Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

October 31

Template:Proseline

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Template:ProseTimeline. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proseline is not a word and we should not be attempting to make it so. The issue is not something that is likely ro be of interest to casual editors and warning readers is not really required in this case thus the issues would be better delt with through talk page tags.Geni 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, i agree that neologisms such as proseline should not be used, but i don't believe that deleting the template is a suitable solution - rather, it should be renamed. As for the issue of the template not being of interest to casual editors and readers, that is not unique for this template, and instead of deleting only this one or moving it to talk pages, a discussion about putting cleanup/style templates in the article should be initiated which could eventually lead to such templates getting moved from articles to talk pages. --Aqwis 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as you're usually tagging a specific section with a template that cites it as having a specific problem. If you want to rename it, fine. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

specific sections are not renamed that often so that can be handeled on the tak page through the use of template variables.Geni 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a possible rename and/or re-word; agree that the neologism t'aint the greatest title, but can't come up with a nice short replacement name that fits. The use, however, is as valid as many of the other cleanup templates that are put on article pages, and the placement in the few articles that I scanned look to be legit.SkierRMH 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, instead of just deleting the template, it would be smarter to rename it in a proper manner. The template you listed for deletion is useful in many cases around Wikipedia, and I don't think this should even be discussed. -- Shiggy 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Aqwis, -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Yeah, the template is extremely useful, and I fully support its use in all applicable situations. If it needs a different name, then give it a different name. No big deal. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, per above. Dreamy ^§ 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - also keep the old redirect. Surely we can come up with something better than "proseline"? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - proseline is an oxymoron. Martin B 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without rename -- So we made up a word? That's how language grows. If someone had said, "No, you can't call that a 'wheel' because 'wheel' isn't a word!" we'd be in an interesting place, lexicographically. This nomination is moronic. — MusicMaker5376 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Are you saying that we shouldn't use neologisms in articles, but should use them in the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces? That's ridiculous. This kind of template is very visible at the top of articles, and the same guidelines should apply to them as to articles. --Aqwis 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia uses tons of neologisms. See Wikipedia:Glossary. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you bother to read WP:NEO, or, as is typical of WP, you're just citing things you haven't read? The first sentence after the lede is "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles" (emphasis mine). — MusicMaker5376 21:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, since the templates are located within the article, even at the top of the page, doesn't this make them part of the articles, in practice? Thus, the same reason for not using neologisms in the articles would apply; the templates need to be understood by other people than only the experienced editors who know the WP "jargon" to not make them useless. If we can improve the template by making it more apprehensible, why not do it. --Aqwis 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not part of the article. It's part of the template. Neologisms are not used in articles so as not to confuse the reader about the subject of the article, not about how to use WP. The proseline template isn't there for readers, its for editors. If a reader wants to become an editor based upon that template, like every other template on WP, they can follow the link to find out what it means. It's not as if there is no quick and easy way to find out what is meant by "proseline". Whatever we call it, it's going to require an explanation. Just leave it. — Music Maker 5376 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Incorrect, as a visible warning the template is patently there for readers. If it was only for editors then it should be a hidden comment in the edit page. It is visible to all readers, therefore it is for all readers. It should either be deleted, renamed or moved into edit space. Using neologisms in a template at the top of pages is a ridiculous distraction to readers. --DreamsReign 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're saying that the casual reader cares whether we call it "proseline" or some other word? — Music Maker 5376 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - I had to look up "proseline" before using this temp. It is useful, but should be renamed. Happyme22 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if necessary: If proseline is not a word then don't invent it ... We are not here to create. We are here only to document. --Kushal^t 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current wording is too confusing, especially since it is a made-up word. {{Timeline}} is taken, but hardly used (actually, it is only used in the United States history series). I think it should be moved there, and the hand full of pages that use it can be transitioned to something else ({{S-start}} or {{Navbox}}). The wording should be changed to "This section reads like a time line set in prose." or something similar. --Phirazo 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The problems pointed out in the nom can be fixed by renaming it. Captain panda 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The template is useful, in that it highlights a deficiency in the style of writing that can affect the flow and encyclopaedic style of an article. With that, it is not that useful as is, because it is not immediately apparent what the template is highlighting. A rename to something like disorganised timeline (someone can think of something better!) will better clarify the problem, especially if the text is extended to "This timeline can be better written as prose, a list or merged into the article/section". Nachmore 12:34, 7 November 2007 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Belgian Cities

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No links. Completely unused. — MJCdetroit 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unused. SkierRMH 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. It isn't used (see here). Auroranorth (sign) 11:50, 2 November 2007 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HungaryCities

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All Hungarian settlements were standardized to one infobox. — MJCdetroit 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated & standardized as above. SkierRMH 16:07, 31 October 2007 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HungaryCities2

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized as above. — MJCdetroit 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated & standardized. SkierRMH 16:04, 31 October 2007 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Town TR

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the nice looking header, it was poorly implemented (and named) and made it difficult to tell whether the population, area, and other fields were dealing with the town/city/village or the district or even province that it was in. It was replaced with the standard Infobox Settlement and maps were switched to the cleaner looking {{Location map Turkey}} where possible — MJCdetroit 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No information were lost during the conversion. Current one is much better. - Darwinek 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It is too quick, I understand being bold, thanks for the improvement it did, but this thing covers maybe hundreds of articles, let these changes settle a little bit. The new one is more 'beautiful', but might be less 'useful'. For once the size is much bigger, and there are some issues with the coordinates. We have at least several relevant articles where the coordinates are given in decimal notation (some others with dms notation). I don't think this template covers that (in the old one, it does not matter how the coordinates are entered). The new template has bunch of unrelated things that occupy bytes, and some of city articles are huge. The new template has a variable for mayors and their titles, but the name of mayors seem to be not entered on some articles, I personally don't mind not having the name of the mayor listed, but some people might mind. We also need three website spots (website of the mayor, website of the governor (kaymakam), website for the weather info), unless they are entered in the external links section. There might be some more things that don't come to my mind at the moment. My suggestion is to create a new template "Infobox Settlement TR" or something like that (we can use this old one), which will be a modified version of "Infobox Settlement". I guess "Infobox Settlement" is quite stable by now, so it should be easy to follow the significant changes on "Infobox Settlement" and apply them to "Infobox Settlement TR" Deniz^T_C 06:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait per Deniz. Let the people working on this sort it out before it is considered for an eventual deletion. Baristarim 06:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that we don't currently have weather info for cities (I was confused with provinces), but we can make use of say, "MSN Weather". For instance for Oltu, setting variable equal to 9233534, and appending to the end of the fixed phrase "http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?wealocations=wc:", we can get http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?wealocations=wc:9233534, weather for Oltu. Regarding the coordinates, my opinion is that we should enter them in decimal notation, whenever we have that info, and they should be displayed in dm (or dms) notation. Deniz^T_C 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Infobox Settlement is able to display the coordinates however they are entered; DM, DMS, or decimal. Compare Kars with Reyhanlı. Kars incorporates DMS and it also uses the new locater map. Reyhanli uses decimal degrees and displays an old multicolored map. Kars does not display "mayor". If "Mayor" is displayed without a name, then that sounds like a possible typo. It can be fixed easily by removing "Mayor" from the leader_title field. If desired a second website field can always be added or a second website can be added by separating them with a <br>, for example: [http://www.citywebsite.gov www.citywebsite.gov]<br>[http://www.govwebsite.gov www.govwebsite.gov]. The weather info was never something that was part of Infobox Town TR. I would suggest using {{Infobox Weather}} to display weather related information. Creating new de-centralized templates is not a good idea because they usually are rarely maintained as well as the standard infobox. Hence, the purpose for standardizing smaller under-developed infoboxes.—MJCdetroit 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we make all the coordinates be displayed in DM notation, however they are entered? I am suggesting to enter the coordinates in decimal notation (for a better accuracy if we do have the data; we might use Heavens Above) and always display them in DM notation. I think one can make a flag for that on {{Infobox Settlement}}, if it doesn't exist. Also by default, it should be display=inline,title. Assuming {{Infobox Settlement}} is fairly stable in matters related to Turkey, my opinion is that advantages of having a specialized version of that template outweigh the cons. For once, the size can be made much smaller (removing unrelated flags (a good number of them seem to be unrelated), tweaking a little bit (eg. leader titles can be set to mayor (belediye başkanı which literally means "head of the municipality") and kaymakam)), at the same time we can add relevant info. Also we should not encourage usage of <br> in infoboxes, as they cause problems for blind users. We may also need to list info on those websites next to them (mayor's website, governor's website)... Deniz^T_C 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wait . The new infobox is not bad but i think we can use a localized infobox that is more appropriate for our administrative structure. We can forexample add a links to provinces and dependant municipalities of the city (which is not absent in the current infobox) and so on. Bozaci 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and adapt new infobox. The {{Infobox Settlement}} can be adapted to Turkish variables, such as administrative system differences, coordinates, etc. The old Template:Infobox Town TR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is too short and is just has never looked quite right- there is no need to keep it, just modify the new infobox. I especially like the old red header with the flag, but it was just a bit too big as compared with other headers. This seems to me to be the best way in keeping it lookin sharp while adding a standardized look to it. Monsieurdl 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adapt then delete The Infobox settlement appears to be stable enough to allow some adaptation to local needs. Agree that centralizing here is a good idea, especially in regards these longer/larger cases. Good examples can be seen in the various uses of where Template:Location map is transcluded into other countries adaptations of the general settlement infobox. SkierRMH 05:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per long-standing community consensus in favour of standardising settlement infoboxes. — mholland (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is once again the size. If we follow the approach of adding this and and that, it will only grow larger and larger, and this is really not necessary. Like I said before, since the template is quite stable wrt issues related to Turkey, we should not have a problem. As a matter of fact, I don't think there will be any change related to Turkey (other than pushpin map thing after Kotniski's change, we might need to wait for it to be stabilized) in the near future. Moreover, articles on Turkish cities tend to be larger than expected, and I am not talking only about my beloved Queen of cities. We have a lot of Turkish, Armenian, Roman and Greek and Kurdish related things on these articles, I don't know whether it is rightly so, but I know it is duely so, as there are many sources out there (from those nations/cultures or others) dealing with them, and also mentioning these cities profoundly. We don't really need to increase the loading time. It is better to have a much smaller and manageable version. Deniz^T_C 01:42, 7 November 2007 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.