[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6

[edit]


Template:Mobile shopping

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete, however no consensus on an expanded version including a larger metropolitan area. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mobile shopping (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. The template included Cordova Mall, which is in nearby Pensacola, but Pensacola and Mobile are distinctly different metropolitan areas (Pensacola metropolitan area vs. Mobile metropolitan area). So even if one were to consider that Pensacola also has two defunct malls which may be notable (Mariner Mall and University Mall), it would still be WP:SYNTH to include Pensacola and Mobile on the same template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep rename The maps in the nomination show adjacent counties in two U.S. states. I'm reminded of San_Diego–Tijuana or the Kansas City metropolitan area. I found some sources, although not of the best quality, which treat Mobile and Pensacola as a single metropolitan area (I didn't look for "Mobile trade area" as wrtten in the template):

While these probably don't meet WP:RS I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose that someone interested in shopping malls in Mobile may want to look at articles about malls in Pensacola as well, because of the proximity of the cities to each other. That said, this template didn't link many articles even before the Pensacola mall was deleted. I notice that Palafox Place is about a shopping area in Pensacola. If this template can encompass both Mobile and Pensacola, Palafox Place could be linked. If this template is kept, the name might be changed to something that doesn't suggest cell phones, perhaps "Mobile-Pensacola shopping". —rybec 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too small, and there aren't any reliable sources presented for ignoring the official definition of these two as separate metropolitan areas. Note that media markets don't attempt to define metropolitan areas; they're simply convenient for broadcast purposes. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles about Cordova Mall and Palafox Place in Pensacola would bring it to six links. The media market article says media markets are "used by advertisers to determine how to reach a specific audience". In this case, it's a geographic area. The connection between a geographic area defined for the purpose of advertising, and a list of shopping places in that geographic area seems obvious to me. The template uses the term "trade area", not "metropolitan area". Also the FCC is an arm of the U.S. government; its publications are just as "official" as those of the Census Bureau. Really, the fact that yahoo.com and indeed.com group these two cities together for navigational purposes should have been enough for a simple navbox. —rybec 21:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 6 April 2013 (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 engineer

[edit]
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 of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox engineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}, of which it is a near copy, albeit missing some key parameters. We can either merge this template;s unique parameters there, or make this template a module of that one, if investigation (tracking categories?) shows they are used significantly in its 757 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment how does modularization work? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Was there supposed to be something about the engineer infobox that distinguished it from {{Infobox person}}? If so, then add those parameters and keep it. Otherwise, merge the thing. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and delete. No point in keeping this, and surely we could copy over (or get rid of) the relevant parameters that can't get taken care of by the current version of the Infobox person. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only 758 instances of it. Merge with Template:Infobox scientist where the specialist fields would from here need adding, but may be more relevant than in Infobox Person.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect to either {{infobox person}} or {{infobox scientist}}, whichever is the most similar. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • distinguishin elements are <|significant_projects = ; |significant_design = |significant_advance = and |significant_awards => which may be similar to other templates, but are critical to understanding an engineer's notability. I say keep it unless these can be added to {{Infobox person}}, I also note there are about 17 separate infoboxes for different sports people, but only half a dozen for specialist skills/professions. Garyvines (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My instinct says Keep. I had an interesting experience using the Infobox:Engineer for Stephen Harriman Long - it was difficult to fill correctly (needing special data, carefully worded) but once completed it suited perfectly (i.e. describing clearly what type of engineer in short summary). I don't believe one can get so useful a result with just an Infobox:Person. Physicists, chemists, rock guitarists etc don't need to have a specialist box, but I think engineers do (especially Victorian railway engineers - how many of the 758 are railway, how many are bridge or civil, etc? Might be useful to do a quick survey of the types of engineer). Think of "supply and demand" too - 758 suggests there is/was quite a demand for it. Isn't it useful too in terms of having its own separate colour-coding, and a useful aid in categorising? I'm all for rationalising and reducing Infobox types (too many of them are too-similar alternatives to each other), but I think Engineer could/should be regarded as an exception. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 6 April 2013 (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:Non-free sports uniform

[edit]
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 of the discussion was no consensus. I suggest someone starts by (1) rewording it to make the appropriate usage more clear, and (2) orphaning it where it has not been appropriately applied. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free sports uniform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Aside from certain original designs that may be contained within them (which in some cases, could be simply {{pd-textlogo}}, U.S. law considers clothing to be a useful article that cannot be protected in this manner. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the uniforms only contain simple text logos. As such, the clothes are in the public domain. However, the drawings of the clothes are not, and since the uploaders only slap this template on the images, there is no licence for the drawing of the clothes, so in the end we get a non-free drawing of public domain clothes which violates WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could make a freely licensed drawing of the same clothes. Also, as these drawings are user-created, they also violate WP:NFCC#6.
Some of the uniforms contain more complex logos. I'm not sure if they can be considered as de minimis so that these also violate WP:NFCC#1, but in either case, we should really obtain a licence from the artist in the same way as we obtain a licence from the artist for photos of non-free statues (see {{Photo of art}}).
If the template is kept, it needs to be reworded so that people won't continue to violate the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why I hate copyright laws as they currently stand. Too complex with few well intentioned exceptions. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 17:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I may be misunderstanding what's happening here. I believe when you refer to "the artist", you're referring to me. I've been working on the MLB template since 2006 and have since created the NFL and NHL templates. Since first leaving the Marc Okkonen's template in around 2007 to create and refine my own, I've not seen such a problem save for people uploading different versions of the images under different file names, causing me to get messages for the files being unused and marked for future deletion. I just came to upload this year's images and I've seen these messages regarding this. I've also noticed some images moving to Commons, which confuses me, so perhaps you'd like to appraise me of the situation. - The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template is largely a mixup of trademark and copyright restrictions. Wikipedia only considers something as unfree if it is protected by copyright, but doesn't care about trademark restrictions. See Commons:COM:NCR#Trademark law and Commons:COM:CB#Trademarks. Very simple logos are not protected by copyright and are thus accepted on Commons. See Commons:COM:TOO#United States. A lot of the uniforms only contain simple logos, so those uniforms are not protected by copyright.
By using {{Non-free sports uniform}}, the artist (for example Silent Wind of Doom (talk · contribs)) provides no free licence for the drawing, and by doing so, the artist creates an unlicensed drawing of a public domain uniform which is replaceable by a licensed drawing of the same uniform. In some cases, it was found out that early uploads were under a free licence whereas more recent updates were under a non-free licence due to changes to the file information page. In some of those cases, the files were reverted to the most recent licensed revision with the later revisions being deleted as unfree. Also, those freely licensed revisions were often moved to Commons.
In some cases, the uniforms contain complex logos which are clearly protected by copyright. If a copyrighted work contained in a larger work isn't very important to the larger work, then this work doesn't affect the copyright of the larger work; see Commons:COM:DM. I'm not sure if this is the case here. People have been saying different things about these when discussed elsewhere, and things are unclear.
In some countries, such as the United States, you can't take photos of sculptures unless the sculpture is very old, because this infringes the copyright of the sculpture (see Commons:COM:FOP). The solution in these cases has been to provide two licences: a free one, covering the photographer's contribution, and an unfree one, covering the sculptor's contribution. For an example of this, see File:Maud Powell Monument in Peru, Illinois.jpg. In this case, the photographer has renounced his rights to the image (using the template {{PD-self}}), whereas the sculptor hasn't provided any licence for his sculpture (so it is listed as {{Non-free 3D art}}). If a uniform only contains simple logos, then the file information page should contain a free licence. If the uniform contains complex logos, a similar solution with two templates (one free from the artist and one unfree for the logo) may be better, unless Commons:COM:DM can be argued to apply in which case only a free licence from the artist is needed. If a free licence is obtained from the artist, then the current images can be kept. If not, a lot of them will have to be deleted, as has already happened with a few of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefan2 is correct here from my experiences handling similar cases in both en and in commons. I just deleted many of the images in question as any drawings of the uniform is copyrighted by MLB, but the most of the logos is ineligible for copyright. Tricky law here that is unclear, and would need to go into further detail and it's better to be on the safer side in regards to copyright (i.e deletion). Secret account 02:05, 12 April 2013 (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:Expert-subject

[edit]
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 of the discussion was keep, but strongly consider making the reason mandatory. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous TFD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 18#Template:Expert-subject and Template:Expert-subject-multiple closed as Keep, also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 8#Template:Expert-subject-multiple closed as merge to this template.

I'm neutral here; this nomination is on behalf of Piotrus, who couldn't nominate the template for deletion because it's protected. His deletion rationale, posted at WP:AN, is as follows:

This template is useselss, as it fails to provide specific instructions on what needs to be done. Which articles don't need expert help? Even Featured ones can use it. I am an "expert" in sociology (a professor in a sociology department). How many of the WikiProject Sociology articles need attention from "experts"? IMHO, all of them, even the Featured ones. In fact, this is even more useless than the (now finally deleted) {{Expand}}. There one could argue it was of use for short articles. This one is so generic and wish-washy that I cannot even think of a single use where it couldn't be replaced by a more precise one, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{confusing}}, {{technical}}, and others, that actually tell the readers and editors what the problem is, other than calling for some vague expert to save the day.

Meanwhile, note that we need to do something about {{Expert-subject-multiple}}; a TFD last year decided to merge it with this one, but that's not yet happened. If we keep Expert-subject, we need to merge multiple into it; and if we delete Expert-subject, we should delete multiple as well. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards delete. Piotrus raises a pretty good point, insofar as this template does nothing to inform the relevant WikiProject(s) that expert attention is needed. In fact, many WikiProject talk page banners actually have a flag built-in to request attention, which categorizes the articles as such. While I agree that pretty much every article could benefit from expert attention, I think the hope for this template was to have it mark articles that are, perhaps, not obviously messed up, and that would be best addressed by an expert... and perhaps not somebody who regularly participates in the relevant WikiProject! I would note however that while {{expand}} has been retired, {{expand article}} (formerly "expand further") seems to have filled the gap left by it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit the template so that either of reason or talk is mandatory. This is in the documentation but I don't think theres code to enforce this. Its useful to some project for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity shows the new additions and quite a few editors watch and act on that page. --Salix (talk): 19:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, so template discussion is not a clear concept. However src page is a mess, perhaps I could help since I did a v-src thesis. Peggy hopper (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the template it does give a message if the template does not have reason/talk although its not in big red type. I've now created Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter which has 4,500+ members. The first few I've looked at are quite easily dealt with and sometimes seem to involve resolved issues.--Salix (talk): 08:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I completely reject the arguments by the nominator. The template is not meant to be used for about any article as claimed but for those where a layman (or a random WP editor) cannot contribute even when consulting appropriate literature because considerable expert knowledge is needed. None of the other templates suggested are appropriate alternatives; for example, {{technical}} implies that the article was obviously written by a knowledgeable person but the text should be simplified to become better understandable by a layman. If a template should be deleted on the grounds that it is "wish-washy", {{confusing}} surely is a better candidate. Nageh (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I think you may misunderstand the nom's rationale. The problem is that he has observed that virtually every article within his field of expertise requires attention from an expert. Just as the same problem with {{expand}}, virtually every article can be expanded. Furthermore, your statement that the template is for use on articles where no non-expert can meaningfully contribute goes against the wording and usage of the template; it's not a warning for laypeople to "keep off", but a call for an expert's contributions to resolve some issue. I would furthermore suggest that a reasonable alternative would be the existing |attention=yes parameter, addable to many WikiProject templates (generally those active enough to have experts who might respond to such problems), serves virtually the same interests, and may in fact be much more effective. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I did not misunderstand. I do not believe that every article in the nom's field can only be extended with the help of an expert, only. And of course, the template is not intended to keep laymen off but as an attention flag both for WikiProjects and for the reader. This is why I think the template has its purpose and a simple |attention=yes parameter does not serve the same because it is hidden on the talk page. Nageh (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh. You say this template is for articles "where a layman (or a random WP editor) cannot contribute even when consulting appropriate literature because considerable expert knowledge is needed". First of all, this not what the template says. You imply that the article should be locked/protected from anybody who is not an expert, because they cannot add anything valuable... I can't agree with this. Later, you say that I suggest that all articles in my field can be edited only by experts. Incorrect. I say that all articles can use help from an expert, and that it holds true everywhere. Nowhere did I say that only experts can contribute. Particularly the difference between a professional expert and an amateur is fuzzy. A lot of articles require specialized knowledge, but I don't see why we should say so; in fact all articles require some specialized knowledge. Even pop culture articles require pop culture expertise, either professional (from sociologists, literature experts, etc.) or from fans. And again, this makes this template useless. Whether it is an article about complex math issue, a sociological one, or Pokemon, it can use expert help. So why the need for a template? I don't see it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, I think there is a difference between improving an article on a general level with the help of an expert, and assessing that a fundamental part of an article is missing or incomprehensible and considerable expert knowledge is needed to contribute to that very part. It is for the latter cases that I think this template is useful (and where I do use this template). Nageh (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely agree with Piotrus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Salix alba, except I would go further and suggest that both reason and talk be mandatory--*especially* reason. Providing an explanation for the banner using reason cures the nominator's concerns about the template not specifying what needs to be done. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and made reason mandatory. I've been prompted several times by this template to take a closer look at an article, this is a useful notification that someone thinks the article's content may not be accurate and a review by someone knowledgeable on the topic would help verify it. Diego (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Require explanation or how the article can be improved. I agree with making the reason mandatory. Really all articles need an experts attention. It should ask more for attention for lacking/needed areas of the article rather than for the expert himself/herself. Sidelight12 Talk 02:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it should be changed from "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject" to "This article needs expert attention on the subject." It seems subtle but I think it makes a big difference. Sidelight12 Talk 02:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement, feel free to suggest it on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of a good use for this template: when suggestbot suggests which articles need improvement to editors. The concern of, instructions or hints to improve the articles need to be addressed. I will write my concerns about "expertise" on that talk page. Sidelight12 Talk 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to needs expert level attention. Asking for an expert specifically sounds like discriminating from anyone else who can provide a high level of competence for a subject. Someone can also claim to be an expert to discredit others. Many "non-experts" with the right resources can provide expert level contributions to an article. A genius, someone with a rational view, or someone who is learning may be able to contribute better than someone who calls themselves an expert. Someone who calls themselves an expert may have biased views, or reject others' contributions because they are self proclaimed experts. Sidelight12 Talk 03:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
possibly merge. Something along these lines is needed. Take a look at template:expand article and template:missing information. Sidelight12 Talk 09:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this template doesn't ask for specialized attention or expert level attention rather than the expert specifically, who may be self proclaimed, I'm leaning towards delete. Sidelight12 Talk 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big request, but if it works the better. Sidelight12 Talk 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't it just populate the list from say Category:WikiProjects and post something to a corresponding WikiProject page notifying them that there are articles that may require their attention? Technical 13 (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit, per Salix and Diego. Miniapolis 02:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just barely. I know experts are regarded with extreme suspicion at this site, so it's a close call. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify. I think some articles have contradictory citations and arguments that someone who is not and expert can't sort through. Or sometimes there's disagreement on technical terms. I agree with making reason or talk mandatory. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A silly tag. We need expert Wikipedians. If we are going to keep it at least move it to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's the real use, and if there is one, is it effective in any way?--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 07:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{Technical}}. The language of {{Technical}} is more appropriate (as it better explains the object of this template) but it lacks the reason parameter of this template. That said, a second template is redundant. One is enough. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I see it, this template has two functions, one is to alert the reader that the material in the tagged article is not expressed entirely correctly, and second is to attempt to "hook" an expert who happens upon the article into doing some editing. Like other tagging templates that complain about content, tone etc., it is much better to have the template say "for discussion see ...", although I note that most taggers do not put anything on the talk page. I seldom invoke this template, but it is useful particularly for science articles where the original editor/author just did not quite grasp the concept. In such cases, it is also appropriate to notify the WikiProject associated with an article that it is in need of attention. --Bejnar (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I wouldn't have a problem with requiring use of the reason parameter. As others have commented, the point is not to keep non-experts out nor to vaguely suggest that expertise is a good thing; the point is to call in experts. Unlike {{technical}}, which to me suggests the language needs to be simplified, this template to me suggests that the content needs to be verified or expanded (or, OK, maybe explained better, in which case it partially duplicates Technical). Sure, drive-by use of the template can be unhelpful, but that could be said of virtually any maintenance template. Cnilep (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and please don't make it mandatory to explain why you added it, but make the template explain more clearly when to use it and when not. This is perhaps the most important template on WP! As Nageh explains very clearly, we need this for the serious cases in which an article is in such bad shape that only an expert on the subject can fix it enough to again make it possible for non-experts to contribute. I'm a professional copyeditor and very good at understanding or at least guessing the meaning of hard to understand texts, but i regularly run into articles i don't understand enough to be able to improve but understand enough to realise there are such serious factual and language problems that only an expert can improve them at this stage. The alternative would be to remove large parts of these articles and add an edit explanation such as "removed incomprehensible / probably incorrect information because don't have time to research this now but have a strong hunch about this" which would discourage others or cause aggressive edit wars. Yes, virtually every article within any field of expertise could use attention from an expert, but some require it. --Espoo (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintenance comment I just deleted what looks like an arbitrary portion of this page being copied and pasted elsewhere. See revision 549957890 for details. Espoo's comment is left alone. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, looks like my smartphone somehow caused that mess. --Espoo (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add an optional reason parameter pop-up box. The merits of retaining the functionality of this notice template exceeds the rationale to delete it. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and require a reason in template with optional additional info on talk page. This template is useful and it could be more so if people understood how to use it and when to use it. Several users have described situations where it is used. I have had similar experiences to Espoo's. Some articles are such a jumble that they need a knowledgable editor to organize the article and weed through the information that is poorly presented or incorrect. Other editors can then continue with the task. As someone else said, some articles have an area that is complicated or has disputed, confusing, or conflicting information that needs special attention. This is why a description of the problem or a reason is mandatory to make the template really useful. I have seen several articles that needed this template and many had it but most gave no information about what the 'expert' needed to do. I believe as a result they often do not get a response. Probing Mind (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's impossible to discern whether the text is incomprehensible because it's too technical or because it's illogical or because the English is bad or because the text is simply chaotically organized or other reasons or (usually) a combination of several of these. An expert will know immediately what the problem is and what to do, so there's no need to explain. Even a professional copyeditor would often have to guess what the main problem(s) is/are, and it'd require a lot of time to try to find it/them. All we need is an addition to the template saying that this should only be used for articles that are in a state in which it is very difficult for non-experts to fix the mess or even know what the problem is. The template should specifically say not to use it if an article is simply confusing or too technical, for which there are more specific templates. --Espoo (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't there a reason why someone chooses to use the template? There is a "reason" why someone decides to use the template, that can be stated with at least a comment. Reasons can be related to technical language, confusion or clarification needed. Sidelight12 Talk 00:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Change I have always assumed that this template actually signals the relevant WikiProject already--guess not. Strongly agree with above commenters that it should both (a) be changed to do that, and (b) the text should be changed from "attention of an expert" to "expert attention". I don't think it should be kept if change (a) does not happen. Otherwise, it seems like it would be quite useful for the situation when the editor knows that there is more pertinent material on the topic, but cannot add this material himself.- Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 02:05, 14 April 2013 (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:The Voice Blind audition legend box

[edit]
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 of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Voice Blind audition legend box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:11, 6 April 2013 (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:Amorella class

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amorella class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While Amorella, Isabella, Gabriella and Crown Seaways are sister ships, they are not referred to as "Amorella-class cruiseferries" — a quick Google search turns up only Wikipedia pages. This is often the case with civilian ships that, unlike naval ships, are rarely grouped into "classes". The template is thus misleading and the information in it (sister ships and operating companies) has been included in the articles. Tupsumato (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I completely agree with your points. Passenger ships are almost never grouped into classes and the information in the template is already included within the pages themselves. BML0309 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (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:Nigeria squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nigeria squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and all the others nominated below. Classic case of overtemplating. Number 57 11:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and those listed below - this is the same situation as the last TfD and has already led to creation of hundreds of microstubs of non-notable players. Jogurney (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No evidence that the players are notable. A number of the player articles have been recently created,as if to justify the templates. If it wasn't for that it may be that most of them would be red links. Eldumpo (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Why weren't they just bundled? The previous deletion discussion establishes solid ground for the deletion of templates such as these, and we'd need to have good evidence to show that any given template is an exception. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to nominate separately through Twinkle than go to the trouble of bundling them manually. It looks as though in this case it doesn't matter that they are not technically bundled as they can all be found below. C679 15:03, 7 April 2013 (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:Mali squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mali squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:49, 6 April 2013 (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:Ghana Squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ghana Squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:46, 6 April 2013 (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:Democratic Republic of Congo squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Democratic Republic of Congo squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:46, 6 April 2013 (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:Algeria Squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria Squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:45, 6 April 2013 (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:Gabon squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gabon squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:44, 6 April 2013 (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:Egypt squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Egypt squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:42, 6 April 2013 (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:Benin Squad 2013 African Youth Championship

[edit]
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 of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benin Squad 2013 African Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete template and similar in the same tournament (8 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C679 10:42, 6 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_6&oldid=1136430372"