Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 28



Template:Connected contributor

 * 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 Merge with, due to near identical language. It is probably best to retain Connected contributor as the primary template, since it more closely represents the content of the template. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newly created and redundant to Notable Wikipedian. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - certainly not all Wikipedians are notable even if they are covered on articles, such as if they are an officer of the company, thus might be listed on the article, or just an employee. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I became aware of the Notable Wikipedian template when dealing with a dispute on an article. The dispute was between two people who were connected with the article, and somebody had placed the Notable Wikipedian template for each of them on the talkpage. They were not Wikipedians, nor were they notable, so it seemed inappropriate to place them in a category called Category:Notable Wikipedians. I considered making changes to the Notable Wikipedian template, but felt that as it involved a category, and was quite widely used, it might be better to discuss the matter first, and that before discussing the matter, it might be an idea to trial the changes I anticipated. I made the new template, and placed it on one article. There were no objections, so I placed it fairly randomly on approximately 70 more articles to see what the reaction would be. I anticipated some queries and some discussion in which issues could be explored. I had not actually anticipated a deletion notice, though - of course - that is a logical response. It is true that we do not need two template which do much the same thing. So the question is, are any or all of the amendments to Notable Wikipedian appropriate and useful?
 * Name: I feel that "Connected contributor" is a more flexible, accurate and neutral term for the contributors affected by the template. Some of the articles are not directly about the person or people involved, so the people are not themselves "notable", but as the article may mention them, or as they may work for the company or band that the article is about, or they may be related to the person, then "connected" is the better term. As some (most) of the people are not actually "Wikipedians", but are people who have created an account purely to edit on the article (some have not even created an account, and are IP accounts), then "contributor" is the more open, neutral, accurate term. Also, grammatically, "Notable Wikipedian" is an awkward term.
 * Wording.
 * Notable Wikipedian says: "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article has made non-trivial contributions to Wikipedia as (Name or IP account). This user's editing has included significant contributions to this article. Readers are encouraged to review Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia."
 * Connected contributor says: "A contributor to this article, (Name or IP account), may be covered by or significantly related to this article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Conflict of interest, Autobiography and Neutral point of view."
 * The new wording links to three related policies/guidelines rather than the one, so is more useful. The statement "This user's editing has included significant contributions to this article" has been amended to "A contributor to this article...", which is neater, and more flexible (includes all level of contributions, not just significant). And "Readers are encouraged to review..." has been amended to "Relevant guidelines covering this situation include...", which is entirely neutral, and provides information rather than an instruction or exhortation.
 * Proposal: Either implement the suggested changes to Notable Wikipedian, or redirect Notable Wikipedian to Connected contributor.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - 'Notable Wikipedian' always seemed too grand, but 'Connected contributor' is obscure. Neither term exactly captures what we want to draw attention to:
 * that the named person might be editing their own article, and
 * the fact of their contribution is worth noting, but is not yet a cause for concern.
 * Unless somebody can think of anything better, then I vote for 'Connected contributor' as the sole replacement. The phrase 'this user's editing has included significant contributions to this article' should probably be added to connected contributor, since it highlights the thing that we want to monitor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "Notable Wikipedian" template has never seemed quite appropriate to someone who is not notable, but who is somehow connected to an article and who has been promoting it. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly the case that we should not have both this and notable Wikipedian. The point in either has still yet to be properly articulated to the general satisfaction of the community IIRC, but having two which differ only slightly in semantics is confusing and inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is different enough from in that it presents more information. Also, it can be used if the person involved is not notable, but is connected in some way.  Airplaneman   ✈  04:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Connected contributor, by giving the extra links it helps newbies learn, while at the same it doesn't seem to be to against their contributing. Blackash   have a chat 02:55, 7 April 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:Country data World

 * 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. Inappropriate use of an icon. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No longer used in the mainspace as per Template_talk:Country_data_World and no need for it outside the main space any usages left should be subst Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The same arguments apply here as for country data Earth, notably ICONDECORATION but also the simple matter of common sense (as the country data system simply does not require a global function for any use to which it is presently applied). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Previous usage was typically for a "World total" entry in a table of data, organized by country.  Even if flag icons are useful for the table data rows, the bottom total does not need an icon just for "consistency" sake, for example.  noflag can be used for text alignment, if desired.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:23, 1 April 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:Country data Earth

 * 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. Inappropriate use of an icon. RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) ,WP:OR and ICONDECORATION. Prior discussion here Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ICONDECORATION is pretty clear-cut here. Given Wikipedia's implicit and presently unavoidable Terracentricity, we're not losing anything by deletion this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous (yet ignored) consensus at Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28. (Original nomination also bundled Template:Country data World into the same discussion, but I only see "keep" support for the latter.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussions. Airplaneman   ✈  04:50, 4 April 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:Economy of Chad table

 * 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 per what is now sufficient prior precedent. Note, the other approx. 30 were joined after the close per precedent. Plastikspork (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to keep this orphaned template anymore. It isn't included anywhere in articles (see), and the main article Economy of Chad uses more common template Infobox economy instead of this one. RoadTrain (talk) 07:16, 28 March 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:EuropaLeagueFootballbox

 * 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. Unused per previous project discussion. RL0919 (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This template is not used in any articles. The extra functionality it provides over Template:Footballbox was discussed at WT:FOOTY and determined not to be necessary. There is no longer any reason for this template to exist. – PeeJay 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused, redundant. Airplaneman   ✈  04:48, 4 April 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.