Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20

[edit]

Template:Louisville Catholic Elementary

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a template of redirects. None of the subjects were referenced and/or notable (usually per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and so were changed to redirects. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:42, 20 October 2015 (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).
[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete after replacing the text. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were created as recently as May, without any prior discussion or obvious need. They were created by a Christian editor, and seem to fulfill some unclear and unspecified personal need of their creator (pun intended), rather than any need of this project. As a matter of fact, and as noted on the talkpages of both templates, they violate several of the instructions on WP:ERA, specifically "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods". They are currently in use at a small number of articles only, and we had best squash this initiative in the bud, so to speak. We have enough edit wars or vandalism edits regarding WP:ERA as it is, and this personal initiative can only add oil to the fire. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol "by a Christian editor" what does that have to do with it? Should I point outit is a Jewish editor that is finding objection to it and calling out a filthy goy such at myself? No, I don't, because I have manners. "violating several of the instructions" Actually, the current state of the template for several days are technically, quote, "upper case, unspaced,without periods". The ONLY (read: "only", adj., look that up in wiktionary) difference is the <small> template. Not to mention I've recently stopped using the templates anyway after finding them slightly bloaty and a bit too small. That's not the issue; delete it all you want. My issue is your condescending, excessively bureaucratic, elitist, and quite concerning if not bigoted tone. No wonder so many avid users end up retiring! You have offended me and made me feel emotionally stressed. EDIT: I am not trying to offend you (I am better than that), I am just absolutely shocked at a father such as yourself acting so immaturely! Seriously, could you not have considered the person behind the screen? Yeah you didn't curse me out or anything, but your wording is so condescending like I have some evil Christian plot to take over Wikipedia, and then the personal implications.--Sιgε |д･) 14:31, 20 October 2015 (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).

Various regional radio station templates within templates

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was keep for now, although editors in this area are encouraged to develop an alternative navigational system to replace this one. (Note that there are current discussions about restructuring similar templates-in-templates systems in other topic areas, e.g. Template talk:Medicine navs). Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used to navigate between templates from within a template (by transclusion - see {{Elmira-Corning Radio}} for example), which fails WP:EGG, as a reader will expect to be directed to article mainspace, and WP:NAVBOX which explains how navboxes are for navigating between articles. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: I would also like to add, by deleting these templates we would essentially create thousands of orphaned articles unconnected to any others. These templates connect these articles together in more ways than one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you want a reader to go to a list instead of staying on the article they are already on and navigate around that way? Seems like the long way around to get the same information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. Readers are not staying on the article. They are not even staying in article namespace. They are being redirected to template namespace and will be WP:SURPRISEd by this when clicking on any link. This is not where anyone would expect to end up. You keep saying "article", but NONE of these link to articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the statement "we would essentially create thousands of orphaned articles unconnected to any others" is untrue. We would create a grand total of zero orphaned articles by deleting these templates as not a single one is linked to a single article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew anything about articles and how they are created (which I am beginning to doubt you do) you would know that if these articles weren't connected via these templates (templates which have been around for 9+ years) they would be immediately orphaned. Yes, we would have thousands of orphaned articles. These templates are linked through transclusion to numerous other templates, which are on thousands of articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have some examples of the "thousands" of articles that would be orphaned? Other areas of Wikipedia don't have this sort of linking (e.g. Template:Radio stations in France doesn't link to the equivalent template for Belgium, the navbox for BMW cars doesn't link to the navbox for BMW motorbikes...). Note also that an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace" so if the only inlink to an article is from template namespace (i.e. it's from a template that isn't transcluded on any other articles) then the article is an orphan. DexDor (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of thoughts. I'm a little surprised at the nomination, as most of these have been in use for almost nine years at this point. Don't recall ever hearing a complaint in the past. Second, if we're opening up a discussion about these, we should be considering the whole set. There are probably a hundred or more of them transcluded into North American articles alone - one for radio markets in most U.S. states, one for radio markets in most Canadian provinces, and one for television markets in most U.S. states. If the decision is to ultimately delete these, it wouldn't make sense to treat the 21 of them listed above differently from the rest. Mlaffs (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These were the only ones I found. Same reasoning would apply to any others that can be found. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Those are clear violations of WP:NAVBOX which no one ever caught all these years being hidden in the codes at the bottom of the body of the templates. I found some more similar radio templates within templates: Template:Alberta Radio Markets, Template:Manitoba Radio Markets, Template:New Brunswick Radio Markets, Template:Newfoundland and Labrador Radio Markets, Template:Nova Scotia Radio Markets, Template:Ontario Radio Markets, Template:Quebec Radio Markets, Template:Saskatchewan Radio Markets, Template:Australia Radio Markets, Template:China Radio Markets, Template:Mexico Radio Markets, Template:Regional NSW Radio Market, Template:South Africa radio markets, Template:Tamaulipas Radio Markets, Template:UK Radio Markets, Template:Oregon Radio Markets, Template:Washington Radio Markets.--RioHondo (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, they are not being used appropriately per WP:NAVBOX, which states that navboxes are for navigation between articles. These do not link to articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they do. They are transcluded into each market template box, which links numerous articles together with the Wikilinks inside those templates. Just use one link from anyone of them and use the "what links here" option and you'll see what I mean. These are being used correctly and do link articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they link templates, not articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These templates link to other templates and those other templates link to articles. Thus, it does provide an alternative way for readers to navigate from one article to another, but only by going via the template namespace which is not (in the interests of avoiding unnecessary complexity for readers and editors) where we should be sending readers. DexDor (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All, with one caveat. If the only concern here is policy, each of the templates could easily be inserted into a dummy article for the purposes of staying in line with policy. (Or, of course, the policy could be changed, but that would probably require more discussion.) The links have use in navigation and to delete all solely because of a (fairly obscure) policy would be the equivalent of using a bazooka to kill a fly—sure, it'll work, but it'll leave huge holes and do more damage than good. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with creating the aforementioned dummy article, if that works for everyone else. I could do it and link it in with WP:WPRS, the radio station WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned dummy article would be arguably eligible for speedy deletion under A3. Rather than a dummy article, an actual real article would make sense. The nominated navboxes imply that they are linking to an article on a specific radio market. How about actually creating that article? - Whpq (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting to see how all of these pans out before going nuts on an article. Being that these are state templates, that would be a state article, not a specific radio market article.
Mlaffs, could these be linked into the "List of radio stations by [state]" pages? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think anyone here voting for "keep" understands the difference between templates, which reside in the "Template:" namespace, and articles, which reside in mainspace. This seems to lead to a misapprehension what a WP:NAVBOX is actually for - i.e. navigating between articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMyrleFuller, RingtailedFox and myself have been here since 2006. I believe we understand the difference. I also believe that we are working in the best interests of the project and you are not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless (1) these templates are changed to link to articles (and possibly article categories) rather than other templates and (2) a reason is provided why it's better to have such templates-within-templates than to include the links in the (top level) navbox templates. Readers should not be expected to navigate between articles by going via (non-transcluded) template pages; we should never be sending readers to such pages. Any important links should be provided by article-article links (including links provided by transcluded templates) (and there is also the category system). DexDor (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all: per User:Neutralhomer and User:RingtailedFox. They are useful for navigation between articles. The templates that are linked to serve as intermediaries, which provides a convenient means for readers to access the articles that they seek. The fact that it is templates that are being linked to rather than articles has never caused a problem and deleting these templates would be counterproductive.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smartskaft (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, been clicking on several and they seem very useful for navigation between local radio outlets. The keep comments above make a good case for their longevity and usefulness. Getting rid of a good resource, especially one like this that is quite old and supported by many editors who've created and worked with them, seems like an odd target. Leaving well enough alone could be an essay page here, if it isn't already, and could point out that strict interpretation of guidelines (not even policies) regarding such things as templates undercuts established usefulness and site productivity. Randy Kryn 10:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All: per 72.185.224.136. i agree with Neutralhomer and RingtailedFox because these are useful to find out what cities have what radio station. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO ISOLATE PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN CITY THEY CURRENTLY LIVE IN? TO ME, NO! I think they should explore what other stations are there in their state besides their city. SAVE THESE TEMPLATES!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.224.136 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't the only place on the internet where people can find radio stations for their hometowns. Deleting these templates doesn't mean those people will become isolated. --Soetermans. T / C 09:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NAVBOX is crystal clear. Readers should not be navigating through the template namespace; that is not what the namespace is for. --Tt(talk/contribs) 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAVBOX says that navigation templates are to facilitate navigation between articles, and that is what these templates do. Templates are often linked to in navigation boxes, as intermediaries to make navigation between articles easier, and nowhere is there a blanket prohibition on this. There is no valid reason why we should delete a tool that makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for on Wikipedia.--Tdl1060 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large-scale restructure. It should be possible to convert these links to articles in which the target template finds its primary home, and once this is done, the set will follow WP:NAVBOX and be a valuable structure for radio navigation. Summary deletion, in any case, will inconvenience readers more than the setup does currently. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates that are being linked to in the templates in question could be linked to directly in the various radio market navigation templates, where the templates in question are currently being used, just as templates are directly linked to in the various automobile timeline templates. However, this will needlessly make things more complicated and create alot of additional work. The purpose of the templates in question is to make navigating between the articles that are linked to in the various radio station market templates easier, by reducing the time and effort a reader needs to invest in order to find what they want. From the editor's perspective, these templates simplify the process of linking to the templates of other radio markets. An article would not serve this same purpose.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tdl1060: I...don't have any idea what you're trying to say. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @KarasuGamma: The templates in question are used in radio market navigation boxes, not in articles directly. Replacing the links in these templates with links to articles, or replacing these templates themselves with an article would defeat the purpose that these templates are intended to serve.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Tdl1060: If that's the purpose they're intended to serve, then they should all be deleted. As this is a significant loss of content, they should be converted to a structure wherein they are used in articles and then the templates link to those articles, rather than to each other. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @KarasuGamma: The templates that they are included in are used in thousands of articles, but there is no reason for them to be included in articles on their own. The templates link to templates that include links to articles, and the templates that they are included in link to articles. The purpose of the templates is to allow readers to navigate to the articles that are in the templates that they link to. From the reader's perspective, this is no different that the numerous navigation boxes on Wikipedia that directly link to other templates. The structure that you are suggesting makes no sense.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tdl1060: I'm not saying to create articles just to put the templates in them. I'm suggesting that the links to the templates, inside the templates, be converted to links to existing articles in which these templates would find a natural home. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KarasuGamma: I wasn't thinking that you were saying to create articles just to put the templates in them, but there are no "existing articles" that these templates could link to where these templates would continue to serve anything close to the purpose that they are intended to. The "natural home" of these templates is inside of the radio market navigation boxes where they are currently, and there is no reason why these templates should ever be placed in articles on their own. I could support replacing these templates in the radio market navigation boxes with links to the templates of nearby markets, as this would be more relevant to the reader than listing every market in the state or province the market is in, while excluding nearby markets in neighboring states or provinces. This would also limit the number of templates that are linked to within the radio market navigation boxes. However, no purpose would be served by converting the existing links in these templates into links to articles.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (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).

Template:Bohol Radio

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:ElderScrollsTimeline

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Oct 28. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Fallout one, this wasn't used on The Elder Scrolls article to begin with. --Soetermans. T / C 07:37, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:Fallout timeline

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Oct 28. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:31, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:Related interface messages

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was merge into {{interface explanation}} if necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intended this template to help with documenting the long tail of interface messages that are too minor to be listed in {{MediaWiki messages}}, though I'm not sure how many groups of interface messages there actually are that use of this template would be appropriate on. If there're enough to justify it, though, the functionality from this template could easily enough be rolled into {{Interface explanation}}, in which case this template would be wholly redundant. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:Royal Jains

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Relist' at Oct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template clutter. "Royal" Jains is not a pertinent classification for this mix of mythological and historical figures. The latter group especially needs to be handled with greater care, since their actual religion of the millennia old rulers is often indeterminate and it is only various non-contemporaray, contradictory, and disputed/dubious partisan accounts that claim that the ruler belonged or converted to their religion (see discussion at Talk:Ashoka/Archive1#Religion).

Everything useful in the template is already covered in {{Jainism topics}} (though that too may need a clean up). Also see discussion at user talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: Can you explain how Dundas's writings in the A non-imperial religion? support rather than undermine any justification for this template?! (Justice Tukol is of course not a reliable source on the topic of history). Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a more clear source[2] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As adviced before, can you specify what exactly you are citing Dundas and Sangave as sources for? Also keep in mind, this earlier note about Sangave as a source. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citing these sources for the Kings listed in template to be Jains, not whole dynasty but some kings of that dynasty. The link you refer talks about facets of Jainism the one I shared is shravanabelagola. These are two different books. Sangave talks about Jain patronage citing inscriptions and architecture under their rule. I guess that is considered as archaeological/historical. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Dundas, which is a reliable source, makes no such claim (he instead laments the lack of significant royal patronage for Jainism) and the sociologist Sangave is not a reliable source for history. In any case, instead of trying to present sources for individual entries in the template, can you provide a specific source that "Royal Jains is a pertinent classification for such a mix of mythological and historical figures" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tukol, T. K., Jainism in South India
  2. ^ Sangave, Vilas Adinath (1981), The Sacred Sravana-Belagola: A Socio-religious study, Bharatiya Jnanpith
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).

Template:Sailing Olympic Podium

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was subst cleanly and delete. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such a complicated template to set up something easy as tables of Olympic medalists. Propose substitution. Smartskaft (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The need is in the consistency as well as the maintenance of the information. This information is available at at several places e.g.:
Keeping the template will:
  • Minimize the number of discrepancies in the different lists
  • Minimize the corrections that must be made if there are ambigue links to names of athletes
  • Reduce the number of typo's
  • gives consistency in the spelling of names
  • And why changing something that works fine and create extra work as well that it initiates new errors.
Substitution of this template would create:
  • a) a huge amount of work to recreate these pages (almost 50 class page + over 30 Sailing at the Summer Olympic pages + the lists: sailing by discipline and sailing by class)
  • b) initiates discrepanties between the information caused by typo's or different spelling of names,
  • c) more work after each Olympic edition to get it all right and
  • d) When an athlete has an ambigu name it has to be changes at several places. Now at only one.
_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 05:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This takes all of the information and buries it inside an undocumented complex template, thus making it more difficult to maintain as an editor would need to wade through template code to make changes, and many editors are not familiar with templates. As for various medal tables appearing in multiple articles, the maintenance for what are in the end simple medal tables is rather small. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this encumbers Wikipedia, possibly breaking complexity limits in articles. It is undocumented so it makes Wikipedia Olympic sailing articles a walled garden for select editors. 100kB templates for this is extreme. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To modify the template once every four years you only need to copy e.g. the 2012 section and past it to the next Olympiad. Change the Host city, classes and winners. How complex can it be. This in comparison with adding at least 13 tables on 13 pages. With all risks of discrepanties between them. In order to make it even more easy I will already add the sections 2016 - 2040 so that only the actual data has to be added._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 11:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add the tables once every four years you only need to copy the last Olympic's tables and paste it to the current Olympics articles and change the winners. How complex can it be? Seriously, these tables are dead simply structures having only to enumerate gold silver and bronze placements. And as yourself have pointed out, this need only be done once very 4 years. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, it seems that the template is working fine. Changing it will be extra work for someone without providing better or more consisten or just better information. It covers now information of over 100 years. Suppose that deleting the template is chosen the "benefit" of the adding in the future simpel tables will be reached far beyond 2100. This will hardly give solid business case for deletion.Dragon Genoa (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Note to admin: user:Dragon Genoa is the same editor as user:Vintage Yachting Games due to a name change for user name compliance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Whpq: Sorry that I am interfering in your game! I'm an observer for a long time and only recently with an own account, of articles about Olympic sailing her sailors and classes. But also very anxious that good information will vaporize because of this kind of almost religious discussions. I was triggered by the "See TfD" remark that disturbs/ruins the result all tables at this moment! Dragon Genoa (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Explain what you mean by "game". -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it working fine? You completely ignore my point above. As far as I can tell, the template did next to nothing for simplifying the disambiguation for Peder Lunde to Peder Lunde Sr. as it only had any effect at Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics, and 5.5 Metre (keelboat); so it reduced the maintenance from two places to one place. Meanwhile, there were 15 other places which the template cannot account for. Curiously, Smartskaft methodically changed all the links except for the template which Niceguyedc; could itr be that burying in a template caused him to miss it? Furthermore, this template violates the very firt guideline from "Wikipedia:Template namespace"; namely "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content". So I ask again how this seems to be working. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template does exactly were it is designed for. It places, when called, the names of the appopriate Olympic Sailing Medalists in the specified class and year with consistend names and consistend format. No more no less. It is not designed to manage all links to a certain person. e.g. King Constantin as Olympic medalist is handled fine by the template. All other references to the king's name are not a part of the scope of the template so that information must be handled otherwise. A simple template like this will not lead to 'Worldpeace';-)
That consistency in names is important, specially for results, follows from the following example: The spelling of the name of a Sovjet/Russian sailor is done differently in the official documentation of four consecutives games:
  • Georgi Chaiduoko 1988
  • Gueorgi Shaidouko 1992
  • Georgy Shayduko 1996
  • Georgi Shayduco 2000
The template gives one spelling!
The use of a template for this purpose can allways be argued. However since this template handles over 100 year of Olympic sailing history fine. I this was my money to spent I would not invest in changing this. We do not know if Wikipedia makes it 100 years from now, nor we do not know that of the Olympic Committee or Sailing at the Olympics. Personally I think that most of that history is there now. I would rather that people invest time and effort in getting more/better information in the history of Sailing at the yyyy Olympics.
Dragon Genoa (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do if a template is used or not, but romanization. George Shayduko has the most google hits, sports-reference uses Georgy Shayduko and WP:RUS prefers Georgy Shayduko, therefore the article is under that name. Just as Whpq suggested, the disambiguation tool I was using (common one) didn't manage to find the pages hidden in the template, so you cannot say it's working fine for this purpose. Smartskaft (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming what I suspected. This template is actually makimg it more difficult to maintain information because it hides content in template code instead of placing it in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not play innocent here! It doesn't suit you! You were able without any issues to modify the template in the past so you knew the existence and have the knowledge and skills to understand and work with it! e.g. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Sailing_Olympic_Podium&oldid=653508240 '21:29, 25 March 2015‎ Smartskaft (talk | contribs)'
Regards, _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 11:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the fact that he removed inappropriate flag icons from the template mean that he has memorized the contents and knows to go hunting inside the template for a link on an article name change? -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There have been statements that somehow, all the existing information would be lost with the deletion of this template. Not so, as it would be substituted before deletion. There has also been concern expressed with the "cost" of going through and doing this. If the result of this discussion is to delete after substitution, I will undertake to do the necessary substitution work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2015 (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).

Template:Scottish English

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just two articles. No difference between "Scottish English" and British English. Scotland a part of the UK. Seemingly a WP:POVFORK about Scottish independence/nationalism AusLondonder (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... there are legitimate differences in vocabulary between the English used in Scotland and the English used in England (and I am not talking about the trite "cannae dae it" example given by Primefac). And there may be some subtle differences in basic grammar and spelling (not sure about that). My point being that we should look deeper here... this isn't just a nationalist POV issue. (although I could see it being inappropriately applied to an article for nationalist POV reasons). There may be legitimate ENGVAR reasons to apply it. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what the differences are User:Blueboar? AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "we cannae dae it" is an example of Scots which has its own wikipedia. Differences between Scottish English and English English are admittedly rarer in spelling than American-British differences but there are differing standards such as the usage of the words 'outwith' and 'jotter' (I learnt as an adult that other English-speaking countries generally use 'excercise book') and a freeer use of the progressive. Munci (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's not make flippant references to Scots. As Munci correctly observes, Scottish English is its own thing, and I would think it perfectly reasonable for an article about, say Stirling to say 'outwith the castle', or whatever. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is very encyclopaedic at all. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Given the lack of clear cut distinction between dialect and language some confusion is understandable but there is nonetheless a signficant difference between Scots and 'Scottish English' per Munci. In addition to words in everyday usage, there are also technical expressions: advocate (barrister/attorney); Procurator fiscal; minister (vicar); kirk (church); rector; that are either different, or different in meaning to GB English. As I wrote elsewhere some time ago, "if you can imagine an Edinburgh lawyer using the word in court, it's probably acceptable." Is it any wonder few transclusions survive given some of the remarks above? Ben MacDui 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That relates to proper name use not WP:ENGVAR, User:Ben MacDui AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the editors above are missing the point. Scotticisms are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Other issues such as "advocate" instead of "barrister" are not issues of ENGVAR. This template series generally covers issues such as color vs colour, organisation vs organization etc AusLondonder (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the expressions mentioned on the article Scotticism are examples of Scots, which has its own wikipedia. Scottish English refers to something else. The template ENGVAR also covers differences such as 'tap' v. 'faucet'. Munci (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - Yes, there are differences between Scottish English and more generalized British English. And to the extent we have articles that are actually written in Scottish English, then this template should be available to provide a measure of protection from arbitrary re-writing and bowdlerization of regional English. Yes, I am very conscious of the fact that we have POV-pushers, both pro-independence and anti-independence, who seem determined to wage cultural war over British-English-Scottish vocabulary, and this unfortunate tendency manifests itself in a variety of other ways like edit-warring over "nationality" parameters and the proliferation of marginally meaningful subcategories. That said, can anyone provide examples of well-written articles that use proper Scottish English? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, probably not, because just two articles use this template. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there are no differences between Scottish English and British English that are acceptable in formal English. examples given such as 'kirk' and 'minister' are not applicable. These are proper names, not ENGVAR differences. Standard Formal Scotch English looks exactly like Standard Formal British English. 'outwith' is not purely Scotch. It is used in the North of England, but we don't have a 'North of England English' template. That's all covered by British English. British English is Scotch English and English English and Welsh English by definition. in addition, according to WP:COMMONALITY, we are supposed to avoid terms that are localised when common terms exist. in other words, it is better to use 'outside of' instead of 'outwith' anyway, because 'outside of' is understood everywhere, in scotland and north of england too, whereas outwith is a parochialism. there are no examples of so-called Scotch English that are either not covered by WP:COMMONALITY or different from the british standard. anyway, "scotch english" is not a national variety of english and so not covered by engvar. the national variety of english of britain is british english. this is all bunk ~ ip user

138.128.180.226 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, words used in a particular country are not parochial; it's a normal fact of life. And no, it is not immediately obvious which word is supposed to replace 'outwith' in other varieties of Engish. And 'outwith' is clearer anyway because it can be confused with any other meaning. Munci (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with deleting. I agree with Australasian Londoner. I came across this by chance when on the Scotland page. I lived in Scotland for primary schooling, and find this strange. Yeah, spoken Scottish accents are different from a London accent, but so is West Country or Brum or Ulster or many other ways people talk in the British Isles. When it is written, and taught like that, there is no difference. Written Scottish English is at the British standard, and honestly even Republican Irish English is also indistinguishable. It looks like only two pages have this big label stuck on them. Those two pages read exactly the same as any other British english page. No one can tell the difference, meaning that the only purpose of the template is for certain people to stake a claim to certain pieces of history. That doesn't seem good? I don't understand why we even need this kind of label anyway. Can we stick with the standard, which is British? Are we going to start a Mancunian template so that some people can go on about eccles cakes? Of course not, right? Wikipedia can't be written in a dialect. It needs to be understandable. There are a couple major standards of writing in the world, and weve got to stick to them. "Scottish English" is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulsterman in Cork (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on the grounds it sees very little use and every article which needs it seems better served by the British tag. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (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).

Template:CC-LukeFord

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Confusing use either way since this seems to pertain to only one author, and even comes with an OTRS template built into it (which is a bit troublesome since the OTRS ticket numbers are different for each request.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All of Ford's images should have been moved into Commons by now. Such custom CC license templates are generally used on the Wikimedia Commons when a photographer submits a general blanket OTRS ticket basically stating that Commons may use anything posted on his or her official web site (or at least a specific page on his or her official web site). IIRC, there was a push several years ago to recruit various professional photographers to donate some of their works to Commons, explaining how the required author attribution of Creative Commons license could get their names out online, among other reasons. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_20&oldid=1219383225"