Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 8: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 12 October 2008

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8

Template:Manchester United F.C. 1998-99

Template:Manchester United F.C. 1998-99 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simply linking to the three trophies that Man Utd won in that one season is inappropriate. If this navbox linked to every trophy in the club's history, it might serve a better purpose, but the current title is not appropriate for that purpose either. – Pee Jay 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unwarranted. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous. I wouldn't expect to see such a template on any of the three articles. --Jameboy (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The template's creator has changed the structure of the template to serve as a list of all of Manchester United's honours and moved it to Template:Manchester United F.C. trophies. Nevertheless, I'm not so sure of the necessity of such a template and I still believe that deletion is desirable. – Pee Jay 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it should be anywhere, information on trophies, etc. should be included here Template:Manchester United F.C. and used in a similar manner to the templates used in other sports, e.g. Template:New York Giants. --bigissue (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Sister Projects links

Template:Commons-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Commonscat-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikibooks-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikinews-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikiquote-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikispecies-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wiktionary-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisource-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of these templates are close to duplicate of those listed on Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. These "inline"s are less commonly used (aka low usage) and I feel it's redundant to have templates with different looks but carry the same purpose. They are created way after the box design was created. They are easily mixed up with real external links due to their line formatting instead of a box formatting. According to MoS on Wikimedia sister projects, "common interproject link targets have standardized templates which allow them to be easily distinguished from normal external links, and these templates should generally be used". I have asked on regarding this Template talk:Commons-inline but without success. And on Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects, only Wiktionary's inline was mentioned. I purpose to delete these templates and those pages that are currently using the inlines are changed to the regular box ones. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Boxes are fine too, however it becomes too cluttered if the article has many images or is too short. Therefore keep the inline. Gryffindor 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my updated intro paragraph, especially the bolded passage. MoS says it should be easily distinguishable from normal external links. And we shouldn't have double standards around. What are we going to do if the article becomes longer? Switch them to normal box design? (And notice that the words "short" & "long" are very subjective, so to speak) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe they are distinguishable from normal links. And, I use the "-inline" all the time, because infoboxes have a tendency to shove the sister "linkboxes" way down below their place on the article (e.g. Cricket frog). "-Inline" is a space saver, especially for those little (but relevant) stub pages. StevePrutz (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a space-saver, but the truth is that what you're doing is against MoS (and maybe you didn't know about this till now). You couldn't tell if ther're external links or sister project links had the image is not there (especially they're in same font size). Consistency is a major issue here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies-inline bolds the link text, which makes it more prominent than most others. I would support a format change to this -inline idea to make it more in-your-face, but I think the functionality must be kept in some shape or form. StevePrutz (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly per nom. There should be a single, standardised, consistent way to display these links. Whatever that ends up being, it belongs at title "commons"; all other titles are redundant. Hesperian 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into their respective templates. In some cases, e.g. when there are no other external links, it looks quite silly to have a floated box taking up space. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the function, whatever the merge/delete is decided, having the possibility of leaving these unboxed (e.g. when they are the only external link) is very useful to avoid pointlessly cluttering the bottom of the page. Circeus (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is one very notable time when it makes sense to use an inline template: when the floating box messes up the layout of a consistent-width section. Notably, if there isn't enough room in See also for the box link, the sister-link-box may extend into references. For long, 2 or 3 column reference sections, the result can be that a small bump in its upper right hand corner constricts the length of the section as a whole, causing it to use only 3/4 of the screen and take far more vertical room. Hopefully this situation can generally be avoided, but when it can't, that's the time to use an inline box. Rare usage is no problem if the box is in fact merited in some circumstances. (If you'd like to go remove this box and replace it with the standard box on all articles that it wouldn't cause layout problems on, go ahead, though.) SnowFire (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – "Links to Wikimedia sister projects should be under the last appendix section." (WP:LAY), so this shouldn't be a problem. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you voting merge then? That page says outright "Links to Wikimedia sister projects should be under the last appendix section. If there is no external links section into which to integrate the templates, inline versions of templates are usually available." Unless you meant to merge the functionality as well with some kind of inline=yes switch? (I'd be opposed to that as well, but at least then it'd still be possible to comply with the policy recommendation.) SnowFire (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- So, who can explain this part of the manual of style? Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- When a portable document format file has been uploaded to wikisource -- and wikified -- it is much more useful to our readers than the original unwikified .pdf. Some .pdfs are not machine readable. So, when the identical content is in machine readable form on wikisource, it serves our readers much better to have a reference that points at the wikisource version as well as, or in place of, the original .pdf. I suggest this is a very good reason to modify the Manual of Style -- rather than delete the templates. Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inline templates are useful when an External links section would otherwise be stretched to an unsightly length. The icons also help differentiate them from other external links. Gary King (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep --Is this Déjà vu? I have seen these arguments before just in March this year...see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 8. Strong keep, no question. Cutmynoseofftospitemyface (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = Oppose This is nice to use, if you want link to more than one category or page in commons (e.g.). Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Is a useful tool. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, ILIKEIT? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had nothing much to say. :D--SkyWalker (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're argument is, the inline templates are not distinguishable. But is this argument not a dislike (or like) too (I don't like it, so delete it)? Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But I have pointed out how it is violating MoS, quite contrary to IDONTLIKEIT. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Tell me please: what means "easily distinguished". There is an icon before this external link, no other external link got this. I don't think all readers are stupid. IMHO "easly" doesn't mean big box on the right side of the page. And how to argue with "They are easily mixed up …" or "and I feel it's redundant …". That is your POV and like, I've just stated mine. Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inline templates look more streamlined and don't swamp the text - aesthetically much better Rotational (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find inline templates far superior to those awkward boxes, especially in situations where more than one box would be needed. I agree that ideally one standard should be used if possible, but I would sooner get rid of the boxes than the inline templates. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to confess to always using them, but I assumed there was a consensus for them as an alternative. As a type of external link from wikipedia, an obviously legitimate one, I thought there may be some latitude. However, after reading the above discussion, the MOS, and the various related guidelines I cannot support them. I agree with many of the opinions above, but the format across all the sister sites needs to be discussed. Reaching a consensus will require the wider community's input, this format is an improvement in my opinion, but this is not right place to discuss the best solution. We risk creating confusion for the viewer if redundant templates are created to personal preferences. By the way: so is placing this {{tfd}} in mainspace, via these inline templates, which makes an even more confusing experience for our readers. The nom would have my support in deleting that as well ;-) cygnis insignis 17:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monnett aircraft

Template:Monnett aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~navbox with only 3 entries is overkill in this case, already handled by "see also" section in these articles.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles about aircraft that are unrelated designs by the same manufacturer are conventionally linked together with a navbox, not in a "see also" section. It's the "see also"s that need to be removed, not the navbox. I'll get onto it. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't even aware that this template existed because it isn't installed on any of the articles that it links too. I created a much more expanded template Template:Monnett Aircraft earlier today. Perhaps these two should be merged instead? - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - Per RL and Ahunt. Hopefully the nom will withdraw the TFD, and we can merge them together soon. - BillCJ (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've done a partial merge, leaving out the "people" and "company" details that aren't usually part of these navboxes - that's something we can discuss at WT:AIR. The original Monnett template was on the Sonerai page since 19 July and the Moni page shortly after it was created - these were removed by Rtphokie - which is why they weren't there when Ahunt looked earlier! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ah, well that explains why, when I went looking for a nav box this morning it wasn't there and subsequently made one up today. Why would anyone remove them if they were only TFD nominated? Shouldn't they be removed if and after they are deleted? Regardless since the templates have now been merged somewhat it makes sense to keep the resulting template. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 4 articles (and 2 red links) in this navbox is a bit better but why not use a see also section? Maybe someone can point me to guideline that helps decide when a navbox is preferred over a set of links in a see also section.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? For consistency - that's where you'll find links to other aircraft by the same manufacturer/designer for most of Wikipedia's coverage - for manufacturers great and small. AFAIK, there is no specific guideline on this subject, just common practice. You'll find plenty of two- and three-element navboxes within the coverage of WP:AIR and WP:SHIPS. Rather than trying to make a case for the deletion of one specific navbox, you'd be better off raising your concern with the projects responsible for these. Good luck convincing the Ships folk to do away with Template:Bismarck_class_battleship though! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reasoning I'm seeing here (unless I'm missing something) is "because others have done it that way". Is there some wiki standard or guideline that is being followed here, if so, please point me to it.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would ask the opposite question - where is the standard that says that a template should be deleted if it only has four aircraft on it? - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly - The use of navboxes to link together small numbers of articles is a widespread and established convention on at least two very major and very active WikiProjects. Consistency is a Good Thing. If there's no guideline against this kind of usage, then there really can't be any grounds for calling for deletion, IMHO. "That which is not forbidden is permitted". --Rlandmann (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a standard navbox used on aircraft articles. No reason why one out of a few hundred should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I'm not an active editor in the aircraft area so I'll defer to the experts. I am an active editor of radio station articles and underpopulated templates there are deleted or not created in the first place.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.