Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9

Template:Alpha Men First Accomplishments

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 substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alpha Men First Accomplishments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template being used as a replacement for text. Should be subsituted into Alpha Phi Alpha and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Nothing wrong with the content, but a single-use table does not need to be in the form of a template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - Agreed with the above.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:CA2064-Kathmandu-1

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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article (Results of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008) could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support subst and delete
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Good info, but single-use tables don't need to be in templates. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:CA2064-Kathmandu-10

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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CA2064-Kathmandu-8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently an orphaned templates. Probably a good candidate for subst in Results of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support subst and delete
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as suggested in the nom makes sense, but does anyone know why these aren't already included in the article? --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:CBB roster header

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) 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CBB roster header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CBB roster footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CBB roster doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Player7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused, and no obvious use. Aside from that though, i think that what these are intended to be used for, it would be better to simply include a table in the article itself rather then a template.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:BS-overlap2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete (author was fine with its deletion) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-overlap2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be abandoned. Last edit was "still needs more work - will come back to it later", posted on 22 May 2008. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, and that edit summary plus the fact that it was made the same day the template was created pretty much screams "abandoned". --RL0919 (talk)
Delete Unused, abandoned.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa - delete. Yes, I forgot to remove it after some testing it as an alternative on the BS route icons to an issue at the time. Thanks for re-finding it ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:1965 Los Angeles Dodgers season game log

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) 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1965 Los Angeles Dodgers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Could be merged with 1965 Los Angeles Dodgers season? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst, then Delete
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: For the reasons stated above, it's a shame to see such a nice template as an orphan.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now merged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of these game log templates were pretty much deprecated by the Baseball WikiProject... I think. It's not completely clear what their support status is to me, which is why I've been hesitant to mention anything until now. Has anyone said anything about this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:-)

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 Sadly delete as redundant to {{=)}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely useless template that serves to do nothing but link an image of a smiley... The thing that should not be 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --SkyWalker (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete + Salt This is a perennial proposal. See the deletion log of Template:Smiley. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I personally don't see any harm caused by it, whereas it's very simple to put a smile with it without adding a link to the image.--//microcell 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per microcell. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Per Logan above.--Adam in MO Talk
Keep, a very useful template, much easier to write {{:-)}} than to write [[File|smiley.svg|15px]] to achieve the same thing. Wish I'd known of this months ago! Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a search for prior dicussions, one can find this and this and this. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chill out guys. Even assuming that it's "completely useless" (which is a rather naked and subjective personal opinion), the easy counter to that is what User:Microcell said above, that it doesn't cause harm. This template is a simple typing aid, and the quixotic history of deleting these is, quite frankly, mean spirited. The curmudgeonly attitude of some members in this community is damaging to the project, and this TfD is one of the many pin pricks that tend to create an acerbic atmosphere around here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes you just want to make a smilie, and why go searching for one of a dozen images to use when you can easily use this? Quite useful for displaying emotion text can't convey without looking like an AOLer from the 90s. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and useless when compared to the VASTLY more useful and versatile Template:=). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
humm, I just noticed this. I see what you're getting at, but for a simple smiley don't you think that it's easier to use {{-)}} instead of {{=)|smile}}? I think that their different enough to both have a place.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that "=)" is an actual smilie, whereas "-)" is not (the name is a clever incorporation of the colon that follows the namespace). While I still dislike the idea of a smilie-only template in the main template namespace, I object to {{=)}} a lot less, given its much greater versatility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easier by six key strokes? Two if you use 1 instead of smilie? Not something I'm worried about. We can redirect it, I suppose, but it's clearly not used often. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, a keystroke is a keystroke... saving a single keystroke (let alone 6!) is a pretty huge deal in most applications.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing that point per se, excepting that Wikipedia isn't an application, it's an encyclopedia. Saving people a few keystrokes just so they can pepper their comments with ultimately unneeded imagery should not be a particularly high concern of ours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per logan and other historic deletions. We don't allow images in sigs partially to prevent talkpages turning into AOL/ICQ cartoon-filled discussions. Bad idea. Anyone who wants to draw attention to themselves can go to WP:EMOTE and copypaste.
For more precedent see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_4#Template:Emot and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 20#Template:) and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/August_2005#Template:Sad. Whatever happens to this template should also occur for Template:):. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get confrontational here, especially since this template really isn't worth it, but the perceived reasoning for not allowing images in sigs has nothing to do with "talkpages turning into AOL/ICQ". The problem with signatures is that, as they are currently structured, allowing images in them is a (rather large) security risk, both technically and behaviorally. Aside from that, the anti-social reasoning offered is certainly a widely held view, but that's actually an argument to keep rather then to delete. Not that it will make a difference, since that destructive behavior has become institutional now, and is rewarded with positive feedback.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone were allowed small images in their sigs (or, as here, if we were to endorse using images, like smileys, liberally in talkpage discussions), many talkpages would rapidly become cartoon-filled, which would lower the impression of respectability for many participants. I agree that we need to be open minded in the dance between "adapt to others" vs "conform to others", but yellow smileys aren't something that help everyone write an encyclopedia - they actually hamper the efforts, for a significant population. Think of the elder academics/professionals, who will eyeroll at any page they see that has a few dozen smileys scattered throughout. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A useful "social lubricant" for the talkpages, easier to remember and type than the full-text equivalent. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sand in the lubricant, for some of us. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more frequent communication problems we have "backstage" is emotional misunderstanding, mistaking friendly and even humorously intended remarks for hostile remarks. (Viz. recent fooforaw elsewhere, accusations of threats of "cannibalism" if one misunderstood "Berliner"!) We don't have body language, facial expressions, or tone of voice to convey emotional undertones. Emoticons help. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently use ascii emoticons myself :-) It's the colourful image smilies that irritate/distract/frustrate myself and numerous other people. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the absence of templates for these other cartoon images hasn't stopped you from inserting them. So deleting this template won't eliminate "the colourful image smilies", it'll merely require extra work for those other people who use them... which may suit you fine, but I'm not sure that's a good reason for deletion. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curmudgeonly delete: Utterly frivolous use of the template space. If :-) and mean exactly the same thing, the only real argument for is that you like the pretty colors. We already have to endure user talk pages in eye-wrenching colors with fonts that only someone with the perfect eyesight of a 13 year old could read quickly, so let's avoid making it easier to let the 'pretty colors crowd' to inflict themselves on others on their own talk pages. - Banyan Tree 03:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
humm... maybe I shouldn't complain about being compared to a 13 year old, but... (hehe) Seriously though, it seem that there is some relation between exposure to and comfort with more "modern" internet communication (mostly messenger and web forum platforms) and those !voting to delete or keep this and similar templates. I know that in my case at least, I'm certainly not 13, and I definitely do not have perfect eyesight. There's nothing wrong with being slightly uncomfortable with emoticons, and the potential for over use is certainly there, but I can confidently say that you get used to them. I personally don't find the hyperbole about "the elder academics/professionals, who will eyeroll at any page they see that has a few dozen smileys scattered throughout." to be convincing either, since both of these arguments are of the "I don't like it" variety. Granted, most of the keep arguments are of the "I like it" variety, so neither side really seems stronger here. On the other hand, the delete argument does have history and an established norm for the site on it's side (which is what I fully expect to be the determining factor here, and in my opinion readily explains the "unused" criticism given below), which I think that many tend to find convincing in marginal cases such as this. Then again, the keep argument has the point that there are whole categories of typing-aid templates, and that there is definite utility in being able to use eg.: {{-)}} in place of [[File:Smiley.svg|16px]]. I think that it would be good if someone could come up with a better argument, one way or another.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Text smilies are good enough; if someone wants more, they're welcome to go to commons:Category:Smilies and find one they want. The whopping five uses of this template doubly suggests it isn't worth keeping. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that I'm aware of this template I would like to use it, but have refrained from doing so while this TfD is running. If it gets kept, then the more people that use it, the more people will see it and start using it too. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional use of the template will likely just generate additional ire for its very existence. It's almost a catch-22. ;) That does not, however, change the fact that we don't actually need a template to generate a single smilie, and it doesn't need to be in the main template namespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (in reply to both points) You might be correct about increased use creating a sort of catch-22, but that will likely fade fairly quickly (one way or another). What I'm most concerned with the the argument about need. As I pointed out above, there is a whole category of typing-aid templates, none of which have any real need. Their typing aids, is all. Unless their getting in the way of a template with a larger purpose I don't see what the problem is. Besides that, taking that logic to it's ridiculous extreme, we don't need templates at all since it would be perfectly reasonable to subst them all where their currently used and manually copy/paste text for future uses.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find it amazing that anyone can, in any way, shape, or form, compare the usefulness of this template with something like {{bartcy status}}, {{pipe}}, or {{hid}}. It's a smilie face. Smilie faces aren't useful to an encyclopedia. I'm fine with a little bit of leeway here (the mentioned-above template of {{=)}} does something similar, but is at least more flexible), but come on, trying to equate this template with something that standardizes the display of encyclopedic information is laughable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Well, now we're really stepping into a whole other discussion. It's really a bit beyond the scope of this TfD (or a lot beyond), but still, since we're all here and we seem to be having a productive discussion, we might as well use the floor. I understand that point, and if we accept the basic premise completely then there's really no argument to be had here. This and similar templates are not, and will never be, directly useful to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. There's an accepted and oft repeated refrain in the community here that the encyclopedia is the end and and be all of Wikipedia. I don't really dispute that, but... really, it's not an accurate view. If we were actually serious about that stance then it would be easy enough to truly enforce: we could simply get rid of all talk pages. The point is that it's clearly the case that there is some community here. I'll readily admit that it bothers me that many Wikipedians don't seem to want there to be a community, but there's clearly some need for it. I could actually argue fairly passionately that a healthy, engaged community would be very beneficial to the encyclopedia (and I'll likely do that relatively soon, based on: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#I_give_up), but that's a topic for elsewhere. The point, really, is that while these sorts of templates aren't directly useful in articles, they do serve a purpose towards facilitating communication between editors.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here would agree that the community is a core part of why Wikipedia works. (I've never seen anyone rational postulate that eradicating talkpages would be a good thing - that's a bewildering straw man!) The issue is not that graphical emoticons are not appreciated by some members of the community, it's the fact that they antagonize/irritate other members of the community. Any benefits are overwhelmed by the drawbacks. Especially when the same functionality can be achieved more easily and less-obtrusively in ascii. :-/ -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a straw man argument though, it's an... reductio ad absurdum argument (sort of). It's crafted to be intentionally exaggerated, for effect. Part of the point to pointing out the absurd extreme result is that while such ideological "emoticons bad!" arguments may be effective to proponents who already hold such views, their hardly convincing otherwise. The point that you're bringing up, regarding the fact that the same can be achieved through text or by using the images directly, is susceptible to similar criticism. The one somewhat new point that I see above has to do with irritation, which is interesting; if yourself or others are truly irritated by emoticons... well, I don't know what to tell you. Emoticons are a fairly inconsequential issue to become emotional over, aren't they?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that it is more of an appeal to consequences based on a false analogy. Even if one accepts the premise that emoticons and talk pages both facilitate communication and collaboration between editors, it does not automatically follow that an argument to delete one applies to the other. Emoticons may "lubricate" interpersonal interaction (K-Y Jelly works better), but talk pages make such interaction possible in the first place. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really disagree, but keep in mind what was being replied to here. This grew directly out of the comments made earlier, so considering them as a direct "keep" rational (as seems to be the case) is taking things out of context.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't object to the reasonable use of graphical emoticons in discussions, but this is something that should be done via in-text linking, not transclusion of templates. Overall, I do not like the idea of setting a precedent for transcluding templates that contain nothing more than images—to my knowledge, such templates have been routinely deleted in the past. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you mean like {{tick}} Y, {{cross}} N, {{X mark}} N, etc.? See Category:Image insertion templates; it's one of the category-tags on the template we're discussing now, the "completely useless template that serves to do nothing but link an image..." just like all the others in the whole category. Are we going to wipe them all out? Including the DYK and FA and GA icons? Oh, won't that make those editors happy! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're being a tad facetious, since I can't believe that you would argue that a smiley icon is about as significant to an encyclopedia as an icon that identifies the encyclopedia's best works... As for the others, such as {{tick}} and {{cross}}, yes I'd like to see them deleted in favour of templates that also incorporate some text, such {{done}} and {{not done}}. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there are more contexts than "Done" and "Not done", such as YVerified vs NErroneous, Matched/Unmatched, etc. The image-only templates let the users choose their own words and still use the icons — or use the icons alone in, say, a table (Do Options X, Y, Z, provide features a-f?). Likewise, the courteous {{thank you}} provides a smiley, but perhaps you want to say that in the editor's known native language, or a different phrase like Great editing job!
      And doesn't your own argument for routinely deleting "templates that contain nothing more than images" apply to "an icon that identifies the encyclopedia's best works"? You didn't specify any such exception before. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and I do support the idea of having a template for each of the commonly-occurring contexts or one generic template with parameters for displaying text (e.g., {{tick|Done}} to produce Done).
        You raise an interesting point about icons in tables, and I think that could be one of the few cases where a good argument could be made for the utility of image-only templates; however, even in those cases, there are usually better alternatives involving text (e.g., see [1] versus [2]). In any case, such an exception would not apply to a smiley template since there is no practical use for a template filled with smileys...
        Perhaps I should have qualified my statement about "transcluding templates that contain nothing more than images" to indicate that I see a qualitative difference between a template for a smiley icon and templates used to maintain or improve the encyclopedia's content. However, my preference for avoiding single-image-only templates whenever possible (i.e., in the absence of significant practical value) still stands. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There's "no practical use for a [table] filled with" checkmarks, either. But there is practical use for a table using (at least two) different icons, as with {{tick}} and {{cross}}; perhaps smile, frown, and neutral expression, for rough satisfaction ratings? Or, as a practical table may be partly filled with checkmarks (and other cells left empty), another such table might be partly filled with smileys. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The purpose of a table is to highlight differences or present different bits of information, so I was never suggesting that every cell in a table be filled with check marks. I had hoped that the example to which I linked demonstrated my suggested use. There can be a practical use for a table with checkmarks, such as in "Comparison of {computer software}" articles, where check marks could indicate whether a particular software program has a particular characteristic. Even in these cases, templates with text—{{yes}} and {{no}}—are usually better than image-only templates.
        I strongly oppose the idea of using emoticons in a table about satisfaction or approval ratings... Issues of professional appearance aside, such an approach requires a certain degree of original research (e.g., does 51% satisfaction merit a smiley or a neutral expression?). In fact, the only situation that I can think of where emoticons would be appropriate in a table is in an article about emoticons (e.g., Emoticons or List of emoticons). And if a template is used in only one or two articles, then there's probably no need for it to exist at all.
        Perhaps instead of discussing hypothetical scenarios we could focus on concrete examples... Can you offer an example (similar to the one I provided) of a valid use of an emoticon template in the mainspace? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why the restriction to mainspace? {{done}}, {{not done}}, and {{thank you}} are not meant for mainspace. Templates and tables are used in WP:space and talkspace as well.
        If there are three expressions covering a 100% range, I'd presume each covers a ~33% range: 1-33% frown, 34-67% neutral, 68-100% smile. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Only because we were discussing usage in mainspace... If you can suggest a valid use in another namespace—other than adding smileys in discussions, which has already been mentioned and argued against (the effectiveness of said arguments is another matter)—that would work just as well.
        That's certainly a logical choice, but it's also an arbitrary one. One could just as easily argue that, in the context of satisfaction ratings, a frown should cover 0–49%, neutral should be 50%, and a smiley should cover 51–100%. Or, depending on one's purpose, one could define the ranges as 0–40%, 41–60%, and 61–100%, or even 0–16%, 17–84%, and 85–100%. However, I'm afraid we are veering a little off-topic. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        For instance a WikiProject's list of monitored articles, with status icons for "satisfactory", "could still use some work", "unsatisfactory" — a table one would want to turn into all-smileys. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That role is filled by the universally-used (and more nuanced) assessment classes and template-populated categories such as Category:Military history articles needing attention. From there, it's just a matter of having a bot automatically generate a list of articles (there are several that do this). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]