Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 21



Template:Sports team fan club

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unused and unlikely to be in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:12, 21 April 2011 (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:Lukebox

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if the draft User:Petermeg/Luke McMaster is published, that would be the only conceivable user for this template. The article should use Infobox musical artist directly. —teb728 t c 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Subst into article and then delete. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (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:Infobox luke

 * 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. G7 Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unused, failed attempt at creating an infobox. —teb728 t c 21:04, 21 April 2011 (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:Category banner

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)



This template serves no useful purpose as shown here and Category:People from Yorkshire. Class, type and wikiproject are items that are shown on the talkpage, not on the main category page and as for a category containing articles, not much use. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep – Why must class, type and WikiProject be on the talk page? What the template calls class and type have never been included on a talk page. This template completely sums up all the basic information about a category. Currently, we use message boxes, such as Wikipedia category and Hidden category, which don't look good and are often not used. This combines the purpose all the permanent message boxes as well as Cat main. A reader or editor can get all the information necessary about the basic purpose of a category just from looking at the category banner.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Category:Set categories and tell me that the information provided by the template would look much better as message boxes and paragraphs. This template provides the summary sentence at the top and the table of information. I think this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying a category contains articles is only pointless to those who already know. You have to think about newbies. Plus, what it's really saying is that it doesn't contain templates, stubs, disambiguation pages etc.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd second the opinion that Wikipedia-specific metadata should not be included in templates except on talk pages: that's how it's always been done, and any proposed change to that should really be discussed before rolling it out. I'm not averse to more metadata on category pages, but let's have some discussion first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you never seen Wikipedia category, Container category or any other message box, e.g. Cleanup (which is not part of this template)? All I've done is combined these templates. It saves space and looks better. I already mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories but as usual on the talk pages of pages outside of the main namespace, I have yet to receive a reply. I have not applied this template to many categories yet. If there are things about the template that people disagree with, I think we should change the template, not delete it, because, in my opinion, this template is a much better alternative the messy system we have now.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think User:Mclay1 should have identified himself as sole creator and has unilaterally decided that WP needs a template along these lines. There has been no discussion, which, for a template that could appear on each and every category, there should be.
 * Of course I don’t like the template – I wouldn’t have listed it for deletion if I had liked it. However, I think it fair that he has called on me to explain my objections clearer, so let’s look at each statement the template adds to a category and I use Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly as an example.
 * The template has replaced “Songs written or co-written by Buddy Holly” with “This category contains articles belonging to the set songs written by Buddy Holly, as well as lists of Songs written by Buddy Holly.” The category does not contain any lists and has removed the correct statement of “co-written by.” There is nothing in this that improves on the universally acceptable catmore template. Not sure what a “set songs” means, either, a “song set” is something completely different.
 * The text says “This category is part of the encyclopaedia.” I didn’t think it was part of a shopping list, and I suppose any reader, newbie or otherwise would understand it is part of WP.
 * “This category contains a set of pages in a particular group” Not sure we need to add a dictionary definition of “category”
 * “This category contains articles.” If they are categories they will be automatically displayed as such, can’t see any reason we need another template for this.
 * “This category falls within the scope of WikiProject Songs.” This won’t add to the project and for the casual reader serves no purpose. Unlikely to be in, say, Wikiproject Philosophy. There might be a reason for this to be in the category space as a hidden category, but that would need debate and approval with the wider WP community and I could understand any reluctance because of the botpower needed to run through every category on a regular basis to add a semi-redundant category.
 * Having covered what the template is supposed to add to a category, I’d also like to mention the aesthetics of the template. Because it is at the top of the category every reader will have to scroll past it to get the reason they are looking at the category. Also as in the Buddy Holly category, the template is actually larger than the entries within the category.
 * It might have been more useful if he had listed the template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories before trying to roll it out.
 * I hope User:McLay1 now fully understands why I listed this as a TfD. It is for the wider community to decide.
 * Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, let's discuss your points in order.
 * No, that particular category does not contain lists but it could and probably will in the future. We could easily create a parameter to suppress the lists part if it's bothering you that much. I removed the co-written part because any song co-written by Holly is written by Holly so it's unnecessary information. But if it's bothering you, you can easily add it back in if you really feel readers will not understand otherwise. The phrase "the set songs written by Buddy Holly" means "the set called songs written by Buddy Holly". It's correct English but I bolded the name of the set in the template just in case someone couldn't understand it.
 * Not everything on Wikipedia is part of the actual encyclopaedia. This page we're discussing on for example – there is nothing encyclopaedic about it at all. There are two parts to Wikipedia: the encyclopaedia and the administration.
 * You've clearly never heard of the category definitions. A set category is a particular type of category. See WP:Categorization.
 * Not all categories contain articles. Some contain stubs, templates etc. The scope of the category is defined so editors know what to put in there.
 * I included the WikiProject part so editors and readers knew where to go to get more information. But I'm more than happy to chop that part if it's unhelpful.
 * As for the aesthetics of the template, as I have repeatedly stated, this template merely replaces the message boxes already being used on category pages. We already have to scroll past information, which is sometimes much bigger than this template. The template could always be shrunk of course if it's too big.
 * Basically, your problems with the template are minor things that can easily be rectified.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Life is too short to go through it all again, but referring only to Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly what else would one expect to find in it? Any discerning editor would remove inappropriate articles. And the fact you have already added in the template saying it contains lists proves that the template won't work. Again, discerning editors move lists to the top of the list with a star and it would, in this case, contain the words "List of songs...." so redundant in itself. This template serves no purpose whatsover as it stands. If you are so sure you are right, then let this version die, go back and start a proper discussion and get WP community wide approval for what is required. This is especially pertinent as you have admitted above that changes might have to made. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are generalising about all editors based on what you would think or do. Not all editors are experienced and even experienced editors often don't know as much as they think they do. I have no idea why the template saying the category contains lists means the template doesn't work. It's doing something it's meant to do, therefore it works perfectly. But as I said, I can change to make it better. The problem with being specific is editors not updating the template when changes to the category are made but that problem exists in many different areas of Wikipedia.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know what kind of monitor you have but on my screen, the banner is a lot smaller than the content of Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly. There is no scrolling involved either.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact you have now gone into Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly here to amend proves exactly why the amount of work to amend and keep up to date these templates are far beyond any benefit that can be gained by their existance. Also, my monitor screen, in itself, is irrelevant, many, many other readers will have the same or similar set up as me. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. We should just stop any attempt at providing information about categories just in case the information gets out of date. *sarcasm*  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and the point that you are amending in view of my comments should have been mentioned by one of us - otherwise it makes my comments about lists look wrong, when they were correct at the time of writing. Nor unreasonable to point out the additional amount of maintenance required - but if you can provide evidence to the contrary then you should. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think categories should have documentation, we have a template for template documentation, let's use that instead of this. I do not think the WikiProject should be indicated on the category page, unless it is a specific wikiproject's category (ie. Category:WikiProject xyz workpages) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel a bit blindsided by this WP:BOLD change. I would rather see this template on the discussion page, at worst. Seems a little dominant. Normal readers, besides Wikipedia editors, read these pages. This doesn't seem user friendly to me.
 * I think the template should be shelved, temporarily, at least, until it can be thoroughly discussed. (Or maybe we are doing that here).
 * At the least, I suspect the template should be renamed to "banner for category" (assuming it makes it to the discussion page, or some name that casual editors don't mistaken for a wrong Category. Student7 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you also recommend renaming all the other templates beginning with "Category"? The point people seem to be missing here is that this template is only new in terms of aesthetics – the information is already provided in message boxes, which are far worse with their attention-grabbing exclamation marks.  McLerristarr  &#124;  Mclay1  08:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I wouldn't mind seeing the editor's ideas and comments inserted into an "essay" or proposal someplace where it could be viewed over a longer period of time and we could think about it a bit. It seems dramatic. The criticism that "I just don't like it" may be valid for me. But what else do I have to evaluate it? That is the manner of higher level/dramatic policy-like changes that are not really factually-based, but based rather, on "style". Student7 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to discuss this template somewhere but I knew there was little chance I would get a reply. I thought if I added it to a few categories, it would get some notice. I wasn't expecting it to be TFD'd first.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:19, 25 April 2011 (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:2011 African Youth Championship stadiums

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For an event as minor as this, as it has 2 stadiums being used there is no need to have a whole template dedicated to it. As well the stadiums are listed on the main page. If more then 5 venues are used then I would think its fine but 2 is too small. Intoronto1125 Talk  Contributions  19:01, 21 April 2011 (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:Numismatic Galleries

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All the main links in the article are "soft redirects" to the same Commons gallery, so the template really does nothing except perhaps teach people that there's such a thing as "soft redirects" and that they're really ugly. —Felix the Cassowary 14:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. —Felix the Cassowary 14:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is unfortunate, but now the destination articles are all gone. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (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.