Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 27 June 2012

June 27

Template:Aerobatics

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

Wide ranging subject for a nav box that if properly populated could grow to hundreds or thousands of linked entries. Doesnt add any value to the articles and the subject already covered by Category:Aerobatics. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - By that rationale, almost every navbox on Misplaced Pages would need to be deleted. A navbox is not properly populated when it includes a link to every possible article within its scope; it should simply cover the articles that most directly relate to the subject of the navbox. A category is no replacement for a navbox as categories and navboxes serve different functions. If there are too many links on the navbox, remove the ones that are most indirectly related to aerobatics; don't delete the entire template. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Like

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

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

These templates are redundant to {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}}, per WP:TFD#REASONS. They should also be deleted per WP:NOTADVERT (Misplaced Pages neither endorses organizations ), WP:PROMO (Some people spam Misplaced Pages without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia.), WP:TALKNO (Do not use the talk page as a forum, Straw polls should not be used prematurely or excessively) and WP:!VOTE (The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus).

1. In the October 2011 outcome, the adjudication was that WP:IAR and the existence of these templates will cause users to forgo considered argument and instead to turn to simply posting the templates, adorned by little or no further exposition, in discussions were "not proven".
   • I agree that editors who oppose the use of these templates may indeed not able to point to specific instances of cultural degradation. However, we should accept that there is likely to be a gradual creep in use of this template, which can be viewed as highly distracting and does not contribute anything positive to discussions. I (occasionally) use Fb myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see its format for favouring things propagated here. Their usage encourages further usage by others, in accordance with the Fb principle it is based on. Do we have to become all POINTy and start deliberately using them everywhere in order to demonstrate the likely degradation?
2. Their usage implies the endorsement of Facebook by Misplaced Pages editors. Even though they're used on talk pages rather than article pages, the same principles of not inappropriately endorsing organisations should apply.
3. I have slightly less objection to the earlier incarnations of this template (and note that the deletion nominations didn't appear until after the hijacking of Template:Like). I do (sparingly) use templates such as {{(:}}, {{Thank you}} and {{Great}} myself, but they all incorporate generic icons with no association to any corporate entities.

-- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: The use of a serif font and the color green doesn't make your arguments any less flimsy. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Again? I personally dislike this template and wouldn't care one jot if it was deleted, but after three TfDs that have all resulted in keep, it should be remarkably obvious that this template won't be deleted. This will be a waste of time and I suggest the nominator withdraw. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I believe new arguments have been presented, and should like to see them fully evaluated. If the consensus is that the arguments are not new after all, I will gladly apologise and withdraw the nomination to save everyone's time. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, 'cause this is silly. They're for fun. Though they could, of course, be (mis)used as lone rationale in debates, so can lots of things -- among them, the typed words "Like" and "Dislike", which we could filter out too I suppose. But we won't. It's up to closing admins to weigh such responses accordingly, and there are many uses for things like this, other than official processes. Not sure why we'd assume they'll be used there necessarily. We could delete smiley templates and a slough of others for a lot of these same reasons. Equazcion 13:29, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. All of these arguments have been considered in three previous TfDs within the past twelve months (please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 22, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 12), as well as two separate nominations on WikiCommons, which addressed possible copyright issues. I request that an administrator immediately close this nomination: the premises of this nomination have been previously considered and rejected by the consensus of three recent TfDs, and, in light of those recent TfD "keep" consensuses, this nomination borders on bad faith and possibly constitutes "disruptive editing." In all events, nothing has changed in the last 65 days since April 22, 2012, when the last TfD was closed with an overwhelming 8–1 consensus. Moreover, it is disrespectful to fellow editors who have already considered and repeatedly rejected these same arguments advanced by this TfD nomination. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I've had (another) look through those 3 previous nominations and failed to find any mention of redundancy. Perhaps I missed something obvious. -- Trevj (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Because your "redundancy" argument, together with the other arguments advanced by you, are simply rehashed and repacked versions of arguments that employed the same or similar logic to those that have been previously rejected. Arguments based on "not a vote," possible degradation of talk page discussions, Misplaced Pages not being a social forum, etc., were explicitly considered and rejected. Repackaging the same logic under the "new argument" that these templates are "redundant" because of the existence of the graphic templates "check" and "x", is an extremely weak argument. What this is really about is an "I don't like it" quest in the face of previous rejections. It has now reached the level of aggravation to your fellow editors such that those who previously voted to "delete" are now voting to "keep" because of the disrespect shown to your fellow editors by this redundant TfD nomination. Frankly, I don't even use these damn templates, but I am disgusted by this repeated abuse of the TfD process, and I will continue to participate in these TfD discussions to see that such abuse of the process is not rewarded. Unfortunately, it is a waste of the participants' time and energies, and I suspect that numerous others share my opinion on this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Speedily, as far as I'm concerned. MZMcBride makes a fine argument, and repeat nominations are disruptive. I would close this if I knew how (I'm a luddite with these not so simple XfDs), so please consider this an endorsement of Dirtlawyer's suggestion for the next admin: close it please. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. These templates are distracting on talk pages and call undue attention to the comments of editors who use them relative to editors who do not. They are not conducive to productive discussion and should be prohibited. Powers 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you forbid me to put images of delicious beers next to messages? Or would you forbid the use of italics, bold, all-caps, or even non-typographical rhetorical flourishes, since those also might attract more attention than messages without them? What if someone writes really well compared to others? Or really poorly, perhaps on purpose? Sorry, but I don't see the argument here at all. Besides, neither you nor the nominator seem to be aware of the fact that the "like" is rarely used in what one might call "formal" discussions. How often do these pop up on ANI? I wouldn't even be aware of this discussion if there wasn't one on my own talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. LtPowers: "These templates are distracting on talk pages and call undue attention to the comments of editors who use them relative to editors who do not. They are not conducive to productive discussion and should be prohibited." This argument was previous considered and explicitly rejected in Herostratus' detailed and thoughtful closing comments in the October 2011 TfD: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28. Do you have any new arguments that haven't been considered and rejected in the previous three TfDs over the last twelve months? I'm starting to feel like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day"; apparently we are doomed to repeat this over and over again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Per all the reasons stated in three previous discussion this year alone (1, 2, 3). With regard to the "new arguments":
  • WP:TFD#REASONS: The word "agree" does not mean the same as the word "like" and the word "dislike" does not mean the same as the word "disagree". You may "dislike" that fact because it undermines your argument, but you will surely "agree" that it is the case?
  • WP:NOTADVERT / WP:PROMO: These templates don't advertise anything.
  • WP:TALKNO / WP:!VOTE: Is it not quite hypocritical to say these template encourage straw polls over discussion while at the same time saying they are redundant to {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}}? The practice of using bold text to say Support or Oppose equally may diminish discussion. The burden for proper use of talk pages lies with editors and templates like these are merely tools in a kit that help discussion along.

--RA (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree (with the bit about the meanings of the words) But you'll presumably agree that redundant isn't equivalent to equivalent. -- Trevj (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it is redundant with it :D "They are redundant" and "They don't mean the same thing" are basically counterpoised positions here, since by "redundant" you mean it's not necessary to keep both since they are similar enough in meaning, and by "meaning different things" we're saying that yes we should keep both because they each still have their varied uses. Going back to my statement above, there are lots of templates that could be described as redundant, but that's no argument for deletion unless they're "official" maintenance tags etc, or if they're actually the same. We have many varied "it's good"/"it's bad" templates, just as we have for other sentiments, and there's no reason to get rid of the ones that can be used in similar circumstances. We're not running out of hard drive space. Equazcion 16:43, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This template is clearly redundant to a better-designed template. I can't find any previous discussions specifically addressing the issue of whether {{Agree}} is or is not of better design than {{Like}}. I say the former is of a better design because it doesn't encourage unnecessary unconstructive use in the way that the latter does. The default wording isn't particularly relevant because in both cases it can be overridden, as shown below. -- Trevj (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Like-- Trevj (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  
•  Agree-- Trevj (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument you're presenting now has nothing to do with redundancy (aside from repeating that it's redundant). If you think one presents a better design than the other, that's still not an argument for deletion. Equazcion 19:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Trevj? I hope your best argument isn't that you personally prefer one goofy template over another goofy template. If that's your best argument, you are wasting the valuable time of other Misplaced Pages editors. If so, we need to put a  Big Red X next to your TfD nomination. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as RA and others above have already said why it needs to be kept. Its not redundant because I use it for comments that I *Like, and agree-disagree are unfit for that. --DBigXray 16:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You can use {{Agree}} for that: {{Agree|Like}}. {{Like}} itself is redundant. -- Trevj (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This reason for deletion is not as good as the last two or three were, and the result of those nominations was keep. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Per comments above TBloemink _talk 16:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:CFA destroyer armament

Template:CFA destroyer armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Subst and delete per nom. Boilerplate text, and each ship can evolve differently (such as some but not others having upgrades) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment there's a whole bunch of these, Category:Charles F. Adams class destroyer infobox templates, and even more for shipclass categories under Category:United States military ship infobox templates. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep While I agree with the spirit of this nomination there are many of this type of template in use. Deleting one of them isn't really the solution unless all templates of this type are deleted. But deleting them all would be a massive undertaking to convert each article that contains them. They're better off left alone. Brad (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A Bot can go through and subst them in. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (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 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. It's just a snippet of normal article content, except that it's not sourced. bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Translation Associations

Template:Canadian Translation Associations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. There aren't enough filled in items in this template to keep for the time being. Izno (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2012 (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 03:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• keep or expand to cover International Federation of Translators. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  Expansion would be sensible, given the content of List_of_translators_and_interpreters_associations. What would be some sensible groupings, since I'm leery of going continent by continent much less country by country? --Izno (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2012 (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 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Final Fantasy characters

Template:Final Fantasy characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Largely duplicated by various navboxes. Doesn't make sense to have a sidebar of this type, as the various characters barely, if even, connect well to each other. Izno (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• delete as redundant to links in {{Final Fantasy series}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, the main FF series navbox never shows all the character links at the same time, so this template provides a different functionality. The ability to quickly navigate between all characters of different games is useful and valuable in itself. Still useful as a navigation aid, which is its primary purpose. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  we have Category:Final Fantasy characters for linking between all of them. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  The category does not clearly depict which game each character is from. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  sounds like we need to make List of Final Fantasy characters more than a redirect. the usual question is if a grouping is important enough to have its own article. in this case it appears the answer is no? not even a section in an article? but yet we have several subarticles? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree, and I'm not sure that argues against my rationale of "the characters don't connect to each other". They're hardly a navigational aid if there's no conceivable reason why we should be linking from a character in FF1 to one in FF10. Consider, do you think it would be appropriate to link those pages in the See also section of any given character or list of characters?. I personally don't.... --Izno (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I can personally attest to finding this navbar convenient when trying to quickly move between character articles while trying to research similarities between protagonists. I don't know how often the navbar is used in this way, but I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine a reader who is interested in, for example, trying to read about all the female leads of the game without having to go to the game's main page as a detour. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  It's not even used on a number of the characters pages; I presume because they are mostly short pages and infoboxes are taking the sidebar's space. Would you object to conversion to a navbox rather than full deletion? --Izno (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2012 (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 01:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rupengoal

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

Not used in articles; since articles are getting by fine without this template, it is probably not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Fur Trade in Nebraska

Template:Fur Trade in Nebraska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be an article rather than a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing wrong with this template. I red linked the title to encourage creation of the article, though. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:USPP assignment

Template:USPP assignment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since Misplaced Pages's "Public Policy" initiative is defunct, this would seem to be obsolete. If there are still specific school assignment related to its replacement, Global Education Program (I think that's the replacement, though the history of this area of Misplaced Pages is a bit confusing to me), a new template should be created for that. Equazcion 21:46, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

keep the articles that include this template on this talk were created or expanded by this project, and that fact will never change. You could do a noinclude of a historical note, but even that is not necessary. deleting this would just make a pointless mess. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So it should be kept on all those talk pages for historical purposes? I strongly disagree with that logic. Talk page headers are rife with enough clutter denoting current issues and notices. We don't need to keep tags on talk pages (forever?) to show something that once affected those article. Equazcion 17:03, 12 Jun 2012 (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 01:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)