Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< April 17	April 19 >

1 April 18, 2006

[edit] April 18, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- Jedi6-(need help?) 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Otheruses4

Was deleted last year under the name Template:Otherusesabout (see log, which is filed under "not deleted" as it was redirected to otheruses1). Was deleted because it opens with "This article is about..." which is (or at least really should be) a repeat of the first line of the article, and so is redundant. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's very useful. What's the proposed alternative? If it's not broken … Frothy 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my previous comment: "Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)". James F. (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom —jiy (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This formulation of disambiguation notes has always grated with me. If it's not clear what the article's about from its opening words, it ought to be edited to make it clear, instead of introducing the article with this odd, redundant and self-referential style. The only thing worse than this is all the "Elections in" articles which begin with e.g., "Elections in Sweden gives information on election and election results in Sweden". This has already been through TfD once; let's get rid of it. — Trilobite 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, out of process nomination -- There are over 1,500 uses of this template! While I'm not a great fan of many of these templates, this one is used as an example for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and has not yet been deprecated at Wikipedia:Hatnotes. The Template:Otherusesabout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) log has no mention of this template (so the reference is incorrect). It grates on me that this was listed on the wrong day (April 12). --William Allen Simpson 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ACK, please use <noinclude>{{tfd}}</noinclude> in such cases, getting the Tfd note on guideline pages within examples is confusing. Admittedly there are quite a lot Disambiguation_and_redirection_templates, but a cleanup probably requires more than deleting this or that template of this zoo. -- Omniplex 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Conditional delete. I've always wondered why we needed a disambiguation template that began with "This article is about...". I've never liked it. However, I've been using this all along, simply because I never noticed the existence of {{For}}, because it was never mentioned on the list of disambiguation templates until three days ago (when it got added to {{Otheruses templates}}. (And come to think of it, 4 is unlike the rest of the "Otheruses" templates, since it does not point to "other" uses but only one use. And in light of that, articles like Anchorage, Alaska are misusing this template.) Given the sheer number of uses of 4, however, deletion is only useful if they are all replaced with For, or another template for misusages, first. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: {{for}} is not a substitute for this, IMO. If there are multiple alternative meanings and therefore the linked page is a disambig, {{for}} basically becomes {{otheruses}}, and the entire question here is basically whether {{otheruses}} should be used in preference to {{otheruses4}}. I agree that {{for}} is preferable when there's only one other page to link to, though, because that doesn't require the reader to read further down to figure out what "other uses" means. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And a comment: Otherusesabout had a similar format, but as I said above, 4 can point to a single "other use" - while about could only point to a diambiguation page. Also, I wouldn't say that all the delete votes there are due to concern for duplicating the article's lead sentence. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is like a kangaroo court. In "How to list templates for deletion", Step II has been taken, but Steps I and III have been blown off. Should I try to dignify these proceedings by voting now, or are we going to follow the WP:TFD page? If you read the section "What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD", the otheruses4 template should not even be proposed for deletion; if it is true that 'Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement', then the opposite should also be true, 'Comments such as "I don't like it," or "I don't find it useful" generally are not enough to nominate for Tfd'. As much as ed g2s might want to delete this template by any means, including quietly abandoning the discussion of this template on its talk page to sneak over here and quietly delete it, we should stick to the process. The bare minimum before any more discussion is: 1) put Tfd on the template 2) put tfdnotice on WP:D and WP:HAT (note that the latter is still "proposed" and not very visible to a lot of people who watch WP:D, which currently governs the use of hatnotes) 3) go read the talk page on the otheruses4 template to see whether a shred of good faith has been evident so far. Chris the speller 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep ~~as per nom.~~ --Domthedude001 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, the nom is delete... ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete though I have used it many times in the past (and I will look into 'correcting' my own edits if I can find them should the consensus be to delete). I think that {{For}} does a fine job without the redundant statement of what the article is about. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Apparently I need to point out once more that the Tfd process is not being followed, and that editors who care about the process should NOT continue to vote for or against this template, but should instead require adherence to the procedure. Leave a comment here, or, better yet, on User talk:ed g2s, as I did. Chris the speller 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Extend. This proposal is out of order, as no notice was placed on the template and no notice was posted on any relevant talk page that I saw. I've now put up various notices; I would suggest that the voting be extended several more days or restarted entirely. As for the issue itself, strong keep. It's atrocious style to refer to something that hasn't been said yet; using "other uses" to refer to something the reader hasn't yet read is unintuitive and annoying, and completely unnecessary. This is totally independent of the fact that not all articles have good introductions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep This comes before the summary, we need to contrast the two articles. We already have one for disambiguation pages that is a generic "other", but when it's just two pages this works well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylortbb (talk • contribs) 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC).
Keep unless it is thouroghly orphaned and substituted by an equivalent template. About that deleted because it opens with "This article is about" and that should be in the actual article, I think templates are there to avoid re-typing the same think ever and ever. Habbit 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is assumed that delete means orphan and delete, or delete in it's current state. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All templates are orphaned before deletion. In this particular case, it's redirection and not actual deletion that's being advocated, so the issue is moot in any case. (XFDs really should change their names, given that they generally consider moves, redirects, transwikis, etc. as well. It leads to a fair bit of confusion, especially if the starter is unclear as to what they want.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment, yes, I accidently left off the template, and this has just been bought to my attention. But for those who complained when they noticed a day and a half in and did nothing, is not the wiki process about fixing other peoples mistakes. Instead it is being used as an excuse to ignore the consensus being expressed here. I also agree that the nomination should be extended in light of the mistake. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note that contrary to what you suggest, no true consensus was being expressed prior to the correction of the problems with this TfD listing. If you don't put the TfD notice on the template and notify the community on talk pages, you can't argue that you have any kind of "consensus". The fact that the comments made after the notice was properly placed lean more toward "keep" than those made previously is not a coincidence. Different demographics...--Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. First of all, this template is not the same as Template:Otherusesabout, and so this TfD discussion should NOT claim that this template has been nominated for deletion before. That's misleading. Second of all, I am strongly in favor of placing the "This article is about" wording at the beginning of the hatnote. It seems counter-intuitive to me to force the reader to continue reading past the hatnote, then return to the hatnote to see if they want a different article instead. The other problem I have with removing "This article is about" is that it gives alternative uses pride of place in an article, when the article subject should have that distinction. Powers 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Repetition is bad. --Apoc2400 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Using this template doesn't always mean repetition. See Quantum leap for an example where the hatnote does not repeat what's in the lead. Powers 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Is it really a big enough deal to have to fix 1500 articles? It looks useful to me. -Jonathan D. Parshall 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep For the reasons above. Secos5 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I rather like the "repetition" (which usually concists of only about 1-5 words anyway) because as a non-native speaker I often look up words where I have no or little idea what their most basic use is, or whether there is more than one at all. Hence that disambiguation tells me right away if I am were I probably want to be, or not. Let's face it, the first paragraph is not exactly perfect everywhere, and why should a reader have to read through it when they might be in the wrong place anyway? Besides, who is going to change the 1500 articles, because obviously that has to be done before the template is to be deleted. -- 15:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Useful. Generally the intro will go into more detail (e.g. PAGENAME is a YEAR novel, written by AUTHOR. It deals with blah blah blah blah, and was nominated for X awards, winning Y.) than the template (e.g. This article is about the novel. For the film, see PAGENAME (film).). It's useful. Keep it. 82.83.18.17 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as it is the most useful of the otheruses tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep This debate is typical of a big problem I am seeing with editing. This really isn't that big of a deal that we need to fix 1500 articles. Our time could be better spent making real contributions to these articles.Estrose 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please realize, if the consensus is delete, the template will just be turned into a redirect to another template such as {{for}}. It would require approximately no effort, so this isn't a particularly good objection IMO. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep What is the alternative to this template? I don't think Template:Otheruses is reasonable because it implies a disambig page that is unnecessary in many cases. Being self-referential is not a problem if authors don't just mirror the first line of the article. I see no convincing argument to delete - gives authors more flexibility. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- {{for}} is basically this template without the controversial opening sentence. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing "controversial" about the opening phrase. The "for" template must be read in conjunction with the opening of the article, which is inefficient for the reader, especially if they have landed at a page they weren't looking for. Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This template is controversial. {{for}} is not. The only difference is this template's opening sentence. Ergo, it's the opening sentence that's controversial. That people such as you and I happen to like the first sentence, and believe the alternative to be inefficient or otherwise bad, is in fact one-half of the controversy, the other half being the people who don't like the first sentence. Yes? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. No sense in reducing the number of ways of phrasing a disambig. Certainly it's useful on Dianetics. --Calton | Talk 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is a very useful one and saves a lot of time. --Doco 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom (and User:Simetrical). This has always looked peculiar to me (as if the reader can't see what "this article" is about by reading its first line). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep- The real use of this template, IMO, is to provide a convient place at the top of the article to provide links to other pages with similar names. I think that its wording is clear and suscint.-Eluchil404 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Yes, many uses of this template are redundant to the first sentence of the article. But this is not always the case, such as when the "This article is about..." sentence provides useful and non-obvious information about, for instance, the scope of the article (as in "hydrogen", to quickly pick an example). No doubt there are articles that use this template when Template:For or something similar would do, but the proper remedy is to fix those articles (numerous though they may be), not to delete this template and take away its more legitimate and necessary uses. –Sommers ^(Talk) 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, very useful template used in 1500 articles. Gateman1997 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep this template in this instance. Deletion of this template is only appropriate as part of an overhaul of the entire otheruses system, I think. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep for many reasons:

Templates should only be proposed for deletion (according to WP:TFD) for 1 of 4 reasons:

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); It IS helpful
The template is redundant to another better-designed template; It is NOT redundant to another template
The template is not used; It IS used
The template isn't NPOV; It IS NPOV

The template was proposed for deletion because of a dislike for the first 4 words and some repetition (or condensation) of what is in the article; these are not valid reasons listed in WP:TFD.

The template is particularly useful for two articles about people who have similar names AND similar occupations; this usefulness may not be obvious to editors who generally disambiguate objects such as tap (for pouring beer) and tap (for threading holes), where a reader will need only the merest glance to know it is the wrong article. Most readers looking at a tap and die article know that there is also a tap for beer, but many readers looking at an article on one politician will be unaware of the existence of another politician with a similar name. The generally accepted context of identifying a person as a politician in the first sentence may not be enough to define the difference between the two, and a more specific description in the hatnote can help the reader.
Some articles are NOT well written, and the opening may not quickly provide enough information to help the reader decide if it is the right article. Some have made the argument that an editor who is helping with navigation and disambiguation should stop and rewrite the article. I reject this notion. The editor may have the skill, time and interest to disambiguate, but perhaps not to rewrite an article. Any contribution to Wikipedia should be welcome. Allowing a reader to get from a poorly-written article to the one that is sought is more important than avoiding "This article is about".
For articles about humans, the phrase "other uses" can be offensive, and at a minimum is downright cold. "This article is about" is not offensive. The otheruses template is an unacceptable subtitute on articles about people.
Although it would not be hard to find an article that has otheruses4 where another template would be preferred, that situation would be best handled case by case, either by editing the hatnote or by contacting the editor who inserted it. We don't melt down all 7 irons because one or two people use the club to smash windows; we correct the behavior.
(I expect to add more reasons when I get more time.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris the speller (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Strong Keep, this is practically a basic for Wikipedia. It does not repeat the introductory statement, it is even briefer, and for the sake of disambiguation. This keeps filesize down and does no harm. Deleting it would be a horrible mistake.KV 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; useful, widely-used, and it's helpful to have variant wordings for disambiguation to meet various situations. MCB 05:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Useful templates ought not to be deleted. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
DELETE The thing does nothing but cause a reader to have to work his way through information before he gets to read the article he came to the page for. It is dispersive to a reader's attention and contributes nothing to an article. It acts as a sort of Wikipedic "self-pat on the back", as in "Look, reader ! We have LOTS of ARTICLES for YOU !"Terryeo 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's useful. The repetition is really of no importance, and it is much clearer than {{for}}. I really see no reason to delete it. Maelin 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons my Maelin. There is use for this template, and there's no actual problem with the repetition. The use with many articles also is a concern, and so, what is the point of removing a template that's used widely on Wikipedia? --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - {{for}} is clearer, more concise, and easier to read. --Cornflake pirate 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if the article is well written. Maybe when WP is perfect, we can go back and get rid of "Otheruses4". Meanwhile, it serves the purpose of reader efficiency Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep MichelleG 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I think it's a matter of opinion, personally, I prefer this over {{for}}. I've never read it and thought "hey, this article repeats itself" until now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(That said, I just had occasion to use it, and I used {{For}} instead. My vote remains keep because I still don't see any pressing need for conformity, so I don't see why Wikipedians shouldn't use whichever they prefer.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep especially per Sommers' quite lucid explanation. This template is particularly useful when the titles of the articles alone do not fully explain the demarcation between the articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Maelin and Antaeus Feldspar. --Coat of Arms (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per Chris the speller, and Sommers, and KV. I find the other disambig templates are inadequate for many situations. "Otheruses4" is the most basic disambig concept and has the most flexibility (even if the 2nd parameter is occasionally repetitious). Slowmover 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I really don't see the problem with the with the short summary of the current article's content. The template makes it very clear the difference between the current article and other articles with similar names. joturn e r 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. This template is often useful when the distinction between the two subjects is unclear. An article may have a perfectly good introduction that could almost apply to either article topic. The otheruses4 template provides a clean way to clearly distinguish the topic of the article from the topic of the other article. For an example, see Crown glass (optics) and Crown glass (window). I also echo the comments above about distinguishing books from films, people from other people with the same name and similar backgrounds, and distinguishing articles that cover the same topic area with different scope. --Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. While I will grant that the "this article is about" part is redundant with the intro paragraph, I believe that this is acceptable for two reasons. For one, it boils down the topic of the article into (preferably) a few words, which means that the reader or editor need not go to the trouble of reading through the introduction. Secondly, it grammatically parallels the boilerplate text that reads "For such-and-such, see...".
,-~^R'lyehRising~-, 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per reasons stated: incredibly useful, not bothersome or incredibly redundant. -- Viewdrix 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The template summarises the article in a few words, which may not always be compatible with a well-written introduction that maintains a professional level of depth and avoids simplicism. McPhail 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is an appropriate, useful and well used template. Carl Kenner 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, redundant with optional parameters of Template:About. — Apr. 24, '06 [23:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
- Actually, the templates appear to be identical at the present time (I added some optional parameters to this too). So really, this TFD is for both, unless you think that an identical template shouldn't be covered under the same TFD automatically? In which case, I think you mean keep. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Actually, I would say "speedy redirect" except they handle the 3rd parameter differently (brackets vs. no-brackets). I really don't care which method is used, as long is it can be made more consistent. "Otheruses4" is not a very intuitive title, though. — Apr. 25, '06 [23:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Weak Delete per freakofnurture: I just tried this on Switcher and the {{About}} template seems a good replacement. However its a weak delete since we'd have to change 1500 occurrences. Gwernol 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, we'd just redirect this. No trouble at all. In fact, once that TFD notice goes away, I'm going to do some behind-the-scenes consolidation to make all these templates work in sync, cutting out the now-useless ones (with the help of an admin, since at least one is protected). Most of these were made before optional parameters existed; using those, we only really need one "other uses" template, not the fourteen-plus (!) we have now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it doesn't make sense to me to make the reader jump into the article to figure out whether the note is relevant to them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sommer's example of hydrogen perfectly illustrates a well written article that couldn't work with {{For}}. Nothing is harmed by keeping this variant since there's a place for it to fill. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. It is an awful template. Much better phrasing from other templates. —Pengo 07:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I say Keep. I use it a few times myself, mostly when differentiating between two different locations that have similar names. Would a reader know the difference between the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel without living along Chesapeake Bay? Similarly, the Robert Moses State Parkway and Robert Moses Causeway are similar-sounding but are in fact on opposite ends of New York State and would likely be unnoticed by readers who haven't lived in New York. The "about" serves to help a chance reader get his/her bearing without having to dig into the actual article. It's like a road sign. Saying the other use is one thing, but it's sometimes useless unless you know where you are currently located, especially if you are on unfamiliar ground. And it's certainly not worth a full disambiguation page for only two such locations. --WhosAsking 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This is very useful, and saves time for people expecting to see something else. Ccool2ax 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WhosAsking --G1076 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all previous keep reasons.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per all previous reasons for keeping it. Huangcjz 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per the above. PrettyMuchBryce 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Chris the Speller's bulleted list there is no reason to delete this template. A cleanup of hatnote templates probably is in order, but that needs to be systematic, discussed and agreed prior to depricating let alone deleting templates that are in widespread use. Thryduulf 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per the above. --Tisco 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep—doesn't hurt anybody, has a valid use, and deletion would cause logistical problems in over a thousand articles. --zenohockey 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Jolly useful on occasions. All the reasons for deleting it are "editor-y" reasons, not readers' reasons. It's not valid to complain that the reader has to "wade through it", as this would be equally true with {{for}} – and the hatnote formatting removes the problem anyway. JackyR 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If this nomination is out of order ..

If this nomination is out of order, then the admins who monitor and maintain the TFD process should remove it right away? If in fact it is not out of order, could those persons who keep harping on the matter just stop complaining and let the process run its course? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Now who's complaining and harping? Nobody has complained since the Tfd template was added to otheruses4 and Tfd notices were served on WP:D and WP:HAT. The large number of comments and votes that have showed up since the nominator patched up the holes in the process shows that the patching up was sorely needed. And the nominator's assertion that I (one who opposes the Tfd) should complete the nomination process is as preposterous as having a prosecutor ask the defense lawyer to make points for the prosecution that the prosecutor has forgotten to make. Chris the speller 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite my voting 'Delete', I am among those who believe that the nomination should have been removed from TFD altogether. As Simetrical notes below, though, the TFD process appears very often to be a train that once set on the tracks will run to the end of the line regardless of the cost or consequences. What both of you are pointing out by your comments is that, in fact, the TFD process lacks an 'interrupt'. Thank you for clarifying that. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You sensed my frustration. Thanks for putting it into words. Yes, it needs an emergency stop cord. Chris the speller 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer, Chris. It's unbecoming. Putting something up for community consideration is not the same as attempting a prosecution. Mistakes can be made, and if they are, fix them, don't try to get the process invalidated because of them. It's not going to happen, and you're just going to look bad. Wikipedians are generally not particularly legalistic.

As for the admins who monitor TFD, I would expect that most of them only look at the TFDs from the final day of voting, once that day is over. There wouldn't be much point in their looking at a TFD that they won't usually have to do anything about for several more days. Complaints about procedure and whatnot will likely be considered when this gets closed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. It's no longer possible to use a template at this title, except via a redirect, because a built-in variable of the exact same name exists, performs the exact same task, and can't be broken by user error. Nobody's going to notice the difference, much as one deletes an image because a duplicate with the same name exists on commons... nobody... bats... an... eyelid... — Apr. 19, '06 [02:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Template:TALKSPACE

Obsoleted _→AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: would be nice if nominator indicated what has obsoleted this template. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The nominator says: it has been implemented in mediawiki. _→AzaToth 21:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  - The commenter thanks the nominator for his reply. ;-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete per above. — Apr. 19, '06 [02:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Template:ARTICLESPACE

Obsoleted _→AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: would be nice if nominator indicated what has obsoleted this template. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The nominator says: it has been implemented in mediawiki. _→AzaToth 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Qif

see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif _→AzaToth 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:HHOF

Template:HHOF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This is a useless template. It was basically being used as a userbox, on articles about hockey players, to say they're in the hockey hall of fame. We don't need a bunch of boxes on articles telling everything about the person, that's what the article text is for. It makes articles look really bad. Additionally, the image that was used on it, was a fair use violation. I removed the image, and it's even more stupid now. Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 03:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - it looks like this template was made to mirror Template:MLB_HoF, which is used in quite a few articles. Should that template also be deleted? -Big Smooth 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Con D e m^Talk 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep. Also, remember that MoS, like all other style guidelines, is not strictly enforced. Please read the The Chicago Manual of Style quote on that page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FootnotesSmall

Template:FootnotesSmall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (.references), and the MoS (WP:MOS#Formatting issues): "Formatting issues such as font size [...] should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases" - the template contains a fixed font size reduction, too easy to apply where "special case" could not be invoked. —Francis Schonken 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

delete (nominator) --Francis Schonken 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Having a single template to define a common size is useful vs. having every article that wants to use a smaller font size define a separate size. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it is highly useful, and it's better to just have a standarized size if references are going to be shrunk. I've also read those links above, and I'm not convinced; most of the uses for shrunk references are near Featured articles, and I don't see any FA writer aware of this discussion (or of this template, BTW). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Tfd'ing this template is the wrong way to do it. I would propose to do it with CSS. But as there is no consensus to do that, it is better to move it into a template instead of having each article where the editors do want to have small references specifiying another small size. --Ligulem 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom. Should be defined in common.css. — ericg ✈ 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
keep. Templates are useful for often repeated text or formatting. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's in general a bad idea to force formatting such as relative font sizes on readers, so it's difficult to see that this should ever be used. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ifdef

Very strong delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Template:Ifdef (edit talk links history) is fully documented, uses the minimal code proposed in Help:Parameter default, and it works for weeks in several high use templates like {{tlx}}. Unlike #if: it works with MediaWiki 1.6, and is backtrackable. It doesn't depend on {{qif}} or Category:Templates using ParserFunctions, let alone {{esoteric}}. See also Template:Ifdef (edit talk links history) on Meta. -- Omniplex 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it works is irrelevant, it's a fork of {{qif}} and templates are (according to some) already complicated enough without adding Yet Another Way To Conditionally Do Something. MediaWiki compatibility is irrelevant; all Wikimedia sites run the latest/greatest (and as you note, it's on Meta so people running older versions of MediaWiki can get it there). About the only thing I dislike about #if is that it doesn't have any sort of Whatlinkshere-magic, and I've been thinking of requesting that. In any event, we have {{qif}} already and Whatlinkshere does work with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Several working ifdef-backlinks were removed meanwhile, see edit histories:

Template:Rejected (edit talk links history), dito: {{historical}}, {{essay}}, {{humorantipolicy}}, {{proposed}}, {{guideline}}, {{disputedpolicy}}, {{style-guideline}}, but not {{policy}} + {{ltsmeta}} (both changed before from Qif to #if:, not from ifdef to #if:). -- Omniplex 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You just added those today! There's no conspiracy here. OTOH, forking is evil, there was nothing wrong with {{qif}} (which you replaced with {{ifdef}}), nor is there anything wrong with #if (as part of m:ParserFunctions). {{ifdef}} is unnecessary; a solution in search of a problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I added them 2006-03-24 as visible in the edit history, reverted them after it didn't work as expected in two cases as documented on the ifdef and my talk pages, yesterday somebody found the explanation "= in templates" (as always, but I missed it). Meanwhile ifdef worked for weeks in several other templates.

After the "=" puzzle was solved I added it again where I removed it. Then you started your ifdef-vendetta, could you please focus on explaining the problems found with #if: before you replace working code with something that's far from stable or fully documented? It's also no Qif-fork, it works with two positional parameters, no "else", 23 characters surviving even "subst". -- Omniplex 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still a fork of {{qif}}. As you point out yourself, you removed the template on 03-24 before I had a chance to. Had you not removed them yourself, I would have then (as I have now since you began adding them back). Problems with #if are irrelevant as {{qif}} works fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Locke Cole. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. James F. (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Migrate all conditional templates to parser functions and delete. — Apr. 18, '06 [16:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Better wait until reported #if: oddities found a solution or explanation. That's a case where ifdef unlike #if: works as expected. -- Omniplex 17:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Keep and include in the disucssion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed from speedy to normal keep. This may be a fork, but it works and is heavily used. (N.B. I fully support migrating these to ParserFunctions, but even if so , this would break historical versions of pages it is transcluded in; and would want to hear that parserfucntions are stable and out of trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Locke Cole. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per LC --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per Locke Cole --Ligulem 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is basically QIF without the parameter names and split into separate 'then' and 'else' (ifndef) templates. I don't see why new templates using the old methodology are being created and 'actively spread' at this point. Basically you're introducing and promoting something that we know is going to shortly be removed... and which doesn't provide any 'new' capabilities or particularly notable efficiencies in the meantime. Thus seemingly a waste of everyone's time. That said, with the current 'must convert all instances of QIF' silliness going on converting these to QIF would inevitably result in them then being converted to #if:... which would not work correctly in all cases. Thus, I'm ok with leaving these around for now, but their days are definitely numbered. --CBDunkerson 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Yes,~~ reduced to the minimal Help:Parameter default recipe. I wrote it about three weeks ago before #if: was discussed, but there was still an open question (actually stupidity on my side) answered by Paddu, now documented. Maybe the #if: oddity has also a simple explanation. Both ifdef and ifndef are handy in comparisons with #if: and related discussions. The named parameters in {{qif}} are in relation rather verbose (that can be a feature). Really minimalistic code should use the mechanism itself instead of wrapper templates ifdef and ifndef. It took me some time to figure that out, see Template:Shortcut/ (edit talk links history). -- Omniplex 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Striking my dubious "yes", the un-substable Qif-part is the "else" / "ifndef", not the "then" / "ifdef". {{ifdef}} can be substituted. -- Omniplex 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)