Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 30

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BD2412 (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 30 November 2007 (→November 30: adding eight nominations (7 for templates on subdivisions of Vienna neighborhoods, one on Template:Estate)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:35, 30 November 2007 by BD2412 (talk | contribs) (→November 30: adding eight nominations (7 for templates on subdivisions of Vienna neighborhoods, one on Template:Estate))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Template:Districts of Favoriten

Redlink-filled template created by an anon in 2005 for neighborhood-level geographic divisions which are likely too small to sustain independent articles (i.e. they would go in the title article anyway); transcludes nowhere but the title article. — bd2412 T 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Josefstadt

Template:Districts of Mariahilf

Template:Districts of Meidling

Template:Districts of Neubau

Template:Districts of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus

Template:Districts of Simmering

Template:Estate

Orphan redlink-filled template created in 2004 and never put to use. Certainly could be better uses for this very broad title. — bd2412 T 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Various variants of Template:Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)

Some "Please leave this line alone" templates which I think that they won't have a lot of purpose.

Unused

Suggest Delete - All are unused, the only links to these templates are search gathers by name.

Inflammatory

Speedy Delete - Because this was the only template I could find a criterion against it, so it could be deleted. WP:CSD#T1 because of the word WTF.

Possibly deprecated

Suggest Redirect - Copies of Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) not being used at the moment.

Discussion not continued

These were listed at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_22#Please leave this line alone (variants). However, no further discussion has been made, and even the TFD templates have been left in for two of these templates.

Suggest Delete for Template:Please leave this line alone. - possibly deprecated? No links except from the old TFD discussion.
Suggest Userfy for Template:Please leave this line alone (personal sandbox heading) because it's only being linked to User:Fortunecookie289/sandbox at the moment.

~Iceshark7 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Coups in the Philippines

A template (Template:RegchangeRP already exists). Also, it is utterly foolish to use Template:Coups in the Philippines on a predominantly civilian events (the First Quarter Storm? LOL...) Also the template creator replaced the instances of Template:RegchangeRP to this one without consensus. --Howard the Duck 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. as misrepresenting Philippine historical events --Lenticel 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Student riots and People Power are not historically considered as coups. Starczamora 14:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:R-phrase and all the other templates in Category:R-phrase templates and all the templates in Category:S-phrase templates

There are 126 R-phrase templates in Category:R-phrase templates, and 74 S-phrase templates in Category:S-phrase templates, and they all do nothing more than print an R- or S-phrase (e.g. "R1"), underlined and in blue. That is, these templates make R- and S-phrases look like wikilinks, but surprise! they don't do anything if you click on them. It did occur to me that the relevant standards might require them to be marked up in this strange manner, but no, it appears not. As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool. My position is that there is absolutely no reason to give these phrases their own special markup. The templates should be altered to print their phrases in plain old vanilla text, then all occurrences should be substed, and the templates and categories deleted. — Hesperian 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: It has been pointed out that these template add more than just visual styling; they also add a tooltip. My position, then, is that tooltips violate principles of web accessibility, and are therefore recommended against by the Misplaced Pages:Accessibility guideline, so there is still no legitimate reason for these templates to exist. Hesperian 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing them. The tooltips are a supplemental piece of information expanding the meaning of the abbreviation, the R-phrase template is still perfectly usable without being able to access it. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If they are removed, all uses of the phrases on Misplaced Pages will revert to vanilla text (an improvement), and explanations of the phrase, when needed, will be provided in the text rather than in a tooltip (an improvement). Hesperian 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to vanila text can already be done by editing the style attribute of the template, and if you'll check out the way this template is commonly used you'll see that it wouldn't be an improvement to include a full explanation with each one. They're used in infobox templates where space is at a premium. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it. If full explanations are unnecessary, then the tooltips are completely pointless. If full explanations are necessary, then we have a serious accessibility problem here, for necessary information is being presented inaccessibly. You seem to be taking a middle ground, where full explanations are a nice touch but not actually necessary. I'm not convinced. If I had accessibility difficulties, then ] would be useful to me but your tooltip markup would not. The former takes up no more room in an infobox than the latter. Hesperian 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what the R-phrases and S-phrases are, I doubt a flat-out deletion is a good idea at all. I suggest that they be adjusted to function as proper links, which direct the user to a page like the proposed ] but to still provide in tooltips the information they did before they got marked for deletion and vanished from the infoboxes completely. This has the advantage of making it unnecessary to reconstruct all the effected infobox sections completely -- which, as it stands right now, would be required by this -- and of letting users get the phrases defined without having to click through each and every link until they started memorizing them.71.76.230.103 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete all (nominator). Hesperian 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. They do one other thing that's actually the core purpose of the templates; they provide a "title" attribute for the text that on most web browsers produces a tooltip explaining what the R-phrase means. I use Firefox and it works for me, try putting the mouse pointer over the displayed text of the template

This project page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a redirect to a page which has never existed or has been deleted. Some redirects can plausibly be retargeted elsewhere. Redirects that were broken as a result of their target being moved should not be speedily deleted, but should instead be retargeted to the page's new name. See CSD G8.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G8%7CG8%5D%5D%3A+%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirect%7CRedirect%5D%5D+to+a+deleted+or+non-existent+pageG8

If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion.
This page was last edited by BD2412 (contribs | logs) at 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

and see if the tooltip pops up for you. The visual styling is incidental, but thanks to my work on standardizing these things using a meta-template it's quite easy to change that without affecting the template's utility; it's all centralized in {{R-phrase}}. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention that the S-phrase templates do the same thing. I just haven't got around to centralizing their styling in the same manner yet. If this TfD results in a keep I'll do that so that any changes that are ultimately made to R-phrase styling can be easily duplicated. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Results

While I am neutral on the whole Gdanzkig business, I see no need to carry a constantly simmering edit war into template space. Even as a userbox it would be deletable due to its divisiveness. If the creator of this wants to make a point, then perhaps an editor-endorsable usersubpage essay would be a more approriate way to go than a template. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. The template is a necessary component to a highly controversial interpretation of a two-and-a-half-year-old vote count while pointing the attention of uninvolved editors, like Grutness and others, to policies regarding the counting and discrediting of votes in a survey. The template is designed as an open letter meant to serve as supplement to a number or related articles, thus making it a lot more convenient for repetitious use. Moreover, the template was created partially in response to a new and intimidating template already criticised as ugly, by concerned editors. --Poeticbent talk 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete template serves no useful purpose to the encyclopedia as a whole. If necessary/wanted, userfy. JPG-GR (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate your help in finding the right answer. For me it's enough to see this template serve about a dozen articles related to the interpretation of the vote. Plus I care for the signatures of the editors below. --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete If we ever need an example of a divisive template, we can resurrect it. Those who disagree with whatever may be the current state of the question here can find a more appropriate way to express it. DGG (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please elaborate on this? I wouldn't mind knowing what you meant by "more appropriate way to express" what question? The stance of the undersigned editors is of critical importance here in the face of a vote-count that was rigged two-and-a-half years ago and never questioned thereafter. There must be a solution found which is appropriate to the challenge. I'd like you to look into the vote results and help me find it. --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Question what is the purpose of this template please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈ 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete, divisive template that promotes wikilawyering and vote-counting. Kusma (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Poeticbent Space Cadet 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)