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. Wizardman 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario and sonic at the olympic games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not needed as there are only 2 entries, a similar template was deleted last year for the same reason. TJ Spyke 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Both games are already covered in ((Mario sports games)) and ((Sonic games)). A separate navbox is unnecessary and does not have enough links to justify itself. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as well as the fact that there was already a template made for the two games that was deleted months ago [1]. Magiciandude (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the description of the old template during the previous TfD discussion, this template is probably eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of the previously deleted template. --RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Wholly unnecessary. DKqwerty (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the user clearly doesn't understand that proper nouns are capitalized; as such, the title of the template is also invalid. DKqwerty (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; an admin should check if this qualifies for G4. GlassCobra 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2009 (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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hyperoperations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete. Limited template; not rationally expanadable, and 6 entries were just created by the template author; and those and 2 others have been suggested for merging. Should probably only be in the hyperoperation article, even if it were sensible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After what I've done to it, it should be reasonable. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's improved by removal of the redirects, but still doesn't belong on any articles other than possibly Hyperoperation, tetration (and inverses, being considered to be merged into it), and pentation (considered for merging into hyperoperation). Putting it on hyper-1, hyper-2, and hyper-3 operations is clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not currently used on any articles, and only likely to be used on one at best - Hyperoperations (and even there its value is uncertain). If it's to be used in that article, it should be substituted; either way, I don't see the need for a template. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solution: Substitute it onto that article and then delete it. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (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.

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) 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonic Retro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is for listing a fansite that is not compliant with WP:EL - A fansite should generally not be listed in external links pages. Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided explains that most fansites are not allowed. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there's an exception in ELNO for "[wikis] with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", but I have no idea whether the site in question meets that criteria. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a userlist of the particular wiki. In practice, I think the ELNO exception is meant to allow the showcasing of the most prominent wikis, and those probably have reliable sources that document their existence as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The user list is here: http://info.sonicretro.org/Special:ListUsers - By manipulating the figure I found that there are 4,941 registered accounts http://info.sonicretro.org/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=4941 - However many are "trial membership" and "pending membership" - For a wiki to pass the ELNO exception it needs a constant amount of edits from a large group of dedicated users. When I restricted the list to users with edits, the figure went down to 735 http://info.sonicretro.org/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=&editsOnly=1&limit=735 WhisperToMe (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all depends on whether or not 735 users are considered to be a large number. -w^{L<speak·check>} 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, the number itself is mostly irrelevant per WP:BIG (though for whatever it's worth, 715 doesn't seem all that large to me); this does seem more like a fansite. My concern is that allowing this template opens the floodgates for the creation of external link templates for every fan wiki out there. GlassCobra 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - new external link templates should be created sparingly (((External link)) is a perfectly good generic template), and links to wikis in particular are generally best avoided, as they're often not reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2009 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harvey Birdman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Marginally useful, minimally linked. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs to be formatted as a proper navbox and placed on the relevant pages, but once fixed up it should be a decent navbox, with enough links to make it viable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update, I've edited the template to make it look like a normal navbox, but I'm refraining from adding it to any more articles until this TfD closes. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not impressive, but it's fine. If there are more articles that can be added after the TfD closes, they would be helpful. --146.203.134.50 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to contain enough articles to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in very few articles. Essentially the same as ((Verify credibility)), but only for self-published sources; however, it categorizes articles using it as having unsourced statements, which makes its name is misleading as the information is cited, just to a biased and therefore possibly unpreferable source; not all self-citations are improper. Suggest deletion and replacing the few instances it is presently used with ((verify credibility)). Cybercobra (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, someone completely changed the purpose of the template. It was originally marked to mark references that cite other Wikipedia articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That usage makes more sense, although I would think removing the reference and tagging with ((cn)) might be better as circular self-refs like that should be deathly avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it should be rebuilt to be an inline version of ((primarysources)) 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That tag isn't really applicable at the inline level. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. In fact, there already is an inline version of it: ((Primary source claim)). -- œ^™ 04:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then this tag (as presently written) is redundant. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Conversely if it applies to circular citing of Wikipedia, it should refer to that section of WP:RS which states that WP can never be cited on WP as a reliable source. The template should be fixed to do its original job. Collect (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'll just re-create this so you can make this into a redirect to verify credibility. ((Circular-ref))? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - acceptable inline template, although it probably should be modified so it isn't categorising articles as unsourced (Category:Articles lacking reliable references would be more appropriate). If changed to be about highlighting self-references to Wikipedia, that would be OK as well, but the documentation should make it clear what it's actually for. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jcon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((jct)). Also note the recent TFD of ((Junction)) - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1#Template:Junction. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as template provides additional functionality and cleaner layout for additions than the bulky ((jct)) template. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways#TFD for additional discussions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus there is to delete duplicate templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, but thats US roads, I was just pointing to further discussion. Clearly one look at the code will show this isn't a duplicate as well. It CAN duplicate the function of jct, but it can also do a lot more. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such as? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • For one I can display everything individually - Just a sign, or just a link, or just a chunk of text properly formatted, and have every reference to any road use the template so that any style changes can be applied universally. I can use it in infobox road to display things that would normally be impossible with the infobox itself (Such as larger shields in the browse routes section at the bottom). I can change the size of the shield, because I use actual images of the shield and not one I made in paint, and sometimes the numbers aren't visible at 20x25px. None of this is possible with jct, and my attempts to integrate it would be reversed because I don't know how to read terrible code and 15 billion transclusions, and because the three or four editors at the US roads wikiproject have decided that they own the jct template. (And all road articles in every country in the world) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Style changes can be done universally with ((jct)) as well, and if you want larger shield sizes, you just change Template:Jct/shield. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going to continue arguing, but to the second one, that is a permanent change. ((Jcon)) has a parameter, so I can change it on a case by case basis. In order to do that in jct, I'd have to pass a parameter through about 5 or 6 transclusions. I did this at one point, and had it reverted because it affected articles world-wide. At what point does the desire to have just one template become overwhelmed by the inability of individual jurisdictions to modify them to their needs, or the convoluted nature of that absurdly massive template? To the first one, yes they can be applied universally, but I can't use jct to do the following: Road 57

            So that should I decide in a few months that it fits better as Kawartha Lakes X instead of Kawartha Lakes Road X, I can change one word in one template, and have every single instance of that road name (since I can use the template for unlinked plain text) change just like that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or edit to call ((jct)) (like ((infobox SG rail)) calls ((infobox rail))). --NE2 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why does Floydian have to use template jct if it does not meet his requirements? If he follows the standards of display with small changes to make it more user friendly, which is what he wants for the pages he is creating, and if his template is linked to the jct template so that he is aware of changes in format, what is this rigidity of having to use jct? stmrlbs|talk 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, yes, you can change the shield size in jct/shield with a hard coded size for the roads Floydian uses. But, that does not affect the shields at the bottom of infobox road. You have to change something else to get those shields to change. For the user to be able to set the size of the shield through a parameter, something that gives the user much more flexibility, you have to add the size parameter to template:jct, template:jct/1, and template:jct/shield. And that is only if you specify size on the first road of jct. To be able to specify a size for the browse part of infobox road, you have to change templates: template:infobox road, template:infobox road/ON browse, template:infobox road/browse, template:infobox road/browse route. It is not because these templates have not been coded the best way possible, it is because of the restrictions of the Wikipedia templating language that makes these templates much more complex than they really need to be. And this is not solely my opinion, but is a problem that has been discussed in other places [2] quote from WikiTech:As many folks have noted, our current templating system works ok for simple things, but doesn't scale well -- even moderately complex conditionals or text-munging will quickly turn your template source into what appears to be line noise.[3] I've made changes to all these templates in my user space, but frankly, since wikipedia has no way to test changes like these for such heavily used templates, like you would in a real programming environment, I feel it is safer to let Floydian use his specially made templates for his small area, rather than forcing standards that are overly restrictive and for whose good? What is best for the person out there reading these location pages? Frankly, I think if a page follows a general format, with some minor variations for user friendliness, then I don't understand the problem with his templates. stmrlbs|talk 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Updated 18 Nov. 09): Is Jcon really redundant, or is it an alternative that produces similar results? The redundant deletion criteria also requires the other template be better-designed. If it duplicates results without nested sub-template patches it is not redundant. If it makes data entry easier it is not a lesser design. Second, (judging by peripheral discussion(s)) there may be some confusion, on my part at least, regarding Template guidelines and the/a roads project MOS guideline. Should an article guideline (dare I say transclude?) indirectly dictate terms regarding a template deletion rule? Finally, if they have not already, it might be good to have some input from wikimedia folk, if it is truly that important or well advised to remove this template, possibly find another solution, etc. -MornMore (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem with Jcon is it does not handle the situation of two routes multiplexed together. This is a template that does not simplify coding much to the end user, is not as versatile, and does not handle all the possible junction scenarios for Ontario roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet. I'm adding those features in time instead of starting with a cluttered mess like ((jct)) is. Also, there are almost no instance of junctions with multiplexed roads in Ontario. There are many concurrencies, which are handled differently and work fine with ((jcon)). I can only think of a small handful of concurrencies in the King's Highway system. 7 and 8 in Kitchener, 403 and QEW in Oakville and Burlington, and 400 and 69 near Parry Sound. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's redundant to ((Jct)) and even to ((Junction)). It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The creator of this template has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the Canadian Roads WikiProject which suggests following WP:ELG. Even as such, WP:HWY, the parent project of CRWP, suggests following ELG, and ((Jct)) is ELG-compliant. --Fredddie™ 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Jcon follows WP:ELG as well. The Canadian Roads wikiproject has 0 participating members at this point in time (if its more than that, they have not commented as of yet). What I have questioned is one tiny little blurb in WP:ELG mentioning to use abbreviations in exit lists. ((Jcon)) has uses outside of exit lists. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Does Jcon use abbreviations in exit lists as WP:ELG says? If no, then how does it follow WP:ELG? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because its a single sentence in the much larger guideline that says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used, and therefore I am still abiding by that (and besides, my lack of use of abbreviations is independent of the deletion of this template). It's a guideline, not an orthodox religion; minor semantics. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So in summary, no, it does not comply with ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a second reading: "Because its a single sentence in the much larger guideline that says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used, and therefore I am still abiding by that." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a GUIDELINE. Not a LAW - nor does it say anywhere that everyone has to use the same template. It might be recommended, but using that exact guideline is not a requirement. In the introduction, it says "this exit list guide has been created to give editors a basis for creating, editing and maintaining exit lists pertaining to all highways around the world." Basis, as in a general foundation. It also says in section 4. "Please keep in mind that this is a guideline. In some cases, notably concurrency termini, there are different methods of doing the same thing, and this guideline makes no preference of one system over another." stmrlbs|talk 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But you have to have a pretty darn good reason for ignoring a guideline. As for the last quote, it's being used out of context - as one of the editors involved with creating the guideline, that means something else entirely. (I could explain, but as this discussion is super long already, I won't.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I do. As I explained above: WP:ELG says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used. Not in speech, not on maps, not on road signs. This is beyond the fact that I use ((jcon)) for several things outside of exit/junction lists already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement piqued my curiosity. Do you have any evidence that Canadians don't abbreviate? I can find one fairly easily. --Fredddie™ 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that they DO use abbreviations? One highways with a long unnumbered name is an exception. The 401, known as the McDonald Cartier Freeway, is abbreviated as MCF on old signs. This is far different from the abbreviations which I wish to avoid. On top of this, even if you find a few examples, all you are proving is that SOME people use abbreviations. Can you prove that the majority of Canadians use abbreviations? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The residents of British Columbia might disagree with you as well. Anyway, since you flipped my question back around on me, does it mean you can't find any? I'm not going to say "I told you so." --Fredddie™ 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's this book. It's a book of English and French abbreviations used in Canada written by a Canadian author. It's $50, so it's probably pretty thick. --Fredddie™ 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike trying to find a source that says 'no, Canadians don't use abbreviation for roads like CR and RR and DR and Hwy,' its very easy to find a book of abbreviations, but does that mean it is in common use? I'm also concerned with Ontario, not British Columbia. I can point out the Toronto and Area mapbooks from MapArt, RandMcNally, and Perlys, as well as the street signs, and possibly some newspaper stories to show examples that do not use abbreviations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question. You simply cannot answer a question by flipping it on its side and asking it back to me. I won't seriously consider answering my your questions until mine are answered. --Fredddie™ 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, you're the one that insists on using something other than the normal filled in spelling. To use an abbreviation, you must provide me a source. If you cannot, then abbreviations should not be used. I also did answer your question with: Unlike trying to find a source that says 'no, Canadians don't use abbreviation for roads like CR and RR and DR and Hwy,' its very easy to find a book of abbreviations, but does that mean it is in common use? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another pissing contest. Great. --Fredddie™

No, another request for you to provide sources for something that if YOU cannot provide sources for, will not apply. Do we abbreviate every word on wikipedia? No. Why? Because unless there is proof that it is abbreviated, it is not. Learn the rules of wikipedia, learn the difference between a guideline (optional) and policy (mandatory), and then come back when you actually have a valid argument to present, instead of presenting me a question through a logical fallacy (disproving a negative). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof is on you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; How is the burden of proof on me to find a source that says abbreviations are not used? Because he asked first? You must provide proof that abbreviations are used, or they should be removed from all road articles. I'd be happy to take this to the village pump to see what the answer is from editors that aren't stonewalling, or can I just point you to WP:OR and have that solve the burden of proof. You are submitting original research, and I am saying "no, provide a source." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate: It is not policy to use Jct. It is a guideline. The difference between policy and guideline, from WP:Guideline:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Wikipedia. All policy pages are in Category:Wikipedia policy; see also List of policies.

Guidelines are primarily advisory. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. Guideline pages can be found under Category:Wikipedia guidelines. See also List of guidelines.

stmrlbs|talk 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide us a list of policies that cover style. I'm genuinely curious. --Fredddie™ 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any policies.. do you? But that was why you asked, wasn't it? The implication being that since there are no policies dictating style, that therefore, the guidelines should be treated as policy? I disagree if that is your intent. I think the reason these are style "GUIDELINES" is because that is what they are meant to be - Guidelines, not Policies.

The closest part of Wikipedia where that might be the case (in that it is an overall strong guideline) is the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. And it says right at the beginning:

Internal consistency:An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.

Stability of articles'''The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.^[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

from:Wikipedia:Abbreviations "Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper."

Floydian is wants to use the full name vs abbreviations because this is what the people in his area are familiar with. This follows Wikipedia intent - to create an article that is useful to the reader - it is not the intent of these guidelines to sacrifice user friendliness to a guideline that might be good in one part of Wikipedia, but is too rigid for other parts. Floydian has been consistent within his articles and his changes have been to increase user friendliness with impact to the fewest users. There is no policy that says that he has to use template:jct if it does not meet his needs. stmrlbs|talk 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have any of us said using ((Jct)) is policy? Those of us who use it consider it superior. Could it be better? Sure. Help those of us who use it make it better, don't discount it and create forks because you don't want abbreviations. --Fredddie™ 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jct needs a complete rewrite. Its too much of a mess to work with as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian and Stmrlbs have successfully distracted the issue - the reason why the TFD was filed was to get rid of a template fork. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but its a different template. Have you not looked at its code or documentation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does exactly the same thing ((jct)) does. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - ((jcon)) seems to be for roads in Ontario, Canada. While ((jct)) seems to mainly be for roads in the USA. And no, Canada is not a part of USA. --David Göthberg (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are Ontario roads different enough from US roads to require a different template? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have more snow. And are you going to include Iraqi roads too? You are at least occupying that country. And what about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland? They speak English too. Are you going to force them to use ((jct)) too? But seriously, why should Canadian editors have to wade through a long documentation about US roads when they want to add a Canadian road? --David Göthberg (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between using ((jct)) for Canada is using the province abbreviation instead of the state abbreviation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And adding to it? Explain the steps to say... add shield images for Prince Edward Island, when they are made. Jct is far too convoluted. Unlike templates for things such as rivers or mountain where there is global consistency, infobox road and jct require settings for every country, state, and county. There is far too much for one template to cover the whole world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone set up Prince Edward Island already. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch's sandbox shows Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia as done. Ontario also has its 40 odd counties.

By "done" you mean ((Jct)) is using freely available shields, right? Thanks to those pesky copyrights, some provinces likely will never be "done". --Fredddie™ 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as was done for Alberta, it may be possible to create variations that lack any insignia for use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to put an end to the fork argument with a representation. I can use this: ((Jcon|PB|8|ot=y)) and get: County Road 8. This is not possible with ((jct)). Should Peterborough ever change its name, voila! Everything updated like that! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:33, 23 November 2009 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This is a redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template could be added to any redirect, this is not manageable. If a user wants to add a specific redirect template, so be it, there's no need for an intermediary. When no parameter is given, it adds Category:Uncategorized redirects, this should not be encouraged as it's unsustainable and unusable. Only a few transclusions. Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the creator User:Lenoxus been notified? -- œ^™ 11:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified. Cenarium (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rebuild as a documentation template, to document the reasoning behind the redirect. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This can be done using specific templates, hidden comments, edit summaries or the talk page if needs be. Cenarium (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutral No discussion on the template talk page.(irrelevant) Note, there is a redirect to the template page: Template:Redr - a redirect to a better name. The template is needed, as it is intentionally made to create other templates so that redirects to "schools" and redirects to "hospitals" can be categorized. Even the category "uncategorized redirects" have a purpose, it serves to help folks at WikiProject_Disambiguation do their thing. -MornMore (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: I took a look, and it seems it is only used on redirect pages, right? But on redirect pages it is never visible, not even in the edit preview. So why does it have code for a full blown graphical appearance, with descriptive text and even using the ((ambox)) and ((ombox))? Shouldn't this template just have the code to handle the categorization of the redirect? And then have its description in the documentation on the template page. (Note, I have nothing against using mboxes when it is appropriate, after all I built the mboxes. But I don't see why they are used here.) --David Göthberg (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It may not be visible on redirect pages, but is visible on redirected templates. You might compare Template:redr, a shortcut, versus an article redirect edit comparison. -MornMore (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I took a closer look. You are almost right: This template is normally not visible on any redirect pages, be they template redirects or article redirects. But when viewing diffs then we see it. And then I like this template, since it is more readable than the old raw text that is used for the redirect templates. Sorry everyone that I can't link to any examples, since someone has removed all usage of this template. --David Göthberg (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: I want to say Keep, but since I haven't really done my part to maintain this template's use, it might as well be deleted… ultimately, someday, there should be a Big Discussion on the "official" utility of categorizing redirects — is it solely to gauge their worthiness for a Paper Wikipedia, or something more? A year back or so, I went on a rally of redirect template arranging, but I shifted from that to other concerns, so now I'm in a sort of limbo. (Obviously, though, this isn't merely my baby one way or another, and should be kept or deleted regardless of my work for it or lack thereof.) ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 01:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanagable? Any template could be added to (most) any page, its a matter of purpose and intent. -MornMore (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can see it's usefulness as an alternative for adding redirect templates. It provides another method for people to add redirect templates, and if some people may find this approach of categorizing redirects easier then this is a good redundancy, so let it stay for the benefit of those who wish to use it, either now or in the future. The only thing is I disagree with is it adding to "Category:Uncategorized redirects" and the code should be edited to discontinue this feature as it's looking like that category will be deleted soon anyway. -- œ^™ 04:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - potentially useful, although only if it becomes widely used. I would suggest modifying the template to stop using the category Category:Uncategorized redirects, as it looks like that's about to be deleted at CFD. Robofish (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This box helps standardising the appearance of redirect template messages. The redirect templates become visible when viewing diffs of a redirect page. Most redirect templates output a text explanation. This template puts that text in a box, thus it is much clearer which text belongs to the redirect template, and which text is the redirect itself. (Provided of course that redirect templates should be used at all, which is a very different question that should not be decided in this venue.) Exactly how this template should work is another issue, and might need fixing. --David Göthberg (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (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.