Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 31



Template:Event list

 * 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 No Consensus. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this single-use template needed? If we need a template to carry out this function, is this the best way to do so? Is the table produced sufficiently accessible? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)}


 * Keep. As far as I know, this is the only documented table-of-events template which allows changing a list of dated events into a 1-column, 2-column or 3-column table by setting "columns=n". I have refined the template's /doc subpage, now, for better clarity, adding new Category:Events_table_templates. The original author User:Pee Tern has been inactive since Sept. 2009 (11 months), but had worked on many other templates, as some evidence of reliable template coding. It appears the main focus had been in creating templates for general use, even though only 1 article used the template. I see this event-table template as useful in displaying short timelines to recap a major event, such as a war with 22 battles, or the history of a city treated as up to 30 concise events in the timeline. Such a timeline table could be placed in a city-history article to avoid the wordy, "shaggy dog story" about the city's expansion, by instead presenting the quick, nutshell table-of-events for readers with no time to digest the whole city-history article. This would be ideal for numerous medium-size cities, while major cities would likely use customized tables for their timelines. If someone knows of a better event-table template, then that template could be advocated, instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For quick summaries, this would be fine, but for most articles, the timeline should be narrated in prose as well. This table would have limited use though.  Imzadi  1979   →   07:44, 3 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:114

 * 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 deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New template, unused, vague name, simply a link that could be hardcoded. Train2104 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete weird template linking to a page on google books. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary when a simple link will do.  Imzadi  1979   →   08:23, 1 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Navpages

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Virtually unused (5 transclusions) template, that can be substituted by the linked navboxes themselves (in a collapsed state). Svick (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Template:Navpages is a relatively new template, to expand the concept of navpages as an alternative to embedding numerous navboxes on every page. When used as indicated, it can make many frequently-read articles twice as fast to display, by linking the navboxes as separate pages, rather than as a "mass of 850 wikilinks" appended at the bottom of a page (see article: "Morocco"). This is NOT the same as a collapsed-state navbox; see technical essay "WP:Overlink crisis" for why navpages are 100-500x times faster than navboxes. This Template:Navpages not only makes an article twice as fast to format and display, it avoids the need to reformat an article every time one navbox is modified. The reason the template is not used much, except in a few articles, is because this is a new concept for many users, and it will take years to fully understand for the majority of general editors. This is a new paradigm for the future layout of many articles, rather than being a redundant feature. It is NOT the same as a collapsed-state navbox. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think that a template that is almost one year old is “relatively new”.
 * Second, I realize that using is not the same as using collapsed navboxes – I think that  is worse for readers, because they have to navigate to different page to see the links. And for example the page Template:Artiodactyla (linked from Oryx) has the navbox collapsed and contains documentation, which is probably very confusing for readers.
 * Third, none of the 5 articles that use this template would have problems with too many navboxes if it wasn't used.
 * Fourth, if an article has so many navboxes that it causes technical problems, I'm pretty sure they are too difficult to navigate anyway and some of them should be removed. Using this template doesn't help that.
 * Lastly, the fact that a page that uses a navbox changes whenever that navbox changes is the whole point of templates! Also, don't worry about performance.
 * Svick (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think of old templates as being "years" but I see your point that a template created in August 2009 might not seem new after 11 months. Upon reviewing the articles where it has been used, the Template:Navpages had received no complaints, so it has reached a "default consensus" for general acceptance, after being in use 11 months and viewed over 540,000 times (pageviews logged by stats.grok.se). I also checked Talk:Oryx and found no complaints in the 11 months since it was posted there, on 29 August 2009, as viewed 400 times per day. Same for Talk:Gemsbok or Talk:White-tailed deer (1070/day). Apparently, many thousands of other users do not think it makes articles worse. Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS to decide issues, so that is why user reactions, over an 11-month period, are important, in noting that general users do not object to the Navpages-box in articles. If they had complained, I would have worked with them to make any requested changes, but Template:Navpages has been well-received during the past 11 months. See below, with the example, as to why {Navpages} makes articles so much faster, per considerations noted in WP:PERFORMANCE. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how consensus works. Yeah, user reactions would be important, if there were any. But no reaction doesn't mean “keep it as it is”. Consensus is build among those that are willing to discuss. Svick (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Svick here. Most non-editor readers, in my experience, don't leave comments on articles. If an article is poorly designed, badly written, etc they just move on to another article or website with a poor impression of that article. The fact that were some 540,000 page views is irrelevant.  Imzadi  1979   →   09:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the lack of complaints/reverts is how WP:CONSENSUS works now. If 540,000 people view a page and do not object or revert a change, that is considered "silent acceptance" (quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented." -see section WP:CONS). Those 540,000 did not object, and if there had been a significant problem, then people would object on the talk-page or by revert, as they have in other articles. For those reasons, policy WP:CONSENSUS recognizes the "silent acceptance" as consensus for the past 11 months. Vast evidence would need to be found, to counter those 540,000, and prove a severe problem exists with Template:Navpages. A template cannot be deleted simply because a few people dislike it, so that is not grounds for a TfD, as overriding the consensus of 540,000 readers; however, anyone can request changes to be discussed, instead, at Template_talk:Navpages. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary way to handle navboxes.  Imzadi  1979   →   08:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. See example below. The link-box created by Template:Navpages still allows users to instantly click to see a navbox, while not forcing the entire navbox to reside in an article. It is important to review perhaps 10,000 articles to fully understand the impact. As a simple example, the article "Oryx" uses {navpages} to display the following small box:
 * That small link-box (above) allows a user to click on Artiodactyla, which then displays the navbox of several hundred related animals. To compare the above box to the prior navbox, then right-click on Artiodactyla and compare the huge size of that navbox to the above box. This is an example where the difference begins to be 100-500x times faster than the original navbox. To the user, the navpages box allows a simple 1-click interface to then see the navbox; however, to people editing article Oryx, their Internet-transfer becomes 10-20x times faster by not showing the naxbox for "Artiodactyla" during every edit-preview of the page. Note how Template:Navpages does not try to judge any of the navboxes as being "unnecessary" (as suggested above); instead, a reader still has quick access to all related navboxes, without flooding the page with hundreds of wikilinks every time the page is displayed, or edit-previewed. If you compare with 10,000 other articles using navboxes, then the improvements provided by {navpages} will be more obvious. This issue has been in development for over 3 years, in predicting the need to quicken the display of numerous navboxes, such as the 12 navboxes at the bottom of article "Morocco" (12 navboxes which double the total size of the page). Using {navpages} will still allow access to any of those 12 navboxes (and more), but will also display the page much faster. In other cases, using {navpages} will allow a page to appear 10x times faster. Read WP:PERFORMANCE about the detailed reasons for when to improve the performance of articles (hence, WP:Don't worry about performance except when it can be greatly improved). The use of {navpages} is such a case, when the display of an article can be greatly improved. Essay WP:PERFORMANCE also warns to use thumbnail images, rather than show megabyte photos, to speed the display of an article. Template {navpages} is a similar major speed improvement, which is ready to be used in thousands of current articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete pointless template, just adds more clicks to the user experience. Page views are irrelevant here. Jeni  ( talk ) 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeni, if you add clicks to the user experience, people would rather just use the search function, and that could leave some articles on smaller items that readers don't think would have an article with much fewer views. &mdash; Train2104 (talk· contribs· count· email) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Ivg test

 * 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 Redirected to sandbox (non-admin closure) Train2104 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Test template for. That's what the sandbox is for, so I think this template should be deleted. Svick (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Train2104 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirected to the sandbox. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could have been nominated with db-test. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Abercrombie & Fitch publication

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Infobox magazine seems to have been updated.  — fetch ·  comms   20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Infobox magazine and only used on one page. No need for excessive A&F branding. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant.  Imzadi  1979   →   02:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Updating other infobox. I have submitted a request as {editprotected} to expand Template:Infobox magazine to show "Creator" and "Photographer" rows as needed for magazine article "A&F Quarterly" which used the customized infobox. Both infoboxes are now stacked in that article to compare coverage of the information. Perhaps some other quick changes might be requested to allow removing the custom infobox. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Only used in a single article.  FYI: the tfd template wasn't wrapped in noinclude tags, so the tfd message was showing up in the article that uses this template, which screwed all kinds of things up.  Please wrap the tfd template in noinclude tags for templates that are transcluded.    Snotty Wong   babble 17:48, 11 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/shortname

 * 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 deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This template and the one below were created for an article on a non-notable political party, but that article was deleted five months ago. There is no prospect of using these templates anywhere else. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless.  Imzadi  1979   →   02:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nomination. These should have been deleted in connection with the article ideally doktorb wordsdeeds 06:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verified as being unused, trivial text phrase, destined for deletion even if "21st Century Conservative Democrats" were re-created as notable. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (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 section.

Template:21st Century Conservative Democrats/meta/color

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This template and the one above were created for an article on a non-notable political party, but that article was deleted five months ago. There is no prospect of using these templates anywhere else. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless.  Imzadi  1979   →   02:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, tidy up deletion doktorb wordsdeeds 06:55, 31 July 2010 (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 section.

Template:Jeff Halevy

 * 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 Speedy delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unused template with little content and no real prospect of being useful. Image is currently being considered for deletion on commons due to lack of licensing info and article about the subject has been deleted once, drv endorsed, recreated and currently looking likely to be deleted again. 82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the subject was notable, there is no reason to have such simple code as a template. Svick (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the subject article has been deleted.  Imzadi  1979   →   08:23, 1 August 2010 (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 section.