Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 5: Difference between revisions

I think the idea was a good faith attempt at improvement but the structure is too convoluted for the average user to follow and is of only small benefit. 1975 Cricket World Cup squads and 1979 Cricket World Cup squads should revert back to simple tables. –Moondyne 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is probably a more efficient manner of doing things, once established - but it is not the way the Wikipedia works, or should work. Editing should be intuitive. I have enough problems trying to edit succession boxes and rail templates without expanding the concept too much further. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Moondyne delete the subpages and the other 3 templates as well. Mhiji (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Guys - I strongly request not to delete this. I accept that it is a bit complex structure, but I can look to simplify that. The idea was to store static information about crickets in a single place and then transclude that using the Templates to show where ever needed. Practically every cricket tournament has either a section or linked page that contains the squad of the teams that took part and as someone who has been looking at it, there are multiple cases of this information being different in different pages.
  I took the idea for this from the way one of the more established templates Template:Infobox Election uses for the party color & party short name.
  If the problem is only the complexity, then perhaps I can discuss with you experts on how this can be simplified and I will make sure I change all of them. This is a passionate request...
  Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basing it on a similar style to Country data (e.g. Template:Country data Australia) would be a little better as at least all the data for one person would be in one template. Not sure if date of birth needs ot be in every cricket squad article though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really see why they are necessary or useful. I don't think its sensible basing the approach on the way Template:Infobox election works as there are a relatively small number of parties, but there are hundreds of professional cricket players. This would mean creating a new template every time a new cricket player is involved in a tournament (and if the approach was used for other sports, every time a new sports person enters any tournament - literally thousands of templates). I suppose it would make sense to have a centralised record of player details if they would change over time and thus would need updating regularly (so that all the articles would not need to be updated separately) but these details are very unlikely to change so it seems unnecessary. Also I agree with WOSlinker, the player's date of birth doesn't need to be there. Although this would mean having to change every one of the templates separately... This is also a flaw with the method as any changes would need to be made to every template separately. Actually, thinking about it I'm not sure the other details need to be there either. If a reader wants to find out more information about a player (such as whether they are right- or left-handed or their bowling style) then they will click on the link to the relevant player article anyway. Also, any major changes like this should really be proposed at WT:CRIC first. Mhiji (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was something I found interesting when I first started using Wikipedia to browse through the World Cup history etc. The World Cups used to have this data manually populated. I was simply trying to centralise it so that it doesn't need to be manually entered in every tournament and a change in single place would change it everywhere. Also, in the current design, if the dob needs to be removed from all pages, it only needs to be removed from the 3 main templates.
      Anyway, I accept your point about the number of players and recognise that this could end up mushrooming into a very large number if used as a precedent for other sports. In that regard, I accept that this approach is not that great.
      Thanks for the link to WT:CRIC - I tried looking for a place to bounce my idea off, but couldn't really find the right place (I was looking more at the Template-related projects rather than Cricket specific projects). Anyway, thanks for responding to me in much detail.
      Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SA

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There must be hundreds of hamlets in Suffolk, putting them all into one template would be unweildy and not at all useful Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. --Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary duplication already included in multiple infoboxes that are in each of the articles see {{Boxford}} {{Edwardstone}} {{Round Maple}} Gnan garra 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are hundreds of hamlets in Norfolk and I see no use in putting them all in one template. This current one is far from complete. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. An English county or administraztive area could have thousands of hamlets.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of cleaning up the category sort in articles transcluding this template, I found it easier to just orphan by substitution, since it automatically adds a cat, and it was otherwise impossible to sort the cats. Given that it was only transcluded on about 5 articles, and didn't really save any typing, I felt this was uncontroversial. It was also a bit inflexible, in that it could not be merged with other neighboring succession templates due its transclusion of the {{s-start}} and {{s-end}} templates. Hence, I now present this template for deletion. If my orphaning of this template is controversial, I am happy to revert these edits. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wooden Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically hard coded versions of {{succession box}} which are orphaned and haven't had any significant edits since 2006. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governor box

Template:Governor box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An interesting idea, to create a succession box for governors which will automatically create the link to [[List of governors of STATE|governor of STATE]] based on some pagesize logic. However, in the end, I don't think it saves much over using {{succession box}}. It was only being used on two articles, George W. Bush and Ann Richards, where I replaced it with the more generic box. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I initially had patterned it after Template:U.S. Senator box, Template:USRepSuccessionBox. ―cobaltcigs 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it should be renamed to {{US governor box}} per the US Senator box, as there are governors outside the US as well. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sockblock

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

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

Propose merging Template:Sockblock with Template:SockBlock.
Duplication. ~~Template:SockBlock has only 1 transclusion anyway. Should be substituted and then deleted.~~ Sorry realised its a substituted template. The only difference is one has the word temporary and one has the word indefinitely. Perhaps a parameter could be added if its needed to switch between the two. If not merged, one should be renamed. Mhiji (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:SPI notified per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Template:SockmasterProven. --Bsherr (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPNI

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

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

Propose merging Template:IPNI with Template:Ipni.
Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Ipni}} as duplication. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RomanCentury

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

"18^th century" etc. is not the recommended style for centuries (see WP:MOS#Longer_periods). The template is not used anymore, and even if it would give MoS-friendly output ("18th century"), {{RomanCentury|18}} requires more keystrokes than simply "18th century". Markussep ^Talk 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete per ~~T2 and~~ WP:MOS#Longer_periods. Mhiji (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is useless and (thus) unused. But it is not a T2 candidate, because it does not "blatantly misrepresent" any policy. Thparkth (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game engines

Template:Video game engines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is essentially a template that lists the articles in the category. In my opinion, they are not linked closely enough that they should have a nav template between them - but if they do, WP:NAV suggests using the self-populating {{otherarticles}} template instead. I think that is a better fit here. Addionne (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a copy of the category, but a list of distinction between FOSS and non-FOSS software, as plenty of other FOSS/non-FOSS aggregation templates exist for other software classifications. --Toussaint (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing

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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything besides a couple user and Wikipedia space pages and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (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:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons

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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (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:WikiProject U.S. state capitols

Template:WikiProject U.S. state capitols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. After discussing on the WPUS talk page it was agreed this project was dead and no longer needed. I initially just redirected it but it might be better just to delete it. Kumioko (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't this get deleted at MFD? 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is a WikiProject banner template for use on talk pages, not the actual WikiProject, so should be listed here. Mhiji (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Mhiji (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no reason to purge the history of the template, as the project may eventually be revived. Project pages and templates are rarely deleted. Redirection is preferable. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 ***Basing it on a similar style to Country data (e.g. [[Template:Country data Australia]]) would be a little better as at least all the data for one person would be in one template. Not sure if date of birth needs ot be in every cricket squad article though. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 ***I don't really see why they are necessary or useful. I don't think its sensible basing the approach on the way [[Template:Infobox election]] works as there are a relatively small number of parties, but there are hundreds of professional cricket players. This would mean creating a new template every time a new cricket player is involved in a tournament (and if the approach was used for other sports, every time a new sports person enters any tournament - literally thousands of templates). I suppose it would make sense to have a centralised record of player details if they would change over time and thus would need updating regularly (so that all the articles would not need to be updated separately) but these details are very unlikely to change so it seems unnecessary. Also I agree with WOSlinker, the player's date of birth doesn't need to be there. Although this would mean having to change every one of the templates separately... This is also a flaw with the method as any changes would need to be made to every template separately. Actually, thinking about it I'm not sure the other details need to be there either. If a reader wants to find out more information about a player (such as whether they are right- or left-handed or their bowling style) then they will click on the link to the relevant player article anyway. Also, any major changes like this should really be proposed at [[WT:CRIC]] first. [[User:Mhiji|Mhiji]] ([[User talk:Mhiji|talk]]) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+****It was something I found interesting when I first started using Wikipedia to browse through the World Cup history etc. The World Cups used to have this data manually populated. I was simply trying to centralise it so that it doesn't need to be manually entered in every tournament and a change in single place would change it everywhere. Also, in the current design, if the dob needs to be removed from all pages, it only needs to be removed from the 3 main templates.<br />Anyway, I accept your point about the number of players and recognise that this could end up mushrooming into a very large number if used as a precedent for other sports. In that regard, I accept that this approach is not that great.<br />Thanks for the link to [[WT:CRIC]] - I tried looking for a place to bounce my idea off, but couldn't really find the right place (I was looking more at the Template-related projects rather than Cricket specific projects). Anyway, thanks for responding to me in much detail.<br />[[User:Aditya.krishnan.82|Aditya.krishnan.82]] ([[User talk:Aditya.krishnan.82#top|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Aditya.krishnan.82|contribs]]) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:SA]] ====