Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25 edit

French Republican Calendar templates 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 most, but delete the ones identified by Chris as single use in userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTFRCMONTHNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTFRCDAYNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTFRCDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTFRCYEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CURRENTFRCTIME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LOCALREPYEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LOCALREPDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LOCALREPMONTHNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LOCALREPDAYNAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LOCALREPTIME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Utility templates used by the above templates:
Template:RepDnr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:RepDnr/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:RepDnr/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:RepDate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Note: These were previously discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_5#Template:NavigationRepYears. However, consensus there (as well as the closure of "Merge") was unclear. So I am relisting these templates once more. This is a slightly unusual nomination, but I feel it is the best way to resolve this matter. — This, that, and the other (talk)

These templates, while obscure, are being used in several places, including on userpages and in article-space. I intend that these templates be kept as is, because they are in use, and there is no other reason to delete them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:47, 25 September 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:Current month calendar 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current month calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, broken, old. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 25 September 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.

Arizona school navboxes 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High Schools of Amphitheater Public Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Safford Unified School District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Schools in Oro Valley, Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The entire state's worth of small (<5) school district navboxes. Safford appears to be larger but links to only three distinct articles. Some of these have no reason to exist, like the Amphi and Safford one. (The Safford one has a bunch of redirects too.) Raymie (t • c) 04:16, 25 September 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:Jews and Judaism category tree 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 no consensus, which defaults to keep. Good arguments all around, though, just no consensus to go in any one direction. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jews and Judaism category tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. An intrusive image on talk pages that serves no purpose in furthering WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly shouldn't be spammed all over category talk pages, but it would be sensible to reimplement it as a proper {{category tree}} and include it on the category pages themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category tree template is no different to the thousands of WP Projects templates on the talk pages. Placing this on the category pages themselves would create too much visual clutter, while there is no such limitation on categories' talk pages. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean there is "there is no such limitation on categories' talk pages"? Talk pages should not be filled with distracting boilerplate either. The WikiProject banner system is an exception which enjoys broad consensus. This isn't: it's a nonstandard way of doing something that {{category tree}} does in a more appropriate place in a less intrusive format. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note WP:NOTPAPER! Often, talk pages are cluttered with anything and everything, from drivel to future articles, and that's why they get filed away when too long (proving they are just cyber "scrap-paper"), and often are empty spaces for years on end, it's essentially a free space to discuss and introduce anything of direct relevance to the categories, or articles in question. In this case there is a very broad range of categories that this template provides a simple basic "map" or "tree" for the uninitiated. Many of the pages where this template appears where mostly empty, and I inserted both the relevant WP Project pages and this new helpful template. IZAK (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • REQUEST: The major Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashana, commences on the eve of 28th September 2011, followed by Yom Kippur and Sukkot. Most Jewish and Judaic editors are going to be busy now with these Jewish holidays and will not have enough time to respond fairly. This is not a fair time to put such a vote to the test. The nominator is requested to withdraw this vote until the Jewish holidays are over and more Judaic editors can look into it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This nomination is faulty because this template is part of a logical process that can be summed up as template-->category tree-->category. The nominator has placed the category for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 25#Category:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree but fails to note the CfD there. The nominator's "split" and therefore faulty nomination reflects a lack of grasp of this subject's complexity and why a navigation template is required. IZAK (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is not clearly a WP:NAVBOX and Template:Category tree and TEMPLATE (i.e. Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}}) to help in navigating the complex categories relating the vast parent Category:Jews and Judaism. As the creator of both the template and this parent category and a very long time editor of this category (I was its initiator in June 2004 [1]) there have been countless times when questions are raised about how the English WP structures these categories. All I have done is created a map and guide to help WP and its users. There have been constant requests and questions from multiple new users over the years how each sub-category here connects and fits in with the other. This has been a labor of love to help new users and those not familiar with this field to orient them about the lay-out of the categories and how they connect and relate to each other. I carefully chose this to be, and it states quite clearly, that this is a legitimate category tree, as noted at Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} that it's a sub-category of 1. Category:Jews and Judaism infobox templates; 2. Category:Jews and Judaism templates; 3. Category:Talk message boxes; 4. Category:Wikipedia classification templates; 5. Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates. All this serves to benefit all users of Wikipedia so it is bewildering and self-defeating to now delete this hard work that's taken me almost one year and see it go down the drain on minor technicalities when the larger good of WP stands to lose from this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the timing has to do with anything. Do you believe that there is something unique to categorisation which only Jewish editors can understand? I don't believe there is anything which makes this subject innately more difficult to navigate than the rest of the encyclopedia. There's no need to throw the entire, ummm, "labor of love" out: just bin the idiosyncratic layout and move it to category pages themselves like any other {{category tree}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • REQUEST: Since this is of a pictorial and graphic nature, could you please illustrate what you have in mind on the attached talk page here. Otherwise it's hard to conceptualize and even harder to know how to make improvements. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a suitably named WP:Judaism standard category talk-page Wikiproject template and place {{category tree}} on the corresponding category pages. Occuli (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • REQUEST: Since this is of a pictorial and graphic nature, could you please illustrate what you have in mind on the attached talk page here. Otherwise it's hard to conceptualize and even harder to know how to make improvements. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far no one has created a category tree to show the connection and relationship between all the main sub-categories, so please show how your suggestion solves this. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting that this particular project needs an intrusive and distracting alternative to {{category tree}} solely on the basis that the three "primary categories" interact with each other? Even if that were the case, there are far simpler ways of demonstrating that than a megapixel of pastel boxes, and there's still no rationale for putting it on the category talk page rather than on the category itself (other than the self-fulfilling argument that it's too big and distracting). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you kindly create an example of how you would go about a "far simpler ways of demonstrating that than a megapixel of pastel boxes" please (as you put it -- words are cheap, but doing the job itself is tougher), feel free to use the Discussion/Talk page here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll see if I can work on it in the template sandbox. To reiterate, I don't see why this template cannot continue to exist in some form and I'd be happy to help bring both its presentation and usage in line with common practice. However, that will mean altering both its appearance and its placement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful navigation tool. If the form of it is distracting, it can be edited into something more suitable by any user. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate navigational device. All non-intrusive functional navigational devices are good. Wikipedia is not consistent in their use, and I don't see how an open content encyclopedia can be. We shouldn't interfere with what some of us find useful. As for the time of the nomination, I'll make an analogy: I notice that very few UK editors are active the week from Dec 25 - Jan 1. That might be an ideal time to delete some material in that area. It's not a matter of competence, but interest, and one shouldn't nominate material for deletion when one knows most of the interest people will be unavailable DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was your use of "non-intrusive" deliberate gainsaying of the nomination, or simply a blithe dismissal of it? This is one of the largest talk page banners on the project outwith WikiProject banners. (Also worth noting; I can't see that DGG has made any edits to this template or its discussion page, though obviously his general viewpoint on deletion is well-known, so why the selective notification?) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop trying to score cheap points. This is a very rare example of my openly contacting DGG because he is known as a fair and objective Admin and a professional librarian who is probably in the best position to judge the scholarly worth of this template based on his wide experience as both a WP editor and work in organizing information. IZAK (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd certainly dispute that DGG is "fair and objective" when it comes to article deletion. He's prone to making up rules on the spot and flatly contradicting consensus / common practice when it suits his argument. Look at the above reply: firstly he contradicts the rationale used in the nom ("intrusive" versus "non-intrusive"), then invents a rule to support that ("all non-intrusive functional navigational devices are good") and then ignores the actual state of the project with his summary ("Wikipedia is not consistent in their use", when in fact this template is being nominated precisely because there already is a consistent method of creating and placing category trees used everywhere except this template). For what it's worth I apologise for not placing this argument in my initial reply to DGG: I often fail to fully address his arguments at XfD simply because they're so obviously weak or invalid that I assume closing admins will assign them little weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For starters, it's intrusive. If we can avoid mammoth templates that render poorly on mobile devices, we should. More importantly, it's contrary to the purpose of a talk page and I'm surprised that DGG failed to consider this point. I know it's obnoxious but let me quote Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. This template does not achieve this. If the purpose is to show the category tree, then we have {{category tree}} which is not intrusive, goes on the category page (not on the talk page) and is dynamic. Last but not least, I see two !votes arguing that we should keep useful navigational devices but this one doesn't qualify since it's patently misleading. Ask 100 people random to look at this graph and 99 will interpret this as saying the main category Category:Jews and Judaism splits into three sub-categories Category:Jews, Category:Judaism and Category:Jewish history. But it doesn't. For instance Category:Jewish society is in neither of these three subtrees. Should we make the template a little bit wider? The category tree template avoids this problem and is always up to date. As for the dotted lines between the bottom three rectangles, I suppose this means the subtrees overlap. Do we really need 4 rectangles, 5 colours and text in four different fonts to give readers a clue that there is some overlap between the subtrees of the Judaism and Jewish history categories? Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As roughly half the respondents to this nomination have concluded, I -- too -- find this to be a useful navigational tool. I would be open to a different color scheme, though I have no suggestions on that score myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "navigational tool" containing about five links. Uh-huh. Anyway, the category that this template added to pages has been deleted now, so the way is open to reimplement this as a simple {{category tree}} and move it onto the category pages themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Epeefleche I'm really puzzled by your comment. Under what scenario would this be a useful navigation tool? You only see this template on the category talk pages but it allows you to navigate category pages. In other words, if you're browsing category pages you don't see the template and if you're browsing category talk pages this is sending you to the wrong namespace. Moreover there are only four links and they still manage to give an incorrect picture of the main category. It may appear to be just as useful as any other navigation tool (and this is essentially DGG's argument) but once you start thinking about it, it's impossible to come up with a concrete situation in which this would be more helpful than a simple {{category tree}} (or helpful at all). Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Invisible where it'd be useful, visible where it's not really very useful. But not sure that's a pressing need for deletion, given there's no lack of space on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was sitting on the fence until now but have decided that this is fine and not intrusive. and FWIW, I'm not aware of this being a WP guideline "If we can avoid mammoth templates that render poorly on mobile devices,". I think it could be improved, but nom's reason for deletion is not valid and seems similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Shuki (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key words are "if we can avoid" and we don't need a guideline for something this obvious. If something is of dubious value and renders poorly for some significant subset of users, we should avoid it. This is just common sense. But what bugs me most about your "keep" !vote (and those of DGG and Epeefleche) is that you're not addressing the fact that as it stands the template is misleading and that it therefore has negative value for browsing purposes. A convincing case has been made that the category tree template is not misleading, gives a comprehensive view of the category rather than IZAK's understanding of it, is dynamic instead of static, is less intrusive and renders more consistently. So yes, I don't like this template because it fails at its stated task in many ways and can be replaced by something that actually works. Pichpich (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pichpich, the fact that you state that it "can be replaced by something that actually works" proves that you agree that this is an important template albeit not a perfect one. That is no reason to call for its deletion by any means but rather the goal should be to improve and perfect it, something that's easier said than done, and you or the other opposing have not made any efforts to show how you would go about improving anything. To criticize is easy, but you must also remember and should apply helpful guidelines like: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH; WP:CHANCE; WP:EXPERT. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth be told, I think that using the category tree template in this context is also of very limited value but at least it provides accurate and complete information. But given the size of this tree and its outdegree, it isn't possible to provide a graphical representation with those qualities. Even at depth 1, it would require five children and would render poorly on most laptop screens. As for the guidelines you cite, I'm not sure why you're invoking WP:EXPERT: reflecting the content of the subtree doesn't require expertise and one of the problems is that by giving your interpretation of its structure, you've misled readers. As for DONOTDEMOLISH and CHANCE, note that the central argument against this template is not simply that it's currently horrible (which it is) but that even if it did what you're promising it should do, then it would be equivalent to an already existing template which, among its many qualities, is dynamic and always complete. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pich, I'm not sure which "already existing template" you are referring to because I know of none. And yes, I am invoking my very long experience in this subject because over the years there have always been questions about which is the "main" category, "is it Category:Judaism perhaps, as it is on some other WPs of other languages, or Category:Jews?" when it's neither, the correct parent on the English language WP is Category:Jews and Judaism which is the key point this template conveys, regardless of all the other red herrings and tangents you are dredging up and that do not add to resolving a long-standing gap that this template is trying to address. IZAK (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading the discussion that I'm referring to the category tree template. Pichpich (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too big and obtrusive, even in the low-traffic Category talk: namespace. This information should be provided on the category description pages of each of the four categories mentioned in the template, not on the talk page of every category which is part of the category structure. (I might mention to IZAK that very few users ever look at category talk pages, as they usually contain either WikiProject banners or the results of past CFD discussions. There is little point in providing this information in such a hidden location.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You prove my point, that placing this template on talk pages does not interfere with the main category pages and will be noticed, just as records of past CfDs are stored on talk pages to indicate the importance of a "questionable" category, for those users serious and curious enough who want to orient themselves to the lay-out of the over-all parent of Category:Jews and Judaism and how it sub-divides into its at least three clear key main sub-categories, each of which is sometimes regarded as the "true" parent but it's not on the English WP regardless of how this subject is categorized on the other language WPs. IZAK (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request with note: This request for deletion should really be delayed until after this season of Jewish holidays comes to an end so that Jewish editors have an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion. Since the nominator has leveled criticism in defense of his RFD, it seems logical to solicit the opinion of as many stakeholder editors as possible. Perhaps the specific criticisms of the nominator can be addressed and a compromise reached! Let's not sell the nominator's input short by conducting a halfhearted discussion. --yonkeltron (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think the concern about having discussion now rather than some other time is a legitimate one, but enough editors have weighed in at this point that that argument seems lose some validity. DGG seems to give a good argument for keeping. It might be better to modify this slightly so it is slightly closer to the standard category tree and a bit more visually appealing. I can see how someone might see this as an eyesore. But even that's not particularly compelling: articles need to be pretty, talk pages much less so. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 7 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_25&oldid=1078574814"