Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 22



Template:Ref Kentucky

 * 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 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref Kentucky

Unused -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as contrary to the claim in the documentationCurb Chain (talk) 06:20, 23 August 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:DATECOMP2

 * 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) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DATECOMP2

Not used and appears to be redundant to, which is also unused.198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 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:DATE2COMP

 * 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) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DATE2COMP

Marked as broken (see categories), and unused, so not worth fixing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot agree with the logic "unused, so not worth fixing": you might argue that perhaps it's unused because it's broken. No, we have to argue that even if it weren't broken, it would not likely be used. You might note, though, perhaps it was never fixed because nobody ever wanted to use it. Here's what it does, or should be doing. It takes two dates (assumed to be entered in correct order) and tests where a third date falls in relation to these. It then returns text which can be specified by various parameters corresponding to the relationships the third date might have to the first two. The other two templates do a similar thing but with only two dates. If a template for comparing two dates is not useful enough to keep, nor is a template for comparing three. J IM ptalk·cont 20:27, 26 August 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:DATECOMP

 * 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) 18:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DATECOMP

The two templates above could be merged into. This would simplify things, however, as with the other two has been hanging around for about five years and never used. I seems to me that the reason is that they are not useful. You wouldn't use them directly since it would be easier to figure out which date comes first with your brain rather than figure out how to use the template to do the same. They could only be useful within other templates but you'd be better off just coding directly using parser functions. Thus delete them all. J IM ptalk·cont 20:27, 26 August 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 Qconnect operator

 * 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 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox Qconnect operator

Deprecated, and now unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's no longer used.Curb Chain (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:37, 23 August 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:Contains Vietnamese text

 * 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 but the usage of this template shall be restricted to cases when Chinese characters are used. Ruslik_ Zero 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Contains Vietnamese text

Modern Vietnamese uses Latin characters that pose no difficulties for the vast majority of Wiki readers. So why do editors use this template anyway? It may reflect a misunderstanding that Vietnamese is written using Chinese characters, or Hán tự as the template puts it. Vietnamese today study Chinese characters only if they take Chinese as a foreign language -- and this has been true for over 50 years. IMO, use of this template can only promote confusion on this point among readers. There are a couple of articles where a template like this makes sense, for example Chữ Nôm or The Tale of Kieu. But it is proliferating all over the Vietnam-related articles, and for no good reason. Kauffner (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Misuse is not necessarily a reason to delete a template. If there is a valid use case then a better approach would simply be to edit the documentation to point out when it is and is not necessary and to remove it in the latter case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Chinese characters had always been an integral part of Vietnamese history since its very first dynasty. Modern Vietnamese writing system is very recent and most of the Wikipedia articles relating to Vietnam are not contemporary. - Calvin Marquess (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The template claims"This page contains Vietnamese text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of chữ Nôm, chữ Hán and chữ Quốc Ngữ." The question therefore is not whether the reader can handle the script (though I don't agree that the Vietnamese Latin alphabet poses no difficulties) but whether their computer (hardware/software (browser)) can. Do the characters appear as question marks without the said rendering support?  However, if it's kept, if should be translated in to English. J IM ptalk·cont 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly ironic that the template itself uses Vietnamese letters if these letters are supposedly problematic. If your operating system is not rendering Vietnamese letters, it is time to get a new operating system. Even Windows 95 can usually do it. As for Chinese characters, you need to install additional files to view them on XP or OS X 10.1. Vista, Windows 7, and the current version of OS X all have this capability built in. So the template is proliferating even as technical problem it is supposedly addressing is disappearing. Whether it is true or not, Vietnamese really hate it when Chinese tell them that, "Chinese characters [have] always been an integral part of Vietnamese history." Do we really need a template that promotes this viewpoint? Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – First, it doesn't fit the 4 test cases for deletion above. Second, although this template covers the Latin script, it also covers the Chữ Nôm and Hán tự scripts, which may not appear correctly to most users. This template serves its purpose of informing readers that the scripts may not appear correctly, so that they don't think Chữ Nôm is written with many black dots that look exactly the same. Although the Chinese-based scripts are no longer commonly used, I agree with Calvin Marquess that several centuries of Vietnamese history can use this template. To provide context, runes have a similar template, yet they haven't been commonly used since the 1100s.
 * @Kauffner: I disagree with your claim that it confuses readers. The template description doesn't mention Chinese at all. You're assuming readers will be confused by the image because it looks Chinese, which I'll admit may be confusing. However, the image is secondary to the written description, which is the template's purpose. Replacing the image with Chữ Nôm text that doesn't look Chinese will be difficult, since Chữ Nôm is made of Chinese characters.
 * Recommendation: Rename the template to or something similar. Limit use to historical articles.
 * -Temporal User (Talk) 11:59, 25 August 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:Abandoned Draft problem

 * 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 by Athaenara per CSD#G7. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Abandoned Draft problem

An unnecessarily negative template. Also seems to lack a purpose: WP:AFC article drafts use AFC submission for explaining problems in the draft; I do not see a place for this template elsewhere. Currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Superseded by a subpage of the Donated template.  Ebe 123  talkContribs 10:00, 22 August 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:Football in Singapore

 * 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) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Football in Singapore

An inappropriate use of article message boxes. Should be orphaned and deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite. football in Singapore navbox, which used to occupy this title, should be moved back over it once this template is deleted, as this is the standard title for these navbox templates. We certainly shouldn't use an ambox for this sort of thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Uncalled for.  Not even a necessary hatnote.Curb Chain (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And also violates WP:DISCLAIMCurb Chain (talk) 21:22, 22 August 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:Shc

 * 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. There is a consensus to keep the template's functionality, although there is no consensus how to do this: to keep a separate template or to merge it into Coord. So, for the time being it is kept. Ruslik_ Zero 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to Coord, which has better features. No evidence of consensus to have a template for coordinates which does not display them. WP:GEO will be notified of this nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden for creation is the other way around. Is there evidence of consensus against such a template? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. My understanding is that the template was created to streamline display and geotagging when used in a junction list for a highway. The junction list tables already have a lot of detail, and forcing display of the coordinates in the table will visually clutter the list. If there isn't an option to geotag without the visual display of the coordinates, it is likely that consensus will remain to not tag the articles at all. This template is the compromise to allow a system of tagging the articles' through the junction list tables through a test.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tests should be conducted in user-space. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Imzadi1979: what does Oppose mean?  Keep or delete?  —EncMstr (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep indicates an area from a point to a country, it's not much use for linear features. There has been much debate recently on the merits of adding  to road, rail line, river, etc. articles. This template appears to be a step in the direction of addressing that problem. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's factually incorrect. is widely used for lists of coordinates for linear features. Furthermore, 's lack of metadata features means that it dos not address that issue.   Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then add the metadata to shc, or expand coord to allow suppression of the output of the coordinates when presented in tables for linear features.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding the metadata to would emphasise, not not address, its redundancy; if you wish Coord to work differently, demonstrate consensus on its talk page (or at WP:GEO).  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a request to allow suppression of the coordinates in coord over a year ago. It was rejected by the coordinates people. Without an acceptable method to streamline display for road junction lists, my position will remain to remove geotagging from road articles on sight, to revert any bots saying that the coordinates are missing from a road article, etc. Persondata adds metadata to biography articles without making it visible, so surely there can be a way to add geographic metadata to an article without making it visible as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Persondata duplicates data which is displayed in articles. There are no "coordinates people", just as there are no "roads people"; consent cannot be subdivided. The logical conclusion from what you say would seem to be that this template is an attempt to subvert the consensus that coordinates should not be hidden. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into . About two years ago, we finally got rid of the proliferation of coordinate templates like, , , , etc.     is a step backwards—though for a very good reason:  less overhead.    really should be streamlined so that it can be used everywhere.  My proposal to merge this would include taking all the advantages from   and removing all the disadvantages of  .  It really should have been done several years ago.  This is as good an excuse to do it now as any.  I once dabbled with making   lighter weight, but didn't see it through:  I'm willing to help this effort by finishing.  —EncMstr (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * merge with coord per EncMstr. We don't need more of these coordinates templates. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep functionality. For articles where the subject isn't a single point, this could be quite useful. If the functionality gets merged somewhere else, that's fine. --Rschen7754 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Visible coordinate longs/lats = no coords on roads. Stop adding them to roads until you achieve consensus at WP:HWY, then we'll talk about what the consensus is. I'd like you to point out where there is consensus that coords must be displayed alongside a link; a consensus achieved from wider community input than the coordinate wikiproject. Otherwise, your nomination has no valid rationale; this template clearly serves a purpose that is unachievable with coord. Since the coordinate wikiproject won't allow suppression of the coordinate writing on the template they've created, a separate template must be used. The road projects do not accept the current method, and this template was a starting framework for a possible compromise. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Geotagging Wikiproject disallows nothing and has no power to; same as the roads project. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The wikiproject has conventions and standards that the majority of its members have settled upon. This is the case of all wikiprojects. As a community of editors, we do have the power to refuse the poorly construed idea that everything on the planet should have a coordinate tagged with it. Again, please point to a wider community input than the geotagging project where consensus has been achieved to A) disallow the use of geotagging when the text isn't included with the link, B) tagging linear features in any case, and C) Forbidding a template which bypasses something unachievable with Coord. On top of all this, there is also the fact that this template is far smaller and thus substitutes far less coding into an article.
 * Of course this is still moot, because you haven't address the brunt of argument. Where is this consensus that supposedly exists against this? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't demonstrated consensus for it, which is the way Wikipedia works. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Err... no... actually wikipedia works by progressing, not by being a bureaucracy. Unless there is a rule against something, there is no rule. If you want to create something, you create it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say otherwise? Once you've created something, others can undo, or challenge, it; it is then for you to demonstrate consensus for your creation. WP:BRD refers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways discussion. —EncMstr (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * merge with coord, presumably by adding a  argument to coord. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any such change to the way we display coordinates is likely to be controversial, and should be discussed at WP:GEO] with links from the centralised discussion template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly. What's your compromise to this situation? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gahhhh. If the roads project and the coordinates project can't agree on something as central as this it's time for an RfC. Simply forking and rolling out anyway was obviously not the right solution at the time. For the time being, coord should be modified to allow for a merge. Then y'all can discuss whether or not we really want to allow for the modifications to stick around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with by adding a new "display=" option. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Merge with by adding 's functionality controlled by some parameter(s). It's best to keep things under one roof so editors don't have to strain their brain. J IM ptalk·cont 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful functionality. Merging in to coord is not really an option as that template is already bloated and needs slim lining to allow larger number of instances on a page before breaking. Keith D (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Plastikspork and Tagishsimon above suggest the merger be done by adding a new "display=" option. By doing it this way we can easily side-step the bulk of 's bloat. J IM ptalk·cont 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with coord. The suppression of coordinates is badly needed for articles on linear features, where blue clutter is already an issue. However, I understand the desire to eliminate "template forking". As for those complaining this was created without consensus, are you kidding? This is an issue that's been debated for years in any number of forums. The only people I see that are opposed to visually suppressing coordinates are those who have never pushed an article on a linear feature up through the quality rankings process. All the people who have successfully written FA class articles on linear features so far are generally sharing the same concerns and ideas for resolution, abliet in different forms.Dave (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put. This should be hung on the wall of every discussion we've had on this issue in the past several weeks. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, proposals to change the way we display coordinates (which are clearly likely to be contentious) should be debated on the Coord talk page, or at WP:GEO, via a centralised discussion, not in a TfD for a single-use test template. Furthermore, a facility already exists for readers who do not wish to see them, to hide coordinates displayed using . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The use of this template (or the equivalent functionality in Coord), more than once on an article, renders multiple instances of the same icon linking to different targets. This is a breach of our and WCAG accessibility guidelines, an effect known as "mystery meat" navigation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is no different than any other set of information formatted via a table. The association between which feature corresponds to which coordinates is made via the fact that both are on the same row of the table. The globe icon serves two purposes, as a bullet in a bulleted list and as an clickable object for a hyperlink. If anything this is an issue with the WP:MOSICON policy rather than any accessibility policy. If I were coding coordinates, my preference would be to just have a superscript coord rather than the globe, but the globe is acceptable to me. Dave (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, you do a wonderful job of spilling your concerns across multiple venues. Please stop and post once, linking other discussions to that one. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:42, 26 August 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:ImprisonedWarCorrespondents
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ImprisonedWarCorrespondents

This template is vague and limited with few transclusions and a lot of redlinks. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack  04:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. Rather too broad for a navbox if it's properly populated IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:09, 22 August 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.