The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I thought consensus might have changed, and it did—just not the way I hoped. -- BDD ( talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The previous TfD for this template was closed as no consensus, but it seemed to be leaning toward deletion. Five years on, I think it's worth revisiting. As discussed then, this template does little besides discourage discussion. It reminds me of the road signs I see periodically here in the US that say "Do not pass" in zones where double solid lines already indicate you can't pass. It's always a good idea to search talk pages to see if an issue has come up before. On the other hand, searching archives can be fairly difficult, especially if you're using search terms that will commonly occur outside of the issue you're investigating. The template's documentation says Template:FAQ can be used as an alternative to this one; I think it always should be. What good does it do a new editor to say "we've talked about some things before" when you can tell them what has been discussed? -- BDD ( talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Video rationale with
Template:Non-free use rationale video cover.
Very similar, and not currently used on any articles. {{
Video rationale}} allows up to 5 articles to be entered but I do not think this would be useful. It is also restricted to Infobox whereas the other one allows other purposes. It includes two extra sentences in the purpose statement for "infobox" (The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.) which could be merged. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Much in the spirit of the Charles F. Adams class nominations below, this template adds all characteristics relating to a class of ship to the infobox. Problematic for all the reasons discussed there, but also because while a degree of standardisation is expected today, in the age of sail there were dramatic differences ship to ship. Detailed measurements of ships taken by the Royal Navy survive, showing differences in tons burthen, length, breadth, etc between ships of the same class. So the Duquesne was actually measured at 182ft 2in long, while the Duguay-Trouin was 181ft 6in. Having a template introduce boilerplate text hides this. Benea ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was moving to donut award. If someone still wants to delete it, then feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 00:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I thought consensus might have changed, and it did—just not the way I hoped. -- BDD ( talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The previous TfD for this template was closed as no consensus, but it seemed to be leaning toward deletion. Five years on, I think it's worth revisiting. As discussed then, this template does little besides discourage discussion. It reminds me of the road signs I see periodically here in the US that say "Do not pass" in zones where double solid lines already indicate you can't pass. It's always a good idea to search talk pages to see if an issue has come up before. On the other hand, searching archives can be fairly difficult, especially if you're using search terms that will commonly occur outside of the issue you're investigating. The template's documentation says Template:FAQ can be used as an alternative to this one; I think it always should be. What good does it do a new editor to say "we've talked about some things before" when you can tell them what has been discussed? -- BDD ( talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Video rationale with
Template:Non-free use rationale video cover.
Very similar, and not currently used on any articles. {{
Video rationale}} allows up to 5 articles to be entered but I do not think this would be useful. It is also restricted to Infobox whereas the other one allows other purposes. It includes two extra sentences in the purpose statement for "infobox" (The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.) which could be merged. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Much in the spirit of the Charles F. Adams class nominations below, this template adds all characteristics relating to a class of ship to the infobox. Problematic for all the reasons discussed there, but also because while a degree of standardisation is expected today, in the age of sail there were dramatic differences ship to ship. Detailed measurements of ships taken by the Royal Navy survive, showing differences in tons burthen, length, breadth, etc between ships of the same class. So the Duquesne was actually measured at 182ft 2in long, while the Duguay-Trouin was 181ft 6in. Having a template introduce boilerplate text hides this. Benea ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was moving to donut award. If someone still wants to delete it, then feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
could be substituted and deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 00:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)