Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6



Template:Voluntary deadmin

 * 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, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This template has been rendered redundant by the new policy regarding inactive administrators, and depending on what details a user entered in the parameters, it could actually conflict with the policy. In any case it doesn't appear to be used. It is supposed to be substituted, so no transclusions are to be expected, but searches for word strings used in it did not find the text anywhere else. RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed I changed the default to 1 year instead of 3 months. 'rdococ!' 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdococ (talk • contribs)
 * I appreciate the attempt to resolve the problem, I don't think that quite does it. First, the template is unnecessary because we no longer need a template giving consent to suspend their admin bit when they are inactive for a year, because there is a policy for doing so whether they volunteer for it or not. Second, changing the default doesn't prevent a user of it from putting in a longer value that is inconsistent with the policy. --RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete. As the nom states, its use could easily conflict with the policy, so best to get rid of this and let the policy handle it to avoid confusion. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as obsolete. In light of the new policy, the template is no longer necessary for a period of inactivity of 1 year and no longer appropriate (i.e., against policy) for a period of more than 1 year. Although, technically, the template could be used to consent to voluntary deadmin for a period of inactivity of less than 1 year, there seems to be no point to this. The community has already decided on the 1-year threshhold and, unless and until that changes, there's no cause to pursue removal of the sysop bit for shorter periods of inactivity. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 13 July 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:Uw-genre4im

 * 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) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't actually used by Twinkle as the documentation suggests (which is presumably because it was created by cloning from an existing template). Secondly, while it's fine having an escalating series of genre-change warnings, there's no requirement for an immediate one because it's not the sort of thing which is blatantly inappropriate from the start. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. There is no Genre4im on this grid. Perhaps if its part of the warnings? StormContent (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not every warning series has an "only warning" variant, as not all of them are things that we would expect editors to immediately understand were harmful. Changing music genres is annoying rather than blatantly wrong, so we gradually increase the warning level from 1 to 4 until the user gets the point. There should never be any need to jump in with an "only warning" for changing music genres. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to ask someone to put it in TW. -- The Σ talkcontribs 22:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would someone ever get a one-shot final warning for changing music genres? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Basically per Chris; there's no need for an "only" warning here. Not every set of warnings needs a 4im version, and this is one that doesn't. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I must agree with thumperward's reasoning here. Σ, whether the template is part of Twinkle or not is neither reason to delete nor keep. Twinkle lists useful templates, it does not define which ones are useful. Amalthea  15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Only warning" messages are for specifically identified activities that are categorically intolerable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ningauble.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - with no offense meant to the creator. This template would be highly BITEy and inappropriate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:35, 11 July 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:Funnybut

 * 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) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to the uw-joke templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete - no clear target, not a likely search term for any of the uw-joke templates, and not likely to be used accidentally since it was created just today. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 6 July 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:ExcessiveVandalism2

 * 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) 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to the various uw-vandal templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete - no clear target, not a likely search term for any of the uw-joke templates, and not likely to be used accidentally since it was created just today. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not the template we use; specifically, the language is not neutral or leaning not to user-friendlyness.Curb Chain (talk) 04:26, 7 July 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:ExcessiveVandalism

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to the various uw-vandal templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete - no clear target, not a likely search term for any of the uw-joke templates, and not likely to be used accidentally since it was created just today. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not the template we use; specifically, the language is not neutral or leaning not to user-friendlyness.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 7 July 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:Tts
<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 Keep. Unanimous! - Nabla (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

utility template used only on six articles. The "workaround" given in the docs is actually a perfectly standard way of presenting time-based stats in races and the like, so this is largely redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike the German Wikipedia, standard practice here is to avoid leading zeroes, so this is a very useful template. Note that the number of articles on which it is used will steadily increase, both with each year going forward, and also as we work backward turning red links blue. Deleting this template would just create a lot of unnecessary work adding leading zeroes to tables, resulting in an uglier appearance, and inconsistencies with the majority of cases, where leading zeroes are not used. However, I would be happy to see it go if and when the software is changed to fix the sorting problem this template is designed to address. --NSH001 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the template is two years old and it only has six transclusions, what's the evidence that "the number of articles on which it is used will steadily increase"? The matter of leading zeroes also seems unclear; MOSNUM says "Wikipedia does not use leading zeroes", right enough, but it seems only to discuss timestamps rather than durations. Is this codified elsewhere? Lastly, is there any way this can be rolled into dts, so that we don't need to maintain two broadly similar templates? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look, for example, at 2008 Ironman World Championship and examine the navbox at the bottom. There are 30 redlinks there, which will all need this template. Unfortunately we don't have a huge number of editors working on triathlon articles, so progress is slow, but they will all be done eventually. I am also quite sure there are other results tables where this template could be used, but I haven't bothered to actively look for such cases. (User:Wild8oar/RallyStats seems to be one example of such a case.) I don't really see the maintenance problem, either. It only took one single edit to create this template, and hasn't needed a stroke of work since its creation, just the odd tweak to the documentation. What's the problem? Leaving it as it is is almost certainly more efficient than making dts more complicated. --NSH001 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Could you do something to fix the problem created by the transcluded TfD notification message? It's really, really messing up the articles, as I'm sure you will have noticed if you look at the examples given.
 * I've noincluded it now (sorry about that). As for maintainability, it irks me to have two templates which do exactly the same things but with slightly different data; having such things long-term almost inevitably leads to needed features being added to only one or the other, or other maintainability problems, not to mention editors having to remember yet more different utility templates when writing articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, I take your point about long-term maintenance. But dates and times are very different animals. I've just taken another look at dts, and it's a very complicated template with multiple sub-template calls, #switch, #if, #expr, etc, so probably quite costly in terms of server load when repeated on each line of a large table. You really don't want to make it any more complicated than it already is. Dates have to allow for many different cases of formatting and input, and dts is designed for that. Times are a different matter, and although there are different forms (h:mm:ss, hh:mm:ss, mm:ss.dd, etc), the single-line tts handles them all (old joke: "You can always tell an APL programmer, but not very much"). Much better, I think, to keep them separate, since they are doing basically different jobs. --NSH001 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The question, then, is how to get this rolled out more quickly? Evidently people aren't finding the template as it is, and I'm sure that we have more than enough tables dealing with athletics events that could do with it already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a line to the dts documentation. Remember, this is only needed in certain cases, as described in the documentation. Off the top of my head, I think the 3000m steeplechase is the only one of the standard Olympic athletics events where it might be needed (note: we're dealing with elite athletes here). No doubt there are some other sports where it would be needed, would need a bit of research to find them. But in general, I'm a believer in letting people find things for themselves. --NSH001 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per NSH's argument. Plus I fail to see how this templates meets any criteria for deletion, including "the template is redundant to a better-designed template," unless it is somehow rolled into dts.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 13:09, 6 July 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:Non-free restaurant logo
<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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than the categorisation, this template appears to be identical to Non-free logo. Surely it would be more appropriate to amend the latter to do the categorisation? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nominator, redundant to non-free logo. Before deletion every Non-free restaurant logo should be replaced with . This way Category:Restaurant logos will remain on the files. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant and no transclusions. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 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:Deer Valley School District high schools
<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 Keep. After Midnight 0001 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale should be guessable: not everything (such as, say, five high schools) needs a navbox. Raymie (t • c) 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, five is enough, and helps retain a level of consistency with other related navigation boxes in the same category. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Never thought about navboxes before, but this seems like a keep case. Even WP:NENAN says five are enough. --Arg342 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 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 fictional battle
<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. The couple of "keeps" introduced after relisting have not changed the very clear consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Little-used templates which portray fictional elements as real. In keeping with our general guidelines on the portrayal of fictional content, the most important part of these subjects is not the battle itself but how it was portrayed in the work, its influence on the piece and so on. Given the low transclusion count and the current purely in-universe nature of the template, the potential for negative impact is very limited. Happy to go through the transclusions and reincorporate any images or other directly useful material myself post-deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete after deprecating, per the well-reasoned nomination. I checked the articles that transclude this template and noticed that the presence of the infobox in them overemphasizes the significance and "reality" of relatively minor fictional details. Articles about fictional conflicts should treat their topics as subjects of popular or academic interest – they should present information about the development, production, reception and influence of the fictional element, as well as any critical commentary or analysis pertaining to it – and not as actual events to be described as one would a real battle or war. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox fictional conflict is a template similar to this one, and it seems to have the same problem. It is used in just eight articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Consider it a co-nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all These are all inuniverse infoboxes and they are not not needed.  Counsider this a undue weight-violation.Curb Chain (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both - these encourage fancrufty articles written about fictional content with excessive detail and from an in-universe point of view. We don't want that. I suspect very few fictional battles are really notable enough for their own articles in any case. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> These infoboxes serve to elevate relatively minor in-universe details to the level of core information about articles whose topics are not the battles themselves, but the battles as elements in works of fiction. The made-up location, result, combatants and casualties of a fictional battle are not core information; rather, the core information is the title of the work of fiction, the influence in the real world of the fictional element, the content of academic and popular analysis or criticism of the fictional element, and so on. It is definitely premature, I think, to conclude that fictional topics should not have infoboxes at all, but there is cause to maintain that fictional topics should not have infoboxes that present the article from an in-universe perspective only. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment. This is a bit unusual. I had closed this discussion, but immediately after I orphaned and deleted the first template, I was asked if I would reopen it to allow comments from parties who may not have been aware of the discussion before the deletion actually took place. Since there were only a few participants previously, I believe re-opening and re-listing this discussion would be more appropriate than forcing the request to go through deletion review, so that's what I'm doing. --RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In case they stopped watching the discussion after it was initially closed, I have notified the previous participants of this relisting. --RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Infoboxes are not prohibited from fictional topics, UNDUE has nothing to do with the presentation of fictional information. Furthermore, if the templates are redundant, then they can be appropriately merged, and possibly replaced with a broader "fictional event" template, rather than deleted outright. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles about fictional elements should be written "from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself". Infoboxes exist to "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that [related] articles share" and "contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to [such] articles".


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional, even more specialised case of the same thing at infobox Me battle now added to co-nom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all I am commenting again as the middle earth template has been added.  I maintain that the middle earth template invites data on nonnotable information of fictional battles, that we might not even have the articles to.Curb Chain (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While these may "elevate relatively minor in-universe details to the level of core information about articles" about fiction, Help:Infobox states that infoboxes should "summarize important points in an easy-to-read format". I think the argument can be made here that quite a few people who look up an article on a fictional event are probably looking for in-universe info and won't care about the real-world stuff, so these infoboxes help them by putting the basics up front in the "easy-to-read format". It's basically a matter of convenience for the casual reader. That said, the templates could use some tweaking to add more basic real-world stuff; for starters, Infobox fictional battle could use the "depictions" field that Infobox fictional conflict has. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've looked at these enough now that I've formed a definite opinion (so I guess I won't be closing the relist), which is that regardless of whether infoboxes are useful for articles on fictional conflicts, there is absolutely no need for three of them. I also agree with the concern about these being overly focused on in-universe details. So at a minimum these should be merged into one ("conflict" is probably the most general name to use), and edited to emphasize real-world perspective, such as stating real-world works it appears in and who first created this fictional event. Fields borrowed from real-world templates, such as "Belligerents" and "Casualties", should be removed and replaced with something along the lines of "Characters involved" and placed in an section explicitly marked as "In-universe information". See Infobox fictional artifact for an example of how to do it right. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Per nomination. A pointed out by others, they give undue weight to the fictional elements of a notable work, and Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. While these infoboxes do help summarize points, they summarize only the fictional points, which is not what gives a fictional work its notability. They only have a limited scope from an in-universe point of view, which is what makes them give undue weight to the fictional elements, even more in the case of Infobox Me battle which is focused on a single type of fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all fictional events aren't typically covered enough by reliable independent sources with sufficient detail that would justify a stand-alone article, with detailed coverage of that event. Better to deal with these in the context of a less detailed and broader plot summary. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:36, 13 July 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.