Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 19
April 19 edit
Item by US state category description 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) 01:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Amusement parks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Waterparks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Waterfalls by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Zoos by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Astronomical observatories by US State category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No real need to have a template for a single sentence. Should be substituted and then deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why? Why should it be substituted and deleted? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- delete and remove, don't subst. These descriptions replicate the category names and are redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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:Kip Moore 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) 01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Kip Moore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Premature. Artist just released debut album, so everything is easily navigable from the main artist page and template's transcluded articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Being a believer in a navbox on every page, I believe this should be kept. Additionally, "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" ranked 45 on "Hot Country Songs", therefore, this could become an article. I also added two related artists to the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You may believe in "a navbox on every page", but views differ. This isn't a useful navigational tool at the moment: the important links are already included in the articles, and the unimportant ones aren't needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NENAN, especially an artist with only one album and one notable single to date. Eric444 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Civility Hammer, civility please. As I mentioned before, there are three links to related artists in the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- But there is no navigation when a.) the related articles don't have that template, and b.) Kip is not mentioned on the related articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- delete Related articles do not mention the main subject of the template, leaving too few links to justify the navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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:Early computer characteristics 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 after merging with History of computing hardware Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This large, verbose data table is transcluded in its entirety onto over a dozen articles. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages: it belongs in history of computing hardware alone, and need not be a separate page. Recommend removing all the other transclusions and then substituting the remaining one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't see the point of it in the various articles, at best I'd want it suppressed with a show button. It might be an idea to have a more specific article eventually by splitting off a bit of the history of computers but really I just find this template annoying as it is currently. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This gives the context of the development of the computers that are mentioned, and helps with the vexed question of "firsts" amongst these early machines. Without it, readers could easily become confused with the statements from the champions of particular machines that it was the "first" computer (with an appropriate set of modifying adjectives to justify that assertion). I have argued on the talk page for it to be made less verbose with fewer rows and columns, but have not had much respons from others. I would be happy to trim it down in this way, whilst retaining its essential context-giving nature. --TedColes (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not the purpose of data templates to Right Great Wrongs on multiple articles. Specific issues can be mentioned in the prose, but we only need this data table once, on the general history overview. It is tangential at best and distracting, irrelevant and poorly placed (such as in the article footer) at worst. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, and merge into article, or even create new stub - repeating the same info on separate pages is not the correct way to write an encyclopedia. The information seems viable. Something like List of early computing machines could be made from it, and linked to (using template:seealso or similar). Inclusion is the wrong way to go. Agree with nomination rational. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages. Content good- implementation bad.
- (2nd) Call it Comparison of early computing machines and link to but nor transclude, or merge into history of computing hardware as originally suggested. Oranjblud (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Change to an article, as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- History of computing hardware is certainly heading for a periodic split, but I don't think it's needed right now. The table will certainly be included on the "early hardware" part of that split when it happens, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- delete and subst into History of computing hardware. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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:Late Anatolian Provinces 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Single-purpose template (grouping the late Roman provinces of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is essentially a contentfork of the {{Late Roman Provinces}}, and a mostly incorrect one at that: "Late Anatolian provinces" is a meaningless neologism, the Diocese of the East did not have territory in Anatolia proper, etc. Constantine ✍ 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The arguments for and against are similar to those of Anatolian themata. If, as you say, there are that many inaccuracies, logically a lot of pages need correction. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not totally persuaded of the superior utility of much more generic boxes, given that the information that is sought is lost in a much broader context. I would think a higher priority would be correcting misinformation, as opposed to deletions, given the way that information tends to be disseminated within and without of Wikipedia. What exactly constitutes Anatolia opens another bag of worms that has been bitterly argued in the talk pages of History of Anatolia. My argument for a liberal geopolitical interpretation of the term is included in the leads to the pages in that project. The box was meant to update at the appropriate place the earlier provincial structure in a box earlier in the topic. As far as being "meaningless" it is by its title focussed on a specific era. Thanks for your input. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if context is what is needed, then simply include the links in the article text, in a short list or in a collapsible box embedded in the article itself, e.g. with {{Collapse}} or {{Hidden}}. Creating whole separate navboxes for a single article is an unnecessary encumberance on the article's loading time. Navboxes are meant to be included in each and every article contained therein, not to be used as a summary for a single article. On the inaccuracies, they result from an improperly carried out "extraction" of the new template from the original one: thus a change in the title from "late Roman" to "late Anatolian" has no meaning, the "history" section is largely meaningless within the new context, and the inclusion of Syria, Euphratensis, Osroene as well as the Armenian provinces beyond the Euphrates is simply wrong. The apparent conflation of Turkey with Anatolia/Asia Minor in this template. Anatolia is a geographical, not a political entity, and dates to long before modern Turkey was established. Its traditional boundaries roughly correspond to the area that is shown as Byzantine here, and that is pretty much the gist of our article on Anatolia as well. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think what you are alluding to is an issue I was just about to raise. There are plenty of single use template like infoboxes embedded in pages. Template is by definition for multiple use, so the utility comes down to whether an infobox is likely to be used for more than one page or not, in the former case it can be saved as a template and reused. So one way around this is to replace a template with an infobox. For now I think the issue of what should be in it, and the more complex meaning of the term Anatolia is a matter for another day. Suffice it to say that its use by various historians over the years suggests that while its boundaries may not be exactly defined, it has utility as a disputed area of land in a critical geographical juncture that has to varying degrees formed part of many states over the centuries. In a word, it has pragmatic utility. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if context is what is needed, then simply include the links in the article text, in a short list or in a collapsible box embedded in the article itself, e.g. with {{Collapse}} or {{Hidden}}. Creating whole separate navboxes for a single article is an unnecessary encumberance on the article's loading time. Navboxes are meant to be included in each and every article contained therein, not to be used as a summary for a single article. On the inaccuracies, they result from an improperly carried out "extraction" of the new template from the original one: thus a change in the title from "late Roman" to "late Anatolian" has no meaning, the "history" section is largely meaningless within the new context, and the inclusion of Syria, Euphratensis, Osroene as well as the Armenian provinces beyond the Euphrates is simply wrong. The apparent conflation of Turkey with Anatolia/Asia Minor in this template. Anatolia is a geographical, not a political entity, and dates to long before modern Turkey was established. Its traditional boundaries roughly correspond to the area that is shown as Byzantine here, and that is pretty much the gist of our article on Anatolia as well. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not totally persuaded of the superior utility of much more generic boxes, given that the information that is sought is lost in a much broader context. I would think a higher priority would be correcting misinformation, as opposed to deletions, given the way that information tends to be disseminated within and without of Wikipedia. What exactly constitutes Anatolia opens another bag of worms that has been bitterly argued in the talk pages of History of Anatolia. My argument for a liberal geopolitical interpretation of the term is included in the leads to the pages in that project. The box was meant to update at the appropriate place the earlier provincial structure in a box earlier in the topic. As far as being "meaningless" it is by its title focussed on a specific era. Thanks for your input. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
