Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24

edit

Template:South Park character

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. —fetch·comms 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Park character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}, as demonstrated by the changes to the backend code. WOSlinker (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2010 (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:Iranian expressways

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. Now I have to undo all these undid edits... —fetch·comms 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iranian expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iranian freeways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iranian roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iranian streets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox road}}. Previous orphaning was reverted, but can be reinstated. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 24 July 2010 (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:Cabuyao, Laguna

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) 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabuyao, Laguna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently, we have a more larger and more organized template {{Municipality of Cabuyao}} whereas Barangay Mamatid, Cabuyao, Laguna is certainly located. This template {{Cabuyao, Laguna}} has only two links: one linking to barangay and the other one is in Mamatid. As one might know, barangay is a general term for local government unit in the Philippines lower than a municipality. Therefore, this template is useless and redundant to {{Municipality of Cabuyao}}. JL 09 q?c 14:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:32, 24 July 2010 (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:Lsc11

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 per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lsc11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly orphaned template which is most likely a duplicate of one of the myriad of other sorting templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 24 July 2010 (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:Infobox frequency

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) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox frequency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & undocumented. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:58, 24 July 2010 (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:Infobox Bundesstrasse

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 Keep for now, but deprecate and perhaps turn this into a frontend for {{Infobox road}} which would allow for easy substitution during the translation process (see, for example, {{Infobox Burg}}), with no prejudice against renomination once the translation process has been completed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bundesstrasse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles have been updated to use {{Infobox road}}, so no longer any need for this template. WOSlinker (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. --Rschen7754 16:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WikiProject Germany is in the process of translating several hundred articles on German federal roads (or Bundesstraßen) from German Wikipedia. This template considerably simplifies and speeds up the translation process and is designed to handle all the data specific to these roads, neatly enabling route info to be 'hidden' in the infobox or displayed as required. Infobox Road cannot do this, so in converting the articles to Infobox road, the route data has been clumsily moved into the article body where it fails to display correctly e.g. see Bundesstraße 6 and compare with its German equivalent. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See MOS:RJL for how junction lists are supposed to be formatted on the English Wikipedia. The German infoboxes and articles don't comply with that section of the Manual of Style. Simply translating the article from the German Wikipedia is fine, but it should be updated to comply with the style guidelines of the English Wikipedia at the same time. Previously, the Italian autostrada articles used a translated infobox from the Italian Wikipedia, and they implemented a translation template. Essentially the second template used the same template and parameter names as on the Italian WP, but substituted the local template in its place. That translation template has been updated to translate the Italian input and output Infobox road. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second comment I forgot, but WOSlinker posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany/Transportation on July 13 to ask for objections to the change. No one commented in the last 11 days before he made the change. Imzadi 1979 → 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox can handle the collapsible junction section by using {{Collapsible list}}, see Bundesstraße 243. I can change route 1-9 to match if needed, but when the routes are long, it's not really appropriate to include them in the infobox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 11 days is not a long time and no help at all if you're not watching the page. It would have been helpful if, as the creator of the template, I had been notified and we could have had a proper debate which is clearly what this needs. The problem with MOS:RJL is that it appears to be designed for US highways (with a couple of sentences on UK); the convention needs to be amended to have a worldwide perspective. Also, before we delete this we need to consider Template:Infobox Bundesautobahn, which this conforms to, and which also has hundreds of articles and sub-templates. Finally, we need to consider the amount of work we are about to add to the few translators of these articles by making this change. I have done a large number of these, but will not do anymore if this extra burden is imposed. Better to wait until they're all across and then anyone can amend the infoboxes. All in all, I am open to improving Wikipedia, but this needs a much fuller and wider discussion than can be carried out here. May I suggest we do this at the relevant project discussion page(s)? --Bermicourt (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you might not think that 11 days is long enough, but that 50% longer than most of the deletion processes around here that run on a 7-day schedule. Consensus is determined by the editors that show up to the discussion, and doesn't wait for people indefinitely. If no one objects to a proposal after a reasonable timeframe, it is assumed that the interested parties don't mind and the proposal can move forward.
        In reply to your comments on MOS:RJL, the guideline is not solely a US-designed guideline, no matter what UK editors might say to the contrary. (And in all actuality, their format complies with MOS:RJL if one column is shifted to the left.) Roads articles in many countries in the world comply with some localized variation of MOS:RJL already. (The essence of the guideline prescribes what columns should appear in the table and in what order, what types of entries to include at a minimum, what standardized colors are in use as backgrounds for table rows provided that a color key is in use and some guidelines for the usage of road marker icons, if used. The last parts are to comply with MOS:ICON and MOS:COLOR.) The variations account for the types of subnational subdivisions and municipalities, or lack thereof for locations. The variations account for the measurement system in place, any numbering system for junctions or intersections, and any naming scheme for interchanges. There was a previous discussion earlier this year where many WikiProjects were invited to contribute to the discussion. I know for a fact that the Transportation task force for WP:Germany was notified, but no Germany editors came to the discussion.
        As for the other German template, that should have been nominated with this one, but since it wasn't, I can't comment on it more than to say that it too is redundant and should be considered for deletion as well. Imzadi 1979 → 10:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can help with future articles, doing the infoboxes if needed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No hasty replace&delete actions, please. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is 11 days hasty? Also, that's not a very good reason arguing why the template should be kept. --Rschen7754 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss the point: 11 days is no time at all if you haven't been alerted to the discussion (there wasn't one). This template should be kept because a) its replacement isn't able to handle the data properly and b) it unnecessarily doubles the work of translators who are in short supply. I agree that both can be solved in time: we can improve the Road template and we can delete the Bundesstrasse template when the translators have completed their work, when anyone can change the infobox. Now, however, is not the time to do it. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed the other point: notice was given at the appropriate task force's talk page. No one commented after 11 days, which implies consent. (See WP:SILENCE.) As stated above 11 days is 50% longer than the time allotted for an AfD, a TfD or a CSD tag. Nothing was done in haste here.
        I'm not seeing where {{infobox road}} needs changes to support German highway articles. If you're referring to how it handles junction lists, I've already stated that the German infoboxes fail MOS:COLLAPSE, MOS:RJL and WP:LEAD, three different sections of the English Manual of Style, over at the Transportation task force's talk page. They may work just fine on the German Wikipedia and follow that language edition's style guidelines, but this isn't the German Wikipedia here. The only way I could remotely support keeping the templates is if WP:Germany has a timetable for importing any remaining articles and the two templates are modified now to comply with the English MOS. If both are in place, delete them and move on. Imzadi 1979 → 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and explanation. I would really welcome your expertise in amending the template to conform to the relevant style. I also feel I may not have explained why deleting this template is such a problem. Let me try. There are thousands of articles on German Wikipedia which are not yet on English Wikipedia. Translating them is an excellent way of enhancing the sum of human knowledge on English Wikipedia and is quicker than generating English articles from scratch. I am one of a small number of German-English translators moving hundreds of such articles across. It is complicated (because the vocab is often specialised) and time-consuming. Many of the articles come with templates; many of which exist in both wikipedias, but the infoboxes usually don't. Each infobox may have 50 or more parameters. Translators have a choice: find the nearest equivalent English Wiki infobox or copy the German Wiki infobox template across. The former means that, for every single article, every piece of data must be individually transferred to the equivalent parameter in the English Wiki infobox. Often the English Wiki infobox does not support all the parameters or there is no direct equivalent, so information is lost or corrupted. This is tiresome, repetitive, mundane work - the very thing templates were intended to help us avoid - and it significantly reduces the efficiency of translation. The second option, employed here, is to use the German template - modified as needed - to enable quick and simple copy-and-paste of the infobox. Some of these ex-German Wiki infoboxes are clever enough to auto-translate the data in the fields as well, massively speeding up the transwiki process. Once the bulk of the articles using a given infobox are transwikied, it can be merged or substituted (something which does not need an expert translator) and deleted if it genuinely serves no purpose and the effort is felt worthwhile. Having translated nearly 2000 articles, I can vouch for the efficacy of this approach. Can we work together on this? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, I can only support retaining the current templates if they are modified now to comply with English style guidelines, and there's a timetable for completing this translation effort regarding highway articles. If the translation is to be open-ended, then any efforts here to standardize highway articles will be frustrated. I would also suggest the secondary suggest I've made be considered to convert the German templates into translation templates. If they could be set to call {{infobox road}}, much like {{Infobox Autostrada-it}} does, the templates would simplify some of the work for you. That template mimics the Italian template from the Italian Wikipedia, right down to the Italian parameter names. When that template is used, an Italian editor can copy and paste the Italian template code from an article, and substitute the infobox. When saved, the template converts from the Italian code into {{infobox road}}. There may be a few parameter errors to clean up, but in any machine translation there will be a few touch ups required anyway. In other words, recraft these templates to accept the German language article's coding, and export a filled out {{infobox road}} template at the top of the article. The only thing left would be to summarize the junction list and move it into the body of the article while completing your translation. Imzadi 1979 → 19:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a version at Template:Infobox Bundesstrasse/sandbox which uses the same parameters as Infobox Bundesstrasse but calls Infobox road behind the scenes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like the sound of what you're both saying, if it gets round the laborious line by line work on every article. I would appreciate learning how to do this as it has potentially wide applicability. By the way I do like the finished product that you guys have been working on - it looks good and now seems to incorporate the route info in a 'foldaway' section. I just want to avoid hours of unnecessary dull, repetitive effort to get there. It looks like we may have a way ahead, but I need to understand it better. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Infobox road already supports the colors and types needed for {{Infobox Bundesautobahn}}, but nothing was converted there yet. Whereas the headers for the Bundestraßen are yellow, when used on the Bundesautobahnen they would show in blue, the exact colors derived from the two templates. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Would a pending deletion following the transfer of all the road infoboxes from the German articles to the English articles be satisfactory? #

--Rschen7754 20:19, 26 July 2010 (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:Normdaten

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 Keep -FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

We do not need yet another template to slam onto the bottom of biographical articles with yet more external links to pages opaque to the majority of people. This draws the eye, and there has been absolutely no centralised discussion concerning this, which, if used consistently, would become an eyesore on millions of articles. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Authority control is a way to identify a person/corporation without fail/with unambiguous allocation, which is good for an encyclopedia, the links to the Library of Congress and the German National Library (and more) give independent information for basic data and link additional reliable material, and the thing was already useful and is not a novel idea (the data allowed for example the sorting of a hundred thousand pictures from the German Federal Archives to bio articles on the German wiki). When authority control is used by so many reputed libraries and across the German wiki, why not use it on here too – reliable sources is what we're all about, no? (Also "Eyesore"? That's very subjective.) Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact it's used on the German Wikipedia is not important. If you feel it would be a useful addition here, start a discussion somewhere, don't just create it and start adding. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A valid objection, if this were but about the links, but the real user value (for some specialist users and for automation purposes) are the numbers, not the links. And as long as we have the numbers, there's little harm in also providing the link as a convenience.  Sandstein  21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Hekerui. It's hard to understand why someone, let alone an admin, would want to delete this template, citing rather personal aesthetic concerns. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was there a discussion to introduce this template? Is there any other template which has such stringent requirements regarding its placement? What additional encyclopedic information do this template's links provide? On the articles Aristotle and Albert Einstein I get empty pages at the LCCN links. The PND/DNB and VIAF links provide trivialities and wildly peripheral information. I agree with the nominator about its eccentric design. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links for some Library of Congress entries is just now not working, but working for others - that'll be fixes soon for sure. Why the rush? Hekerui (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the rush to introduce this nonsense without any centralised discussion? J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the template is also inappropriate on the English Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Please do not mix two things: the mapping of person articles to authority control and the box at the bottom of the article. One can discuss, if the box at the bottom is necessary for the normal user - but the mapping from wikipedia articles to authority control files is a very good thing. So, if you really don't want this box, then hide it using CSS, but please do not remove it. In the german wikipedia we generate a simple text file with "PND (german authority file) <-> Wikipedia article" and this is used by some sites to put links to the corresponding Wikipedia article, for example the german national library does this. The second thing is, that with this data we are able to help other institutions to map their persons to authority, that's why we got 200,000 photos from the german federal archive. So please keep this template. If you really think, that users are confused or disturbed by this template, then hide it. --APPER (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait- you're saying we can't discuss this mapping? There is absolutely no policy or guideline concerning this issue, and so there is no way that this should be implemented in any way before that discussion has taken place. As such, this template should be removed until such discussion has taken place. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and remove all instances for now; then create a centralised discussion, before re-applying in a better way. I would favour adding the links, with human-readable link text, to external links sections in the manner of {{imdb name}}; or better appending such links to biographical infoboxes, as we do for, say, ISBNs for books. The current format is too obtrusive, and too user-unfriendly. Hiding such data is also unacceptable. I would be happy to participate in developing such a solution. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconfigure it as a talk page only template. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are various opinions about what should be done with this template, but the simple fact is that it should not exist as it does now. Before we start reconfiguring it or hiding or whatever, we need to remove it from the articles. Once that has been done, we can start discussion about how to present this information/if it needs presenting at all. I think we're overcomplicating this discussion here... J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links are already serving a purpose - see above - so should remain whilst we discuss the cosmetics of appearance and name, etc. Otherwise we will potentially waste Wikipedian effort deleting and reinstating the links. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I would support a constructive discussion on these sort of templates. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per Andy Mabbett. The problem I've seen with this template is two-fold. First, the name is in German and doesn't indicate what it does in English. Second, the output of the template is very unfriendly and doesn't look like anything on the English Wikipedia. In fact on my browser, the template at the bottom of an article looked like a repeat of the category list! I'm not seeing the whole point of this template, but I agree that it could be useful if done right. Until a full discussion about how to format and use the template and its output is done, it needs to leave mainspace. Imzadi 1979 → 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Changing the name is easy: rename it to Template:Authority control with a redirect from Template:Normdaten. And before we hastily delete a potentially useful template because we don't understand it, why not discuss with those like APPER and others who do? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to discuss this first before it's deployed into mainspace. Until the template is useful though, it should not be in the articles. As it is the output gives no indication of its usefulness. I'm hoping that the template is removed from the articles at this time, fixed and polished in a proper discussion and tested before deploying, if the community feel it's useful. That's why I said to userfy it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; these metadata are useful for a number of scholarly and other uses. The name and layout are problematic, being nonstandard, but that can be discussed and changed without needing to delete the template.  Sandstein  21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, successfully used in 6 languages. In German Wikipedia more than 10.000 entries. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename (cf commons:Template:Authority data). There's no need to show the data to the users at all, but please keep the data within the articles. The advantages are manyfold. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the functionality of the template be rolled into {{Persondata}} since these seem to be mostly used for people? If there is another category for usage, this might not be as helpful, but the persondata template already adds hidden metadata to biography articles. Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and open centralised discussion. I'm all for making stuff happen, but we have a lot of metadata already that is of dubious value. If we can establish a use, then deploying this to 600,000 biography articles would be good - incidentally we probably have the biggest collection of biographies of notable people, so it might make sense to use something we generate as "authority". Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Userfy for now pending a centralized discussion, mostly per Rich above. Another possibility is integration into the persondata template. Also, it needs a better name (in English, maybe?) Airplaneman ✈ 15:26, 7 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_24&oldid=1142563147"