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 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.
Propose mergingTemplate:Further with Template:See also2.
Hatnotes. Effect will be: hatnote will read "See also: ...", not "Further information: ...". Semantically they are the same. Reducing the hatnote text-variants is just plain simple.
Technically: both have the same structure, allowing free text for the 1st parameter. ((Further)) to become redirect, or botwise replacement.
-DePiep (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Earlier TfD: 2007_May_11 (Keep). -DePiep (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The meanings are not the same. "See also" merely indicates a related article. "Further information" implies a stronger relation, more similar to ((main)). --Cybercobra(talk) 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Further" has a specific meaning that is not indicated by see also. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re Cybercobra and IP65: I must say, that's what I thought too until some days ago too. But just take a fresh look again: as a hatnote, the "Further information ..." says exactly the same as "See also...". Wherever used correctly in this encyclopedia, the essential hatnote information is not different, it only suggests so.
By definition, all hatnotes provide links to articles, and every link is related to the topic (section, sentence) it is mentioned in. Testing myself, I have browsed some dozen of links of "Further ...", and have not seen one occasion that that 'specific' meaning was required on that place. I even got less sensitive to a perceived different meaning. And sure ((main)) is different. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Main would be an expansion of the topic of a section
(2) Further would be to expand on allied topics covered in a section
(3) See also would be any of those, in addition to tangentially related subjects
Atleast that is my understanding of the differences between them. 65.94.45.238 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.45.238 (talk) [reply]
That difference between (2) and (3) can exist, but it is small as neglectible in the encyclopedia, and is not enforced/maintained over template use. In all, these two are interchangeable without error of understanding. Simply: "See also ..." points to related, linked topics. And that's all we need. Maintaining that difference would be more artificial than illuminating. -DePiep 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is to say: differences do exist, I agree. But IMO they are too small to maintain here as hatnotes. It requires a high level of editing to keep details right, and still then they don't add much. -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:In-universe/Star Trek
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.
Propose deletion: This is just an overly specific variation of ((In-universe)) and redundant to it, as it has "subject" parameter. I also nominate the following templates for the same reason:
Delete allafterenabling subject-specific categorization in Template:In-universe and replacing all transclusions, e.g., ((In-universe/Star Trek)) → ((In-universe|subject=Star Trek|category=Star Trek))((In-universe|subject=Star Trek)). The primary function of these templates appears to be to place articles into subject-specific categories, such as Category:Star Trek articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. However, since ((In-universe)) already contains a "subject" parameter, it is better to continue to use that template after enabling subject-specific categorization. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, it appears that subject-specific categorization already is enabled in ((In-universe)) through the "category" parameter. So, adding ((In-universe|category=Star Trek)) to an article will place it in Category:Star Trek articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. The "subject" parameter, which I mentioned above, merely identifies the subject in the message box and perhaps can be removed altogether. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon's suggestion seems reasonable. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the edit history says, I was modeling it after the Star Wars in-universe template (and, apparently, created the corresponding category). We have a newer, better solution now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, but be sure to explain in that templates description that these parameters exist and can be used. No need to keep these templates if we have already have one that does the same thing, even if it needs more effort. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Why have this around when you can just do this: ((Inuniverse|anime and manga article)) and get the same result? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Neelix (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the suggestion to remove templates created ease of use - auto completing 3 of the 4 parameters in the parent template - and hope that later users will have a clue as to what to list for "subject", "described_object" and "category". That sounds a bit counterproductive. - J Greb (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The described_object and subject parameters are highly optional. The default for described_object is "a work or element of fiction", and the more specific text "an aspect of a {Foo}" is not a critical improvement. In a similar way, stating "This Star Trek-related article" is not a significant improvement over "This article". In my opinion, described_object and subject could be deprecated with little or no loss of information; of course, I am not advocating for that since their presence is not detrimental in any way. Fundamentally, the replacement that matters in the context of a maintenance template is of ((In-universe/Star Trek)) with ((In-universe|category=Star Trek)). The documentation for ((In-universe)) was incomplete, however, but I have attempted to improve it by restoring usage instructions pertaining to the three optional parameters. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and the wording on the base template example should be clear enough without hitting editors and/or readers over the head with the basic topic. I wonder if it may be worth converting the the "category" parameter to (({1|))} and a switch if the specialized versions are removed. It would simplify the 'bot run to replace them. - J Greb (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an idea worth considering, though at the moment (({1|))} can be used to change the word "article" to something else, such as "list" or "section"—whether this is actually used in more than just a handful of articles is hard to say. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at keeping the transition simple. Going from ((In-universe/<foo>)) to ((In-universe|<foo>)) is a very, very simple edit. It just requires adding the code to identify and categorize by that unnamed parameter. Leaving it as "1" just requires a single pipe. If page type is to supersede that, the edit would need 2 pipes and the additional coding should be in place at the same time. - J Greb (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. ((In-universe)) is not "idiot proof". In-universe's parameters are too complicated and confusing for editors to apply consistently and there is a huge risk that an article may not go into the correct or a non-existent cleanup category. An editor should only need to set one parameter to specify a subject area and ensure that the article is placed in the correct cleanup category. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides date, the template has only three other (optional) parameters. What aspect, in particular, do you find "complicated and confusing", which the documentation could address better? The "one parameter" to which you refer essentially is the category parameter, since the only function of the subject parameter is to specify the subject in the text of the message. It is possible to combine the subject and category parameters, but that would create the risk of an article being placed in a non-existent cleanup category. For instance, someone may want to specify "The Simpsons" for the subject and "Television" for the category. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per nom. Just using the base template is more organized and allows for the same degree of versatility. EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:WPMuslimGuild-invite
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:WPGTMessage
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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old, unused template. Purpose unclear. Near impossible to decipher this spaghetti code. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry :( I meant it to be a template for announcements on WikiProject pages. I haven't used it in forever, although there might be some other project that does, judging by the "what links here" ... if it gets deleted, I'm fine with that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for it being hard to understand, I did include documentation: ((WPGTMessage|title|message|username)) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per green light by user. Rehman 11:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:ShaivaSampradayas
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Banpresto Originals
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Berrychart
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.
Informative template, but unfortunately with an unclear scope. Where would it be placed? Also unsourced and unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. Probably intended to be used at a single article. Rehman 11:17, 12 March 2011 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Cfd nomination
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, but please do userfy or revive if there is consensus to put it to use. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created to replace ((Cfd2)), ((Cfm2)), ((Cfr2)) and ((Cfc2)), but it has never been put into systematic use. There was some support for the idea when I proposed it in October 2010, following complaints about the complexity of the CfD nomination process, but discussion died down due to valid reservations (and some confusion) about naming. I posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to invite additional participation. If there is consensus to consolidate the level-2 nomination templates, then we can start working on the details; if there is not, then this template ought to be deleted if no one uses it. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Channels on StarHub TV
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.
I don't think the channels transmitted by a particular pay TV service represents a close topic navigation (per WP:NAVBOX). For example, how many different pay TV services would transmit National Geographic Channel? What if they all had navboxes on that article? There would be too many. Template currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (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.