Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 16 January 2015

January 16

Template:Years in Sierra Leone

Template:Years in Sierra Leone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only 2 working links. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Years in North Vietnam

Template:Years in North Vietnam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no working links. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military operation

Template:Infobox military operation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox operational plan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox military operation with Template:Infobox operational plan.
Merge and redirect this nearly identical copy of Template:Infobox operational plan with just "|planned_by" being replaced by "|commanded-by".
Usually "|planned_by" will be used for plans never executed, "|commanded_by" for executed plans. We should however independently allow both parameters, as an operation may be planned by one president or general and later be commanded by others. PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Undent

Template:Undent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (281 transclusions)

Template:Outdent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (31,947 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Undent with Template:Outdent.
These two template share the exact same purpose (to start again with indentation in talk pages when it gets too long). The outdent template is more useful and intutive as it clearly indicates the continuation of the conversation with a line, whereas this this more subtle template only makes sense if you know what someone means by "undent". SFB 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge The purpose of {{Undent}} appears to be closer to that of {{Outdent2}} than of {{Outdent}}. That said, , I don't see any real utility to be gained from insisting that people use the same style here. – Philosopher  19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• No need to merge, but delete {{Undent}}. When that's done, nominate {{Outdent}} and {{Outdent2}} (which has 387 transclusions) for merging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep {{Outdent}}. People use it a lot. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Do not merge, rather, delete {{Undent}}. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep {{Outdent}} in its current form. I (and others) use it a lot. I don't really care what happens with the other templates, they don't look particularly valuable to me, but, then again, they could be useful to others. --JorisvS (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep outdent. It is extremely useful. Also very disruptive to have this appearing in discussions here there and everywhere. For this reason, even though it's not standard, I suggest removal of the 'merge proposal' template for outdent while discussions on the other templates take place. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think the TFD tag has been incorrectly applied to the template, causing it to be appear on every instance it is being used. Someone should really take a look af this and try to fix this. Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete undent as redundant to simple markup: (]). Speedy removal per Tom; the notice appears to be confusing almost everyone as to the nature of this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please exclude the discussion templates from pages on which these templates are trancluded, as including the discussion box it is messing up talk page conversations. -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As others have already asked, I have bracketed the two notices of this discussion with <noinclude> </noinclude> which removes the notices from the discussions on talk pages. -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Who cares? This template is only used on talk pages, where the people who use it obviously find it useful, and it has no effect on the mainspace so, er, what's the problem? Redundancy is not an inherently bad thing, and honestly I'd have thought people would have better things to do than debate a template that only affects meta-meta-meta aspects of the project. It's the sort of thing that can wait til after the encyclopaedia is finished and we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to do. And even then... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:नेपाली विकिपीडिया प्रवन्धकहरू

Template:नेपाली विकिपीडिया प्रवन्धकहरू (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

delete or userfy. Appears to be a navbox for admins/bureaucrats on the Nepali wikipedia. Might be appropriate in the author's user space, but nowhere else. NSH002 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:TED

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

Per reasoning given by others at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31#Template:PragerU. Same reason applies regarding external links to Prager University video lectures applies to the external links to TED video lectures. Per WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. If a mention of the subject's TED or Prager University video lectures have received secondary or tertiary notice from reliable sources, it can be definitely added to the body of the article, but it need not have its own external link at the bottom of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Farcical and pointy nomination of a useful and needed template. It is not "promotional", not "advertising" and not "unbalanced", nor does it breach WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which is about the subject's own, official websites. Instead, it serves to aid both editors and readers. Further, its deletion without substitution would remove content from articles without notification to concerned editors, on the articles' talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For purposes of directing readers to a video lecture Template:PragerU does the exact same thing as the subject of this TfD, yet it is OK for one template to remain, and another to be deleted. If one must remain, all must remain, who share a similar purpose of directing readers to an externally hosted video lecture; or all must be deleted. Otherwise what the community is saying is that it is OK to not provide an external link to one type of video lecture, educational in its purpose, and not another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Where do you imagine that I argue that the PragerU template should be deleted? Regardless of that, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, you seem pointy and overly obsessed with ensuring that our policies are uniformly applied to two separate things. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS principle is that yes, we should aim to apply our policies and guidelines uniformly, but uniformity isn't the be-all-end-all. If it were then nothing could get done without everything getting done all at once. If you sincerely believe that the TED Talks template should be removed then you need to provide some additional explanation beyond pointing your fellow readers to a discussion about something else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)