Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 16



Template:Infobox Dad's Army

 * 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 infobox television episode. Ruslik_ Zero 15:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to infobox television episode. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. The recorded and viewing_figures parameters are probably worth adding to infobox television episode, otherwise I agree that we don't need a specific Dad's Army infobox. PC78 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 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:Danish road number sign

 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Three wholly inappropriate transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "inappropriate" is not supported with an argument. And what to do with these to-the-point transclusions? Delete road sign "15" from page Danish national road 15? But wait ... the template uses border-radius, which you don't like somehow (see next TfD section). So you are gonna TfD templates that use border-radius with indirect (or absent) reasons? Interesting, but not constructive. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After a bit of poking about, it looks like infobox road has the facility to call templates of this sort, but this particular template doesn't appear to follow the naming conventions that requires. It's just being daubed onto articles directly. As for why the present transclusions are inappropriate, have you looked at them? How many articles start with a left-aligned inline image? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a template because it's floating left? Why not improve it? In your second post you give the arguments. A replacement template is quite relevant. Now you state that there is an alternative? Then you can make the template superfluous, innit. Until the alternative is secure (not a hint), I keep my keep. (btw, the float is changed already). -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Templates which are not used for any constructive purpose are not kept around because they confuse people and lower the quality of our articles. This template does not appear to be used for any constructive purpose right now (DRNSs works for inline use; other than that, we do not use textual depiction of road signs except in infoboxes), and does not appear to fit into the existing framework used by other road sign templates. Should it ever need to be reimplemented I'd be happy to undelete it myself to help out, but for the time being its existence only seems to encourage its misuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * for any constructive purpose is what? The template is used right now, and there is no alternative made available. Even worse: if the Danish radius differs from say the German, there must stay a Danish template! If your problem is this high, then propose a solution, not? The template is used, so keep. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 21 October 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:Style-radius

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  03:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)



Not used and superceded by Template:Border-radius. — Edokter • Talk  • 11:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally created this to help with format of some welcome and documentation pages, if this later version is being maintained I would be happy to see it superseded for a more robust multi-platform template. Fæ (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of border-radius, could we get something added to the documentation there asking people to kindly not deploy it on templates used in mainspace? We've enough consistency problems already without people randomly tarting up navboxes and the like with this kind of thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The is Wikipedia; feel free to add it to the documentation or discuss it at the template's talk page. — Edokter • Talk  • 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we're on templates for discussion here, so I thought I'd bring it up while we're on the subject, seeing as we're going to get more eyes here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject here is border-radius and its usage? Really? -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject is whatever we make it. The encyclopedia is not improved by discussions being closed down due to insufficient red tape. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to close down any discussion, merely redirecting it to it's proper venue. — Edokter • Talk  • 12:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not used and superseded indeed. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant, also fawiki equivalent is deleted (and interwiki removed) :) --ebraminiotalk 14:05, 16 October 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:Consonants with audio

 * 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 and redundant. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Was started as sandbox, never developed. Now does the job. -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Argh. Why do either of these exist, let alone IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio (the only mainspace page to use it, which consists solely of this template)? I dread to think what any of those are like to navigate for blind users. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jesus. That "article" is going straight to AfD, and if a proper use can't be found for IPA pulmonics audio, then that should go as well. See also IPA vowels audio. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I might note that there is a twin template Vowels with audio, non-sandbox, that is used. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ranters do not know what they are ranting about. Please take a breath. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the other template. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:14, 23 October 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:Two other uses

 * 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 Keep per WP:SNOW--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

About does the job better. Per TfD page a reason to delete a templates is when "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". This is exactly the case. This template differs from About only if it has exactly 3 parameters. About has more than 70k transclusions making it well-established, it provides better code which allows easier merging with other DABlinks on the same page. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how many pages use the unique functionality of this one but I bet they aren't many. Magioladitis (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This template is a wrapper for about, providing commonly needed functionality via convenient syntax. It cannot be deleted or redirected without updating numerous articles (which still would leave old revisions broken), and I see no justification for this; it's a useful (and non-harmful) template that should be retained.  —David Levy 07:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were strictly redundant then a redirect would be uncontroversial. However, as it has slightly different syntax then altering it at this point would inconvenience the large number of editors familiar with it. I agree that the proliferation of different hatnote templates with very slightly different syntax is Not A Good Thing, but we probably want to come up with a plan for fixing that rather then just TfDing some of the more widely deployed variants. Could a temporary category be set up to check how many of the existing deployments use the differing syntax (i.e. exactly three arguments)? Once that's done we can see the true extent to which this template is necessary. If it's not that many pages then we can probably just fix them and redirect to about, but if it's a lot then it's probably not worth the hassle to re-educate people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did that for the "Three other uses" one. The result was only 4 out of 200. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of your replacements (such as this one ) entailed modifying the syntax. What distinction are you drawing?  —David Levy 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice the two extra | . I filled them exactly to make clearer why are there. Some editors tend to remove empty parameters from the end of templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The two empty parameters had no effect (so their removal also would have had no effect). Likewise, these two empty parameters would have had no effect if used with the about template.  You needed to add two new parameters to generate the same output provided by three other uses.  Again, what distinction are you drawing between these cases and the ones to which you refer above?  —David Levy 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No then. Add 1 to the total 5 of pages could potentially need this template by of course using hidden parameters making more difficult to identify pages. It doesn;t changes the fact that the functionality of this template is served by a better, well-established template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, not a fact.
 * And the above example is not the only case of its kind. I saw several, but I'm not going to examine every edit to determine how many there are.  It's unfortunate that such a measure would be necessary, and it would be nice if you'd stop trying to bolster your argument via deceptive claims.  —David Levy 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's say they are 30. There are nothing compared to the 79,000 of About and still Two other uses isn't a template that people can easily add more parameters. (If they want, they have to replace it and then add the hidden parameters too). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you were honest from beginning instead of revising your argument when your falsehoods are discovered. That would make it much easier for us to evaluate the situation.
 * Regardless, the above pertains to three other uses, which is not the subject of this discussion. Based on a random sample of two other uses transclusions, the usage of such syntax appears to be common (and I disagree with your assertion that this is problematic).  —David Levy 20:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact your example enforces my argument that it's better to standarise because editors aren't familiar how different templates work. What is your opinion of the "Delete a template when a better exists?" argument? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I support standardization, but not to the extent that you advocate (which entails ignoring actual benefits). I don't understand your claim that my example demonstrates that "editors aren't familiar how different templates work."  In case I was unclear, I was referring to the intended syntax unsupported by about (i.e. absent parameters), not to the the inclusion of superfluous characters that have no effect.
 * 2. The "delete a template when a better one exists" rationale makes perfect sense, but you're interpreting "delete" more narrowly than the community does in actual practice. If a redundant template is hopelessly incompatible with the better/more widely used template that it duplicates, yes, it literally should be deleted (because its presence causes more harm than good).  If, however, it's feasible to simply redirect it, this usually is preferable (because it provides the same key benefits with fewer drawbacks).  —David Levy 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Parallel to another discussion. Collect (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And in use on over 1300 pages. At least it was not orphaned.  No reason for deletion at all. Collect (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the all of the above. Alinor (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MAJORITY. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the first example. There's nothing wrong with expressing agreement with others' arguments, which is not the same as indicating that one is blindly accepting the majority view.  —David Levy 17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - no reason to delete a functional template. Yworo (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it does its job just as well as About, which it wraps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree.  I think having too many choices when using templates is overlapping and cumbersome.199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do overlap, but that's not a reason for deletion. Cumbersome to whom, exactly? Editors who find it cumbersome can continue to avoid its use. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yworo. Acather96 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there is no reason to delete this template, it is in use on too many articles already, and the About template does not preform the exact function. Ronk01   talk  00:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a useful template and being employed usefully in a vast number of pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a well designed template for a specific purpose, used on many pages. Zangar (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all above.  Wackywace  converse 19:55, 18 October 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.