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) 01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UAB Blazers baseball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. This one only has one blue link in it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The red links are for notable people whose bio articles should be created. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NENAN doesn't apply here because it is a dynamic substitute for a notable group of people who have yet to have all of their articles created. In this case, as with other coaching navboxes at Division I institutions in baseball, football, and basketball, a navbox is more than appropriate. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is why we should use succession boxes for timeline-style navigation. Nevertheless, deleting this bit of boilerplate would be unproductive, as someone's only going to recreate it as soon as a second link goes blue. Editors should nevertheless be strongly encouraged not to create boilerplate navboxes for content we haven't yet got, as navboxes are for navigating existing content and not just padding out new articles with pretty boxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, I respectfully disagree with every word in your post above, except for the productivity bit. Cheers. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You disagree with the assertion that people shouldn't be creating these? It wastes the community's time and reinforces the impression that verious sports projects ignore wider consensus regarding the use of templates. Just tell people to create them after the articles and nobody would have a problem with them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I disagree with that assertion. What I think wastes time are spurious XfDs like this one and the efforts that have to be made to recreate elements that should not have been deleted. These navboxes are, in addition to ultimately serving as navigational and contextual aids, excellent project development and management tools. They help to stem forks and conflations and act as scaffolding for pieces of the encyclopedia that should be written, but have not yet been. That "wider" consensus should be revised accordingly with input from the aforementioned various sports projects. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per everything Jrcla2 said above; could not have articulated it better myself--why try? Oh, yeah, I liked that bit Chris and Jweiss said about "productivity," too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2012 (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) 01:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Css Image Crop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Whatever the good intentions, this has been misused for too long. Intended originally to be merely a preview tool, this currently has nearly 500 article transclusions, and that figure doesn't seem to be decreasing. This is bandwidth-expensive (as the entire image is downloaded), markup-heavy (it uses a series of nested divs in addition to the image) and technically complicated. It seems unlikely that editors are going to find it easier to learn how to use complicated CSS to manipulate images than to simply download an image, crop it and re-upload it. Due to the number of transclusions and the relatively complicated nature of the deletion requirement (all of the transclusions will need to be manually ficed with new image uploads), the first step will need to be deprecation and a tracking category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I thought I would !vote for delete, but after investigating, I found ((FluoropyrimidineActivity WP1601)) and think that it is really hard to replace the code with an normal image map... mabdul 15:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be a bit complicated but it has its merits. Users don't have to learn 'complicated CSS' and the template does not downlaod the entire image; it downloades the base thumb image. So bandwidth and markup are not an issue. — Edokter (talk) — 10:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a very useful tool for focusing and zooming in on a relevant part of a larger existing image. Drgao (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep Keep - you take my cropping template, and I will be raging mad. Love this thing. Of course, if someone wanted to code together an easier to use alternative, that would be awesome, but removing this version would mess up all the pages where it still working ok at this moment, and so to me would be destructive. MusicLover650 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2012 (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 no consensus to delete, but some consensus to rename and clarify the scope. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selected Jared Pratt descendants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unsourced OR genealogy ("family tree") being used pretty much as a transcluded article. Talk page has repeatedly noted this problem, but has not been fixed at all and used of "selected" without any criterion being specified for the selection makes it a problem as a template ab initio Collect (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The apparent use is to show that Jon Huntsman, Sr. and Mitt Romney are fourth cousins - there are many hundreds of fourth cousins not listed, so this is not a comprehensive list, and the "selection" is done for one specific editorial purpose. There are no templates that I know of with such a decidedly unsourced, OR nature which make no pretense at being more than a one-purpose "family tree" Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator mention the extreme ends of the chart making for 4th cousins (which can be deleted for all I care, btw) but neglects to mention his close cousin Marion G. Romney and Marion's academic father; Romney's grandfather Helaman Pratt, who purchased on behalf of the LDS Church the land that became the Mormon settlement of Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua; and Pratt's father Parley and uncle Orson. (Although Orson himself is a famous Mormon theologian, Parely is considered the "apostle paul" of Mormonism, a sect having as many adherents in the US as there are Jews: approx. 1.7% of the population each--and, also, worldwide: viz., about 50% of Mormons and also about 50% of Jews live outside of the U.S.) It also provides the chart for Romney's immediate family, including his wife Ann and sons, of course, his parents, George and Lenore.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the fact that the sole apparent purpose is to show Mitt Romney is a fourth cousin of Jon Huntsman, Sr. -- one of (from sources) well over 5,000 known fourth cousins. Choosing a single one to emphasize is beyond "select descendants" for sure - and is well past the margins of "original research" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Collect said, "You do not address the fact that the sole apparent purpose is to show Mitt Romney is a fourth cousin of Jon Huntsman, Sr." ---- I did not specifically reference the "sole" blah blah assertion since I trust readers to recognize it as a donaldtrumpism; however, I did refer in passing to my own personal opinion that Huntsman's removal from the template would not hurt its usefulness all that much.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep navigation aid containing a preponderance of blue-linked biographies (comparable to e/g Template:Bernoulli family, Template:Bhutto family, Template:Obama family chart, &c, &c, &c).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Navigation aid"? Nope - as noted there are a great many totally unsourced and undated non-links - the idea of a "navigation aid" is to help nevigation on Wikipedia, which this does not do by a mile. Cheers. BTW, the "Bernoulli family" tree sticks to male descendants of a noted person, makes no unsourced claims (I checked - and all of the direct Bernouilli line is sourceable rapidly viz. [1]), and is almost entirely blue-links of deceased persons. The Pratt example is primarily of people not named Pratt, many without any notability at all, even withoutr dates of birth and death, and chosen to show a specific family connection entirely. Thus apples and oranges for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all the names listed are notable. [Comment later expanded]: I.e., all individuals named are contained in multiple reliable sources, contained in the linked-to articles Pratt family / Romney family (U.S.). As for the obv. observation that maternal lines tend to have different names than do paternal ones, note (1) the usual naming convention in Spanish-speaking contries (2) the fact that Geo. Romney and Jon Huntsman sen.'s mothers were Pratts (3) similarly, Sir John Gielgud's mother was a Terry (and, hence, he is considered to be one, as well; cf.: Kennedy-Shrivers).

And, for a note of a bit of a different pitch or register: Terming eminently notable people of a certain community as somehow intrinsically not being notable yet only holding two among them who happen to have been recent presidential candidates would seem to me to evince a strong case of institutional bias. Namely, according to Simon & Shuster's recent American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by Robert D. Putnam, David E Campbell--based on two very comprehensive surveys of Americans' attitudes toward relions their adherents: "Three groups stand out for their unpopularity--Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims. All three are below the overall mean and also below the neutral point of 50 degrees. The relatively small size of each group in undoubtedly one factor...but that can hardly be the whole story.")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw Romney and Huntsman are third cousins.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you elide the fact that children of half-siblings are counted differently from children of whole siblings when determining degree of relationship? Collect (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol: Not surprised an editor using idiosyncratic meanings for such terms as, cough cough, solely (viz., not meaning "wholly" but as some kind of intensifier or something, apparently with a meaning related to "sorely," "so very much," or "in addition to") and "There are no----" (cough cough and so on and so forth) would account for half-bloodedness by simply adding a degree of cousinship. That said, Hmmm---- What terminology could one accurately account for half blood in addition to third-degree cousins? I suppose one would not be incorrect to specify the pair of (once- and currently-, respectively) GOP nominees-wannabees as Pratt "third cousins of half blood"? "half-blooded third cousins"? or maybe even "half - third cousins"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- perhaps you forget the purpose of this board. And if you wish to learn genealogy terminology, there are a number of good books on the topic, meanwhile this "template" is clearly intended for a single improper purpose, and thus is deletable per this discussion. Your personal jibes at me are not likely to sway any admin closing this discussion, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• the true elision hereabouts - A point which the nominator avoids is that even had third cousins Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman jun. never been born, the Pratt family would remain notable without their inclusion and also a template such as this one would remain encyclopedic.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename and change in scope. Family trees are a good thing; they make it much easier to discern relationships than having only text does. If you look at Category:Family templates, there are a bunch of existing family trees, with the most direct analogue to this one being Template:Kennedy family tree. But none of these has the form "Selected XYZ descendents", which is just asking for trouble in terms of who's included and who isn't. I would rename this to Template:Romney family tree and I would dump the branch that leads to the Huntsmans, since that's a long reach of no biographical significance to any of the Romneys. I would start the Romney branch with Miles Romney, not Miles Park Romney, since the former was a first-generation Mormon convert and thus the starting point for the current Romneys. Going back on the Pratt side I would include only Helaman and Parley, since those are direct ancestors that all George and Mitt Romney biographies talk about. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes would certainly address the undue weight issue. The template should arguably never have been moved to its current title in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cmt - Since Wasted Time r (WP's resident expert on the Romneys) agrees with my personal opinion that the Huntsman line is superfluous to the table, I've tentatively removed it but have extended the courtesy of notifying the editor who contributed it, informing them of this discussion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify scope and rename accordingly. Needs to avoid any suspicion of arbitrary editorial "selection"; if it can comprehensively list all notable persons with a well-defined scope ("X family", or "descendants of Y"), that would be acceptable. 84.203.40.54 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and modify application Template:Kennedy family tree is instructive here. It is not employed on any individual article but only on Kennedy family. To ensure NPOV at the individual-level, for instance, John F. Kennedy#Ancestors simply lists his ancestors, not a "select" listing of family members. —Eustress ^talk 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - My having split out the Huntsman branch from the chart has been objected to, with the assertion that it would be more "honest" to await the determination of this discussion; therefore, I have merged this section back in to restore the version objected to.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection was that the problems inherent in "selecting" people in a genealogy in order to make a specific editorial point were not obviated by constructing an "overlay" for the exact same purpose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted: Some folks come to WP in order to either purposely subvert the project or else to improve it but in doing so, engage in shoddy work that actually hurts the project; hence, vigilance is required. That said, IMHO, sussing out one from the other usually is best done without sneers, through wp:AGF and avoidance of serial hyperbole (the opposite approach of which tends to become commingled with general conspiracy theorizing). To this end: We presently are trying to divine the purposes for a longstanding chart on WP. I believe it would not be incorrect to assume that, speaking generally, WP editors' point via their selection criteria for lists would be included-individuals' notability. Speaking specifically about the ostensible point attempted to be made by the family chart showing Geo. Romney's Pratt ancestry created five years ago, I believe it was because the creator--and those who've tweaked the chart a bit since then--belived that the details of Geo. R.'s and his fellow Romneys' membership in the famous Pratt clan to be worthy of illustrating. (W rgd the edit to it by a WP editor just this past January, I'd guess it was made in reaction to then-current news pieces mentioning Jon Huntsman junior's membership in the extended clan, in a belief that this detail was encyclopedically important detail as well.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Changes of scope to pages being discussed in a forum such as this one is needlessly complicating; yet the guidelines do encourage other types of improvements, even while a page is listed here (otherwise, they would automatically become locked upon being listed here, after all)--so I've in good faith circumscribed my contribution accordingly.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "multiple reliable sources" include unpublished manuscripts and findagrave.com (a Wiki). None of which I find impressive at all. Collect (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Kudos for using "includes" instead of "solely consists of". As an aside, procedural challenges to sourcing of course include providing fact tags, commenting on article talkpages, and even appending better suorcing, whereas deletion of material and/or pages is reserved for cases where information is controversial and adequate sourcing is not available.......--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we are left with is a "genealogy" not sourced to any WP:RS sources, "selected" to include under 1/1000 of the "family association" list, with an apparent specific aim at showing a relationship between two specific individuals. This "selected" genealogy is not in itself notable, the sourcing is deficient utterly, and as a template aimed at promoting a specific "fact" fails to meet WP template requirements. So much for the "procedural objection" here. <g> Collect (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, sweeping generalities not backed by specifically detailed proofs, "even on Madison Avenue," must be placed in the mouth of an Everyman or Everywoman character in a commercial and can't be stated by an official-seeming company spokesperson. Should WP abide by any standard less severe? I.e., could nominator promote his claims about the family relationships' sourding in actual granularity? E.g.--What is deficient with the extensive genealogical data found in the back matter to the Oxford University Press's recent tome on the historical figure of Parley Parker Pratt?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (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 redirect to ((Quote)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An epigraph is an established literary form for an especially important quotation that sets the tone for the ensuing essay. Like other templates, the epigraph template saves editors time---here, the epigraph template saves editors from formatting a large-font quote, and also ensures a standard approach. The epigraph template is valued especially for discussions and essays outside of main space. The slothful falsehood "unused" could have been avoided by simply clicking on "What links here shows", which now reveals more than 50 uses.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in any articles. Linked, but not used on a number of talk and user pages; used on a few user draft pages, but none have been edited in quite a while (i.e. User talk:The Mighty Quim) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP has many templates that are used only off the articles pages, e.g. the collapse template, so the first comment has little force on this question; could you explain more? Your other statements are false: For example, the template has long been used on my user page and has been on my current talk page for at least a week. I've used it on Malleus's talk page, etc., many times.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((quote)) if it is unused, redirection should be fine. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Quote)) - I was going to do this anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Rich's suggestion seems reasonable. Keeping the redirect from "Epigraph" preserves information; it is harder to remember the distinction between the Quote and quote templates, whose specification requires distinguishing Q and q.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect not usefully employed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the template does not seem to do any harm to anyone (nor to the quality of the encyclopaedia) Sasha (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, why keeping or redirecting? It is only linked in archived discussions... mabdul 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not follow the logic. If MOS currently recommends using ((Quote)) rather than ((Epigraph)), let us keep ((Epigraph)) deprecated. But conventions do change from time to time, so being deprecated is not a good reason to erase it (it is much less work to change MOS, add or remove "deprecated", etc. than to write a new template, even a small one!)

As far as I can see, it is used not only in archived discussions. But even if it were only used in archived discussions: why make them unreadable? In all the reasoning above, I did not find any explanation why keeping a deprecated template could be of any harm. Sasha (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Quote. Gadget850's reasoning and evidence are sound, Kiefer.Wolfowitz's protestations are "what if"s about how the template could have been used, but isn't actually being used. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my contributions here again. I agreed with redirecting it to Quote. (You mis-state what I wrote, which was that the template is used, like many other templates, primarily on essays and in user-space.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:11, 14 March 2012 (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 for now, and wrong venue, since user boxes go to WP:MFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Dsrt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time. The template is used in 20+ pages and not all of those transclusions can be replaced by ((User iso15924|Dsrt)). In particular, those transclusions which are through Template:Babel – see User:Typhlosion for an example – may be difficult to handle. I would favor deletion if all transclusions could be replaced. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Response This will display my gross ignorance, but why can't these just be replaced??? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not adequately well-versed in templates to be certain that they can't but a standard replacement does not appear to be possible. Currently, parameters in ((Babel)) will be prefixed with 'User' and transcluded; so specifying ((Babel|Dsrt)) will cause the Babel template to transclude ((User Dsrt)). However, ((Babel)) seems unable to handle 'multi-level' parameters – i.e., replacing ((Babel|Dsrt)) with ((Babel|iso15924|Dsrt)) simply will transclude both ((User iso15924)) and ((User Dsrt)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:14, 14 March 2012 (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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template is protected and notice has not been added.

Notice added.

• Keep for now. It still transcludes to hundreds of user pages. The template currently maps to ((linear-gradient)) as a sort of hardcoded redirect due to incompatible parameter. — Edokter (talk) — 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edokter. I don't know why the nominator thought it is unused, since it clearly is not. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Came across this TfD when exporting templates from Wikipedia for use on another wiki. Special use seems justified, and is used in userspace. -- Ned Scott 17:31, 16 March 2012 (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.