Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Template:Arby's[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arby's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Links a whopping TWO articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about the history. This template only recently took on it's current form, to reflect the recent selling of the majority stake in Arby's chain by Wendy's Company; the previous version was intended as a navbox for the holding corporation, then known as "Wendy's/Arby's Group", containing the articles for all chains owned by the company. As it stands, the navbox is largely devoid of meaningful links, as three (the title, the main Arby's link and the link to the subsidiary RTM Resturants, a former franchisee that Arby's outright bought and of which there's no evidence actually exists anymore) all point to Arby's. The others are generic links to fast food and sandwiches. It is a navbox that no longer has a point, so I agree with delete. oknazevad (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (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:Tobool[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, and per prior discussion. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (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:Isnot[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Isnot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Boolnot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and per prior discussion. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (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:Infobox NCAA FCS football school[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NCAA FCS football school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; Template:Infobox NCAA football school can cover teams of all NCAA divisions and the NAIA. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (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:Infobox MHSAA football school[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MHSAA football school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; purpose seems to be for high school football teams; even if those are notable, we won't need a conference specific infobox template. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2011 (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:NCAATeamFirstFootballSeason[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template; not needed since Template:Infobox NCAA team season can handle first season cases well enough., e.g. 1879 Michigan Wolverines football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2011 (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:Campaignbox Byzantine Restoration[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Byzantine Restoration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is a subset of {{Campaignbox Wars of Michael VIII}} with no particular reason to exist as a separate template. "Byzantine Restoration" is an ambiguous term: strictly speaking, it refers only to the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, more broadly, the whole reign and wars of Michael and of his Nicaean predecessors can be seen as belonging to it. The original creator rather arbitrarily chose Pelagonia as the starting point, and even included the irrelevant Battle of Settepozzi in it. Constantine ✍ 20:04, 17 August 2011 (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:Chandigarh Capital Region[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chandigarh Capital Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Chandigarh Capital Region, is no longer an article, nor is it a defined area. Plus, most of the links are red. This template serves no purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 15:16, 17 August 2011 (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:Vitruvian Man measurements[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. As was pointed out by Smerdis of Tlön there is compelling reason to have a template that just displays one image. The use of OR in images is not prohibited in the Wikipedia, but such an image should be accompanied by an appropriate caption in every article it is used. Since the general caption embedded in this template falls short of this expectation (as was demonstrated in this discussion), the result is to substitute and delete the template. Editorial decisions to keep or remove the image from articles or changes to the caption should be made on case by case basis. Ruslik_Zero 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vitruvian Man measurements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With great regret I am nominating this handsome template for deletion, as the image it uses, while appearing to be a historic document, seems in fact to be the work of a contributor and to contain unsourced and possibly incorrect information, such as the implication that a Handsbreadth is equal to four inches. The Vitruvian Man of Leonardo discusses and represents proportions, not absolute measurements, as does also the discussion of Vitruvius himself. Neither mentions units such as the Flemish ell. I apologise if this nomination is inappropriate; I am assuming that sources are as necessary for information in image form as they are for text.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty though it may be, the potential for confusion here (and the obvious degree of original research in the concept) makes it inappropriate for use here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologies. I’m sure your nomination is well intended, and I share your desire for a Wikipedia which is clear and accurate. I also agree that this image has taken on a life of its own and has been subjected to some unusual interpretations. However, if it is being considered for deletion, then I think it should be evaluated in terms of its actual meaning and intent.
This image was created as part of a three image set designed to illustrate a number of historical measurement units. All three of these images (shown to the right for comparison) were my own work and were developed in roughly the same time period. These three images collectively illustrate over 20 historical measurement units.
Of the three images, only the center image has become the subject of debate. Presumably, since the top image (of the hand) is entirely my own work, people view it without any preconceived prejudice or notion of meaning. Therefore, they accept it at face value as simple an illustration of historical measurement units. The bottom image is also generally taken at face value. This image is a derivative work of a much older piece of art, but since the original piece is unfamiliar to most people, the illustration is accepted without preconceived notions.
The middle image, by contrast, is a derivative of an almost universally recognized piece of art. Therefore, I suspect, some people may view this illustration in terms of preconceived notions and prejudices. And in some instances, may see things that simply are not there. In response, I would encourage people to consider the following points:
1. This image is a derivative work, not the original. Leonardo da Vinci’s original image was presumably drawn to illustrate the beauty and form of the human body, and to relate that beauty to a system of natural proportions as described by Vitruvius centuries earlier. This image, on the other hand, was simply created to depict “nine historical units of measurement” as stated in the caption, and to illustrate the relationship of those units to the dimensions of the human body. In particular, that a fathom is the length of ones outstretched arms, that a yard is half of a fathom, that a cubit is the length of the forearm and hence one fourth of a fathom, etc.
2. There is no original research here. The historical lengths of these measurement units and their relationship to the dimensions of the human body are all well documented and easily referenced. In fact, prior to the adoption of the metric system, many people were taught these relationships as school children. I would argue that this image has effectively served to illustrate these measurement units for a couple of years now and should be allowed to continue to do so. Using a famous painting to illustrate well known and well established facts is not research. Unitfreak (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting reply, remarks above seem to have got out of chronological order). While continuing to accept the good intentions of the creator of the image and the template, I have to point out that the comments numbered "1." and "2." contain serious misconceptions:
  • The 'nine historical units' do not belong to one system of mensuration. They are not coherent. It is no more true to suggest, as this image does, that one Flemish ell plus one English ell equals one French ell plus one cubit than it would be to write, say, "one fathom equals two metres less six pouces du roi". Those units belong to different systems, and all varied in time and in location, and were used in different contexts. Any equivalence, if one can be established, is limited to the time, place, context and source in which it is found. The values selected for display in the image are entirely arbitrary, and entirely unsourced.
  • Statements such as 'a fathom is the length of ones outstretched arms' and 'a cubit is the length of the forearm and hence one fourth of a fathom' would immediately be tagged as requiring sources if written in an article (both have an element of truth, both are gravely misleading as they stand). Yet the image can make those statements without any requirement to justify, reference, qualify or correct them.
  • Some of the information in the image is apparently incorrect, specifically that 18 handsbreadths equal 1 fathom; while the use of 'handsbreadth' is confused and confusing to this day, the majority of English sources equate it to three inches, which is one twenty-fourth of a fathom. But in what context was this equivalence ever made?
  • The juxtaposition of pieces of information from different sources in order to produce or imply conclusions that are not contained in those sources is, I believe, original research. That is what this image does. But it also acquires bogus authority from the use of Leonardo's drawing which, as mentioned before, shows proportions and not absolute measurements. I don't think Leonardo was trying to suggest that all men are exactly six feet tall, and I don't think we should either. It's a very handsome image, and in a way that's part of the problem: it appears authoritative (it certainly had me fooled) when in fact it is not. I'm sorry, but as an illustration of these measurements it is more deceptive than effective.

If the equivalences shown in the image can be reliably traced to a single source that states them all for a given place and time, then I suggest that the source be prominently acknowledged in the template. If not, I think it should be withdrawn. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's tempting to make another long response but, to keep it short, it's OR. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template states it is a derivation. If it needs a source tag it as such. Hyacinth (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made an improvement to the image caption to make it less OR. I'm leaning towards "keep and improve" but will abstain from the poll for now - might vote later depending on arguments presented in the discussion. KissL 13:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The diagram is a matter of WP:SYN and conveys a number of mistruths - notablty that the height of the average human is 6 times the lenght of their foot - the ration is closed to 6.5. It also wrongly shows the French ell as being a "standard" measurement. The closest that the French got to a "standard" ell was the Aune d'roi (the King's ell) which was much shorter than depicted on the diagram. In practice silk was sold using one aune and linen using a different aune and these aunes again differed from city to city. Moreover, a certain editor is replacing the template with links to Wiki Commons and replacing the original caption itn the template with patent rubbish. Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but... I don't see a particular reason to have a template just to display this image. To prevent collateral damage, I've subst'ed it in some articles where it appears so that deletion of the template will not remove the underlying image from the articles on en: where it has been used. But I can't help but think that part of the discussion is motivated by hostility to the image displayed, and that is not an issue here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Martinvl and Justletters and numbers are correct. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2011 (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:Solar System navmap[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solar System navmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cute though this might be, it is redundant to the textual representation which accompanies it, and while the attention to scale is admirable it makes actually clicking fully half of the entries a nuisance (especially Ceres, cleverly concealed within a link mapped to asteroid belt. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As much as I can understand your problem I can't help but wonder if there's other solutions to that problem than deletion. The formatting might just need a little tweating to help fix that problem. (For example in the talk page there was a recommendation that it should be larger). One thing I do know this has been used on navboxes longer than it being splitted as it's own template. Jhenderson 777 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I know this is only used transcluded into {{Solar System}}; to be honest, if it is kept I would prefer if the two were (re-)merged. However, that's part of the problem: directly beneath it is a textual representation of the image, and nobody is really going to squint at their browser trying to hit the outer planets when they could just click the text. In essence that reduces it to a mere illustration, and we don't really need that in a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nothing in the rationale amounts to a reason for deletion. It might not be fully accessible but, as the nominator mentioned, it is accompanied by a textual set of links. Yes, the Ceres link is obscure, but that isn't a reason to delete it. (In fact, I feel that this imagemap would be useful, even if not all of the links were active.) In the end, it A) supplies some visual interest to the otherwise boring list of links, and B) has alternative navigation for non-visual browsers. It improves Wikipedia without any downsides, so I feel that it should be kept. Bluap (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Navboxes should be boring: they sit at the bottom of articles and shouldn't be distracting. What prompted me to look into this in the first place was that {{Solar System}} stands out rather a bit too much in linked articles, such as at the bottom of Europa (moon), where the other navboxes use fairly typical formatting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that this navbox was (or is) in at least two different navboxes not just one. Jhenderson 777 13:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also navmaps don't need to be just in templates. Template:Continents navmap is normally found on articles. Jhenderson 777 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think that this template is either useless or redundant. James500 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Deleting a perfectly informative template would be absurd. At most, one could discuss removing it from the navbox(es) (which I would still oppose, however). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2011 (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:W&Jcats[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:W&Jcats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like the recently deleted Template:UGAcats, this template adds a lot of clutter at the top of category pages and its function could be more efficiently executed with use of Template:Category tree. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever on deletion. However, I don't think the template is clutter-ful. In fact, I think it looks awesome. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to reiterate a category's tree. He does not mean that the template is disorganized. He means that when appended to pages, it clutters the page.Curb Chain (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lookswise, I think this template is somewhere between awesome and eye-bleed-inducing, but I TfD'd it for its redundancy, not its aesthetics. GrapedApe, I encourage your to userfy this template to you personal space if you find it handy or just want to save it for posterity. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (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:Cursor[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

We don't need an unused template for everything that can go in a span tag. --Σ talkcontribs 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cute hack, but custom cursors are more useful for Web applications than Web content. We're not going to find a sensible use for this in user-editable space. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's sensible for signatures and userspace, but other than that, nothing. --Σ talkcontribs 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since WP:NOTWEBHOST, I don't see any reason why users should be putting interactive web content in their userspace. And signature may not contain templates. So that leaves no place for this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_17&oldid=1138694799"