Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 11

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) 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand outline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Based on the result of the discussion here, this template does nothing but add an article to a category. There are only about 25 pages that use this template. Decstop (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not even a real cleanup template anyway. Were it to be kept it should be turned into a proper cleanup ambox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overspecific. It doesn't even put up an ambox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator, not sure why it was needed or why I made it. --Stefan ^talk 01:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Only adds a category, and doesn't create a banner (which defeats the purpose of it being a cleanup template). —mc10 (t/c) 02:45, 13 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkish Super League top scorers Assists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreferenced ranking, probably not official, there are no clear criteria for assist in football so various websites counts assists differently. Oleola (talk) 11:59, 11 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Asteroids Galaxy Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a useful template - only contains 3 links Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:24, 11 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolling Stone Greatest Artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template is of a non-notable list by Rolling Stone magazine and does not expand the understanding or relations of subjects in template

Delete The list is not notable (magazines of similar standing and Rolling Stone itself are always producing this sort of list) it adds nothing to the very large number of articles listed and is just template clutter.--SabreBD (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think there was an earlier discussion about the Rolling Stone 100 Greatest whatevers, and consensus was that it was more promotional for Rolling Stone than it was illuminating for the artist. This appears to be the same thing: another Rolling Stone list. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can we at least get rid of the ghastly red. --Merbabu (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted the links the creator had made to this template before seeing this. There would need to be a consensus that this template was a net positive and in the absence of such consensus we can safely delete. --John (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched for "Rolling Stone 100 Greatest" and it turned up Rolling Stone lists of guitarists and singers. I don't see how this is notable, even if it was turned into a list.Curb Chain (talk) 11:15, 11 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quran 2:62 (part 1) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Quran 2:62 (part 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Quran 2:62 (part 3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Quran 2:62 (part 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template that will only ever be used in one article defeats the purpose of a template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Koavf. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – superfluous templates that can be easily moved into the articles needed. —mc10 (t/c) 02:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Combined all of the individual Quran template sections into one. —mc10 (t/c) 02:53, 13 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BTCC 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BTCC 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BTCC 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PTR 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PTR 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PTR 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary (do we really need a navbox for the BTCC teams and drivers from 2006? By all means have them listed in

• Delete per nom.--Midgrid(talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The PTR templates additionally fail notability. --Falcadore (talk) 20:33, 12 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bernard Nathanson films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason for a template with only two films and no possibility of expansion (Nathanson is deceased) to exist. Navigation is taken care of by mentioning each film in the text and/or see-also of the article on the other, particularly since one is a "sequel" to the other. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:CLN does not specify a minimum number of links for a nav box, nor does it say anything about expansion. However it does state "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles." Well, this certainly qualifies under that requirment. Also, the nav box passes all 4 tests. Nav boxes are designed to be complimentary to other nav methods: the best articles utilize multiple nav options. There's no policy rationale for deletion. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template represents unneeded server calls when its contents are already (and so easily) described in the only three relevant articles: Bernard Nathanson, The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason. It is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unneeded server calls?" No such delete rationale. In fact that argument is against policy community consensus as outlined here Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. The template is still not needed. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance specifies that "it is not a policy or guideline", so the claim that the argument is against policy is unsupported. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right Nat. Not policy--it's community consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NAV: "They should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by 'See also' sections, or relevant {{main}} and {{see also}} links within the articles' sections." AV3000 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per AV3000. Just seems pointlessly silly to have, should be filed with List of all-midget musical westerns; good to have a source to cite there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my rule of five at
  WP:NENAN. Oh my God, a whopping TWO links! This obviously needs a huge blue box lest someone get lost! </sarcasm> Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – There serves no purpose to use a navbox with only two links; the links should already be easily navigated to via the article itself. —mc10 (t/c) 02:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NAV; only two links and no possibility of more down the line. There's already a heavy interlinking between the articles in question, so the additional linking from a template doesn't seem to add any value to the reader. The cynic in me thinks... no, never mind. Let's just say that I don't see the need for a navbox linking three articles which are already heavily interlinked. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 13 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 subst existing usages and delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All 731 templates in the category Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 9#Template:DNB_AA, which was closed on procedural grounds.

1. Many of these templates are used in one place only (the article List of contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography). They should be substituted into that article and subsequently deleted. As stated by R'n'B in the prior TFD, "This would also have the benefit of making the List article editable, which it effectively isn't now."
2. They are not suitable for use in article references, as they contain unneeded verbosity. The initials of the contributor are not necessary to have in each article citing the DNB, as it does not add information that helps a reference checker or interested reader find the given reference - one merely has to look up the DNB at the appropriate entry.
3. Indeed, the DNB citation template, {{Cite DNB}}, does not use, or mandate the use of, these templates.
4. There is currently a problem of ambiguity among the current templates, both in terms of two poeple signing with the same initials ({{DNB JTB}}) and ambiguous wikilinks ({{DNB RA}}). These problems would go away if plain wikilinks were used (although the links to dab pages would still have to be fixed on the list article).
5. A suggestion was made in the previous TFD by Rich Farmbrough: "[If] you want to remove the 'signing as' part feel free." This defeats the purpose of having the templates in the first place - it would be much clearer to use a plain wikilink rather than a template generating such a link.

These templates are not useful and not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Conversely many are used in more than one place, and that usage is increasing. The list of contributors is editable, maybe there are specific changes which would be non-trivial, however the present scheme provides data integrity.
2. "Unneeded verbosity", according to you, but interesting detail, helping to understand links between DNB articles, when people are working with a multitude of sources. Besides which the suggestion of mine hat you later dismiss under point 4 deals with that point, if it is anything but supernumery.
3. The precise advantage of the current system is that it allows both JTB to be clearly marked as ambiguous, and hence disambiguated to {{DNB JTB Black}} or {{DNB JTB Brown}}, and disambiguations to authors to be fixed in one place, rather than every reference to every single article they wrote.
4. A plain wikilink would not be a easy to use. It would mean chasing the initials on the DNB to the author name then finding the equivalent Wikipedia article and checking it is about the same person, then copying the article name, going back to the place you were coming from and making a link there with the necessary pipe tricks . No one is obliged to use the simpler method but it should be available.

Further there is no value in deleting these templates. They make life easier, for me at least, and deleting them does not do any good. There's no problem with name-space pollution, no disc space issues, no rendering time issues. I find it unfortunate that there seems to have been a "what can we delete" movement over the last six months or so, that does not seem to be based on any actually useful principles. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The "value in deleting these templates" would seem to be that every time an editor invents a new citation system it makes it more difficult for new users to add content. It's not obvious to me why simple text-substitution templates like these aren't being substituted. If they were substituted as a matter of course that would seem to help considerably here. Before that happened it would of course be worth addressing whether or not to strip off the "signing as" per the previous discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it makes anything harder for anyone. They can use cite book, cite web, cite DNB, plaintext, whatever they wish. If they are doing a lot of DNB work they might find this system saves them a lot of time. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. 700+ templates used by one editor for his convenience in script-generated poor quality articles. Take e.g.
  Fram (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The quality of the articles in which this template is used has nothing to do with whether the template itself should be kept. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both symptoms of the script-based creation of these articles, which should instead be created manually, to improve and check the quality. This user uses templates to facilitate his article creation script. Anything that can be done to stop him creating these articles in this fashion is welcome. It is not as if these templates are used by other people. 08:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Fram mentions (John Dunstall) is a good example of how the templates add superfluous information to the citation templates, as I mentioned in point 2 above. A plain wikilink suffices. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2011 (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) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or subst: added second option --JaGa^talk 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC) List of contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography links to 37 disambiguation pages, and I don't know how to fix them. Yes, I and all the other disambiguators could take the time to figure these templates out, but why? What value do these templates add? And is that value so great that it's OK the list is basically inaccessible to an ordinary user? --JaGa^talk 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Require subst: I have no problem with "convenience" templates that make it easier for editors to add standardized information to articles, but these should always be subst'ed so that other editors aren't forced to adopt the first editor's system. If Rich would just subst these templates, there would be no reason to consider deleting them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Using subst: would solve the problems I'm having. --JaGa^talk 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion does not address the presence of the initials, nor does it address the problem of ambiguity between names – two of the core complaints of the nomination. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested above that they could be substituted after stripping off the "signing as" parts from each of them. Would this work? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Stripping" the signing part from each one is not necessary. It can just be turned off in the core template. Sheesh! What kind of template writer do you think I am? Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The precise advantage of the current system is that it allows both JTB to be clearly marked as ambiguous, and hence disambiguated to {{DNB JTB Black}} or {{DNB JTB Brown}}, and disambiguations to (or moves of) authors to be fixed in one place, rather than every reference to every single article they wrote. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep for the reasons outlined above. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• I have no opinion on deleting these, but articles created from the 1888 DNB should have a template at the top like {{
  talk) 09:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not uneful, unnecessary complicating.
  _talk 16:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Subst and delete. I have no opinion about the inclusion of the "signing as" initials or whether bot-generated articles are a good idea, but it appears that these are purely for the convenience of one editor, effectively making List of contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography his private demesnes. If he wants pages like this to facilitate bot-generation of articles, he should create them in userspace and subst them for output so that other editors can more easily work with the results. --RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete, or move to userspace and require substitution. This is unnecessarily complicated, but the author does find them useful, so userfy if he wants them. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Create a language for a small set of editors, pushes others away, not useful. - Nabla (talk) 22:42, 2 October 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.