Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 9
April 9
igliwat- 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 Redirected to {{Welcome-anon}} due to redundancy. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Batakan:Nac
As I edit this page, it becomes increasingly clear that it duplicates Template:Welcome-anon. {{Welcome-anon}} actually provides the welcoming user's talk page automatically with a substitution of the last user. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Should I just have WP:PRODDED it? Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2014 (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.
- 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 as there is a consensus that this template is unnecessary. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Batakan:Nac
Pretty much useless/unneeded template as series' links are heavily included on The Dumping Ground article, and all character links link elsewhere so it making it confusing for the readers. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete, mostly section links, and the articles are already well connected. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Everything already linked in main TDG articles, unneeded cruft for a series which is thankfully having its web untangled. Nate • (chatter) 13:28, 11 April 2014 (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.
Duplicate, non-English, POV, unused Israeli maps
igliwat- 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) 03:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate as can be seen at ,non-english, extremist POV, unused on en.wiki. Sepsis II (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (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.
- 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) 05:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Has just four links, only two of which are related to the team. ...William 14:29, 9 April 2014 (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.
- 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 relisted to 2014 May 16. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 16 May 2014 (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.
- 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 Consensus is for merging Orphaned non-free revisions and Non-free reduced, but leaving Split media - processed as is. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:Orphaned non-free revisions with Template:Split media - processed and Template:Non-free reduced.
These templates are too similar: All request an admin to delete the previous versions of the tagged file. Admins usually check the image seven days after the tagging and do the deletion. The reason for the speedy deletion of the revisions is always WP:NFCC. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- {{Split media - processed}} has a slightly different function to the other two listed, so I would oppose a merger with stuff dealing with Non-free revisions, unless the merger proposal is to merge to a new template {{Delete media revisons}} with a reason paramater. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. {{Split media - processed}} implies no copyvio at all, and {{Non-free reduced}} is about degrees of quality (and thus how likely a file is to pass our fair use guidelines) rather than the bright line of "copyvio" in {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. While the action to be taken in each case is broadly similar, the reasons are quite different. Maybe we don't care about that, but if so we should rename the resultant merged template to something neutral which simply notes that the file history has been manipulated for housekeeping reasons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Opposechanged !vote, see below - Each template represents a different reason for deleting old revisions than the others.Merging them would cause confusion."Non-free reduced" is for revisions that scale down an image to a resolution compatible with WP:NFCC#3b. "Orphaned non-free revisions" is for an old revision to be deleted because it is simply not in use (thus failing the one article minimum requirement of WP:NFCC#7). "Split media - processed" is a request to delete old revisions that contain files that have been uploaded as other independent files (see Template:Split media). The split media template doesn't relate to non-free content at all. Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)- Support merging {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} and {{Non-free reduced}} but not {{Split media - processed}}. Split media is a whole different process and in my opinion should be kept separate. As for the other two, there is confusion, as User:Mz7 suggests, but instead most editors do not know which tag applies. Most editors when they change any non-free file, whether it be a different logo, or a reduced size or a different crop, etc, tag it {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. As an admin who does these deletions, I can say that much fewer editors use {{Non-free reduced}}, and those who do are generally the more advanced knowledgeable editors who would not be confused by a template change. I do agree that there is a slight difference in the templates, as {{Non-free reduced}} is for WP:NFCC#3b, but technically those revisions also fail WP:NFCC#7, so using the same template makes sense to me. (It would also make cleaning up easier.) Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Side note, I want to ping @Legoktm: as they wrote a script to assist dealing with images like this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support TLSuda's proposal - After reflecting on TLSuda's proposal, I think the {{Non-free reduced}} template is actually redundant to {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}, because the overarching delete reason will always be WP:NFCC#7 for old non-free revisions. All old revisions to non-free files will fail this criterion, so to clear confusion I would support merging {{non-free reduced}} to {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} per TLSuda. {{Split media - processed}} should still be kept separate, though. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (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.
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary - half of the content has been removed/redirected due to failure of GNG, the rest is mentioned in-context in the parent article. m.o.p 04:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- comment, would like to see the result of this discussion first. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The actor pages need to be removed. I don't know how many of the characters pass WP:N, but Mackey sure does. Probably several of them could pass. The problem is that with the proliferation of uncited content on each of the pages, they are likely to just get wiped away. Nonetheless, with the creator, video game, Mackey, character list article and main article, there is sufficient content. In fact, everything in related articles should remain. With about 10 notable articles, I vote to Keep on that basis. Please remove all actor names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Remove the actor names, as Tiger suggested. The character names are in a merger discussion. Until that is resolved, this table is legitimate and will always be, as a navigation box for all related articles. While it's true all items can be found in the parent article, why add the extra step to refer back to it every time? — Wyliepedia 14:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Wylie's comment. --Tranquility of Soul (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - In its current form, the nominated form, it is usefull for the reader to navigate the related pages. - Taketa (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2014 (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.
- 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) 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Only three transclusions. Redundant, 2008, fork of {{Infobox NFL season}} (which has 3,033 transclusions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete (I replaced it in 1932, 1933, and 1950 Chicago Bears season) Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2014 (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.
- 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) 22:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused since creation in January. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete, I added a division option to the main template, so we don't need this one. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (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.
- 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, so it doesn't appear to be serving any purpose at the moment. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as unused; redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
keep, it is used in British Honduras at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)- That article was created on 22 March. It has now been switched to using {{Infobox country at games}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - First of all, the article was created on 22 March by me because the template was put up for deletion. So now that template is being used on newly created article what is now the rationale for deletion? Secondly, the {{Infobox country at games}} does not equal {{Infobox Commonwealth Games British Honduras}}. All of the Infobox Commonwealth Games templates were modeled off the Infobox Olympics templates. These call up the alias templates and the flag templates. None of this called up in {{Infobox country at games}}. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- So you're saying you created the article solely as a spoiler for this deletion discussion? The rationale for deletion is that the template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Urgh: this system needs rewritten from scratch to directly invoke {{Infobox country at games}} rather than having to maintain all these separate templates. I'd very much rather that new instances used the correct system so as to not cause even more work when the existing ones are rewritten. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- merge (need CGF/CGA parameters), but please don't orphan templates in the middle of a discussion, or just prior to, without (a) making sure no information is lost, and (b) documenting where it was removed. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep- part of a whole system Category:Commonwealth Games by country infobox templates. This is the old name of a current nation. The current template exists as well. I can understand that people dont want the current template with the current nations flag in this article. As it is, a reader can go from Belize at the 2006 Commonwealth Games to British Honduras at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games, but cannot go back the same way, since the template is missing. I consider the current solution with the template {{Infobox country at games}} a reduction in quality. I would want to just put the source of the template in the article, but I cannot, since we dont do that. Therefor, I see only 1 good solution, and that is to keep the template. Rules and deletion tendency should not reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. - Sincerely,Taketa (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2014 (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.
- 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 no consensus to delete, but there may be consensus to merge it with {{Infobox official post}}. Feel free to start a new discussion! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Only five transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox official post}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It has no equivalent. If it's not used enough, use it more. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- You say "It has no equivalent", yet as stated above, it is redundant to {{Infobox official post}}. Why, do you think, that the later is not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't redundant to {{Infobox official post}} because that template doesn't provide the military rank-specific fields {{Infobox CF rank}} does: command, abbreviation, higher, lower, same, related, and a place to insert a representation of the relevant epaulette. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
|Command===|Department=;|higher===|reports_to=;|lower===|deputy=; for epaulettes, use|flag=. Where is|same=used? We don't seem to need this template or an equivalent for any country other than Canada. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)- You're not being clear. Are you suggesting those parameters be added to {{Infobox official post}}? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm pointing out that they already exist in that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've looked through the template documentation three times, including the two examples given there, and don't see those parameters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Parameter list mentioned by Andy does not correspond. There is a style difference. Relatives (higher, same, etc) are substantial to the military situation and so cannot be discarded. imo the "redundant" claim is not correct. A merge shold be performed in cooperation with domain knowledge, not declaring parameters equal or superfluous. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- In what way do the equivalences I note not "correspond"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- A lower rank in military is not the same as deputy. Proposal makes assumptions. -DePiep (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I contend that they are equivalent; but if consensus is otherwise, and the data needs to be shown, then the parameters could be added to the more generic template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- A lower rank in military is not the same as deputy. Proposal makes assumptions. -DePiep (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- In what way do the equivalences I note not "correspond"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- For clarity
|Department=,|reports_to=and|deputy=are in {{Infobox official post}}; and|Command=,|higher=and|lower=are, respectively, equivalent to them. I asked where is|same=is used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC) - On reflection
|insignia=is the one you'd use for epaulettes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Parameter list mentioned by Andy does not correspond. There is a style difference. Relatives (higher, same, etc) are substantial to the military situation and so cannot be discarded. imo the "redundant" claim is not correct. A merge shold be performed in cooperation with domain knowledge, not declaring parameters equal or superfluous. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've looked through the template documentation three times, including the two examples given there, and don't see those parameters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm pointing out that they already exist in that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't redundant to {{Infobox official post}} because that template doesn't provide the military rank-specific fields {{Infobox CF rank}} does: command, abbreviation, higher, lower, same, related, and a place to insert a representation of the relevant epaulette. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- You say "It has no equivalent", yet as stated above, it is redundant to {{Infobox official post}}. Why, do you think, that the later is not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Reports to" and "deputy" refer to people. "Higher" and "lower" refer to ranks. Ranks are not the same as people. An individual's superior and/or deputy may not be of the next higher or next lower rank than the individual's. "Command" and "abbreviation" are simply not in {{Infobox official post}}. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Per discussion above: Redundancy only in some special points, different meaning or contradictions elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- If so, why would adding the parameters in question to the generic more template not be a solution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Stop playing dumb, Pigsonthewing. Your redundancy claim is proven incorrect. It should not require fourteen posts here to let you admit that. Tell us & help yourself: what did you not hear? Simple: you nominate, so the burden is on you to prove equivalence. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- DePiep, focus on the content, not the personality and remember WP:NPA. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I described the discussion as it was played. An pattern of 'I did not hear that' is visible. And countable. Repeatedly banging that words look the same so they must mean the same. And please note that I am already the second editor who has left this thread. Why not a merge proposal & attitude was sought, I do not understand. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- DePiep, focus on the content, not the personality and remember WP:NPA. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Stop playing dumb, Pigsonthewing. Your redundancy claim is proven incorrect. It should not require fourteen posts here to let you admit that. Tell us & help yourself: what did you not hear? Simple: you nominate, so the burden is on you to prove equivalence. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note {{Infobox official post}} is used for Chief of the Army Staff (India) (with
|department=); Chief of the Romanian General Staff; Chief of Staff of the United States Army (with|deputy=and|department=); Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom); Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan) (with|Deputy=); Chief of Air Force (Australia); Chief of the Defence Staff (France) (with|Deputy=); Chief of General Staff (Israel); Chief of Defence (Netherlands) ; Chief of Defence (Norway); Chief of Defence Force (Singapore); Chief of the Defence Staff (Spain); Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom) (with|deputy=and|department=); Chief of Navy (Australia); Chief of Staff of the French Navy (with|reports_to=); First Sea Lord. That's sixteen transclusions; many more than the number of transclusions the nominated, redundant template has. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC) - Note 2 On further examination, it appears that
|same=(which, like the rest of the parameters in this template, is undocumented) is unused. Similarly, the|related=parameter is unused. It is also apparent that epaulettes are only depicted in a single article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC) - Delete: WTF is a "CP" anyway? Seems redundant, any additional concerns raised above can be addressed by adding additional parameters to the existing other templates. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- More to the point: WTF does it matter what a "CP" is? The template's called "CF rank". CF = Canadian Forces. It can be renamed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- If the ranking parameters in this template are broadly useful for other militaries, they should be suggested for inclusion in the more general template. There's nothing in the discussion above which suggests that any of these concepts are unique to the Canadian Forces, and plenty of counterexamples have been provided. This shouldn't be remotely controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Modifications can be made as necessary. The point is that military and civilian structures are different, where military ranks and appointments possess clear and legally enforced chains of command. Further, the Canadian military is not part of a department, nor are any civilians part of its command structure due to the nature of Canada's constitution. Merger may be possible if military specific fields are incorporated. trackratte (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- And this is unique to the Canadian military to the exception of all others? I've yet to see anyone present a proper argument as to why the suggested merge target works perfectly well for military ranks in every other country in the world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it does work perfectly well for other countries. I can't really speak to countries and their militaries that I'm not part of and know nothing about. This template isn't perfect either, but it is a lot more suitable than the one that is being suggested to replace it. 'Reports to' is irrelevant as they could 'report to' a great many people, what is important here is the chain of command not of reporting. 'Member of' is redundant, they're all part of the Canadian Armed Forces, Style is redundant, there is no residence or seat in our context, there is not such thing as a nominator, all officers are appointed by the Crown by virtue of their Commission or being promoted by a representative of the Crown "from time to time as we see fit", there is no term length, there is no constituting instrument but a collection of written and unwritten constitutional principles. Department does not apply as no military members in Canada fall under any Department or any civilian organisation for that matter. First holder is already covered in lists on many of the individual pages. Final holder and abolished not applicable at this time. Succession does not apply. Deputy does not apply. Salary...why? Etc. In fact, most of it doesn't apply to Canada's military, and some of it would just be ambiguous if not misleading. Also, what other countries may or may not do has no bearing on the argument. The question is, does it makes sense to delete this template to replace it with this one? And my answer is no, no it does not. One is made specifically for Canada's military, and the other is made for generalised civilian appointments which does not apply to our particular system. If you want to modify it so it does, then start a discussion there, modify it accordingly, and then come back here. trackratte (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point of TfD is to discuss how to move the project as a whole forward. That implies that frequently the result will depend on work being done on other templates. This works better if people cooperate rather than fighting for their one little corner of the project to stay as it is. If there is a better merge target, or indeed if {{Infobox CF rank}} would be better converted into a general {{Infobox military rank}} and used elsewhere on the project, then that's fine. But the present situation, whereby every military rank uses one type of infobox unless it happens to be Canadian, is preposterous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've been saying that if a suitable merge or modification can be done, then once it is, come back here for deletion or merge. As it stands now, this infobox should be kept until a suitable solution is at hand. I think a military rank infobox is a fantastic idea. trackratte (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point of TfD is to discuss how to move the project as a whole forward. That implies that frequently the result will depend on work being done on other templates. This works better if people cooperate rather than fighting for their one little corner of the project to stay as it is. If there is a better merge target, or indeed if {{Infobox CF rank}} would be better converted into a general {{Infobox military rank}} and used elsewhere on the project, then that's fine. But the present situation, whereby every military rank uses one type of infobox unless it happens to be Canadian, is preposterous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it does work perfectly well for other countries. I can't really speak to countries and their militaries that I'm not part of and know nothing about. This template isn't perfect either, but it is a lot more suitable than the one that is being suggested to replace it. 'Reports to' is irrelevant as they could 'report to' a great many people, what is important here is the chain of command not of reporting. 'Member of' is redundant, they're all part of the Canadian Armed Forces, Style is redundant, there is no residence or seat in our context, there is not such thing as a nominator, all officers are appointed by the Crown by virtue of their Commission or being promoted by a representative of the Crown "from time to time as we see fit", there is no term length, there is no constituting instrument but a collection of written and unwritten constitutional principles. Department does not apply as no military members in Canada fall under any Department or any civilian organisation for that matter. First holder is already covered in lists on many of the individual pages. Final holder and abolished not applicable at this time. Succession does not apply. Deputy does not apply. Salary...why? Etc. In fact, most of it doesn't apply to Canada's military, and some of it would just be ambiguous if not misleading. Also, what other countries may or may not do has no bearing on the argument. The question is, does it makes sense to delete this template to replace it with this one? And my answer is no, no it does not. One is made specifically for Canada's military, and the other is made for generalised civilian appointments which does not apply to our particular system. If you want to modify it so it does, then start a discussion there, modify it accordingly, and then come back here. trackratte (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (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.
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Only two transclusions; data can easily be presented in individual articles Adabow (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I strongly oppose this deletion request. Over the last couple of years, much work has been put into converting New Zealand election results to templates, as most results tables get used on two pages. We did so because upon inspection, there were commonly differences in the results when they were in individual tables. Editors had to know that they had to update two separate tables if mistakes were discovered, amendments had to be made, new wikilinks were introduced, referencing improved, or table formatting changed. Trying to maintain this mess was time-consuming, and we thus concluded that where results tables are used on more than one page, we are best to template them. That way, we can focus on improving things and making Wikipedia better and more useful, rather than spending time on maintaining what we already have. If this silly and unhelpful proposal goes ahead and the template gets deleted, we might as well put all 230 results templates up for deletion that are in Category:New Zealand election result templates and its various subcategories, as the vast majority would only have two transclusions, and I'm guessing that there isn't a single template in there that would have more than three transclusions. Schwede66 19:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- For cases like this, there is a new feature for transcluding part of one article in another: Help:Labeled section transclusion —PC-XT+ 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link; I had not come across this before. I'll try this to see how it works for new results tables. But the main issue remains - surely, there should not be an expectation to get rid of 230 templates by using this procedure on some 450 odd pages. I for one would rather create new content than waste my time with doing those modifications. If Adabow is happy to do the work of implementing section transclusions for those existing templates, by all means go ahead. Schwede66 07:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- For cases like this, there is a new feature for transcluding part of one article in another: Help:Labeled section transclusion —PC-XT+ 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Merge into one article, transclude that section in place of remaining transclusions of this template, then deleteper the above, unless User:Schwede66 or someone else shows that it does not work for this case; other templates could be discussed later, if this works out —PC-XT+ 04:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just in case I was ambiguous above: I'm happy to try this out for future cases. I have zero intention of touching any of the 230 templates that we already have. Schwede66 07:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- My reference to you was basically that you may cancel my !vote if the change I named breaks anything. (None of us wants this broken.) I may try the change myself, if the closer or Adabow don't do it. I currently have no opinion on the others in the category, but there are users interested in reducing the total number of templates, so this may possibly turn into something of a precedent for them. If this change would cause any issues, I'd like to know. —PC-XT+ 19:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete ridicuolous overuse of template concept; dabs and articles can handle this. Montanabw(talk) 02:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. The main article is rather long with all these tables. I can see linking to the by-election articles instead of transcluding the templates, especially as more elections happen. There would be no need for section transclusion, then. Just substitute the templates into the by-election articles and replace the transclusions in the main article with a list of links to the by-election pages, basically a DAB, or maybe a table summarizing them. —PC-XT+ 07:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this is what Adabow was talking about from the start. I missed the point, thinking other templates were involved, but these are not the same, because they are hardcoded.
I'm changing my !vote to merge into Christchurch East by-election, 2013 and delete, leaving a link to Christchurch East by-election, 2013 in place of the other transclusion. I also support changing the other templates into links or summaries, though I am not sure that is really part of this discussion.—PC-XT+ 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)- Batakan:User, rather than us guessing, can you explain to us what your underlying intentions were? Schwede66 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- My intentions were that the templates could effectively be substituted, the template deleted, and the data remain unchanged in both articles the template currently appears in. The labeled section transclusion idea that PC-XT mentioned sounds reasonable too. It was my thought that, in general, the more templates that appear in an article the longer that article takes to load (not sure whether this is accurate or not). Adabow (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Batakan:User, rather than us guessing, can you explain to us what your underlying intentions were? Schwede66 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this is what Adabow was talking about from the start. I missed the point, thinking other templates were involved, but these are not the same, because they are hardcoded.
- Good point. The main article is rather long with all these tables. I can see linking to the by-election articles instead of transcluding the templates, especially as more elections happen. There would be no need for section transclusion, then. Just substitute the templates into the by-election articles and replace the transclusions in the main article with a list of links to the by-election pages, basically a DAB, or maybe a table summarizing them. —PC-XT+ 07:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose to both delete and merge&link options. Labeled section transclusion makes no provision for future renaming of section title or source article, or of merges etc., and therefore is highly breakable. The information in this template is relevant to both the Batakan:By-election link article and the Batakan:NZ electorate link parent article so just linking to the by-election article is not practical. Our intention on this project is that all by-elections are articles, and all election results (including by-elections) are tabulated in sections of the electorate article. ... eventually. I don't accept Montanabw's claim that this is "ridiculous [or an] overuse of template concept", templates are supposed to help avoid repetition and ensure consistency across a whole wiki - and that is exactly what they're doing here. I don't think article loading times are a problem, I think we're talking milliseconds here Adabow - if you have information to the contrary I'd like to hear it. I also concur with Schwede66 in that there is too much work involved in unpicking the existent several hundred pages for zero reward, other than a point of dogma. I'm not going to touch it, and I intend to continue with templates should I find myself writing up further by-elections, since I'm not particularly keen on creating fragile transclusions. FanBatakan:N | talk | 04:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- If the articles are likely to go through changes that would break labelled section transclusion, then it shouldn't be used. I don't really understand why the information cannot be summarized in the main article, instead of using the whole template, but I don't want to mess up the project. I looked at the WikiProject New Zealand politics pages, but didn't find something to help me understand. If there is a discussion about this, there, I'll read it if you post the link(s), here. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 07:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Have a read of this. I'm sure we touched on that at an earlier occasion, though. Several of us have been working on this for a few years now, and the editor (Hugo999) who over the last few months has done a massive amount of work on this hasn't even commented here as yet.
- If the articles are likely to go through changes that would break labelled section transclusion, then it shouldn't be used. I don't really understand why the information cannot be summarized in the main article, instead of using the whole template, but I don't want to mess up the project. I looked at the WikiProject New Zealand politics pages, but didn't find something to help me understand. If there is a discussion about this, there, I'll read it if you post the link(s), here. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 07:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I should also comment on "why the information cannot be summarized in the main article", and this is a bit broader than the discussion about this one particular template. Fanx has already touched on it, but for the sake of making it even clearer, we have two different types of elections: general elections and by-elections. For these two types of elections, we produce detailed election results tables. Those tables are used across two types of articles: By-election articles and electorate articles. For the next general election, we will have 71 electorates, and as adding 71 detailed results tables to an election article would obviously be ridiculous, we produce summary tables for each general election. Those summary tables are then used with the articles about the general election, and the respective nth parliament article. So just to make clear, we already produce summary tables, but the detailed results obviously have to go somewhere, and the detail is most usefully kept with electorate articles. Most of the electorate results tables get used only once, and that is in the electorate article. But the by-election results are relevant to both the by-election article as well as the electorate article, and they hence get templated. So at this point in time, we template by-election results tables, as well as the summary tables for each general election. Not showing the by-election results in the electorate articles wouldn't make sense, as all the general election results are shown there; omitting by-elections would feel wrong. Not having the detailed by-election results with the by-election articles would obviously not make sense either. Hence, these details will logically appear in more than one article. Believe me, we've got a fine system sorted out, and I'm totally with Fanx when she says that we shouldn't be driven dogma. What we do is clever, the quality of the information provided has improved greatly, and the system is stable and can't be broken by somebody not knowing what they are doing. By all means, let's get rid of unused or superfluous templates, but what you have in front of you here is highly useful and great for the wiki. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Schwede66 08:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The following table summarises the situation. On the vertical axis, you see the articles. On the horizontal axis are the various results tables. Schwede66 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
| by-election result | election result | election summary | |
| by-election | by-election template | ||
| electorate | detailed results (not a template) | ||
| general election | summary results template | ||
| nth parliament |
- I was wondering how to best describe the interconnectivity of these several templates, and their uses - thanks Schwede for your excellent table. My take on them shows further complexity and just how integrated these several templates are in our project. Arriving at this system has been planned and tested thoroughly (though not always collectively, and we do manage consensus), and although templates are often only used on a couple of pages they are essential to the core functionality of much of our work. And while I'm sure there may be several other ways of approaching this project, this current system works well, and is fit for our purposes. The only realistic outcome in tampering with this system will be to impede the work of this project's membership. FanBatakan:N | talk | 10:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
| by-election result |
election result |
candidates in yyyy election |
election summary |
by-elections summaries | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By-election | by-election template |
detailed results previous election |
|||
| Electorate | detailed results | detailed lists | |||
| constructed from clone templates 1 | |||||
| List of candidates | detailed lists | ||||
| General election | summary results template |
||||
| Nth parliament | by-elections during nth parliament | ||||
| List of by-elections | |||||
- 1 Clone templates are essentially two identical (and similarly named) templates with built-in redundancy of unique parameters (as used on respective articles) designed to do two different jobs. For candidates prior to election (see {{NZ election box begin}} and {{NZ election box incumbent}}), and for results post election (see {{MMP election box begin}} and {{MMP election box incumbent}}) nothing more than the first few letters of the template name needs be changed.
- [edit] Unique templates with few transclusions Tables with common templates, used on multiple articles. Not currently transcluded FanBatakan:N | talk | 13:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- keep if the alternative is section transclusion, but merge/delete if it will only be used in one article, with a simple link from others. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for now — I don't think we can benefit this system by actions that can be taken in this discussion, at this point. If it is to be changed, it should probably be discussed in the project pages. —PC-XT+ 05:35, 10 April 2014 (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.