Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 25

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) 05:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Never-Activated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is very good faith, but doesn't quite represent the bot approval process correctly. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:03, 25 August 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.

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 keep. Purely disruptive nomination. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:McDonald's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On May 25, 2011, McDonald's decided to close all its US restaurants by the end of 2014 to match the ending of Oprah Winfrey's 25-year old talk show because the fast food chain said it will retire just like Oprah did with her talk show back on May 25. AChicInTheLife (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep — even if that reason was true (and it's not), it most certainly does not constitute a reason to delete a template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, part of pattern of similarly disruptive edits by nominator. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 25 August 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.

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) 01:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Related category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Merge with Template:Category see also. They both accomplish the same thing, except the nominated template can only take one parameter. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, no need to delete this template. Current uses won't need any further editing beyond that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've just had a look at
  Template:Related category is simpler and easier for the average editor to use, precisely because it was created for one very specific purpose and therefore doesn't entail sorting through an array of parameters. (Full disclosure: I am the template's creator.) Cgingold (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If we can merge that easy functionality too, that would be nice. -- Guess what, I think it can be done (see my !vote below). -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Template:Category see also (easily & correctly by Redirect) . Text should de like See also. Two templates with one effect is useless. Even worse: a user editor might not find the best one to use (as happened to me last week). When a very labourous, specialist documentation is needed: that is not helping the editor. As far as I can see, it could be a simple redirect to Template:Category see also, because only param#1 is present (and self-pointing "PAGENAME" is trivial if not wrong). Two uses to show they lead to the same:

{{Category see also|Example}} →

See also: Category:Example

{{

Related category|Example}} →

See also: Category:Example

-DePiep (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment: There's another issue that has been ignored thus far -- the wording of the hat note. There is, in fact, a not insignificant semantic difference between these 2 templates. "See also category X" can be used for any reason an editor wishes; whereas "See also the related category" is used only when 2 categories are understood to be closely related -- but horizontally rather than vertically, as explained on the documentation page. Is the wording of
  Template:Related category? And if so, is somebody going to comb thru all of the categories where "See also" has been used to verify that they meet the new stricter standard? Cgingold (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The nomination is to keep {{Category see also}} so no maintenance would be required. I don't think it's necessary to have hatnotes for different degrees of relatedness. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the factual wording says the word related only means as specified by Cgingold here. It is not documented as such, nor is it pursued in usage. It may be someones perception or intention, but that is not enough. Even worse: the word "related" is a

tautology here. By using a "See also..." hatnote, the categories are related by definition. That is what the editor intends to say! When would one use "See also the unrelated topic..."? So, the word can be omitted without loosing any information. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 3 September 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.

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 to {{

Template:Contrast2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge with

Support - No opposition. Greg Bard (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into {{

contrast}} indeed. Needs a good sweep then, not just pulling the rug. -DePiep (talk) 01:52, 26 August 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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

redundant with Template:Infobox school, should be merged IMO - even the coding is better for Infobox school (less bulky, etc.) – Connormah (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Infobox education in Canada is currently transcluded to 1,501 articles, so outright deletion is not a feasible answer. Some sort of conversion would be required. PKT(alk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is templates for discussion, not deletion - merging is what I've proposed. – Connormah (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed it for you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. Thanks.. – Connormah (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Canadian education system has unique components only available through this template, such as funding type. - Jmajeremy (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always add more fields to Infobox school... – Connormah (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are we going to merge all "Education in ..." templates into "schools"? There are numerous ones for different countries/regions? Seems pointless to merge this one but keep all the others.--
  UnQuébécois (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Most of them have already been merged. There would need to be a very good reason not to merge (for instance, {{
    infobox yeshiva}} will not be merged, because it's about a fundamentally different type pf school). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose, As pointed out by UnQuébécois, is the merge going to apply to all of the other "Education in ..." templates? If so, and there are unique fields in each of these Infoboxes, the number of fields in Infobox school would become unwieldy. 65.94.58.20 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 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.