The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rs chen 7754 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. There is consensus to delete this template after replacing it with an appropriate alternative, preferably {{ main article}}. There is support to edit the {{ main article}} template to provide an additional parameter indicating the target is a section, but no conclusive decision; further discussion should go to Template talk:Main article.
Ostensibly, this template could be used in place of {{ main article}} where the target's a specific section rather than the whole article. However, {{main article}} itself includes functionality that automatically prettifies section links, and is widely used to link to sections. In fact, there are more uses of {{main article}} linking to sections, in featured articles alone, than all transclusions of this template. Given that this template's functionality is unneeded and its use clearly not preferred in practice, we should delete it, replacing its uses with ones of {{ main article}}. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
is changed to "The main section for this topic is on the page Article, in the section Section" (which is the rendered output when using {{
Main section|Article|Section}}
). These templates clearly don't have identical functionality and IMO the former section link is rather poorly specified, as it suggests that the "main section" for a topic is a "main article".
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
00:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
, I'm inclined to replace the 4 instances of {{
Main section}}
that I've added to articles with a custom hatnote if neither of my proposals are implemented. I agree that custom hatnotes are less desirable than templated ones for the sake of uniformity, but if you want me to uniformly adopt the main article template for section linking, it needs to be changed somehow; that's just my 2¢ on the matter.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main section}}
is that I "
WP:LIKEIT" for being clearer is no different than me asserting that you "
WP:DONTLIKEIT" for being too verbose. I'd appreciate it if you struck your third rationale. In any event, I'm open to finding an alternative solution (other than "Keep" or "Delete") in which we make the {{
main article}}
template "clearer" and get rid of the more "verbose" {{
Main section}}
template, since such a compromise would resolve both issues simultaneously. Do you find any of the alternative wording options for {{
Main article}}
that I've proposed above agreeable? "Main section: Article § Section" is clearer than the current wording and is the most succinct alternative that I've proposed here, although I'm open to considering other alternatives.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
When determining the content of the hatnote, keep in mind that it forms part of the user interface rather than the article content. Two applicable user interface design principles are clarity and conciseness.or
hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible. While the guideline also supports clarity, the delete arguments here have included assertions that the differences in clarity are minimal. Moreover, even if we assume that it comes down to pure user preference, the recent {{see section}} TfD established clear support for the concise "§" style over the more verbose style. On the "main section" labelling issue, I invite you to participate at Template talk:Main article § Section, where that option's being discussed independently of this deletion discussion. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=section
to {{
main article}} to allow the user to override the default wording in special cases.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)The result of the discussion was no consensus. While the template is unused, Godsy makes a valid point that this license is not forward-compatible. Thus, while it is unlikely, there could be an image originally released under CC-SA that would require this template added to it to maintain the appropriate licensing. NPASR if a discussion can demonstrate that we won't accept such files (or can provide another reason why we definitively don't need this template). Primefac ( talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused copyright tag. Creative Commons has retired this license and does not recommend that it be applied to works: [1] FASTILY 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Unhelpful ephemara. I wrote the template as a humorous exposition on something Jimbo said on his talk page. Actually it was named {{ Fuck off}} but someone moved it this name for civility. Fine, but that kind of spoils the joke, and anyway {{ Fuck off}} remains as a redirect and it looks the its deletion discussion will end up with that redirect being kept. So the potential to be subtly insulting remains, I guess, so let's delete it.
I don't think the template has much use, or is going to be popular or much used. IFF the recipient is "in" on the joke (unlikely), she will read "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping..." and realize the person actually wrote "back away" or even "fuck off" (I believe she can look in the page history to see which? not sure), and be either amused or insulted according to her predilection. (If she's not "in" on the joke (likely), its all just a big yawn and not really useful.)
The counter-argument is that it lets someone blow off steam by typing "fuck off" (or "back away" I guess, although the steam-blowing value of that seems limited) without actually having anything insulting appear on the recipient page. Enh, that's a weak argument, and against that you have (assuming the recipient is aware of what was really written to produce "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping...") that the person might be actually insulted, and we don't need to host templates that could (theoretically anyway) actually hurt a person's feelings. Herostratus ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Herostratus ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Primefac ( talk) 00:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:IPlocation with
Template:Shared IP.
The IP location is a useful thing that {{
SharedIP}} doesn't have. However, it doesn't need to have its own template.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
16:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This template has very little to no use in articles and is specific to just one state in India, Kerala which by large has a lesser history compared to the country as a whole. — LeoFrank Talk 15:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
By the completion of these projects, Kerala will become the one and only state in India having more than 5 commercial International airports. That means the airport article links in this template will go up soon. So, even if this represents a very less populated state, this template is really relevant due to the high number of passengers and commercial airports. - Thanks. Arunvrparavur ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in FIBA EuroBasket 2009 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2011 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2013 squads, EuroBasket 2015 squads. see the discussions on January 8 for prior consensus. Frietjes ( talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Non-basketball editors ruined Wikipedia.?! Seriously?? -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep and trim to only directing roles. NPASR if the number of links becomes an issue. Primefac ( talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Film choreographer's navbox?! Seems trivial linking of articles failing WP:NAVBOX. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replaced by template:River item box Frietjes ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rs chen 7754 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. There is consensus to delete this template after replacing it with an appropriate alternative, preferably {{ main article}}. There is support to edit the {{ main article}} template to provide an additional parameter indicating the target is a section, but no conclusive decision; further discussion should go to Template talk:Main article.
Ostensibly, this template could be used in place of {{ main article}} where the target's a specific section rather than the whole article. However, {{main article}} itself includes functionality that automatically prettifies section links, and is widely used to link to sections. In fact, there are more uses of {{main article}} linking to sections, in featured articles alone, than all transclusions of this template. Given that this template's functionality is unneeded and its use clearly not preferred in practice, we should delete it, replacing its uses with ones of {{ main article}}. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
is changed to "The main section for this topic is on the page Article, in the section Section" (which is the rendered output when using {{
Main section|Article|Section}}
). These templates clearly don't have identical functionality and IMO the former section link is rather poorly specified, as it suggests that the "main section" for a topic is a "main article".
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
00:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
, I'm inclined to replace the 4 instances of {{
Main section}}
that I've added to articles with a custom hatnote if neither of my proposals are implemented. I agree that custom hatnotes are less desirable than templated ones for the sake of uniformity, but if you want me to uniformly adopt the main article template for section linking, it needs to be changed somehow; that's just my 2¢ on the matter.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
Main section}}
is that I "
WP:LIKEIT" for being clearer is no different than me asserting that you "
WP:DONTLIKEIT" for being too verbose. I'd appreciate it if you struck your third rationale. In any event, I'm open to finding an alternative solution (other than "Keep" or "Delete") in which we make the {{
main article}}
template "clearer" and get rid of the more "verbose" {{
Main section}}
template, since such a compromise would resolve both issues simultaneously. Do you find any of the alternative wording options for {{
Main article}}
that I've proposed above agreeable? "Main section: Article § Section" is clearer than the current wording and is the most succinct alternative that I've proposed here, although I'm open to considering other alternatives.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
When determining the content of the hatnote, keep in mind that it forms part of the user interface rather than the article content. Two applicable user interface design principles are clarity and conciseness.or
hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible. While the guideline also supports clarity, the delete arguments here have included assertions that the differences in clarity are minimal. Moreover, even if we assume that it comes down to pure user preference, the recent {{see section}} TfD established clear support for the concise "§" style over the more verbose style. On the "main section" labelling issue, I invite you to participate at Template talk:Main article § Section, where that option's being discussed independently of this deletion discussion. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=section
to {{
main article}} to allow the user to override the default wording in special cases.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)The result of the discussion was no consensus. While the template is unused, Godsy makes a valid point that this license is not forward-compatible. Thus, while it is unlikely, there could be an image originally released under CC-SA that would require this template added to it to maintain the appropriate licensing. NPASR if a discussion can demonstrate that we won't accept such files (or can provide another reason why we definitively don't need this template). Primefac ( talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused copyright tag. Creative Commons has retired this license and does not recommend that it be applied to works: [1] FASTILY 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Unhelpful ephemara. I wrote the template as a humorous exposition on something Jimbo said on his talk page. Actually it was named {{ Fuck off}} but someone moved it this name for civility. Fine, but that kind of spoils the joke, and anyway {{ Fuck off}} remains as a redirect and it looks the its deletion discussion will end up with that redirect being kept. So the potential to be subtly insulting remains, I guess, so let's delete it.
I don't think the template has much use, or is going to be popular or much used. IFF the recipient is "in" on the joke (unlikely), she will read "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping..." and realize the person actually wrote "back away" or even "fuck off" (I believe she can look in the page history to see which? not sure), and be either amused or insulted according to her predilection. (If she's not "in" on the joke (likely), its all just a big yawn and not really useful.)
The counter-argument is that it lets someone blow off steam by typing "fuck off" (or "back away" I guess, although the steam-blowing value of that seems limited) without actually having anything insulting appear on the recipient page. Enh, that's a weak argument, and against that you have (assuming the recipient is aware of what was really written to produce "Look, I feel as if our current interaction isn't helping...") that the person might be actually insulted, and we don't need to host templates that could (theoretically anyway) actually hurt a person's feelings. Herostratus ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Herostratus ( talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge Primefac ( talk) 00:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:IPlocation with
Template:Shared IP.
The IP location is a useful thing that {{
SharedIP}} doesn't have. However, it doesn't need to have its own template.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
16:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This template has very little to no use in articles and is specific to just one state in India, Kerala which by large has a lesser history compared to the country as a whole. — LeoFrank Talk 15:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
By the completion of these projects, Kerala will become the one and only state in India having more than 5 commercial International airports. That means the airport article links in this template will go up soon. So, even if this represents a very less populated state, this template is really relevant due to the high number of passengers and commercial airports. - Thanks. Arunvrparavur ( talk) 05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in FIBA EuroBasket 2009 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2011 squads, FIBA EuroBasket 2013 squads, EuroBasket 2015 squads. see the discussions on January 8 for prior consensus. Frietjes ( talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Non-basketball editors ruined Wikipedia.?! Seriously?? -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep and trim to only directing roles. NPASR if the number of links becomes an issue. Primefac ( talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Film choreographer's navbox?! Seems trivial linking of articles failing WP:NAVBOX. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replaced by template:River item box Frietjes ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)