Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/September 2004
Deleted[edit]
- Template:Liberalism related I suspect this is around because it's a distant cousin of Template:Liberalism sidebar. Since it only has one link, it's really no more useful than a category, and it's only on a few articles anyway. --Twinxor 05:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Influential western philosophers - The very definition of "tailor made for categories," this box is an oversized mess. Snowspinner 17:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- delete misuse of templates. --Jiang 20:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is in a chronological order and cannot be replaced by a category. What's a "mess" about it? Gzornenplatz 20:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- The box is oversized to the point of no longer actually carrying useful information. Snowspinner 20:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- It can easily be replaced by a list of western philosophers. Listing is rather arbitary --Jiang 00:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; replace with category and an article with chronology and explanation. ✏ Sverdrup 11:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly what Sverdrup said, --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 15:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with category - it's a natural category, per the policy - David Gerard 18:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. More useful than a category or list, even if less exhaustive and fair. Ideas for abridging the template were discussed at the Talk page, and I offered more than one suggestion - I don't see why it's necessary to put up a vote when a simple look at the suggestions and their implementation would quickly solve the 'problem'. But then this is Wikipedia... -- Simonides 13:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Convert to a list. It is really getting oversized, and it is too arbitrary for a category (flammable), but it is still useful sometimes. --Oop 14:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and convert to a list. Oversized and arbitrary indeed. --Edcolins 10:51, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's doing the job of a category or a list. You can't actually find anything in this huge mess. --ZeroOne 17:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Googletest This is a silly template (it pits two searches together on http://googlefight.com ) and is not in use. --Twinxor 00:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's useful for comparing relative usage of two words. If you know a less silly website that does the same thing, you're welcome to change the template. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ]] 00:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. This seems like a rather rare situation – it's not in use anywhere and it's hard to think of a realistic case where Google hits would be a meaningful source. Furthermore, as implemented it does not seem to be much quicker than just entering the terms yourself at googlefight.com. --Twinxor 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. People can go to the website if they want to do that. Snowspinner 01:00, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- People can also go to http://www.google.com/ if they want to search for a particular phrase, yet Template:Google exists. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- People can also go to http://www.google.com/ if they want to search for a particular phrase, yet Template:Google exists. --[[User:Eequor|η
- Completely pointless object and violation of any policy I know of on the subject. (Other bad templates still don't make this a good template.) Delete - David Gerard 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why would I put a template on a page simply for giving me a link? I'd rather go and manually type it in to googlefight. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It should not be used in the article namespace. If created to be used in Wikipedia:, then keep. Else delete. ✏ Sverdrup 15:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I use GoogleFight all the time to make important points about the relative importance of words and spellings. I didn't know this template existed and now that I do, I plan to use it instead of particular links to Googlefight. I agree it is of no use in the article namespace, but it is invaluable in the Talk namespace and perhaps the Wikipedia namespace. For example, I used Googlefight links extensively on Talk:Kiev. Nohat 02:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Eequor can move the concept to their user space (as a subpage?) if its needed for personal use. -- Netoholic @ 21:05, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- Keep. It's useful for comparing relative usage of two words. If you know a less silly website that does the same thing, you're welcome to change the template. --[[User:Eequor|η
.gif){kind=small}
Not deleted[edit]
- Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_100_m_Women, Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_200_m_Women, Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_80_m_hurdles_Women - these are all natural-born cats per the criteria, and see Fanny Blankers-Koen for the horror of all three on a page at once - David Gerard 21:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- delete and convert to categories --Jiang 06:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, convert to category. CryptoDerk 22:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: Fanny Blankers-Koen was an exceptional athlete. So it is a bad example. For 85% of the Olympic champions there won't be more than one footer. Still these elements are a very useful supplement to categories, as those do not display missing articles or a chronological order. -- Triebtäter
- Importance of subject matter is not a criterion - David Gerard 18:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Convert to categories. Information does not seem to me to be likely to be read about chronologically, and if someone really wants it chronologically, they should be directed to a list-of article. Snowspinner 17:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Use of categories would lead to too many categories. Chronology is useful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a good template, though Fanny Blankers-Koen article should be modified to colesce these templates into a more readable format. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Kept: No consensus. 4 deletes, 3 keeps. • Benc • 21:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Template:British Indian Ocean Territory infobox - restored the infobox to the only article that needs it. Gzornenplatz 14:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- What on Earth? Templates are not just for general infoboxes, but also to simplify editing by moving rarely changing complex and technical Wikitax out of the article. This use of templates is exactly what they were designed for in the first place. Keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What templates were designed for was to allow creation of text that can be inserted into many articles. This box here is only needed in one article, so it can be put there directly. The article is short enough so that making it shorter using the template is no issue either. Also, the box contents are no more "rarely changing" than the main text of the article; I just did some change to it myself. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Umm. No, that's wrong. Sorry. They were designed for transclusion; one of their current uses is as a standard box, but that does not let you rewrite history. James F. (talk) 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transclusion is simply what it does. Now what was transclusion implemented for? Precisely for what I said, to use the same text in different articles. Not to divide one article into separate parts for no good reason. Gzornenplatz 16:08, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Umm. No, that's wrong. Sorry. They were designed for transclusion; one of their current uses is as a standard box, but that does not let you rewrite history. James F. (talk) 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What templates were designed for was to allow creation of text that can be inserted into many articles. This box here is only needed in one article, so it can be put there directly. The article is short enough so that making it shorter using the template is no issue either. Also, the box contents are no more "rarely changing" than the main text of the article; I just did some change to it myself. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed, I can see the benefits of offloading infoboxes to templates where they don't confuse editors. Keep. Snowspinner 17:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. Templates make things harder to edit. Editors expect that they can edit the contents of a page via "Edit this page". If the part to be edited is part of a template, they are confused that they can't find the actual text in the edit window. Some templates don't even have their own "Edit" link, forcing the editor to first edit the main article just to learn the name of the template, and then go to "Template:name" and then click on edit there (and then go back to the original article). This is absolutely unacceptable for things that are only used in one article. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- OFFS. No, this is not an attempt at obfuscation, and it it quite self-evidently indeed the reverse. James F. (talk) 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What? Gzornenplatz 16:08, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- OFFS. No, this is not an attempt at obfuscation, and it it quite self-evidently indeed the reverse. James F. (talk) 15:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. Templates make things harder to edit. Editors expect that they can edit the contents of a page via "Edit this page". If the part to be edited is part of a template, they are confused that they can't find the actual text in the edit window. Some templates don't even have their own "Edit" link, forcing the editor to first edit the main article just to learn the name of the template, and then go to "Template:name" and then click on edit there (and then go back to the original article). This is absolutely unacceptable for things that are only used in one article. Gzornenplatz 18:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Kept: 1 delete vote, 2 keep votes • Benc • 21:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What on Earth? Templates are not just for general infoboxes, but also to simplify editing by moving rarely changing complex and technical Wikitax out of the article. This use of templates is exactly what they were designed for in the first place. Keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)