Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 31 November 2 >

November 1

[edit]

Template:Junction

[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 - the continuous and lengthy discussions by Rschen7754 and Floydian were completely unhelpful and counterproductive for both parties. However, Floydian is stuck on using a template for which there is strong consensus to delete. Floydian's concerns about the functionality of the current standard template deserve serious discussion on a WikiProject talk page or on the relevant MOS talk page. Duplication of templates is highly undesirable based on past practices here and practical considerations. If Floydian desires the code to be userfied so that he still has access to it for reference, post to my talk page or e-mail me.Stmrlbs's arguments are unpersuasive for having a duplicate template. Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This includes all subpages of this page. This template created within the last 24 hours duplicates the function of {{jct}}; jct is way more developed and follows the WP:ELG guideline, which all exit lists worldwide have to conform to. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The use of this template is to simplify the creation of images and text used through several articles. Jct uses abbreviations, which I will not adhere to as they are unprofessional and a matter of personal style preferences. Also, I use this template outside of exit lists. In short, this template serves to make a repetitive task simpler for me. The deletion of it will impede the creation of articles that I am writing, and is not beneficial to the encyclopedia for the politics of a few stragglers that are stuck in the ways of the past. Articles do not have to conform to WP:ELG, hence it being a guideline and not a law.
I'd like to start a new guideline. I fail to see the necessity of sticking to guidelines created years ago primarily with American road articles in mind. I've already had to modify several templates in order to allow kilometer in place of mile. Not only this, but these are style guidlines which should be ignored in place of better solutions. I am the only editor that remains for Ontario roads, so I ask why so many editors insist on placing roadblocks? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, keep because I want to do things my way? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the same as delete because you want to do things your way. I will do things my way, or I won't write articles. You are lawyering and being a nit picker over a guideline, which isn't mandatory to adhere to (or even well written or in-depth for that matter). So yes, keep, as I will do things my way regardless. I'm writing articles, I'm improving the encyclopedia, you're being a politician, and there are is need for that on wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically when a bunch of us want to do things our way, it's called Wikipedia:Consensus. Which is policy. "I will do things my way, or I won't write articles" - well, the door is wide open. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets see how this "consensus" was formed, shall we? WP:ELG starts of by saying (Below the part mentioning that there are exceptions and to use common sense):

Basis for guideline

"Several discussions regarding the designing of exit lists have occurred in the past, and can be found on this guide's talk page, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Archive 2. These discussions have resulted in the standard outlined below." Right, so American, plus American, equals world wide. Good job, another example of America thinking it runs the planet :) Next we move on to the text "exit lists", part of the title of the guideline (please go read WP:GUIDELINE as well, thanks). First off, I am using this for uses besides an exit list; secondly, the jct template is for junctions and not exits, interchanges, or other items that are common to freeways. I am not writing freeway articles, I'm writing arterial road articles; thirdly, the opinions of one or two editors is not the consensus, its the opinion of those one or two members, both of who are dedicated to American roads; fourthly, that guideline isn't the end-all-be-all-must-adhere-to-or-leave guideline for road articles, hence it being titled exit list guideline. Its the guideline written by the US Roads wikiproject for US roads. I am not writing US road articles, and you are not writing Canadian road articles. All I ask is that you stay in your corner and I'll stay in mine.

And you're right, the door is open. Now I'm walking through it and leaving behind the room of the past. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_3#worldwide_applicability? Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_4#globalizing? Wikipedia_talk:CRWP#Important_poll_at_WT:ELG? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways/Archive_1#Proposed_changes_to_the_exit_list_guide? etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was posted to the Canadian roads wikiproject about 2 weeks before I came in. Nobody from Canada participated, and nobody from Canada is active. Looking over many of the comments from those links, a great deal of editors agree with it being Americanized, not globalized. If this was indeed a globalized template, then kilometer would be the default option for the Jcttop template, not mile. But no, I had to get kilometre added to the template. There is no globalization of these guidelines, just a bunch of Americans thinking they are making the global consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian, is the problem that the jct template is geared toward the way that the US roads are set up, and not the way that Canadian roads are set up? stmrlbs|talk 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't wish to label everything with abbreviations (Which if you look through the hundreds of US roads that use them, they never explain what they mean, instead leaving it to the reader to decide). The full text fits in nicely, and looks much better overall. The users here insist that an abbreviation MUST be used because thats what the guideline they wrote says. I disagree, and feel that a new guideline, or difference from their guideline, produces better looking articles that are free of mysterious abbreviations. It's honestly laughable, as the individual editor should be able to make style based decisions like that. Fair enough, they do not wish to use abbreviations. My solution - create a template that is identical to Jct (though not making use of the infobox_road template), which uses fully spelt out words. Abbreviations are an editors convenience, but shouldn't come at the sacrifice of information to readers.
The editors fighting me may wish to go put some opinions in at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_numbered_roads_in_Kawartha_Lakes,_Ontario/archive2, because I don't use abbreviations, and that list is on its way to becoming a Featured List. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No; there's no significant difference between the way roads are set up and marked in the two countries. --NE2 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thats dealing with exit lists, which has nothing to do with this template. I use this template for creating icons with a link. It is my choice to not use abbreviations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since icons with a link should not be used in text, what use do they have outside exit/junction lists and infoboxes? --NE2 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about infoboxes at WP:ELG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's silly to make a whole new template just for infoboxes, which are supposed to be small so there's room for relevant images below. --NE2 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of infoboxes make use of the Jct template for the starting and ending termini, as well as major intersections. I can also make use of the noshield parameter and get rid of the image. The point is, its a simple way of doing a repetitive task, and it looks much cleaner when you go to edit the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{jct|state=ON|Hwy|8|noshield1=yes}} is cleaner than [[Highway 8 (Ontario)|]]? --NE2 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean [[Highway 8 (Ontario)|Highway 8]]? In some cases its slightly less cleaner than the manual method, but its a simple code that I can copy and pasted when I need it, and only have to change a single number. The convenience is the second half of the argument - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to change a single number if you use the pipe trick, and you don't leave messy code behind. --NE2 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork for {{jct}}. If you disagree with a guideline, then argue about it at the talk page for that guideline, or on an appropriate WikiProject, or at the Village Pump. Don't create a template that ignores the guideline, especially when it duplicates the functionality of an existing template. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a POV fork to make a template that doesn't use abbreviations. Yes its ignoring a guideline, but that IS permissible, especially when it has a greater net benefit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WT:USRD#TFD: "Ideally I'd like to fork all of Canada out of jct." is an admission by Floydian that {{Junction}} is already a fork of {{Jct}}. --Fredddie™ 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The trend on Wikipedia (at least from my viewpoint) seems to be to consolidate or delete redundant templates that achieve the same basic thing. If {{junction}} achieves the same exact effect of using {{jct}}, then there's really no need for it to exist. Now if the former presented differently from {{jct}} or needed some parameter that it cannot accommodate, then I could see the need for having a separate template. I do not know the intricacies of template coding, so I cannot tell what the differences are between these templates. Seeing the differences is especially difficult given that {{junction}} has absolutely no template documentation or usage instructions (as of this writing). An absence of template documentation means that other editors would not be able to use the template effectively, and it seems really unnecessary to have a template that only one editor knows how to use. --LJ (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jcon will have documentation. I'm in the process of writing it. Its rather redundant to do so for junction. They produce the same output (which is the intention), but one uses FAR simpler coding.
    {{jct|state=ON|county1=KL|RR|6|name1=Kirkfield Road|noshield1=y}}
    {{jcon|KL|6|Kirkfield Road|nosh=y}}
    Both produce the same: Road 6 (Kirkfield Road) (Although if these guys have it their way, jct would produce: CKL 6 (Kirkfield Road))
    compare. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a query. If you're not going to call up the shield graphic, as in your examples, why not just write up the wikilink directly? Half of the utility for the template for me is not remembering how the various shield graphics are named, remembering that 3-digit shields need to be coded wider (except the Michigan shields) and all that jazz.
    As for the abbreviation/unabbreviated version for Kawartha Lakes, there's no reason that {{jct}} can't be coded not to abbreviate it at all. I guess where I'm at a loss is that at least in Michigan, the full official name of the highway through my hometown is M-28. There's nothing to abbreviate, except that on WP there's the (Michigan highway) disambiguation in the article title. I have no problem if jct doesn't use abbreviations. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the problem with your code: What if you have two routes multiplexed together that are both listed from the highway signs? Try doing that with jcon. There's a reason we have the name= parameter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most concurrencies in Canada are very short lived. Its not as in the states where it is not uncommon to find an interstate, state highway, and even a county road running on the same route for many many miles. I have the name tag in mine, except you don't need to type in name1=, you just type the name.
    I also didn't use shields in the example above because I was showing the difference in typing to achieve the same result.
    But you're ignoring the possibility of that situation ever occuring. Which is bad practice. If that happens (and it has to in Canada at some point - take for example TCH (BC 1) and BC 99 in Vancouver) then the user cannot use your template and has to either use {{jct}}, which would handle this properly, or manually type out the link. Oops. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - conditional - most people find complete words easier to read and comprehend than abbreviations and acronyms. Citizens of Canada are probably not familiar with all the abbreviations used in the US and vice versa, and this is probably true for people from any country reading information about another country (or for that matter, another state with which they are unfamiliar). So, I think that even though the "standard" might be an abbreviation, spelling out the full word (if it can be accommodated in the layout) should be an option. As for the road sign icons, I've looked at the icons for the signs that Floydian is trying to use. The shape is such that they are very hard to see. They really do need to be a little larger to be easily seen. The size of the road sign should be an option, too. I think sometimes that people that have worked on Wikipedia for a while forget the project is supposed to be geared toward the audience - the readers - not the editors. Guidelines should be flexible enough to accommodate changes that make an article easier to read and understand. If Floydian has found a way to meet these small variations with another template, I don't see what the big deal is if he documents his changes and specifies for what area the template should be used. As for saying that templates are not to be duplicated for a change in purpose, I beg to differ. Look at all the template for archives.. to list them, to search them. One for searching just the archives, one for searching the talk page and the archives. Duplication with slight modifications is quite prevalent, and for much simpler templates than the junction and infobox road templates. So.. with the condition that Floydian adequately documents the purpose of his template and what the differences are, so that other people in his area can use it, I say it should stay, just like the other templates with slight variations that are in abundance on wikipedia. stmrlbs|talk 06:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One comment, if I may. It has been long-standing practice that on first usage, the full name be spelled out with the abbreviation in parentheses. In other words, you'd read a sentence like "Interstate 75 (I-75) meets U.S. Highway 23 (US 23) near Flint, Michigan." Then another sentence later would be "I-75 splits from US 23 at Standish, Michigan." Since the abbreviations are introduced elsewhere in the text, using them in the table at the end of the article should be perfectly acceptable. Of course, that doesn't mean that the table has to have abbreviations though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but here is a difference. It is common practise to pronounce Interstate 75 (I-75) as "eye seventy-five." It also makes perfect sense to pronounce US 23 as "you-ess twenty-three." Canadian roads do not have a similar pronunciation scheme.
    In response to stmrlbs, that documentation is on the way, but only for the template that isn't up for deletion since this one has a pretty clear consensus behind it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... what? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In Ontario at least, we do not pronounce our county roads CR ## (as in "see" "are" ##). In the states, your Interstates (for example, I-75) are pronounced I-75 (as in "eye"-seventy-five). In other words, you pronounce your abbreviations and they have entered common usage in the general public. That is not the case here.
In the US at least, we don't pronounce CR that way either.--Fredddie™ 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the ground for its use. Even maps don't use those abbreviations. So if neither the documents that guide motorists on those roads or the road signs themselves or the commonplace pronounciations make use of those abbreviations, what is the grounds for their inclusion and use (aside from somebody happening to use a shortcut in some semi-official document)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an abbreviation for a junction list. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about an abbreviation. I just looked at the official state map of Iowa - no abbreviations for any routes on its maps. They're explained in the legend. Are you suggesting every junction list is in need of a legend? I'll let you take that one to each WikiProject and to ELG.--Fredddie™ 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it is also common to abbreviate County Road 480 as CR 480, or in my home county, County Road MM as Co. Rd. MM (and yes both methods are used). The first usage would be spelled out, even though you'd be very hard pressed to hear someone pronounce it "see are four eighty". Depending on the usage, the first mention would probably be Marquette County Road 480 (CR 480) and just the abbreviations thereafter, like in the M-28 article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't use those up here though. Nobody ever says CR 6, or even county road 6, because you often travel through several counties. Instead, they are referred to by county name and number. Kawartha Lakes 6. Durham 23. York 68. Our maps NEVER use abbreviations, and neither do our signs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our maps don't use the abbreviations either. In fact, the current official MDOT maps only use the numbers in the correct shape shields. The posted shields in Marquette County are square with the number in the middle with MARQUETTE above and COUNTY below the number. On maps that show CR 480, the marker is a rectangle with just the number. The CR or Co, Rd. abbreviation is used on some signs and in mailing addresses instead of spelling out County Road 480 all the time. Because the county also uses a system of double- or triple-lettered names for county roads, those are typically Co. Rd. MM instead of CR MM, but both abbreviations can be found in use for both kinds of names.
    Common usage in my home state is to either use the type designator in front of the number in conversation (I, US or M) and verbally say "county road" as needed, or to drop all of that and just say the number, even when it spelled out or abbreviated in text being read. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly the way it should work: If a global-use template is somehow skewed towards a particular national/regional perspective, then it should be fixed. If the editors who work on it resist fixing it, then broaden the discussion by bringing it to a relevant WikiProject or starting an RFC. Creating a redundant template should not be the solution of first resort. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or it should be de-globalized and put to use where it is almost exclusively used - American roads. I just don't see the advantage of one template when its so huge and maze like. Besides the idea that one template may not conform the same way if they are split into countries, there is little argument against such a thing. If you go look at an article on a British Motorway, it already has its own setup that is different from American roads. However, if each template is cared for by road enthusiasts from those countries, its not hard to keep them the same in terms of presentation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia template language was a full fledged programming language, I would go with the concept of a "global" template, to be called with different variables depending on locality and type of roads. But, it is not. It is a rather crude type of macro language that is extremely limited by the fact that you can't define variables or even put in a basic programming loop. So, you end up with very innovative people resorting to clever ways to use whatever tools they have available to try to make these repetitive tasks easier. The problem is that with these limitations, you end up with many inner templates calling more inner templates in order to try to perform what would be a simple process in a real programming environment. This is why you end up with templates like this: Template:Loop and this: Template:For_loop to do a simple loop! Evidently, this is by design philosophy WP:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_62#Variables_extension - imo, a bad decision because it makes programming templates for any kind of complexity much more convoluted than necessary. To get to the point, with Wikipedia's template language being what it is, I think there is a benefit to duplicating a template and simplifying it for a limited set of circumstances, versus adding even more parameters to a complex and hard to understand template (for people trying to set it up) in order to keep the "global use" concept. Until Wikipedia allows some better basic programming capabilities in templates, I think there is a benefit to "duplicating" and simplifying a template for a more limited purpose, as long as the documentation is clear about the connection to the original template and why the new template was created. stmrlbs|talk 21:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... look at the TFD at the bottom of this page. It's of several templates being consolidated into one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, I would, except it the duplicate has already been deleted. So, I can't see what the change was. But, I think you are missing my point. I'm saying there is a "sweet spot" where adding more and more parameters to an already complex template for a limited case is just not worth it for wikipedia because of the limitations of the wikipedia templating language. this would apply in some cases and not in others, depending on how easy the extra functionality was to add. stmrlbs|talk 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm told that jct is already set up for Canada. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's fine if you have a magnifying glass to read the road icons. stmrlbs|talk 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't supposed to even be any Canada road icons in jct - due to fair use. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter for this point. The image of those road shield is the same, whether it is fair use or not, and because of the shape of the image, it is very hard to see with the size defined by the infobox road template. stmrlbs|talk 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no image in jct, how can the image size matter? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone informed me off wiki that there are a few provinces that can still use shields. But if you have a problem with sizing, you discuss it at Template talk:Jct - you say there's a problem and you work with people to fix it. You don't just go "{{jct}} sucks" and create your own thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which provinces? And I'm creating my own thing because other editors refused to allow the changes I asked for. And can things not progress, or advance here? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... look at Mitch's sandbox. If other editors refused to allow your changes, the reason is that what you were doing was a bad idea, and thus it will be opposed no matter what template you use. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those editors are you, Mitch, and Freddie. Style prefs are a personal choice, and I don't care if you want to stick with your ways. The way I've done my articles is independent of the junction template, and that is my personal style choice that I will be using. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can you provide a link to "Mitch's sandbox"? stmrlbs|talk 07:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mitchazenia/Sandbox II. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I looked at Mitch's sandbox, and I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. stmrlbs|talk 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Jct is already set up for Canada. I believe they finished setting it up for the UK last night. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly finished, but I'd say for 95% of UK articles it will work. --Fredddie™ 22:19, 8 November 2009 (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:Laura White

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laura White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template with barely any links. Singer has one single that hasn't been released yet. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not having enough relevant links, but with no prejudice against recreating later when there are more links to include. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the single has now currently been released, furthermore, a template shouldn't be deleted so it can be re-added in 2 weeks time when she releases a new single, and she is expected to release her debut album imminently. If no new singles etc. materialises within a few weeks then delete, but for the present moment it should be kept. --Patyo1994 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura White's album is now up on Digital spy. So there is an extra link on it. She is due to bring a single out in December to.--Ddaniel2009 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (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:Radiochange

[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) 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This templates is currently used on three articles, two from February 2008 and 1 from March 2008. While it is supposed to designate recently changed radio stations. Clearly not in use. In addition, this template's creator, who was the one to use it the first two times, hasn't been on Wikipdia for over half a year. Also simply redundant to the general {{Update}} template. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (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:Sockpuppeteerproven

[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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Sockpuppeteer|proven}} but speedy has been contested. -- Avi (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what deprecation is about: it is a step in the deletion process of templates. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and nothing in the history of the template or the talk are of any value - anyone who wants the template code is free to ask for it from any admin. This template has been deprecated by the template noted by Avi. If the template is kept, it does nothing but cause confusion for sock hunters; better to delete the template so that editors who know the old template and don't notice the new one see that they get nothing when they try the old template. Otherwise, we spend time cleaning up and educating every time the old template is transcluded (and many think that sock templates are supposed to be substituted, in which case we have no idea when they are used). Policy dictates using {{sockpuppeteer}} and that template is versatile and can be used in every instance that this template can and many more. A plethora of sock templates has caused great confusion in the past. Anyone who has concerns should be discussing them at WT:SPI anyway.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was once useful, but is now redundant to other sockpuppetry templates and so does little but complicate our tagging protocols. AGK 16:10, 1 November 2009 (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/2009_November_1&oldid=1138693925"