→Discussion: reply |
→Discussion: KEEP!! |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
*'''Merge all''' to [[Template:User contrib]], and rewrite that if nescescary so it continues to work. [[User:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">'''Blood Red Sandman'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Talk)</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Contribs)</font>]]</sup> 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Merge all''' to [[Template:User contrib]], and rewrite that if nescescary so it continues to work. [[User:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">'''Blood Red Sandman'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Talk)</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Blood Red Sandman|<font color="red">(Contribs)</font>]]</sup> 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**As far as I can tell, nothing needs to be changed. I threw the template on my page today and all parameters work fine, incluiding the colours. --'''[[User:Phoenix2|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#AF7817">Phoenix</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Phoenix2|talk]])</small> 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
**As far as I can tell, nothing needs to be changed. I threw the template on my page today and all parameters work fine, incluiding the colours. --'''[[User:Phoenix2|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#AF7817">Phoenix</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Phoenix2|talk]])</small> 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' I like having these. It's nice that everyone who has the same amount of edits has the same color. It's easy to look. - <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background: #FFFFFF; color: #828282; font-weight: bold; ">hmwith</span>]][[User_talk:hmwith|<span style="background: #828282; color: #FFFFFF;">talk</span>]]</span></font> 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Template:Auton stories]] ==== |
==== [[Template:Auton stories]] ==== |
Revision as of 18:25, 6 May 2007
May 5
Numerous edit-count userboxes
Merge to more flexible single template, per TfD criterion 1 (not useful any longer as separate templates), except delete two as noted below.
- Template to merge to
- Template:User contrib ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Will require a bot or huge AWB session, I imagine, to convert the numbering from old format to new in process of migrating users from the userboxes below to this one.) This template allows whatever number to be specified and even better allows whatever format the user wants (18000, 18,000, 18 000, 18K); please note that all of the /test items below are attempts to support a comma, leading to further redundant template proliferation. {{User contrib}} obviates all such needs. May need code upgrade to handle the Category:Wikepedians with more than X edits categories some of the ones below support (if this is considered important enough to preserve; perhaps more a matter for CfD).
- Templates to be merged
- Template:User Custom edit count ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: Serves precisely same purpose as {{User contrib}} but harder to read.
- Template:User 10e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 50 users
- Template:User 25e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 40 users
- Template:User 50e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 20 users
- Template:User 100e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 30 users
- Template:User 150e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by 11 users
- Template:User 200e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by 20 users
- Template:User 250e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 40 users
- Template:User 300e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 60 users
- Template:User 400e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 60 users
- Template:User 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 150 users
- Template:User 600e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 30 users
- Template:User 700e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 30 users
- Template:User 800e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 30 users
- Template:User 900e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 30 users
- Template:User 1 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~210 users
- Template:User 1000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 1 000e/test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by 1 user
- Template:User 1 100e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 40 users
- Template:User 1100e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 1 200e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by 1 user
- Template:User 1 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 60 users
- Template:User 1500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 1 500e/test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by no one
- Template:User 2 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~130 users
- Template:User 2000edits ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 2 000e/test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by 1 user
- Template:User 2 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~50 users
- Template:User 2500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 3 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~75 users
- Template:User 3000edits ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 3000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 3 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~25 users
- Template:User 3500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 4 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~65 users
- Template:User 4000edits ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 4000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 4 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 20 users
- Template:User 4500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 5 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~50 users
- Template:User 5000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 5 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 20 users
- Template:User 5500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 6 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 60 users
- Template:User 6000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 7 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 40 users
- Template:User 7000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 7,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 7 500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~20 users
- Template:User 7500e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 8 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 40 users
- Template:User 8000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 9 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~35 users
- Template:User 9000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 10 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by under 60 users
- Template:User 10000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 10k ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 11 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - used by ~20 users
- Template:User 11000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redir)
- Template:User 12 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 13 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 14 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 15 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 16 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 17 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 18 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 19 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 20 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 21 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 22 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 23 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 24 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 25 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 30 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 35 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 40 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 45 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 45 000e/test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 50 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 50 000e/test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 55,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 60,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 65,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 70,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 75 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 80,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 85,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 90,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 95,000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User 100 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: Only two editors qualify per WP:WBE, so the funny extra comment in this one can probably just safely be ignored for merge purposes.
- Templates to be deleted
- Template:User 200 000e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: No one qualifies or is even close.
- Template:User 0e ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: It is simply factually incorrect, and serves no actual purpose.
- Templates to leave alone
- Other templates in Category:Edit user templates, which serve other purposes (though some userspace ones need, in a separate MfD action, to be merged into Template:User mainspace edits ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)).
- Further cleanup
- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia will need cleanup.
PS: All the templates have been TfD tagged (as merge or delete as appropriate).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- Merge/delete per nomination — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (as nominator)
- Delete all; they encourage editcountitis, which is a terrible affliction. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. --tjstrf talk 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. The only way we're truly going to defeat edit counts is by getting rid of all the edit counters, which simply isn't going to happen. Sean William 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge redundant and a lot less flexible than {{User contrib}}. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do listed in nom - while editcountitis may afflict some RFAs (I don't see it that much), deleting all these userboxes isn't going to do a thing to affect that. So keep them, but in an efficient manner, as the nom described. GracenotesT § 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge plus 1/Delete Actions listed per nom. Add {{Template:user Custom edit count}}, which does the same thing as Template:User Contrib. Michael Greiner 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Added to merge (not delete) list, so that users using it are migrated, don't just lose an infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- "more flexible" and "allows whatever format" means that the user has to figure out how to use it. Waste of time that could be better spent by just letting them use the current array of boxes. Especially as users who want the flexibility can certainly use the more flexible box. Goldfritha 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It isn't like the flexible one is complicated to use. It could easily be described how to use it on the userbox page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: that you would have to explain it is sufficient proof that it is complicated. Goldfritha 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: See my note two below; the fact that they're not even consistently named means either someone still has to explain it, or in absence of an explanation users interested in them still have to do some research. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, and we'll compress 70+ templates into one. I'd call that a "yay!". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment How hard is it to figure out a template by looking at the example? This isn't rocket science. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: that you would have to explain it is sufficient proof that it is complicated. Goldfritha 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Hm. Wikipedia is not MySpace. If a user is dedicated enough, he/she can learn the ability to pass a single parameter through a template. You may be interested in this: Occam's razor. I think that finding the correct template out of the dozens listed there should take longer than finding one and using it. GracenotesT § 02:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What Gracenotes and Malevious said, plus also note that the separate boxes are not consistently named, so they are not in fact easier to find and use at all, and enforce a particular (strange) numbering habit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I don't see a problem. Dr.K. 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- [double edit conflict] Merge all parameters are not that hard to pass. Because of the new template, the multiple old templates will be obsolete. Wikipedia does not need obsolete templates. I will be willing to set up a bot request to convert all of the usages of the old templates that have not been changed over. V60 干什么? · VDemolitions 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Keen. Do note that some of them have commas in the names, and so on; they're not very consistent! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per well put nom. JPG-GR 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Sephiroth BCR 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above. As to the arguments about editcountitis...to say that these userboxen are exclusively used by edit count freaks is totally unverifiable. Also, the use of them would be a symptom of editcountitis not a cause. VanTucky 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. I see no reason for this not to happen. Now I've just got to figure out how to use the new box... -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Giant instruction manual:
{{User contrib|1234}}
where "1234" is the edit count in question. Still working on the Japanese and Portuguese editions. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC) ;-)
- Giant instruction manual:
- Merge One size fits all is A-OK. Merging redundant templates is OK too. Editors' philosophies are patently irrelevant. 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone explain what the issue is? I created some of the templates because the existing ones had no comma, but I can't follow what merge means. Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Explanation: Merge means: convert users of the to-be-merged templates to the modern template, don't just delete them all and leave people with redlinked templates on their userpages, which would certainly be on the rude side. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. Let me know if you'd like Alphachimpbot and AWB to get involved in the (massive) cleanup. I'd be more than willing to assist. alphachimp 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Enlistment reply: Probably a great idea; see above at comments of Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) for addl. volunteer. Coordination probably in order. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge cut down on the red tape and junk that isn't used. Jmlk17 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, yep sounds like a good idea, esp. the comma seperation part. Lugnuts 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Sure. I just changed mine manually. It took a full five seconds.--Anthony.bradbury 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom - Morphh (talk) 13:45, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As the categories in Category:Wikipedians by number of edits are primarily populated by the templates, before this is closed consideration should be given to the following options:
- have the bots add the users to the proper categories when the templates are removed
- delete the cats
- leave the cats there but have users place themselves in manually without a template to assist.
- IMHO, not addressing this would result in only half of a solution. --After Midnight 0001 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CSD#C3 may apply, or at least the logic therein. There still are sortkeys; we could do
- [[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}]]
- That groups by 10000s, which the category seems to approximately currently do. Or then again, allowing Wikipedians with more than 100,000 edits,
- [[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} >= 100000|!|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}}}]]
- Or to prevent passing, for example, "ZOMGZ 400!!!!!!!" through the template instead of "400",
- [[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} >= 100000|!|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}}}|?}}]]
- Gets complicated quickly, though. GracenotesT § 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support to merge - Each userbox has its own color associated with it. One common userbox would become boring, since there would be no variation in colors. Also, some colors in the userbox might not fit in with a user's userpage, especially if the colors are not compatible with the page's background. Therefore, I will support a merge only if an extra parameter is inserted to allow someone to change the colors to fit their needs.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Someone added 2 parameters for colours (id-bg and info-bg, which are actually for the opposites that you would guess they're for). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are they? Damn. Well, I'm not that familiar with userboxen, feel free to fix it if you want. GracenotesT § 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Someone added 2 parameters for colours (id-bg and info-bg, which are actually for the opposites that you would guess they're for). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination, proposal makes sense. I do kinda agree with the condition suggested by Ed above, but that's going to take one hell of a lot of work, when there's already going to be a lot going into this. Hersfold (talk/work) 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone else think that documentation should be split off into Template:User contrib/doc? This template (while not widely used now) will soon become used by hundreds of users. I think that splitting the /doc off now is the best course of action. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and commence mass introduction of {{User contrib}}. Set a parameter that allows for different colours if so desired. --Phoenix (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See here for two links that gives the entire wikitext of all the non-redirect templates across two pages. In a different format (say, JSON or XML), this can be used to make it so that the colors don't change; they can be customized in the new template. GracenotesT § 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Template:User contrib, and rewrite that if nescescary so it continues to work. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I like having these. It's nice that everyone who has the same amount of edits has the same color. It's easy to look. - hmwithtalk 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Auton stories
- Template:Auton stories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't think that three stories in nearly a 190 qualifies for a template - we wouldn't have one for the Macra, so I don't see why we should have one for the Autons. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The template links those three stories. What's the downside? --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The stories are linked anyway in the continuity sections of the articles. Also, lumping in Love & Monsters is like saying Dalek is a Cybermen episode. The Face of Boe appears in three episodes (and a cameo in a fourth), and I don't think we would have one for him. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:User vandalized
- Edit-conflicted response, and there's nothing against editing outside archived sections: WP:AFDCLOSE was created for a reason. Perhaps not everyone assumed good faith, but I'm imagine they're tired of this one being TFD'd. GracenotesT § 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, whatever. I love being bashed regardless. It gives me a tingle. I don't mind people saying "Hey, did you realise this was nominated before?". I do mind people saying "omg stfu with the nominations". --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Understandable; sorry if my vote was a bit rough. [Gracenotes gives Deskana a wikihug] Wikipedia: one big happy sadomasochistic family! GracenotesT § 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, whatever. I love being bashed regardless. It gives me a tingle. I don't mind people saying "Hey, did you realise this was nominated before?". I do mind people saying "omg stfu with the nominations". --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit-conflicted response, and there's nothing against editing outside archived sections: WP:AFDCLOSE was created for a reason. Perhaps not everyone assumed good faith, but I'm imagine they're tired of this one being TFD'd. GracenotesT § 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Airreg
- Template:Airreg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is used mainly to provide inline external links to airdisaster.com, wherever there is an aircraft ID number within body/text of an article. Airdisaster.com has extensive advertising (big annoying banner advertisement and the google ads) and not that much useful content to justify this type of link from Wikipedia. The template does have some esoteric features allowing the links to go to the FAA, or other sites. But the vast majority of links are to airdisaster.com. See American Airlines Flight 965 as an example of the template in use -- it's used both in the infobox and in the body of the article (second paragraph). If you don't mind some pop ads (though pop-up blocker may catch them), try the link and see how paltry the information provided is. There may be other parts of airdisaster.com that are useful, but not these ID searches which provide very little information, accompanied by large amounts of advertising. I don't think there should be any such inline external links facilitated with this template. The infobox links don't give Wikipedia users much benefit either. For ISBN book id numbers, we don't directly link them to Amazon or any other particular site. Same principle should apply, though we don't have any Specialpages for aircraft ID numbers like we do with Special:Booksources. --Aude (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep useful way of referencing info on individual aircraft - particularly from regulatory authorotys such as FAA and CAA -just because some people don't like one of the options - i.e. air disaster, because it has some pop-up ads, shouldn't mean that all other uses are stopped as well. Fix it - don't just delete it!! Nigel Ish 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aviation-safety.net seems like a more suitable alternative to airdisaster.com, but doesn't support links the way they are set-up in this template. We can have links without the template. --Aude (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per Nigel Ish, deleting the airdisaster.com feature. I also note that the template's creator, N328KF, is one of the most-prolific (19,000+ edits) aviation editors. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a way to make the template link to aviation-safety.net or some alternative that provides more information? FAA, CAA, and other authorities don't cover all aircraft, but only those in their jurisdictions. --Aude (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about http://www.airfleets.net? --A. B. (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- When I search there, I get an url like this: http://www.airfleets.net/recherche/index.php?file=rechregis In order to make the template work for that site, it would need to somehow incorporate the id number into the url. The FAA database does that - see the "644AA" in the URL: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0 Linking to the FAA seems okay, as it's an "official" site. It's registry has some problems too, such as cases where it "retires" ID numbers after an aircraft is destroyed in a crash and later reassigns the number to some other aircraft. Because of variations in how sites set-up the urls, the template will only work for some sites and not others. Simple links with brackets would work just as well. --Aude (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- No matter what we do, I think we'll need a bot to fix the links on all the pages. There are a lot of links, and I never had the time nor patience to fix them all manually. And, I'm not sure we need the links inline in paragraphs, but I don't mind them as much in the infobox. --Aude (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about http://www.airfleets.net? --A. B. (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - It's been months since the user proposing the deletion has even discussed changes on the template's talk page, yet he wants to ask about changes now in the TfD. The TfD seems a bit extreme, more so since the same user also proposed its deletion 9 months ago. - BillCJ 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at Template talk:Airreg, I'm apparently not the only user that has problems with the template. Sending Wikipedia users to a site with lots of pop up ads is something we shouldn't do. It's not possible with the template to send users to alternative sites that don't have the ID number incorporated into the URL. --Aude (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep we should simply stop using that one inapropriate site. I yake it we can just take it out the template and thus prevent it's usage, yeah? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at several of the articles listed on your userpage. They don't use this template, and altogether do not make an external link out of the aircraft registration number. Why do you do it that way in articles you work on? --Aude (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I just never got into the habit. It's more of an oversight on my part, although this discusion has reminded me to get off my ass and implement it. Once this mess here is cleared up first, that is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think your articles look cleaner without the links. Though, it I think it would be good to reference the registration number in the way we normally cite things. As for removing airdisaster as an option, I don't know if it's so simple as removing airdisaster from the template, because it's a "default" option. We need something to replace it. The airfleet site is a possibility, but is also heavy on advertising. I don't know of a good way to "fix" the template. If it's not fixable (as I think), then we should find some alternative to using this template. --Aude (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I just never got into the habit. It's more of an oversight on my part, although this discusion has reminded me to get off my ass and implement it. Once this mess here is cleared up first, that is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. My issue is that the aircraft registration numbers are not encyclopedic in most cases. When it might be is after a disaster which is the link that most everyone has a problem with. I'd like to see the disaster case as the only one left in the template. However that position is tempered by the valid advert issues raised. I'm not sure how often we need to actually include an encyclopedic registration number. In those cases a template might be handy. But if this leads to every airline article including registration number, I think we have a problem. And if you are wondering, at least two articles already include all registration numbers, the last time I looked anyway. Vegaswikian 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. You're back, Aude? This template seems to stick in your craw for some reason. Why don't you offer suggestions on fixing things rather than simply doing a TfD? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I joined Wikipedia in late Aug 06, and began working with WP:AIR in Sep. I find it odd that the first TfD was in Aug 06, and this is the first I'm hearing of problems with the template. One would think that some of the users who objected to the template, or at least its use of certain sites, would have brought it to the Project's attention between then and now. THere are alot of good editors involved with the project, of whom N328KF is just one of the better editors. Collectivley, the Project could have solved some of the objector's problems with the template long ago. Instead, knowledge of the obections have been limited to just a few users. At least one editor has let the project know about it this time, and perhaps the issues can be settled permanently this time, or at least to the Porject's saticfaction. - BillCJ 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Another point: How many aircraft are covered by the FAA, CAA, EAA, and the other official sites? How many are not? I honestly don't know the figures of how many of the world's aircraft are registered in these countries, but I would imagine it's a sizable portion. Even if we limited the template to only official, or at least non-commercial, sites, I think we would cover a majority of the world's aircraft. If some are left out, that's no reason not to have a template in the fisrt place, esp as the nations covered have most of the major English-speaking populations. - BillCJ 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the U.S., is the FAA the best place to link for air disasters? I'm not entirely impressed with the amount of information they provide, compared to what NTSB provides in its reports. I just noticed that the FAA registry doesn't even mention the flight number of the aircraft that crashed. [1] The NTSB reports provide that and more. But, there's no automatic way of linking to these with the tail numbers, but you can query here or link to the reports without the template [2]. Basically, the template restricts us in which sites we can link to. (only to ones that allow you to include the tail number as part of the url - the web address link) The aviation-safety site also seems useful, but has the same problem that you can't link to it through this template. I don't think there is any way to resolve that problem by "fixing" the template. For that reason, I think we need to come up with some other way of referencing the tail numbers. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this TfD confuses this old wikipedian! Emoscopes Talk 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- In articles, wherever we mention the tail number, this template can make that number into a link to some database website like airdisaster.com, the FAA, CAA, etc. For all these sites, the urls (web addresses) have the tail number somewhere in them, such as this: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0 (see the 644AA). This number is what makes it possible for the template to work. The problem is that it restricts what sites we can link to (only those websites that can do links that way). The template cannot provide links to sites like the NTSB and aviation-safety.net which have very detailed information but without advertising. I don't think we can fix the template. If we/I could, I would have done so a while ago. --Aude (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have been leaning towards some form of keep. However it is issues like this that may say delete is the correct choice. After all, the tail number is not something that does not change on the aircraft, so why use it as a fixed reference point? Another reason why this information is not encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the best thing to do be to develop suitable alternatives first? If there is a better way to do this, then work with the editors to come up with it, and then there would be no problem deleting this one.
Or is is 9 months not a long enough time to have suggested even discussing an alternative?- BillCJ 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)- Sorry, you did make some suggestions early on, but none recently. - BillCJ 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the best thing to do be to develop suitable alternatives first? If there is a better way to do this, then work with the editors to come up with it, and then there would be no problem deleting this one.
- I have been leaning towards some form of keep. However it is issues like this that may say delete is the correct choice. After all, the tail number is not something that does not change on the aircraft, so why use it as a fixed reference point? Another reason why this information is not encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm confused. Is this template only for linking to disaster information, or is it for gejneral information on aircraft with a given registration number. (Aude, please don't answer this question, as it is not directed to you, though you may comment on responses.) - BillCJ 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not just for disaster information, but that is one supported option. In the other cases, it provides links to sites that provide information based on a tail number. In the case of Canada and the UK, it also provides a link to their aircraft authorities. At least this is my understanding. Vegaswikian 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, here's a complete list of 194 places the template is used: [3] --Aude (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - No problem with the air disaster link but the link to aviation authorities may be troublesome as aircraft registrations are not unique and can be re-used particularly american N-numbers. MilborneOne 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The air disaster link gives you a date and location of the crash, the type of aircraft, the tail number, number of fatalties, and that's it, except for a large banner ad, and a pop-up ad. All that information (and more) is already provided directly in the Wikipedia article in the infobox, as well as the article text. I don't know how the airdisaster link is acceptable under WP:EL, which describes links "normally to be avoided" to include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." and "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." --Aude (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per lack of rational/consensus in this entire discussion. Jmlk17 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures
- Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Comment Why is this listed here for deletion? --Aude (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Quasi" doesn't sound objective. Perhaps merge to {{Philippine legislatures}} with an explicit statement that these are drafts or unofficial or whatever it is I fail to understand about legislatures. One of the articles happens to be in both templates. –Pomte 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, unless (per Aude's succinct version) some actual delete rationale is presented. There's been all kinds of stuff going on in the Philippines for a long time. There are many cultures there, and plenty of culture clashes. I wouldn't want WP to wade into deciding which of them have "valid" political power. The concept might be better named something other than "Quasi...", though, but I think it may take some editors more versed in that topic to say what that should be ("provisional" or "rebel" or "opposition" or "local empowerment" or whatever, in place of "quasi-"). Ergo I !vote for "keep" until there is a clear consenus for a rename. Or to be more explicit, I vote strongly for "keep" because despite the questionable naming, I believe that the description in question likely describes something real and of encyclopedic value; I furthermore suspect that this is more a matter for CfD than TfD unless there are no underlying categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per lack of any reason to delete from nomination. Jmlk17 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Tab Quebec City
- Template:Tab Quebec City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. This is a single use template that was only used for Quebec City. Also, instructions/parameters are in French only. It was replaced with {{Infobox City}} which gives Quebec City the same look as Montreal and many other Canadian cities. — MJCdetroit 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused template, no longer needed. --Aude (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Phoenix (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per it being an orphaned and useless template. Jmlk17 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:MexTlatoque
- Template:MexTlatoque ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used in any articles. The tlatoque are already listed in Template:Aztec, as well as in infoboxes and succession boxes. — Ptcamn 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not edited since creation last year. --Phoenix (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused template. --Aude (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete orphaned and redundant. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't like unnecessary templates like this. Jmlk17 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Melbourne rolling stock
- Template:Melbourne rolling stock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Now redundant template, has been merged into Template:MelbournePublicTransport. — Thewinchester (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Phoenix (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Orderinchaos 07:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Aude (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete get rid of it per nomination. Jmlk17 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete orphaned and redundant template. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)