Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 20



April 20, 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 no consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:In-progress tvshow
Why do we need this template? It takes away the creditability of a lot of pages that are otherwise fine. If we are going to allow this, we should also have a template for living people articles saying something likes this: "This person has yet to live his/hers life. The article content might change if he/her does something."
 * Keep it I think we should keep it. dposse 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ---Maitch 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything that exists in the world is "in progress". A template for future TV shows is fine, but this one seems to imply that it's okay to add speculation and original research to articles just because they are about something that currently exists. Kafziel 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This template implies that the information might somehow be wrong, when it isn't in most cases. Everything on those pages is usually based on the current information given. That information usually isn't nullified in most cases. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some cases where information might become nullified, but it's still notable overall, and articles tend to be updated when it happens. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someguy0830, I know you are an active TV topic contributor, would you possibly care to help in cleaning up the by me mentioned situation (below) ? - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if Reworded The template is good. It tells us the show is in progress, which is good to know. However, it's saying it's okay to speculate. That part should be removed. Once that part is removed, I say Keep.
 * Keep if Reworded As per above. -- tylerwillis 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated above Cyclone49 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's unnecessary; people should already be aware that pages for still-running TV shows are going to be updated as the series progresses, and it should be readily apparent from the infobox whether a show is still running or not. Additionally, the template interferes with page layout.Raymondluxuryacht 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless. Manmonk 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom MiraLuka 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep not that i don't agree with the points above, but I believe this template's TRUE function should be as a warning on shows/seasons such as Idols, which are basically in the same order as current sporting events. I agree that in it's current form it's not OK, but untill WP:TV makes up their mind what to do about the temporal situation of Series/seasons/episodes, I'd rather see it being kept around and misused, instead of being ripped from wikipedia and losing the potential information still contained in the collection of articles that this template creates. Note that the current wording is actually from YESTERDAY. I'm trying to work out the overlap, incorrect use etc of Future tvshow Future TV series and In-progress tvshow, after the recent TfD of Future tvshow, but if ppl start TfD'ing all of them before even the slightest discussion on their talk pages, then you are NOT being very helpful. - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definitely appropriate, though in need of sorting out. Circeus 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (if Reworded)/Comment There's a template for current events that warns a page might be changing frequently, and granted it's probably only going to be on a weekly basis, but I think having one for in-progress TV shows is good also. I agree with the above comment to get rid of the speculative part though; that should be a separate section in articles that wish to deal with that. (Comment: Perhaps it should be reworded to only be used when a show is in the middle of a season?) --SSTwinrova 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons already stated --Charlie(@CIRL 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above stated reasons to delete and per my reasons for deleting the future tvshow template. Pegasus1138 Talk 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (after rewording) --Thankyoubaby 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete very ugly. sinblox (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, totally unnecessary. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, just work it out, though. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for many of the reasons already stated. --cholmes75 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've seen a lot of votes on here that say this tag is useful because it tells us the show is in progress. The article should tell us that, not a maintenance tag. Tags are meant to be temporary; TV shows can go on and on for decades. If it's a current show, the prose itself should indicate that. In fact, simply not including a cancellation date indicates that by default. Kafziel 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the template serves a function for articles on (as an example) American Idol contestants, who have achieved a degree of notability yet arguably have not yet established this notability. Just as with articles which document current events, the facts influencing the notability of the articles' subjects may change.  Therefore, my vote is to Keep after rewording, or else another template should be developed for this function. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure when American Idol became the benchmark for template policy, but this is the second time I've seen it used as an example (and, in fact, the only example I've seen). Either someone's notability is established or it is not. Individual contestants should not have their own articles until they have established notability, at which point that notability should be spelled out for the reader in prose. Simply appearing on television does not automatically mean a person is a celebrity, and there is plenty of precedent for that. In either case, whether they have become notable or not, there's nothing in this tag that can't be written in the body of the article instead.
 * Since we're using examples, how about this one: General Hospital is a current show. It's been on for such a long time that it was interrupted so news of the Kennedy assassination could get out back in 1963. It will probably be on for another 40 or 50 years. It will always be in progress, and it shouldn't have a tag on it to say so. If for some reason American Idol needs some kind of disclaimer, I would have no problem with that. But to tag the hundreds or thousands of other shows just because of that? No way. Kafziel 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, New Orleans, Louisiana has existed for nearly 300 years. Yet last fall, it still had Template:Current on it.  This template appears to be intended to serve a similar function, to note articles that may be edited more frequently.  And anyway, if you feel those articles do not belong on Wikipedia for lack of notability, the WP:AFD process is available to you. -- SwissCelt 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Current relates to a specific and ongoing event, the details of which can be subject to change at any moment. Such a claim is not nearly as applicable in the case of most TV shows. Episodes air, you have slightly more information, old information tends to remain valid. Reality shows like American Idol are no exception. Every episode eliminates some people or something to that effect, article is updated, there's no problem. This template does nothing but state the obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, So don't use it on articles where being in-progress does not effect credibility. Articles such as Digimon Savers however, does lack credibility do to it being in-progress. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article already tells people that. It doesn't need to be stated twice. Besides, it doesn't lack credibility, it lacks information. That information it does have is credible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Trust me, it lacks credibility. You can not trust all the information in that article, as well as many others.  I understand if this is not the case for some TV shows, then ok, they don't have to use this template.  But when fandom causes lots of unverifiable information to be added, and to much for anyone to catch all of it and try to source it, a warning of this nature is completely appropriate.  If this template does get deleted I plan on just using the actual wikicode into the articles themselves.  I understand if it's something like a typical sitcom, or it's The Price is Right, and they wouldn't need such a warning.  But to make the claim that this decision is good for all TV show articles is ridiculous.  If anything, we should be discussing which articles should use the warning and which ones should not.  This is no different from using a warning that says an article is about an in progress event, or might be controversial.  Yes, the article says it's a show in progress, but this warning is not to give information about the status of a show, it's a warning about the article itself. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasons stated above. FireSpike 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons already listed. - Digresser 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it, per reasons above. --Domthedude001 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and users above. M2K e  22:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but reword. It needs to be clearer that the speculative part is the future episodes of the show. This template is far from alone - see Current_and_future_event_templates. Mike Peel 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and users above --DChiuch 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, reword.-- SonicAD (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Mike Peel makes a good point, there are already templates for the kind of thing we're talking about. Personnaly, I don't think it's necessary to have a separate sports future event or election future event, but just because they exist, does not mean we should feel free to add more clutter.  The true purpose of this tag is to warn people about the changing nature of future television shows.  There is a tag for that, .  Comment If you do decide to keep it, please change the graphics to be standard with other future event notices. --Bantab 11:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you would say replace all instances with the tag, and then remove the template in question? Mike Peel 11:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bantab-From what I can tell, your saying we remove every single current template and replace it with the future template. But why would we do that? That would mean the current tv shows would say they are taking place in the future. You said this tag is to warn people about future tvshows. What do you mean by that? Because if this tag is on a page, it's a current tv show. People don't put these on tv shows that haven't happened. They put them on ones that are happeningm like they should. And also, why would we merge it with the future tvshow. That's up for deletion also. (Sorry for the long comment)TeckWiz 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per nom. This template is useless.--Fallout boy 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Hench 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary because the introduction of the article should clearly establish that the topic is a programme currently in production. --NormanEinstein 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reason stated - totally unnecessary, distracting. --Jacj 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If we delete, sooner or later we'll cobble something together that is similar enough anyway. NP Chilla 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated. Dylan 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Mrtea (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Driller thriller 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - In the same sense that we have a template for rapidly-changing current events, this template serves to warn the reader that they are looking at a rapidly-changing subject matter. --RayaruB 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. Not even American Idol changes that rapidly. Hell, not even Jeopardy changes that rapidly, and it's on every day. Kafziel 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete if a TV show article is updated frequently due to changing circumstances, the current events tag seems perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of TV show articles don't fit that criterion, I think. Tuf-Kat 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but limit use and reword accordingly. I think it should only be used for reality shows and other competition where a contestant is eliminated, or something else noteworthy happens, every week. (or every other week, or episode, etc.)  --zenohockey 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its similar to the current events template and shows that the article may rapidly change, especially when a new episode airs. -Reuvenk[T][C] 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you the same thing I asked RayaruB: What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. We don't use the current events tag on subjects that only change once a day or once a week. What show has a new episode more than once a day? Kafziel 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AlistairMcMillan 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to just "delete" or "keep"
Comment I really think the issue here is not about the template itself, but about which articles should use the template and which should not. All the people who are voting to delete seem to only care about getting the template warning off articles where it is not needed, and the people voting keep seem to know of articles where the warning is appropriate and useful. The "vote count" doesn't seem to be showing any kind of consensus, and I doubt that this is the right way to resolve this issue. I think people have specific examples stuck in their heads and might not be considering different examples.

I have yet to see someone bring up a single article where it was argued to use the template and to not use the template. This leads me to believe that we can satisfy both sides of this dispute.

I would like to make a new proposal for what to do:

We should do two things: 1, re-write the template as others have requested above and 2, establish guidelines via such groups as WikiProjects Television, Anime and manga, and others, for which in-progress TV articles should include the template and which in-progress TV articles should not.

Your alternative is to continue this endless debate with no real points being made. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Partially support -- This isn't really a pointless debate, since delete votes outnumber keep by a fair amount, but your proposal is good. Personally, I think this template really doesn't apply in the majority of circumstances. Barring special events, most show articles tend to recieve major updates once every week or so. The major information between those times will tend stay the same, even though it may be reorganized or reworded. Pure speculation, such as the template suggests might be there, generally shouldn't be. That is something that really should be removed rather than just telling people it's there. To suggest a specific set, I would say that it's appropriate only for some reality shows (Idol, Survivor, and the like). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems almost everyone agrees that the template is unacceptable the way it is. Even most of the "keep" votes are contingent on a re-write. I still think it should be deleted completely, because even reality show articles and anime should explain in prose that the show is ongoing. The way I look at it, we're supposed to be working toward making every article featured-status worthy. No article would make it through FAC with this template intact. So this proposal is pretty much a given anyway; either the template will be deleted, or it will be drastically altered and removed from most of the articles it's currently on. I'd prefer to delete it but, yes, this option is certainly plan B. Kafziel 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That works in theory, but not in practice. I'd rather not lie to readers in order to make the article look better. That's misleading.  The fact that such warnings can be applied to any article gives the ones without the warnings more creditability.  When no one disputes an article that many people have worked on, I tend to trust it a bit more.  But to just be blind like that, that is misleading to the reader.  That is telling the reader this article is something it's not.


 * When it is an in-progress something, usually there are is a great increase of edits, usually too many to always keep on top of. That's why we have these warnings, because we know the very nature of the edits at that time, and that we can't always be there to watch the article 24/7. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's a problem on an article, then use the template. If it's not a problem on an article, then don't use it.  If there was no problem I doubt most of the keeps here would be defending the template. Pretending there is no problem is not a solution. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Was all this stuff meant as a reply to me? I don't see how it applies to what I said. I don't want to lie to readers, I don't want to pretend there is no problem. I want to get rid of the template. Kafziel 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not lying to readers by deleting this template. The article should already be clear on the fact that a show is still running. One can assume from that context that edits will be more frequent. Also, unless they edit the article on a regular basis, most editors will likely not be caught up in all the edit history, and will just fix things as they see fit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Lie" is a bit strong, but it's still misleading. You guys seem to think Wikipedia is flawless, and that everyone's going to follow the rules in regards to these articles.  You seem to ignore the waves of fanboys and fangirls who flood many TV show articles with tons of crap.  TV show articles that do not have this situation should not have this template, but the ones that do SHOULD.  I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your little vision that Wikipedia can do no wrong.  We owe it to the readers to warn them of articles that lack credibility.  If the article does not lack credibility, then DON'T ADD THE TEMPLATE.  But there are many articles that do lack credibility, and the do so because of being an in-progress show.  ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that fanboys can add trivia and crap to any TV series - even those who has already ended. My problem with this template is the use of "in-progress". It is to broad a definition and targets way more articles than necessary. What we need is a template specifically designed to the problem you are describing. I propose the following template, in which the message should say something like "This TV related article is filled with too much trivia. Please stop adding more and help reducing the amount". --Maitch 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ned, if you think I'm not aware of the "fanboy" problem, you might want to take a look at my recent history with Zarbon and the pages related to The Sopranos and The Shield. I've been dealing with that stuff longer than you've been on Wikipedia, so please don't tell me what I think. I know people put stupid stuff on pages. Fix it. If they do it again, fix it again. If they do it again, fix it again. That's Wikipedia. A template isn't going to stop people from adding unencyclopedic content, and in this case it actually encourages it. I spend a great deal of my time on Wikipedia removing fanboy content from movies, television, and music articles, and if I thought this template would help at all I'd be all for it. But it won't. Kafziel 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support -- Pacific Coast Highway • blah 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm repeating myself here, but I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 20:55, 25 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 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 delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Venezuela infobox
Delete. It was reformated and updated to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It is easier to edit now. Venezuela infobox is a single use template. There is no more need for it. MJCdetroit 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Venezuela. &mdash; Instantnood 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - needs to be converted into standard country template first. gren グレン 06:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 08:29, 24 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 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. Mrsteviec 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UK stations
Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are Template:Infobox UK medium railway station Template:Infobox UK minor railway station and Template:Infobox UK major railway station. Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. My thinking is that four solutions are possible: DannyM 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep the original, delete the new versions
 * Keep the new ones, delete this one
 * Edit the old to hold a bit more information, in turn deleting new vers.
 * Edit the new one, to get rid of unencyclopaedic info, in turn deleting old vers.


 * Keep. The original is more encyclopedic. Are toilets and telephones really needed in an encyclopedia? I've had a good look at these and they contain far too much of What Wikipedia is not. I recommend we redirect them to original template and look to add any additional fields to that. Mrsteviec 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay is see the argument for keeping, so despite becoming a hypocrite I think keeping is a good idea if the older version gets some more detail as I believe it's got too little detail, whereas the other one has too much, sorry for contradicting myself! DannyM 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the new ones are less encyclopaedic and too cluttered. All the information is sourced from from station info page on the National Rail website to which all the articles link already. There is little point in duplicating effort. Thryduulf 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep whichever template that doesn't occupy three-quarters of the page! I agree with the previous comment - no need to duplicate the NR website leaky_caldron 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having thought about it, there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia?  Probably not.  Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the stn art lnk and stn art lrnk templates, so we don't need to duplicate it.  --RFBailey 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is this debate still open or is it closed? The reason I ask is that someone has changed all of the new templates into redirects to the old one without removing the delete proposal. Either restore the old pages so users can actively debate them, or close the debate and remove the delete proposal. Road Wizard 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this debate is still open, should the Template:British stations also be considered for deletion? Or does someone need to propose it for deletion separately? Road Wizard 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. It is a near-identical duplicate. I have redirected it into the UK stations template and adjusted the few articles that linked to it. Mrsteviec 07:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a bit of confusion about which is the "new" template here. The tbree infoboxes (major/medium/minor) were created in October 2005 by User:Sloman.  (I had some discussion with Sloman about them at that time). The UK stations template (which seems to be perceived as the "old" one) only appeared in March 2006, being created by User:Mrsteviec and is an adaptation of the London stations (which he also created) which has been around since September 2005.  As for British stations, this appears to be an independent attempt by User:Smurrayinchester to adapt the London template, also appearing in March 2006.  Depending on the outcome of this discussion, that one can be replaced with whatever we come up with here, regardless.  --RFBailey 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who wants to keep what, but the Euston infobox has way too much info. Studd about toilets etc is easily available from the external link.  It does not belong here.  We can't keep it up to date - its obsessive detail. --Concrete Cowboy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is time to close this debate as no one can be found to support deletion and the original opposer has withdrawn the proposal. Mrsteviec 06:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have objectied my self, how do we close said debate? DannyM 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep They are all nearly identical. Lcarsdata Talk 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, just to clarify,I used old (though incorrect), as its the one I used first, and I should know it as the newer one as I with help of Mrsteviec created it, sorry for confusion DannyM 18:10, 24 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 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 No consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Phh:Reader/
Another fork, as below. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - other help pages don't work as expected if it's integrated into Phh:Reader as explained on the talk page. --&#160;Omniplex 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As explained at the talk page, they look identical to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We looked at the right pages at the wrong times, at the moment it's okay again. For the source of this episode in the #if:-crusade see also WP:MV. --&#160;Omniplex 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, labeling things a "crusade" is hardly a way to foster discussion. Generally I'd rather use a conditional than fork a template (resulting in two things to watch, two things to synchronize, two things to ... ?, etc). Also, another thing I have an issue with is your choice of naming in these templates; the "/" (forward slash) is very subtle, and given that it's usually pushed up against a "|" (pipe), easy to miss. I've tried to avoid being cruel/mean/evil during this as well, but when you revert war over it it's hard not to introduce the "nuclear option" of TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I perceive it as your "crusade", I could even live with the WP:HIDE solution after adding a default none instead of the obscure . But you insisted on changing it to for most Wikipedia header templates. I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal . My first attempt was wrong, three days ago Paddu published the explanation on Ifdef, I documented it (test cases + caveats), and implemented it as planned in the header templates replacing.
 * Hours later you replaced it by #if: as discussed in the ifdef-Tfd. Trying to solve an ugliness with WP:MV I finally saw that Qif / ifdef / #if: are all unnecessary, and what's really needed is a single point of maintenance (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for . It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
 * But now you insisted on if: and sent those two to Tfd. The output of your solution wasn't what we saw until yesterday, the old style is better. For the case "no optional shortcut" in you could fix it (unfortunately not for "given shortcut(s)"), but your all in one solution uses  again, essentially two templates squeezed into one. Side by side [ diff] of your  vs. my, this makes no sense. The big standalone  and the small optional table cell  are different. Like  and  are different, and no fork. --&#160;Omniplex 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal 
 * Then change qif, don't fork. If I'm on any particular crusade here, it's a crusade against forks when they're unnecessary.
 * ...what's really needed is a single point of maintenance (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for . It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
 * And now Shortcut has been updated and works just fine without the unnecessary Shortcut/. Again, my "crusade" here is against forks. Forks are bad. Forks are evil. Do not fork.
 * I also strongly disagree with you that the styling you used was "better". The standard shortcut looked okay inside a header box as well as by itself on a page, but now there's a padding issue (see WP:BN and, in modern browsers anyways, how the top line of the shortcut box no longer aligns with the top line of the navigation box).
 * Again, you just don't get what a fork is, and somehow you think what you've done isn't forking. Whenever you introduce yet another place to update the styling of Wikipedia, that's (IMO) forking unless you have a very good reason. You don't have one that I can tell, especially when you've been shown it can be done without forking. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 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 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 delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut/
Unnecessary fork of Shortcut (note the forward slash in this templates name). Creating forked templates only further complicates things and provides more places to update the style of Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: template forks are evil and merely serve to confuse and bewilder. Users should not require Yellow Pages for templates to determine which of the 17 varieties they should use in any given context. —Phil | Talk 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - subtle differences: is for big standalone shorcut, not integrated into tables, with a required parameter, one or more shortcuts. On the other hand  is for conditional table cells, in exactly the style used e.g. on Village pump pages, policies, guidelines, etc. It's far better for maintenance to have one solution for that instead of dozens. Besides it needs no 'if:, ifndef, qif, or display:hide construct at all. Better to have that in one template, instead of repeating conditional code and CSS in almost all Category:Wikipedia header templates individually. It's of course no fork. --&#160;Omniplex 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. When you want to change the way things appear visually, you make the change to the template. You don't fork the template to change how it appears to your liking. More templates = more complexity (more things to watch, more things that can get vandalized, more things to change when people decide the appearance should be updated, etc). And in this case, it's totally unnecessary. Most pages already used shortcut before you came along with this and they looked fine. Please stop forking things when they don't look exactly right to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to keep it as it looked yesterday. That's AFAIK your CSS (?). It can't be mine, my browser ignores CSS. All I need is the &lt;small&gt; as it was the whole year until yesterday. --&#160;Omniplex 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we need to get shortcut changed, not create a fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed my Keep based on CBDunkerson's new shortcut. --&#160;Omniplex 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above arguments by Locke Cole. - The DJ 10:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If we assume that the methodology here is superior to that used previously then the correct action would be to update 'shortcut' to follow the new methodology... not create a different version of shortcut. That is, by definition, a fork. --CBDunkerson 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The code can't be joined, it's far too different. If you think it's possible just do it or propose a solution. Requirement: The same look and feel as yesterday for affected header templates. --&#160;Omniplex 12:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what it looked like yesterday, but I made changes to 'shortcut' which should make it work the same as 'shortcut/'. --CBDunkerson 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See above (19:03, 20 April 2006 ) for the history back to the WP:HIDE wars from my POV.
 * Your new code is nice, maybe eliminate align="center" typically implied by &lt;th&gt; and add &lt;/th&gt;, but it should work as is. However now you have the same size also for standalone shortcuts - IMHO it's fine, but a matter of taste. --&#160;Omniplex 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Locke Cole. -- ADNghiem501 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pacific Coast Highway blah • how to beat gas prices 23:11, 27 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.