exist about people who were notable only as Hamilton city councillors got deleted, and subsequently the few who did have more substantive claims of notability (a former federal MP and a former provincial MPP) were not reelected to the new council in last fall's municipal election — meaning that the only place the template can now be used is on the incumbent mayor. But with none of the councillors having their own separate articles, the only other links provided by the template are to Hamilton City Hall and Hamilton, Ontario City Council — both of which the body text of his article is (or should be) already linking to anyway. Delete; it can always be recreated in the future if circumstances ever change enough to make it useful again. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2015 (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:Florida Basketball Association

[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. Currently a speedy delete but even if the FBA article was re-established on Wikipedia, it would be a template linking to only two articles, which (per multiple precedents) would have no chance of surviving a TFD discussion. So this stays deleted unless and until there is enough content to justify links between related articles. BencherliteTalk 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Florida Basketball Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor-league basketball association, not notable enough for a template. The Wikipedia article about it, Florida Basketball Association, was deleted per an AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Basketball Association, then userfied to User:TheScottDL/Florida Basketball Association, where it hasn't been edited in weeks. Only one of the teams is notable (barely). MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the template has now been tagged for speedy deletion. [1] --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2015 (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:List of albums containing a hidden track Header

[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 as unused and undesirable Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of albums containing a hidden track Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created January 2014 and not being used. GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2015 (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:Hatnotes

[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, now that the multi-hatnote spacing issue spacing has been addressed in common.css Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems that the only benefit in using this template is that it shrinks the space in between multiple lines of hatnotes. Unlike similar templates like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, I don't see the helpfulness or usefulness of this template. I mean, one could basically remove all transclusions of this template, not counting the content in their qualifiers, and the functionality of those pages will not be affected. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is deleted, this title should redirect to {{hatnote}} -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep opinion withdrawn (see my cmt "Looks like the issue has been taken care of" ). First the nom mentions the formatting effect, ("it shrinks the space in between multiple lines of hatnotes"), then concludes that there is no need. Sure the functionality of the element hatnotes is not changed, that is what a stacker is expected (not) to do. Then, Zzyzx11 finds a replacement for a simple situation (same hatnote variant used twice), writing "There is usually ...". So I am not convinced. Altogether, the proposal is based on the presumption that hatnotes can not or may not be handled stacked. But I found no argument for that. iow, a stacking hatnote template does have it s place. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When I went through the list of its tranclusions, that was the only page in which it was used. It's hard for me to support a template that appears to have been barely used in the three months since it was created, despite being listed on Template:Hatnote templates documentation. Furthermore, a complex situation can always fit into {{hatnote}} as a last resort so it is formatted into a short paragraph. We should not encourage editors to add long lists of hatnote templates, increasing unnecessary vertical space at the top of the page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three months only? That's still new. Of course you won't find much uses: people like you are removing them. Sort of self-serving proof. Then, the number of hatnotes is not limited by the number, but by the actual need. And even two hatnotes are a list. This does not conclude in any way that hatnotes can not or may not be stacked. And I do not see why a complex hatnote situation should be & must be handcoded in a single one, just to evade stacking or listing. That is making things complicated for the editor. Even your 'simple' merge into one {{Redirect2}} requires studying the documentation to get the params right. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we actually deerly need a format for stacking hatnotes. As a hatnote list shows now, there is no or little visual support for being a list. A second hatnote starts a new line, but a linewrap reading, misleading, can occur. -DePiep (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where from? From the statement you just threw out. Two or more hatnotes is a listing (as opposed to eg prose, poetry, image, ...): a list of hatnotes. How to treat that list is secondary here; but I already gave points. -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DePiep: Are you sure? I just reviewed the changes made by Edokter on commons.css by looking at the hatnotes on Halo: Combat Evolved, and noticed that "...the extra space" that "is needed only to separate from article text (lede)" no longer exists either. It seems that one concern has been resolved (space between separate hatnotes removed), but at the expense of causing another (space between hatnotes and article lead also removed). (After I noticed this, I retracted a couple of my most recent edits to this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not sure, because I did not check or testcase the changes EDokter announced below. I assume EDokter respondend & edited to SMcCandlish (who echoed my keep-reasonings). At least EDokter edited towards my remarks (without acknowledging that as such). Given that the pre-lede whitespace is a concern by EDokter themselves, I assume he knew what he does. What is you position now? DO we have an alternative solution? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: As you stated above, the concern I stated seems to have ended up being caused by the editor who didn't want it to happen. Also, since it seems that the effect of this template has now been applied site-wide ... I'm now rather neutral in regards to this whole discussion, but I guess the template can now be deleted as it is truly redundant now due to the commons.css updates. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All moot then. I withdrew (struck) my !vote, so the conclusions must do without me. I did not !change into a delete, because I could not or did not research the new stuff. Don't think I'm blocking any conclusion here. (I confusingly read your post re me here as a keep? idea). btw I made crude demo's here. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The space between the hatnotes is partly my fault by adding a bottom margin (in Common.css) to prevent hatnotes being glued to the article content. This template seeks to remove those spaces, but does so way too aggressivly, causing the hatnotes to overlap eachother (which was my primary reason to remove its uses). As such, I see absolutely no usefull purpose for this template. I also find the default spacing to have a positive effect on legibility... Why does it need to be so cramped in the first place? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's just improvements, so should be at Template talk or in live template edits, not TfD. Meanwhile you give an argument to use a stacking format: the extra space is needed only to separate from article text (lede). A stacking formatter then to remove inter-hatnote whitespace. -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and fix the trivial spacing problem has been fixed, obviously. Edokter's complaint is was a template talk matter, not a TfD issue (to the extent it may be valid at all – I cannot duplicate this problem, in 5 browsers on 2 OSes). Nom provides no actual deletion rationale, only observes the intended behaviour of the template (to shrink space between successive hatnotes). "Rationale" seems to be that removal of the template would not affect page functionality, but the template was never intended to affect any functionality, only spacing of displayed output, so this isn't a rationale at all. Zzyzx11's comment is predicated on "usually", which does not cover all cases, and their partial solution is dependent upon everyone always taking the time to craftily figure out how to use exactly the right hatnote to cover the multiple purposes of the hatnotes being added, which simply isn't going to happen, and usually isn't even possible with our existing hatnote templates. The example they provide is cleanup that needed to be performed whether this template existed or not, and has no relevance to this TfD, as the template is intended for use only when there are multiple hatnotes of different types, which cannot easily be combined, or combined at all. See, e.g., usage at Andorra. Finally, Frietjes provides no attempt at a rationale at all, just an meaningless vote. The closest thing to any sort of rationale here is that the template isn't used much. However: A) That's simply because no one's taken the time to deploy it much (I could easily find hundreds, thousands of pages to use it on in no time, if that were one of my editing priorities – just cross-reference the transclusion lists of the page-top hatnote templates, and every page with two or more different ones can use this template). B) The same "delete" !voter is self-admittedly removing the template from pages on which they've found it, and linking to examples of them doing so, which is WP:FAITACCOMPLI.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Update: I've adjusted the CSS spacing to moot Edokter's concern (though again, I couldn't actually replicate the problem, which may have been due to user-side CSS). I also have to observe that the TfD notice was not noincluded, which probably caused various editors to remove it from articles in which the template was properly deployed, because it was "spamming" the top of articles with TfD notices, about which our readers will not care at best and will be confused at worst.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has normalized the spacing. I have no user CSS that would impact hatnotes. I still think the template is solving a non existing problem. One that is fixable using CSS alone. But I would have to know if the dablink and rellink classnames are still in active use. If not, they can be removed and the hatnote CSS would be much easier to ammend to address the spacing issue. That would make this template completely redundant. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you mean, but the template is doing nothing but "CSS alone". The problem does exist: We want to space the hatnotes away from the article content, but it's a waste of space and weird-looking to space the hatnotes apart from each other, as if each were its own different section of material, when they're all the same thing and should be grouped. I don't particularly care how that problem is eventually solved, but for now this template solves that problem. The fact that you may at some point have an alternative solution doesn't salvage this rationale-free TfD.  :-) When your alternative solution is tested and works, then maybe this template should be revisited at TfD. We're not there yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rule now? -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
div.hatnote + div.hatnote {
    margin-top: -0.5em;
}
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 15 January 2015 (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/2015_January_8&oldid=646193963"