Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:41, 27 January 2007

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

Template:Infobox Software2

Was a fork of Template:Infobox Software, with the intention of having the software versions on a different page so that the main page didn't need to be edited for each new release. While this template accomplishes that goal, it makes the method of editing the release number/date needlessly obscure, and creates a whole host of unnecessary pages (2 per instance). There's no real problem with minor edits to change the version number, anyway. --Mike Peel 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I don't understand. Innit pretty cool to not change the whole article just to update the version number? --Ysangkok 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coolness of it doesn't matter - the issue is that it's obscure and overcomplicated for people who don't know about the system to update the version number. It's also unnecessary: editing the whole article to change the version number is perfectly fine. Mike Peel 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguable advantages of the system implemented in this infobox extend significantly beyond just de-cluttering the edit history of the main page. For example, the "unnecessary" templates created can be used by several pages, such that one edit can update the version number and date in multiple articles. Such templates can be seen in several entries in the comparison of instant messaging clients page. As for the obscurity of the editing method, while it does tend to confuse editors, it's only because they have gotten accustomed to a certain way of working. Multi-transclusion is not unusual for templates; you could argue that the system employed by {{Nintendo hardware}} is also "needlessly obscure", with its use of {{CVG Navigation}}, and creation of subpage templates. But it allows for some standardization and flexibility not afforded by more accessible methods. In any case, it can be decided for each article on an individual basis which version is preferable. {{Infobox Software2}} is not perfect, but it has its advantages, and I believe it can be improved to address its deficiencies. In addition, deletion may be more trouble than it's worth. Without this template, all the numerous "latest preview release" and "latest stable release" templates will become ineffectual, and all uses of these templates will have to be replaced. Dancter 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first difference between this and the navigation templates is that this requires regular updating, which means that it is much more likely to be updated by people that aren't familiar with the system, whereas the navigation box will rarely be updated. The same applies for all of the cases of multiple inclusions that I have seen, and indeed the majority of single-inclusion template usage. Second, in general, I view templates as formatting and navigation tools - not somewhere to put content. Note that Wikipedia:Template namespace states "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
Finally, On the example page that you link to, only half a dozen entries use this system; the rest seem to get along fine without it. The same applies to the other cases that I can see. Mike Peel 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canar 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is clearly useful to some people--I won't repeat the arguments by Dancter. It will certainly not replace the original, but please keep it for those of us who want it. - Heptite (T) (C) (@) 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anaheim NHL

Replaced by {{NHL Team}}, only difference is size of logo px. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - over infobox-ification. NHL Team does fine. 64.178.98.65 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. Xiner (talk, email) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anthropocentric

I think the text is pretty self explanatory as to why it should be deleted. "This article does not express a biocentric view". At least it doesn't say "This article does not advance my bias. Please advance my bias". -Amark moo! 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't understand. Is the text of a template not supposed to be self-explanatory? O.K., the nomination has been rewritten now to clarify what was meant. —Ruakh_TALK 06:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Amarkov's trying to imply that a biocentric view is not necessarily a good thing in articles. --ais523 13:19, 26 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Amarkov has a point - it's not that biocentric POV is a bad thing, it's that, well, an encyclopedia written by humans, for humans, might, um, represent a human POV. Besides, notice, it's unused. 64.178.98.65 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should an IP be voting here? Xiner (talk, email) 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, not a vote. More to the point, the IP is right. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 64.178.98.65 Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sort of POV template. Nuke it. :O .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually think it might be nice for some articles on non-human-specific topics to focus less on the human-relevant aspects of those topics (well, maybe — without a specific example in front of me it's hard to judge), but this template implies that it's Wikipedia policy to avoid anthropocentrism, perhaps as part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and that's simply not the case. Indeed, so far as I know that's not even been discussed. —Ruakh_TALK 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dallas

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city.. MJCdetroit 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --MJCdetroit 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the idea behind it was to cut back on coding at the actual Dallas, Texas article.. where it is transcluded. I know that isn't common practice.. but it isn't strictly a "redirect," it's a double transclusion. drumguy8800 C T 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cutting down on coding is not a valid reason for single use templates. If you think it should be, discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, but as the policy stands, they're not allowed. -Amark moo! 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tons of articles have huge, unwieldy infoboxes. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salt Lake City infobox

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city. --MJCdetroit 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where do these single use templates come from? -Amark moo! 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :* The coolness of it doesn't matter - the issue is that it's obscure and overcomplicated for people who don't know about the system to update the version number. It's also unnecessary: editing the whole article to change the version number is perfectly fine. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - The arguable advantages of the system implemented in this infobox extend significantly beyond just de-cluttering the edit history of the main page. For example, the "unnecessary" templates created can be used by several pages, such that one edit can update the version number and date in multiple articles. Such templates can be seen in several entries in the [[:comparison of instant messaging clients#general information|comparison of instant messaging clients]] page. As for the obscurity of the editing method, while it does tend to confuse editors, it's only because they have gotten accustomed to a certain way of working. Multi-transclusion is not unusual for templates; you could argue that the system employed by {{tl|Nintendo hardware}} is also "needlessly obscure", with its use of {{tl|CVG Navigation}}, and creation of subpage templates. But it allows for some standardization and flexibility not afforded by more accessible methods. In any case, it can be decided for each article on an individual basis which version is preferable. {{tl|Infobox Software2}} is not perfect, but it has its advantages, and I believe it can be improved to address its deficiencies. In addition, deletion may be more trouble than it's worth. Without this template, all the [[:Special:Allpages/Template:Latest|numerous]] "latest preview release" and "latest stable release" templates will become ineffectual, and all uses of these templates will have to be replaced. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
+:* The first difference between this and the navigation templates is that this requires regular updating, which means that it is much more likely to be updated by people that aren't familiar with the system, whereas the navigation box will rarely be updated. The same applies for all of the cases of multiple inclusions that I have seen, and indeed the majority of single-inclusion template usage. Second, in general, I view templates as formatting and navigation tools - not somewhere to put content. Note that [[Wikipedia:Template namespace]] states "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
+:* Finally, On the example page that you link to, only half a dozen entries use this system; the rest seem to get along fine without it. The same applies to the other cases that I can see. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - [[User:Canar|Canar]] 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - The template is clearly useful to some people--I won't repeat the arguments by Dancter.  It will certainly not replace the original, but please keep it for those of us who want it. - [[User:Heptite|Heptite]] [[User talk:Heptite|<small>(T)</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Heptite|<small>(C)</small>]] [[Special:Emailuser/Heptite|<small>(@)</small>]] 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)