Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 21

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is redundant as the yearly character lists are included on the {{Coronation Street}} template, which has been added to every article. - JuneGloom Talk 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This template is redundant. There is no need for two templates displaying the same links. Both templates have been inplace on the same character lists, so one needs to go. {{Coronation Street}} includes these links, but also brings together other related links into one simple template. It avoids clutter of multiple templates and to keep in line with this I do not think this template has any use.Rain the 1 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valenzuela City2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Private Schools in ...

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Private Schools in Compostela Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Private Schools in Davao del Norte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Private Schools in Davao Oriental (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Private Schools in Island Garden City of Samal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Private Schools in Mati City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Private Schools in Panabo City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links, redirects, or links to the wrong pages. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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) 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holy Cross of Davao College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Loyola College of Culion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:George Barris (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

too few elements to need such a navbox. Even if you add in the Hirohata Merc, all these articles can easily be linked as "see alsos" or placed in the various articles. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to delete the navbox, shouldn't we put the "See also" section in the George Barris article? That would seem to be the most logical choice for one in the absence of a navbox.Smiloid (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another idea might be to include the Batmobile and the Munster Koach under this template Template:Kustom Kulture Smiloid (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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) 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolinks-US-buildingscale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. All article-space instances have been replaced with {{Coord}}. See also the recent deletion of a sister template, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 1#Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

template is scarcely more than a WP:LINKFARM Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a navigation box, not an article, navigation boxes are nothing but collections of internal links. So... are you suggesting we delete all the navigation templates? -- 12:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.43 (talk)
    One of the frustrating things about how people treat navboxes is the number of them that join unrelated things. A navbox that links a team article to that team's lists for seasons, players, coaches, draft picks and history are all closely related: they provide historical information for a specific team. A navbox of goaltenders is not useful because there is no close connection between one team's goalie and another's. Resolute 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EMBED. Links in navboxes should contain links that would already be expected to be found in a completed version of the page they are being used on. Every goaltender on various NHL teams would not be expected to be found on the pages of every other goaltender who happened to play in the NHL during the same season as a particular goaltender. This also fails there "where are they likely to want to go next" test in WP:NAVBOX. As the nom says this the type of navbox that is a link farm and has been routinely deleted by the hockey project. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:NENAN. Maintainability is also an issue. Resolute 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree completely with the above arguments. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's resource. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's a problem if the information presented in Wikipedia with respect to hockey is primarily interesting to hockey fans? The basic rule of thumb, for me, is not whether information has limited interest, but whether it's presented indiscriminately enough that the presentation detracts from the reader's experience. I don't think that's happening here, although there are other strong reasons to delete the template. Croctotheface (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. I'm calling it at this point; it's been 17 days and there's no consensus to delete, despite significant effort and discussion. Note that I am not making any judgment on the merits of the nomination (or the keep opinions); I am merely judging the consensus of the discussion. Despite the lively discussion, I can't find a path (even via WP:IAR) that lands at deletion right now, but I fully expect this issue won't go away just by closing this nomination.  Frank  |  talk  04:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 2346 transclusions (only 7 not called by {{Marriage}}
Template:Marriage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 2339 transclusions

Unnecessary and over-complicated paired templates. Created in Feb 2009 as an ill-conceived and abortive attempt to emit microformats for marriages, which they have not done since July 2009. Care in using a script to swap instances for plain text will be needed; with which I shall be happy to assist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions
[edit]

Can anyone wanting to keep {{marriage}} explain the supposed advantages of the first of these examples, over the second, or even third?

{{marriage|Tanaya Paul|2012}}
Tanaya Paul (m 2012)
Tanaya Paul ({{abbr|m|married}} 2012)
Tanaya Paul (m 2012)
Tanaya Paul (married 2012)
Tanaya Paul (married 2012)

please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler, in my view.--Auric talk 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first allows you to modify the display of all the formatting, while the other two only template the date. Honestly seems like a clear win to me that the first is the one you would actually want. The other two would be the ones better off to be deleted.DanSheps (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone wanting to keep {{marriage}} explain the purpose of this part of its coding:

|hide-coord=y|noHcard=

please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was meant to hide the geo coordinates if given, and not include them with the hCard.--Auric talk 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why enter coordinates in the template, if they're not displayed, and not emitted as metadata? And what hCard? The template does not emit any microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably intended to. See the documentation.--Auric talk 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone wanting to keep {{marriage}} explain the purpose of the |uncertain= parameter, and give an example of an article where it is used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meant to indicate if the city was known, but not the location within that city. I doubt it would be used, since it's optional.--Auric talk 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not used, why is it there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably trying to cover all the bases. Some trimming is definitely warranted.--Auric talk 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone wanting to keep {{marriage}} explain the purpose of entering "October 3," in:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992}}

when it renders as:

Michelle Obama (m 1992)

without the date and month, please? How does that differ from entering:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|April 1, 1992}}

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Another question. Can anyone wanting to keep {{marriage}} explain why:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342}}

displays as only:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

and what, then, is the purpose of including:

|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342

How is that different from, say:

{{marriage|Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel|First of never|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=I'm a banana, la, la, la|street-address1=Third Rock from the Sun|city=Disneyland|lat=9999999|lon=-111111}}

which also displays as:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably to keep the info from bloating the infobox. It would probably go to the hCard.--Auric talk 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What hCard? The template does not emit any microformats. Surely the best way to prevent "bloating the infobox" with information which is neither shown on the page nor emitted in metadata, is not to put it in the infobox in the first place? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Classic case of Feature creep, IMO.--Auric talk 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of questions
[edit]

These are editing questions to be worked out by consensus on the talk page of the template. Your questions have zero value in a deletion discussion. That is why people are calling your nomination a disruption. You, as the nominator must come up with a reason for deletion. Yes, editors have experimented with the template in an attempt to provide multiple formats for multiple situations, but no one has to use beyond "John Smith|1890|1952". You seem to be confused by something so simple, yet it has been added without mishap over 5K times to articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know, then? And it is you who appears confused; your figure is out by more than 100%. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my morning coffee has made me unusually perceptive, but my impression was that these were rhetorical questions intended to highlight that the supposed functionality of these templates doesn't actually work and is thus doing nothing but gumming up the parser doing pointless conditionals, and also to highlight that the support for these templates is rather more faith-based than fact-based. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could all be solved by, instead of nominating for deletion, repairing the template so that it functions properly. Previously Andy mentioned that this template presumably used to emit microformats, but currently doesn't. That is the rational for his deletion. Something is broken so instead of fixing it lets get ride of it. I fail to see how swapping a template, which allows for unifying a display of text so that it is consistent across the site into plain text is a good idea.DanSheps (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, forgive my ignorance but I'm not sure what "emitting microformats" means in connection with this template. You seem to have mentioned it quite a few times. Please could you explain? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UF. The documentation for {{marriage}} says (my emphasis): "This template specifies in a structured form the particulars of a marriage: the names of the spouses, the period of the marriage, and the location of the ceremony where the two were joined. This adds the ability to interoperate with net applications that understand relationships between people and time and place information. For instance, seeing a 1000 foot view of a location of a wedding described in Wikipedia article is a single click away. This is possible with Google / MapQuest / Yahoo! used directly from Wikipedia articles when viewed with a microformats aware browser.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK that makes a bit more sense now, and it sounds from what others have said that you are an expert in this field. So in your view, would it be possible or practical to tidy up the marriage template so that it did emit the microformats? And do you think that the goals described above (interoperating with applications that understand relationships etc.) are not really justifiable? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it's possible to make a template do so; but it would effectively be a new template. Given that most of the data concerned isn't displayed in the infobox (and that the fact that it's a marriage isn't displayed within the templated text), I don't think it reasonable or sensible to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds fair enough. Given that this hasn't been speedily closed and the templates are still messed up, I'll now change my vote to delete as your points make sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
[edit]

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) 01:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 do not merge, but consider renominating the {{Palestinian territory development}} template for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestinian territory development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Palestinian nationalism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Palestinian territory development with Template:Palestinian nationalism.
Seems identical template to "Palestinian nationalism" with a vague name "territory development" (could be even agricultural template). Greyshark09 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Palestinian nationalism is a navbox, and it's about "Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine". This is for use in the article body shows Jewish land vs Arab land in Palestine sense the mandate of Palestine. Also That navbox doesn't show Jewish land during the mandate, or the UN partition plan. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show Arab private land, only the Jewish, so technically it is "Israeli land development".Greyshark09 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This map is highly misleading as it does not show a "Development of the Palestinian territories". The first map shows the British mandate, where only the Jewish settlements are marked. Using the caption "Development of the Palestinian territories" the maps seems to imply that the white area is Palestinian territory, which is just plain wrong. The next map is just a never employed plan or basically some kind of virtual Palestinian territory. The third map shows occupied territories, but just because these territories were occupied by the Arab states Egypt and Jordan does not mean that these were Palestinian territories – they were Egypt and Jordan territories. And inside these territories were Palestinian settlements. The last map shows the actually administered Palestian territories. But in connection with the previous maps it is implied that the territories administered by the Palestians shrunk, which is obviously not the case as none of the former maps shows a territory administered by the Palestians – they were administered by the British, Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Thus each map shows something different, which is not really comparable and by no means a "development". Therefore this template should be deleted, or "merged into" the existing one. --Mps (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Palestinian territory development's content seems useful. At the very least it needs to be renamed. To be honest, though, I don't really think it needs to be placed in four articles. Just substitute it in one of the four articles and delete the template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to merge this template; do you prefer merger, deletion or renaming?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is that it should be substituted in one of the four articles in which it is used, and then deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Night Visions track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation already more adequately served by {{Imagine Dragons}}. Links to the album page will direct readers to the full track listing for interested readers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Keep Again, this has noting to do with {{Imagine Dragons}}. It's has to do with the Infoboxes on the pages. It gives insight into the tracklisting of the parent album that {{Extra track listing}} no longer satisfies on it's own. But that template is still in use to provide a platform for tracklist templates like this. It's been implemented across numerous articles for the past two years. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's best used for navigational purposes when most or all the songs have articles and they aren't all repeated in the artist's navbox. Information about the album is best found on the album article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete as redundant to the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.