Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24[edit]

Template:Virginia/color[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. G7. Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was my attempt to do with Virginia Templates what had been done with Template:California/color. Didn't really catch on. I'm in favor of deleting it. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per statment of template creator above. Speedy per WP:G7. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 25 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talk page watcher[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. There's consensus that the term "stalker" should not appear in the source when "watcher" is used. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk page watcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant copy of existing {{Talk page stalker}} template:

{{Talk page stalker|w}} → (talk page watcher)
{{Talk page watcher}} → (talk page watcher)

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was tagged for speedy deletion and I untagged it, without seeing that the functionality had been added to {{talk page stalker}}. The use of "stalker" on Wikipedia to refer to anything other than the actual crime related to harassment has been deprecated as a result of a discussion at the harassment policy some time ago. I had suggested quite some time ago that we should not use "stalker" in this template any more because of inappropriate context, but that didn't seem to have gone anywhere until just recently when NeilN created the "watcher" template as a substitute. Since the "watcher" functionality has been built into the "stalker" template, I think it would be fine to redirect the one to the other. I would prefer if it were possible to call {{talk page watcher}} on a page and have {{talk page stalker|w}} be invoked, because then I can avoid the use of "stalker" altogether, but I don't know if that is technically possible. (I tried in my userspace and it didn't work). Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note The w flag was created after Template:Talk page watcher was created. More discussion here: Template talk:Talk page stalker. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion nomination misses the point—while the "stalker" joke can be amusing to the cognoscenti, many users find the term confrontational. That particularly applies to new editors who are the only people who need to see what the template produces—those upset editors have a point because conflating "stalker" with "watcher" is inappropriate. The solution is to keep {{tpw}} and encourage editors to use it; a technical solution of adding mumbo jumbo options to {{tps}} is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding parameters doesn't solve the perceived problem, as the "stalker" term is what they are concerned with and that would still be visible on the page when it is being edited. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't specify in my earlier comment, but if there is not a technical way to make a redirect work like I said, then my preference is to keep this and work towards deprecating the "stalker" templates. Actually, that is my preference anyway; a redirect would just be a crazy workaround. Ivanvector (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, TFD is a discussion, not a !vote like AFD is...
I might suggest that there should be a {{talk page watcher|s}} producing all the fun outputs of the stalker template and then deprecating the stalker template (or family?). --Izno (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a !vote like AFD - the other discussions seem like AFD with their keep/delete/merge !votes. I think we need to keep tps the way it is or have a bot subst all the present occurrences of it or other editors will object to their posts being changed and some conversations being rendered nonsensical. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all of that is necessary. If {{tps}} is deprecated then the instructions can simply be changed to discourage use. For example, {{note}}. Also, if the goal is to transition to "watcher" as preferred terminology, then providing a "stalker" switch at the new template is counterproductive. Ivanvector (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by counterproductive. There are some people who want to use the terminology "stalker" (for better or worse), and I don't think a template should inhibit that decision (good luck getting consensus, for the same exact reason there wasn't a consensus to delete WP:STALK in late 2013). I certainly don't think you will be able to find consensus regarding a merge of the two templates without offering that as a potential option. And straight keeps for both templates is just bad template practice. --Izno (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproductive to the goal of encouraging the use of "watcher" over "stalker". The goal itself might be lofty. I'm quite sure that many users will go on using {{tps}} regardless of any discussion we might have, and it would be wrong to force them, not to mention breaking its nearly 10,000 existing transclusions. That seems to have been more the reason for keeping the WP:STALK redirect: that it would be technically disruptive to delete it, rather than any strong feelings about its use one way or the other. But none of that means we can't encourage users to use the less offensive template (see the text "please avoid using this shortcut" at WP:STALK). Ivanvector (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wording less confusing than the tongue-in-cheek "stalker". I saw this in use, liked it, went to read about it and found this discussion. Using "tps" with a parameter is not a good alternative. PamD 05:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is an improvement over the "stalker" terminology. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though I like the TPS terminology and would not wish to see that template deleted, I think that users should have the choice to use this phrasing instead. BethNaught (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and delete/deprecate the old-fashioned and overtly hostile "stalker" template. It is time to keep up with the times. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make the new template a wrapper for the old one, with the "W" switch set. And while we're at it, simplify the myriad of options with which each of them serve to confuse the uninitiated. Goodness me; more heath than light here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and allow users to choose. The closing admin should note the discussion at WP:VPP#Encourage use of "watcher" in place of "stalker" on talk pages (I don't think this was linked above). Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 26 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FN and Template:FNZ[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 relisted on 2015 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.

Interlanguage link templates[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Interlanguage link templates. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Superiour[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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, and redundant to <sup> and {{sup}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lle" is superior, "42" is superscript

Actually superior letters are distinct from superscript: 8{{superiour|th}} “M{{superiour|lle}} Blip”{{sup|42}} ⅝ H{{sub|2}}O (x{{supsub|2n|0}}); gives 8th “Mlle Blip”⁴² ⅝ H₂O (x²ⁿ
₀); Ain92 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to conflict with Subscript and superscript, where superiour is used synonymoulsly with superscript. In HTML, we only have <sup> anyway, and we should also avoid typesetting characters that are smaller than superscript to ensure legibility. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked the author to comment. Personally I see no problem in using a style not defined in HTML standard. Ain92 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unused and redundant. Ironically not used in Superior letter which is referred to in the template documentation. -- Gadget850^talk 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Sorry, I had no time to do it on the day I created the template and forgot about it later. Ain92 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undone. It is not a good idea to seed this template while it is under discussion. If there is need for this template, it badly needs a rewrite anyway. In its current state, it is unfit for article use because it lacks semantics. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:04, 24 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but advise against using except for where superior letters are discussed (i.e., at superior letter and subscript and superscript). As per MOS:ORDINAL, ordinal indicators are not superscripted. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alakzi, for limited demonstration purposes —PC-XT+ 12:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it hasn't been used, it still has purpose. VandVictory (talk) 23:07, 20 March 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Giant[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) 04:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only on two inactive user pages. Readily replaced by {{resize}} if there is a valid need. Gadget850^talk 08:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andy, still unused. VandVictory (talk) 13:56, 1 March 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Initial[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Gadget850^talk 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. VandVictory (talk) 14:35, 1 March 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bigbold[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) 04:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Combines <big> and bold markup. Used in one article. MOS:BADEMPHASIS. Gadget850^talk 08:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 24 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bu[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) 04:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Use of underline violates MOS:BADEMPHASIS. Per MOS:ACRO "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses." Used only on a few template documentation pages. Gadget850^talk 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as formatting tool - Disclaimer - I was the template creator - intent was to use especially on template documentation pages, not in article space, to help novice users understand wiki shorthand abbreviations. Easier to use a template to format in a consistent manner instead of hardcoded html tags. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 3 March 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Film[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Director (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor critic award templates which are not big enough to deserve one. Fails WP:NENAN. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_15 for previous example. charge2charge (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Marginally notable, minor film awards. "Online Film Critics Society?" It may be marginally notable enough to survive an AfD for the article, but we do not need more cruft like these navboxes for the bottom of actor bio pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all little notability. VandVictory (talk) 13:58, 1 March 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). No further edits should be made to this section.