Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 29 September 2013

September 29

Template:IPsock

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

This template simply should not exist, as its use is contrary to policy at WP:HSOCK, which mandates only blocked accounts should be tagged. Per adminstrator sockpuppet instructions, the template used to tag blocked ip socks is {{SockBlock}} NE Ent 22:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom, actually this seems to meet CSD:T2.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also {{Sockpuppet}} and {{Sockpuppeteer}}. — Lfdder (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete - IPs should not be tagged unless static, and even then they might change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - I think it's useful for finding and categorizing pages that prolific banned users edit, so their edits can be found more quickly, but on the other hand if this were deleted it would enforce WP:DENY better and also people are currently using it incorrectly, to unnecessarily harass people and tag pages of obvious shared IPs. I don't really care, delete it or don't. To RE's comment above, I don't know what you might have learned as a CheckUser that I don't know, but I thought tagging the user (not talk) page of an IP even at the risk it might change causes even less collateral damage than a block on an IP. But I may be wrong. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 02:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Currently it has been used to harass IP editors who have not been proven to be socks and should not have been tagged to begin with. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, this template has been here for years. Yes, those of us who use it to identify socks have been using it for years. Yes, the language at the sock policy page (as well as the admin's sock tagging instructions page) have been altered slowly without concern for consensus. Tagging an IP's talk page with this template is not only a very useful tool for quickly identifying socks that has existed for years, it is the basis for countless legitimate SPIs. Emptying all "suspected sock puppet" pages is unthinkable to me. Doc talk 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Noodle

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

Template:Chinese noodles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Chinese noodles and Template:Pasta with Template:Noodle.
(1) Template:Noodle is the most-encompassing, while the rest is rather a split-off. (2) At currrent, the convention is that Template:Noodle is only for noodle varieties but not dishes, which is problematic considering that the dishes are occasionally getting added then removed and many dishes in the context of noodle is navbox-less. I would suggest adding those too with a {{Navbox subgroup}} into Template:Noodle (similar to how Template:Chinese noodles seperates varieties from dishes). That is a better option than making separate regional navboxes. (3) The decision to add either Template:Noodle or a regional one to an article is arbitrarily (most use Template:Noodle instead of Template:Pasta for example), so might as well combine the the regional with the all-encompassing navbox. (4) Entries like Pancit (Filipino noodles), Pancit estacion, Pancit Malabon, and others are floating around... this merge would benefit the navigation of those articles in the context of the topic noodles. Cold Season (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all three templates are large, we shouldn't use {{noodle}} unless we really need the large template. Navigating to Japanese soba noodles from Italian spaghettini isn't really necessary is it? Chinese and Italian pasta/noodles are part of the very large topics of Chinese and Italian cuisine. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In your perspective maybe, but it's still not beneficial, organized, or effective. Everything could be put in the Template:Noodle and it would still be of reasonable size. Several regional noodle navboxes would entail many unnecessary duplication (unless Template:Noodle gets deleted), have all the topics spread out despite being in the same general area of interest, and have smaller topics like Pancit (Filipino noodles) fade out by the disorganization of several navboxes about noodles. Template:Teas is a good example of how it should and could be in a all-encompassing manner, since forking into smaller navboxes is detrimental. "Chinese and Italian pasta/noodles are part of the very large topics of Chinese and Italian cuisine." It may be, but no one is suggesting we should include these smaller noodle sub-topics into those cuisine templates (which would be too much anyway), so I don't see the relevance to this proposal. --Cold Season (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The duplication can be solved by having {{noodle}} itself call the other two templates. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge of pasta template into noodle template. I recommend the opposite, merge noodle into pasta, because many references categorize noodle as a type of pasta. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The editors at the article Pasta have a clear consensus that "pasta" is about the food in the Italian cuisine and not about all regional noodles, either you don't agree with that consensus or you are saying something contradictory. If not, then the pasta article would need a scope change, unless your argument is plainly incorrect. The Oxford dict defines noodle as "a strip, ring, or tube of pasta or a similar dough..." (US) or "a very thin, long strip of pasta or a similar flour paste..." (UK), meaning that noodle is the encompassing term. While pasta is defined as "a dish originally from Italy..." (Oxford dict UK and US ed). --Cold Season (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyway, can I infer that you support a merge of the navboxes, even though not this specific merge, from your statement? --Cold Season (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm basing my argument that many notable, reliable resources refer to noodle as a form of pasta. Even the Oxford Dictionary definition you mention above appears to indicate noodle as a form of pasta, meaning IMHO that pasta is the parent category. This furthers my argument that the noodle template should be merged into the pasta template, and not the other way around. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Don't even try to pull a fast one with your attempt to redefine info from the ref, that's very loose use from you "IMHO". The Oxford dict clearly states that noodles includes pasta and other similar dough/flour paste products, while also stating that pasta is of Italian origin alone (meaning that noodle is the all-encompassing group). Navboxes reflect its corresponding articles and if you wish to redefine the Pasta article beyond Italy (which I don't even particularly care about), then propose it there, since you aren't bringing any opposing arguments why this merge is detrimental (only giving a basis of why you don't agree with the Pasta article's scope). --Cold Season (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, I based my categorization of noodle on other dependable sources written by experts on the subject, such as Principles of Cereal Science and Technology by R. Carl Hoseney which states on page 327 that "Noodles are a type of pasta". In terms of the definition of noodle by the ref you presented, I obviously read it differently then you and see it as noodle as a specific type of pasta product, meaning pasta is the parent. Also, the history section of the noodle article suggests noodles originated from China, so saying that pasta is a dish originating from Italy becomes irrelevant in my view. I don’t claim to be an expert, so I disclaim that interpretation as IMHO. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Pasta includes a variety of dishes as a secondary meaning, and I saw no supporting reference for pasta being a kind of noodle in the article. The Oxford dictionary reference says a noodle is a qualified form of pasta or other dough. That the kind is qualified implies that pasta includes other classes that would not be called noodles. Using this information, I construct the following Venn diagram: (Pasta of other shapes and dishes (strips, rings, or tubes made of pasta dough) Noodles made of another similar dough/flour paste) If the main category is shape, pasta and noodles are the parents. If dough, pasta and flour paste. To me, Pasta seems to be a stronger parent, though it's not clear-cut enough for me to be entirely comfortable, as the terms seem to have different inclusion criteria. It could generally be said pasta is a type of noodle, and noodle is a type of pasta, though they are different terms. Ideally, a merge would organize all the criteria, placing them both in a higher category, but it sounds like it may be hard to reach such a point, and I don't know what that higher category would be. -PC-XT+ 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • About your statement "the history section of the noodle article suggests noodles originated from China, so saying that pasta is a dish originating from Italy becomes irrelevant in my view"... the article section does not state that noodles originated in China, it states that the earliest occurrence was in China, so your statement is plainly incorrect. In Lan T.T. Bui and Darryl M. Small's "The impact of flours and product storage on the thiamin content of Asian noodles" (2008; published in LWT - Food Science and Technology, vol 41, issue 2), it states "There are two groups of noodle products made from wheat. These are pasta products typically prepared from durum wheat (Triticum durum) by an extrusion process as well as Asian wheat flour noodles." We can argue back and forth, but your view remains the one that does not correspond with the consensus as established in the Pasta article, which for some reason you contest here rather than in its respective article. This is a sidetracking article content and scope dispute right here (yet I'm still humoring it...). Your statements have brought zero arguments of why a merge should or should not happen. Navboxes reflect the articles. --Cold Season (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
        • This discussion has made it clear to me personally that these two topics -- pasta and noodles -- are too broad to merge into one nav box. So far, we have referenced them as a cuisine, regional dish, type of shape, and formulation. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • It's quite clear what the regional noodle topics are about, what you listed are subtopics (noodle varieties, dishes, shapes, etc) for which a proper navbox is needed, rather than have them spread out, unnecessary duplicated, or even completely left out due to not fitting in a certain noodle navbox. --Cold Season (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to either the pasta template, or whichever template is the original, redirecting the others, unless such a merge cannot be categorized into a hierarchy very well in which case I would say to keep as is until a source-based consensus can be reached -PC-XT+ 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ruby-big

Template:Ruby-big (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused.  Gadget850 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• comment, it is currently used in Pinyin, so what's the replacement? Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You are correct- missed that somehow. But the use does not look right:

{{Ruby-big|媽|mā}} → Template:Ruby-big

Whereas {{Ruby|媽|mā}} → 媽(mā)

I'm not an expert here, but I don't think mā and variants are ruby text. And the template is not working properly and hasn't since 2005. But I see how to fix it. --  Gadget850 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, it looks the same, except that the standard Ruby is rather small. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into {{ruby}} with an option for sizing. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Template:Ruby/testcases --  Gadget850 23:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Not Really. If you look at the documentaion page (which was a bit off before) then you see that that words which consist of Ruby and non-Ruby look a bit off it any Browser without further adjustment:

Template:Ruby-bigて

Also I want to remind that Firefox, one of the most used Browsers (and also Standard Browser of Many Linux distributions) has still problems rendering Ruby-big correctly (with the Ruby Plugin, of course and without Ruby Plugin (or any non-ruby compatible Browser) it also looks weird, since the top is smaller than the base.

My1xT(a.k.a. My1 (insecure)) 06:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's solved with {{Ruby-big|全|すべ|after=て}}

Template:Ruby-big

-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• And in the sandbox {{ruby/sandbox|large=yes|全|すべ|after=て}}

全 (すべ)

-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wikify request

Template:Wikify request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since {{wikify}} is now deprecated, this notification template is no longer useful. And the creator of this template is inactive for a few years. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I fail to see why this is no longer useful. It links to the glossary for "wikify", and a request to the primary contributor to add internal links, or convert ASCII/HTML markup to Wiki Markup is fine to have. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or move to userspace - might have a future purpose, feel free to move it to User:Mono/Wikify request. Mono 18:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 23:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)