Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 13: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:12, 15 May 2007 editMJCdetroit (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users19,377 edits →[]: Keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:45, 15 May 2007 edit undoPharamond (talk \| contribs)361 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 111:		Line 111:
	*Delete as per Doc and Christopher Parham. Let the people who are editing the article decide whether the page will be improved by an infobox. Taggers should tag articles, not make decisions about trivial things which go in them. If you would like to request an image, that is obviously different; it is clear to most when an article needs one, unlikely to be viewed as petty interference, and is not necessarily within the tagger's capabilities. If an infobox is really "needed," let the tagger add it themselves. In conclusion, until there is consensus that all biographies need boxes, (which there certainly isn't), let us delete ''this'' box. ] ] 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)		*Delete as per Doc and Christopher Parham. Let the people who are editing the article decide whether the page will be improved by an infobox. Taggers should tag articles, not make decisions about trivial things which go in them. If you would like to request an image, that is obviously different; it is clear to most when an article needs one, unlikely to be viewed as petty interference, and is not necessarily within the tagger's capabilities. If an infobox is really "needed," let the tagger add it themselves. In conclusion, until there is consensus that all biographies need boxes, (which there certainly isn't), let us delete ''this'' box. ] ] 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' and let the editors of the individual page decide whether that particular article needs an infobox. Some pages "need" infoboxes more than others. I deal mostly with geographic articles and infoboxes on those articles are always needed. Perhaps an infobox on every ocsar winning actor is something that would not be "needed (or better said, wanted). But for God's sake let the individual articles' editors decide whether '''they''' want an infobox or not. Sometimes, editors just don't know that there is an infobox out there that may be helpful to them. Renaming to infoboxrequested doesn't seem right either maybe infobox suggested would be closer to the true. Those are my thoughts not yours... I'm —] and I approved this message. 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' and let the editors of the individual page decide whether that particular article needs an infobox. Some pages "need" infoboxes more than others. I deal mostly with geographic articles and infoboxes on those articles are always needed. Perhaps an infobox on every ocsar winning actor is something that would not be "needed (or better said, wanted). But for God's sake let the individual articles' editors decide whether '''they''' want an infobox or not. Sometimes, editors just don't know that there is an infobox out there that may be helpful to them. Renaming to infoboxrequested doesn't seem right either maybe infobox suggested would be closer to the true. Those are my thoughts not yours... I'm —] and I approved this message. 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Delete'''. Infoboxes may be OK for asteroids or chemical elements (subjects with easily quantifiable data), but for a significant number of articles where I have seen them, they are ''at best'' redundant (including nothing not already found in the first few lines), ugly and compete with other graphical elements (images, TOC) at the top of the page in a way that disturbs the layout. In many cases, especially in biographies, they encourage the entry of inaccuracies and anachronisms by forcing the summarizing of complex article content in the form of simplistic dismembered tabular data without the necessary context and explanations. To imply that this crap is ''needed'' is ridiculous. It is better to focus on writing good, readable introductory paragraphs to all articles. ] 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:45, 15 May 2007

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13

Template:Probert Encyclopaedia

This template gives us the source of an image, but then effectively tells us, well, it's either free or non-free. It acts as a copyright tag, but doesn't give us the necessary information. We should delete this template, and the few images this template is used on should be tagged as sourced from the Probert Encyclopedia but missing a license, as we don't have any knowledge about whether these images are public domain or not. — Rebelguys2 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete A useless template; let's get rid of it. Jmlk17 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Film-screenshot from Towerville council

...what? Unencyclopedic and such. — Rebelguys2 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No purpose. - Zeibura S. Kathau 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete utterly useless; a practice template perhaps? Jmlk17 06:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User ipa

There's no point having both this and Template:User ipa-N. I propose a merge, the format for writing systems generally seems to be -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -N (see Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Writing systems) — - Zeibura S. Kathau 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge they do look different, but there is no need for two separate templates. Jmlk17 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Category maintenance

In a 💕, contributors should not have to pre-emptively justify their edits. If an editor or a WikiProject is really interested in maintaining a category and its pages, they'd monitor it themselves, not rely on the authority of a boilerplate box. These, along with two other deleted WikiProject templates, were untranscluded from several pages in a CfD discussion on Feb 2. The current transclusions are all outdated, with the most recent date being Jan 2007, which means the transcluders have not been updating them every month to show their activity, allowing them to be unheeded. Unlike the heated debate on {{Maintained}}, these two templates do not offer assistance, and more clearly violate WP:OWN in their tone. –Pomte 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete both - Ownership of all the articles in a category is a bad thing. --After Midnight 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete both. Saying that someone must be consulted before changing categories, or removing articles from them, is a WP:OWN violation. There is no way in which it could not be so. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Both They just incite edit wars and other problemic issues. Jmlk17 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This should die because it spits in the face of our policy against ownership. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bulgaria Squad 2004 UEFA Europe cup

Consensus says only World Cup templates should be on Misplaced Pages. — Mattythewhite 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:UK TV viewing figures

Del - WP:NOT#DIR. Amazingworlds 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Abstain - Which part of WP:NOT#DIR does it violate? --tgheretford (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Graphs shouldn't be at the bottom of all the articles on competing stations for POV reasons, and they're not incredibly relevant to each article. The scales are different, so the images are misleading in thumbnail size. Put these in a larger size into one article devoted on the subject (see List of Australian television ratings for 2006 for an example), so they can be read properly. –Pomte 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete far too many graphs, uninterestingly grouped together. Jmlk17 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete; it violates WP:NOT#INFO, specifically #9 - Statistics — Brother Flounder 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Super Smash Bros. series playable characters

Unnecessary. Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters already covers all of this information. — hbdragon88 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. A lot of templates are unnecessary, but useful. Templates and categories can coexist. However, Super Smash Bros. is a unique case in that it groups together a variety of characters from other series, so it's more of a stretch to connect these character articles. –Pomte 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable characters does a nice job linking them altogether already. hbdragon88 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We already have a category and article dedicated to SSB seres characters, we don't need a template. -- Jelly Soup 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Did anyone besides me notice that this template is more used as an SSB display rather than for article navigation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it's like overcategorization, except more annoyingly visible. Axem Titanium 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep a useful template, and is obviously already used. Jmlk17 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's redundant to the category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infoboxneeded

No reason any page should be tagged as "needing" an infobox. Nominated in light of recent bot gone bad, and in light of recent inappropriate deletion by User:Cyde. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename it to {{infoboxrequested}} then. It's not either "delete" or "keep and never change", it's not a binary choice. --W.marsh 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please consider change your comment to a delete+create: moves and renames are often ignored and treated as keeps. Also, if it's renamed I presume a redirect will be left.. people will just keep using the old name and doing the wrong thing with it. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If someone can commit to moving all the existing templates over to the "requested" alternative with AWB then deleting this one, sure, but I don't think we should just lose all the current requests, which were made in good faith. --W.marsh 03:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Most of the current requests were mindlessly added either by bot or in a huge batch of WikiProject-related templates. Not much conscious thought went into any of them. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      - I dunno... the ones I've looked at are all articles where an infobox would have been useful. Places, people, movies, albums... the kind of articles that usually have infoboxes. --W.marsh 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename. I don't particularly care for it, either, but that's not a reason to delete it. Useful for project sorting and for those who find the infoboxes worth having. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was being put robotically onto a huge number of articles. I think we need to delete it and remove it from all pages that included it, then start over. It's absurd to think that all articles automatically need infoboxes. You can't have a robot just tag every article in a given category with it. You need a human making a conscious decision, after looking at an article, to say that an infobox is needed. But right now it's populated by a bunch of automatic inclusions, so it's worthless. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  - So maybe that's a problem with the person running the bot, not the template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete then possibly create a {{infoboxrequested}}, if it is created make it clear that it is never to be added by bots, and never to be included directly in articles since random readers won't be able to figure out our complex infobox procedures. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is deletion needed to do that, though? It would just mean we'd lose a lot of existing requests (made in good faith). --W.marsh 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  - All the ones on articles were just mindlessly added by bots as far as I can tell. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    - The ones on the two articles I watch were added by humans... a bot was moving them from the talk pages to article pages, but I don't think bots originally added them to the talk pages. --W.marsh 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah is everyone getting that these templates were added to the talk pages gradually by humans, and only in the past few days did a bot come and move them all to the article pages? That's important to understand here. No one seemed to mind this template until the bot thing. --W.marsh 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, most were still added by robots. See this example. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  - One example doesn't prove that "most" were added by robots. here is one being added by a human. --W.marsh 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    - That same guy added it to every Kentucky-related city article, dozens of them, in a nearly-robotic fashion. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      - So, again, is that a problem with the template, or the user? I can go add prod tags to every random article I click on, too - that means I should be dealt with, not some deletion of the {{prod}} tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      - He didn't add it to every Kentucky-related city article... he added it to like 15 articles, all of which seemed to have substantially more prose than the default RamBot stuff. They were clearly all articles where an Infobox would have been helpful. --W.marsh 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and possibly rename. I changed it so it yells at you if it's on an article, and toned down the wording. It should generally not be added by a bot, though I could see members of a project deciding that all articles in a set, such as all Interstate Highways, should have an infobox, and then tagging the talk pages appropriately after human-verifying the list to ensure it only contains Interstate Highways. Then the project could use whatlinkshere on the template, restricting to talk pages, to find articles that need infoboxes, like . --NE2 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except in practice it's not being used that way at all. It's just being added willy nilly to articles. --Cyde Weys 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  - That's not really a reason to delete... lots of templates can be added semi-automatically, like {{uncategorized}} or the endless project banners. If correctly applied, they still serve their purpose. If not correctly applied, then we should deal with the bot operator, not delete the template because one bot operator got it wrong. Deleting a template because it got used incorrectly is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then some. --W.marsh 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    - But it seems that all have been added under this entirely mistaken notion that all articles need infoboxes. So the data that we have is bad. :( Even if it were true, we wouldn't need a template for it. --Gmaxwell 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      - That's an assumption not really supported by the discussion so far... interstate highways, articles on places that are getting a bit long, these are all ones where an infobox would be useful. No one's shown that bots are just running around adding this template to all articles indiscriminately. At any rate, templates like {{npov}} are certainly added incorrectly on occasion... do we delete the template when that happens, or correct the misuse? --W.marsh 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        Eh, but it has been shown that bots have been going around mindlessly adding it.. In any case, so long as it's not in the actual articles and so long as no one is actively adding it via mindless processes, I don't have any other objections. Consider my position just changed to rename. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        The need for an infobox really is just one person's opinion - delete and recreate as Template:Infoboxrequested. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        Delete and recreate? I think you'll find we call that "keep and rename!". --kingboyk 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to {{infoboxrequested}}. Infobox needed is certainly an incorrect name; however until such time as there is consensus to do away with infoboxes folks are entitled to request them. It ought to go without saying that this should be used on talk pages only. I have no objection to bots adding the template either, provided it's in area where there's clear consensus (such as albums). Furthermore, deleting the template is not the way to counter a bot problem! --kingboyk 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. People are reading far, far too much into the name of this template. I would say that the greater problem is the wording of the template itself, which should be changed to say something along the lines of, "It is requested that an appropriate infobox be added to this article or...". I'm entirely neutral on the subject of renaming, which strikes me as a trivial issue compared to the incorrect content. Xtifr _tälk 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Solid keep, I don't care what it's called. There is a need for this template. We use infoboxes to allow readers after salient facts about some subject where there will be many notable examples to quickly extract those facts. Discussions about which namespace it belongs in belong on the template's discussion page, or anywhere but here. Daniel Case 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but this really belongs on the talkpage, along with all other metadata that does not point out problems a reader should be aware of. Rename is fine too. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep as Amarkov says, it should probably be on talkpages instead, but is useful as it is as well. Jmlk17 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete an infobox is never needed. Whether it helps an article (as it sometimes does) is a matter for those working on the article, or knowledgeable about the field. At the moment these things just seem a invitation to instruction creep - interference and inflating edit counts. Certainly such editorial requests should NEVER appear on the article itself. That's just vandalism. -Doc 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not used on articles at all: --NE2 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The name "Infobox requested" does make more sense. This is a necessary template to allow editors to standardize similar articles. There is no reason to delete it. If it is on the article or Talk Page is debatable, however it is clear that the template on the article gets more results. Timneu22 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete this please. Infoboxes are bad enough, without this template infesting the few articles blessedly free of them. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Creates a false impression that infoboxes are generally useful or required. Please simply leave article editors alone to structure information in the most useful way. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- But they are useful if not required. Look at any Maryland county aritlce, and see an infobox (it's like this for most states). These look great. Then go to a Wisconsin county and you'll see no infobox. For consistency across all these articles, an infobox is needed. How can that be in dispute? Timneu22 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  Since when have they been required? Please provide me with a link to the discussion which ended in the consensus that infoboxes are ever required. Picaroon (Talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  I mistyped. I meant "if not" required. Timneu22 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  
  Perhaps they are useful, perhaps not. Personally, I believe it depends on the article. Very clearly, there is no general consensus that they are useful. Articles include them on the basis of personal preference only. And the Wisconsin articles seem quite consistent. Each one lacks an infobox. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Will {{infoboxunwanted}} be created as the counterpart to {{infoboxrequested}}? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete 100% agreement with Doc Glasgow above. Giano 18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Doc on this completely. It's presumptive and disruptive. Since when did we all become slaves to the great Infobox Master? Eusebeus 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Doc and Christopher Parham. Let the people who are editing the article decide whether the page will be improved by an infobox. Taggers should tag articles, not make decisions about trivial things which go in them. If you would like to request an image, that is obviously different; it is clear to most when an article needs one, unlikely to be viewed as petty interference, and is not necessarily within the tagger's capabilities. If an infobox is really "needed," let the tagger add it themselves. In conclusion, until there is consensus that all biographies need boxes, (which there certainly isn't), let us delete this box. Picaroon (Talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and let the editors of the individual page decide whether that particular article needs an infobox. Some pages "need" infoboxes more than others. I deal mostly with geographic articles and infoboxes on those articles are always needed. Perhaps an infobox on every ocsar winning actor is something that would not be "needed (or better said, wanted). But for God's sake let the individual articles' editors decide whether they want an infobox or not. Sometimes, editors just don't know that there is an infobox out there that may be helpful to them. Renaming to infoboxrequested doesn't seem right either maybe infobox suggested would be closer to the true. Those are my thoughts not yours... I'm —MJCdetroit and I approved this message. 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Infoboxes may be OK for asteroids or chemical elements (subjects with easily quantifiable data), but for a significant number of articles where I have seen them, they are at best redundant (including nothing not already found in the first few lines), ugly and compete with other graphical elements (images, TOC) at the top of the page in a way that disturbs the layout. In many cases, especially in biographies, they encourage the entry of inaccuracies and anachronisms by forcing the summarizing of complex article content in the form of simplistic dismembered tabular data without the necessary context and explanations. To imply that this crap is needed is ridiculous. It is better to focus on writing good, readable introductory paragraphs to all articles. Pharamond 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)