Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

[edit]

Template:Infobox Arthur Season

[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) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arthur Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, recently created template that is redundant to the standard {{Infobox television season}}. AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (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:Discusshl

[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) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

An eye-searing highlight has been added to the normal {{discuss}} template. It looks like something escaped from a college text rather than something encyclopedic, yet I am unsure if it breaks any particular Wikipedia guideline. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how distracting it is may be seen at Ching chong#Chinese linguistics.[1] The editor who created it has been adding it to many articles to "facilitate discussion".[2] The problem is, at many of the articles the discussions on the matters he's highlighting have finished, some months ago.[3][4][5] Regardless of whether or not this template breaks any rules, it seems redundant to {{discuss}}. If there is a need to include unattractive highlighting, this should be added as an option to that template, rather than creating an entirely separate template. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable difference between {{discuss}} and {{discusshl}} / {{/discusshl}} is the use of colour. Colour is already used in code highlighting for example, and so its not meant to be POV. I try to make both templates a self-reference though I think a change to the CSS would be required for it to not show in printable format. -- Zondor (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is color "already used in code highlighting" on Wikipedia?
Who cares about CSS and printing if the article is flawed, perhaps via inappropriate highlighting? No amount of CSS or printer tweaking will make it more reliable in that case. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If retina burning is desired in editing or reading an article then please add highlighting as a switch to {{discuss}}. However, the critism of any editor's use of a template belongs elsewhere. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding making it an option, note that {{discusshl}} requires {{/discusshl}} as a pair as it uses HTML Span tags for it to work, whereas {{discuss}} is used by itself. -- Zondor (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making {{discusshl}} more complicated to use. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-consensual, distracting, possibly distruptive - and certainly divisive template. Wikipedia is not myspace; the use of colour is, in my strong view, inappropriate. I would also add that Wikipedia has functioned for the best part of a decade without such a template; {{discuss}} already hits the spot. As a side issue, its rollout was less than well thought-out and so I concur with User:AussieLegend about its use on consensus-bound, archaic discussions. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting is then perhaps too strong. I tried a lighter colour but then its too hard to see. Then why not use dashed or dotted underlines that should better fit in with the rest of the gray and dull looking website which has served well to be neutral looking. Just like the same visual cue in Microsoft Word or also in browsers when there is a grammatical or spelling error. There is no social networking here just as there isn't any in the talk pages. "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." The template is trying to say, hey, there is more than one people that thinks there is something wrong with this statement, but I don't want to simply delete it, and I want to let you know something about it, and you really should be aware of it, and although you are here just to read you should know that I really think it could be false and don't want to fill your head with such false or POV information, and we are still discussing it, and please help join the discussion. This template is another self-reference template, a constructive template, just like {{stub}}, {{expand list}}, {{NPOV}}, and other boilerplate templates. I didn't see any use to apply highlighting to {{cite}} but instead to {{discuss}}. -- Zondor (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#When not to use emphasis says "Underlining is used in typewriting and handwriting to represent italic type. Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Distracting and ugly for the reader, and redundant to the much simpler and streamlined '[discuss]' template. The fact that it is being applied to articles after a general question on the talk page (sometimes months old and resolved) is also quite disruptive. Hayden120 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (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:Fairleigh Dickinson Knights football coach navbox

[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 Speedy deleted by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7. RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairleigh Dickinson Knights football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Speedy delete per CSD G7. I made this navbox incorrectly because this particular Fairleigh Dickinson University template uses the nickname "Knights" whereas the actual football team, even though FDU is a Division I-A school, plays Division III football and goes by the nickname "Devils." I've already made Template:Fairleigh Dickinson Devils football coach navbox, which is what I had meant to do all along. Please delete this as it is incorrect in its use and nickname. Thank you in advance. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (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/2010_February_10&oldid=1138694175"