The result of the discussion was delete -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The template sets up a link to Roger Ebert's review of a given film in the article's "External links" section. The template is poor precedent per WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If Ebert's review is useful for a film article, then it should be incorporated. Reviews of a given film are not hard to find; the actual challenge in writing a film's reception is selecting a limited set of reviews that can represent all significant viewpoints. External link templates for individual film critics are thus unnecessary and counterproductive. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. {{ indef}} has been a redirect to {{ indefblockvandal}} since earlier this year. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems redundant of {{indef}} which is usually used in cases of vandalism-only accounts. I don't think I've ever encountered this template being used on a talk page. - Senseless!... says you, says me 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete {{indef}} is already used. Techman224 Talk 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Some people are indef blocked for reasons other than vandalism. Also, this template is used (see what links here). I assume the cases in which it is used are to inform people about the reason for blocking ,which could be useful in some cases (as when unblock requests misrepresent the reason). Yob Mod 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Was originally deleted because of this discussion, but a deletion review resulted in this relist for further discussion. I am personally neutral on the issue. Aervanath ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{
NHL}}
.
Kaiser matias (
talk)
05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
NHL}}
. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template.
black
ngold29
18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{
NHL}}
.
Kaiser matias (
talk)
05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The templates were designed to help casual hockey fans a better, more concentrated and in-depth understanding of the lineage behind the respective conferences. For example, it's highly likely that a lot of people who don't follow the NHL don't instantly understand the significance of the Campbell and Wales Conferences or the divisions that corresponded them. TMC1982 ( talk) 10:39 p.m., 30 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
NHL}}
. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template.
black
ngold29
18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Duplicates functionality of {{
Botanist-inline}}
, infact a simple option "2" (or whatever a named parameter would be chosen) would make an exact match possible.
76.66.193.69 (
talk)
05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
Botanist-inline}}
produces This botanist is denoted by the
author abbreviation Brown when
citing a
botanical name., an awkward, stilted expression. {{
Botanist-inline2}}
gives (He) is denoted by the
author abbreviation Brown when
citing a
botanical name., with improved grammar and accuracy, since many taxonomists are not botanists. The two versions are certainly not exact matches. If templates must go it should be {{
Botanist-inline}}
, which has had its use, and is now obsolete and {{
botanist}}
which produces an unsightly boxed version.
Rotational (
talk)
06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC){{
Botanical author-inline2}}
would be too long - most templates aim at brevity so as to be more easily remembered.
Rotational (
talk)
08:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
Botanist-inline}}
and it would have been misleading for me to call it {{
Jackanapes-inline}}
, thus I am presuming the rationale behind the name of the original.
Rotational (
talk)
16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Some dufus removed the notification tag from the template, as a result of which I have just posted a duplicate TfD, which I shall now roll into this one.
There has been consensus since way back in 2005 [1] [2] [3] that using transclusion to generate article prose is an absolutely terrible idea. I can't find this consensus ensconced in our policy or guidelines anywhere, but I suspect that is because the idea is so awful that it never occurred to us that we would need to discourage it. Here are some reasons why templates like this one are a very bad idea:
In summary, this is a dirty hack that encourages boring, formulaic, error-riddled, poor quality prose. Delete. Hesperian 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I created Template:Botanist-inline as a result of a request elucidated here. I didn't think at the time that it was useful, but I wasn't aware of the cogent reasons given by Hesperian above in opposition to the whole class of inline templates. I had considered transcluding it in {{ botanist}}, to keep them from drifting apart in wording, since the wording of {{ botanist}} was the result of consensus, but I wasn't sure whether serial transclusion would cause problems, and at the time no one I asked gave me any guidance.
The reason it says "botanist" is that only botanical names have stabilized abbreviations. A previous version of {{ botanist}} said "The standard author abbreviation _____ may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name."
Because this template diverges intentionally from the wording of {{ botanist}}, which will end up being Not a Good Thing, and for the reasons Hesperian gives, I say Delete.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The template sets up a link to Roger Ebert's review of a given film in the article's "External links" section. The template is poor precedent per WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If Ebert's review is useful for a film article, then it should be incorporated. Reviews of a given film are not hard to find; the actual challenge in writing a film's reception is selecting a limited set of reviews that can represent all significant viewpoints. External link templates for individual film critics are thus unnecessary and counterproductive. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. {{ indef}} has been a redirect to {{ indefblockvandal}} since earlier this year. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems redundant of {{indef}} which is usually used in cases of vandalism-only accounts. I don't think I've ever encountered this template being used on a talk page. - Senseless!... says you, says me 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete {{indef}} is already used. Techman224 Talk 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Some people are indef blocked for reasons other than vandalism. Also, this template is used (see what links here). I assume the cases in which it is used are to inform people about the reason for blocking ,which could be useful in some cases (as when unblock requests misrepresent the reason). Yob Mod 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Was originally deleted because of this discussion, but a deletion review resulted in this relist for further discussion. I am personally neutral on the issue. Aervanath ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{
NHL}}
.
Kaiser matias (
talk)
05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
NHL}}
. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template.
black
ngold29
18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redundent template. Everything of importance is already covered under {{
NHL}}
.
Kaiser matias (
talk)
05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The templates were designed to help casual hockey fans a better, more concentrated and in-depth understanding of the lineage behind the respective conferences. For example, it's highly likely that a lot of people who don't follow the NHL don't instantly understand the significance of the Campbell and Wales Conferences or the divisions that corresponded them. TMC1982 ( talk) 10:39 p.m., 30 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
NHL}}
. Info about the conference history belongs in an article, not a template.
black
ngold29
18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Duplicates functionality of {{
Botanist-inline}}
, infact a simple option "2" (or whatever a named parameter would be chosen) would make an exact match possible.
76.66.193.69 (
talk)
05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
Botanist-inline}}
produces This botanist is denoted by the
author abbreviation Brown when
citing a
botanical name., an awkward, stilted expression. {{
Botanist-inline2}}
gives (He) is denoted by the
author abbreviation Brown when
citing a
botanical name., with improved grammar and accuracy, since many taxonomists are not botanists. The two versions are certainly not exact matches. If templates must go it should be {{
Botanist-inline}}
, which has had its use, and is now obsolete and {{
botanist}}
which produces an unsightly boxed version.
Rotational (
talk)
06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC){{
Botanical author-inline2}}
would be too long - most templates aim at brevity so as to be more easily remembered.
Rotational (
talk)
08:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
Botanist-inline}}
and it would have been misleading for me to call it {{
Jackanapes-inline}}
, thus I am presuming the rationale behind the name of the original.
Rotational (
talk)
16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Some dufus removed the notification tag from the template, as a result of which I have just posted a duplicate TfD, which I shall now roll into this one.
There has been consensus since way back in 2005 [1] [2] [3] that using transclusion to generate article prose is an absolutely terrible idea. I can't find this consensus ensconced in our policy or guidelines anywhere, but I suspect that is because the idea is so awful that it never occurred to us that we would need to discourage it. Here are some reasons why templates like this one are a very bad idea:
In summary, this is a dirty hack that encourages boring, formulaic, error-riddled, poor quality prose. Delete. Hesperian 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I created Template:Botanist-inline as a result of a request elucidated here. I didn't think at the time that it was useful, but I wasn't aware of the cogent reasons given by Hesperian above in opposition to the whole class of inline templates. I had considered transcluding it in {{ botanist}}, to keep them from drifting apart in wording, since the wording of {{ botanist}} was the result of consensus, but I wasn't sure whether serial transclusion would cause problems, and at the time no one I asked gave me any guidance.
The reason it says "botanist" is that only botanical names have stabilized abbreviations. A previous version of {{ botanist}} said "The standard author abbreviation _____ may be used to indicate this person in citing a botanical name."
Because this template diverges intentionally from the wording of {{ botanist}}, which will end up being Not a Good Thing, and for the reasons Hesperian gives, I say Delete.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)