Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12 edit

Template:Sheldonmania 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

test template, not employed in any useful fashion nor likely to be. gadfium 21:01, 12 November 2012 (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:North Luzon Expressway 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) 04:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Luzon Expressway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete for same reasons as Template:South Luzon Expressway: Mostly a collection of links of towns thru which the road runs. That's template overkill, a good example that not everything needs a navbox. The other topics in the template are already discussed in the main article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:57, 12 November 2012 (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:Access icon 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Access icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Images should not be used as a substitute for text. The alt text for this image is perfectly adequate in conveying its meaning by itself; the image is superfluous, and at its default size is indistinct anyway. Roughly ~5000 transclusions, nearly all via infoboxes (almost all clones of {{infobox station}}). Just replace with its default text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Usage in infoboxes may be superfluous; but I believe there are legitimate uses for this template, such as that at List of Chicago 'L' stations where removing the icon would require adding an extra column to the table.—Jeremy (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything listed as rationale for deletion is untrue. Images are commonly used as a substitute for text - that's the entire point of a symbol! The alt text is too large for many applications that occur in lists; see for example List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations. It is perfectly readable at the default size. It is also used for more applications than merely rail lines; note how it's used for indicating accessible areas in British Museum, The Oval, and Taipei 101. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has valid uses in tables and rail line maps (see, for example {{CTA Red Line}}). Replacing with text as suggested by the nominator would seriously affect a number of articles. Edgepedia (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless I'm misunderstanding something the nomination is in error--the alt text would look ludicrous in the given contexts. I believe there are many map designers who would howl at the premise that an image should not substitute for text. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In infobox fields? Wildly inappropriate. The vast majority of these transclusions are inappropriate, but people are picking up on the edge cases where fixing this wouldn't be straightforward; to be quite honest those cases have bigger problems, so I'm going to ignore them and simply fix this directly in the infoboxes. That should at least cut down the transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The infobox uses are perfectly appropriate; you are the only one saying otherwise against a consensus of editors who actually work with the infoboxes. Do not change them against consensus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an exceptionally poorly-researched comment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If so then that's appropriate, because this is an exceptionally poor-researched TfD. You haven't made your case, you've cited no policies, and you're acting like we're all lunatics (possible, but not proved). I don't recall ever seeing you propose changes to infoboxes; instead you put forth a disruptive TfD. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per Pi, Edgepedia, Mackensen, etcetera. This deletion is frivilous. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Surely an alternative way could be achieved with the removal of this icon, but the effort in replacing it outweighs its worth. I don't believe anyone (even the nominator) is willing to take the time to replace every single access icon when the time can be put to edit something worthwhile. A frivolous nomination indeed. --Yong (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per others above. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy this template might run afoul of (if there is one, I will reconsider). Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 19:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Not one arguement for deletion other than the OP, plenty of arguement against it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2012 (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:Corrupt (organization) 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. Consensus is that this is already covered by {{advert}} and {{COI}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corrupt (organization) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and badly named template. Firstly, I don't think we really need this: we already have existing templates like {{Advert}} that do a similar job. Secondly, even if we do, the name is highly inappropriate. It alleges that an individual or organisation is 'corrupt', which is a direct violation of NPOV. If kept, this template must be renamed. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name is certainly inappropriate. I reckon between {{COI}} and {{advert}} we already account for this, and that we don't need a tag which is a union of the two: this isn't nearly as serious a problem as one might suppose from the drama that is raised about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{COI}} and {{advert}}. We don't need another template which is, IMO, worded too strongly. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we do need to keep this. Now if there are problems with the name or the contents, or both, then we can hash these issues out. The basic thrust of the message message is along the lines of "This company's PR people have worked over this article. You might want to be aware of this". There are various ways to state this and this can be discussed by reasonable people. It serves quite a very different function from any other template, I would say. Let's look at this together.
    • For one thing, the template is intended to address a specific ethical and (perhaps) legal problem for the Wikipedia, See here for a lengthy discussion. Here are the United States Federal Trade Commission guidelines addressing the issue, and there are some European laws and regulations that are even stronger, I believe. The basic point is, to present information provided by a commercial entity as if it was editorial material is highly unethical and possibly illegal. That is why ads in magazines that might be taken for news pieces have the word "advertisement" at the top and so forth. The FTC requires this. Again, don't know for a fact if we're breaking the law by not alerting readers to the situation, but it's certainly very sketchy not to. Why be sketchy, to no benefit?
    • {{Advert}} does not cover this, not at all. WP:ADVERT is for clearly promotional material. But only amateurs do that. We are talking about people playing a much deeper and more subtle game. Things like manipulating the financial info on their company to make it look stronger than it is, stuff like that.
    • A couple comments re {{COI}}:
      • {{Corrupt (organization)}} addresses a distinctive subset of the broad issue of COI. A lot of COI is people working on their own bios, but not for commercial advantage, and a lot of other COI is also not really for direct financial advantage -- you know: I work for this company, or live in that city, or my boyfriend is in that band, or I hate that political party, and want to see them presented well (or poorly). Money changing hands on a contract to a skilled PR operative to apply professional spin is a whole nother thing, and a different enough thing that we ought to notify the reader, I think. If someone sends you a message "Just found out that that story about Congressman Joe embezzling from the orphanage is so totally bogus", wouldn't you like to know if they're being paid by Congressman Joe's campaign to send that message (as opposed to just liking Congressman Joe)? Wouldn't that make a difference to how you process the info? It would to me, and might to some readers, and I don't see how its helpful to deprive them of facts.
      • {{COI}} can be -- and is -- gotten around with a little tandem maneuver: editor #1, a corporate reputation-management agent, hands off copy to another editor who makes the actual edit. That editor doesn't have a COI (his reasons for publishing the material may vary and are complicated, I have discussed this elsewhere) so the article is, technically, not eligible for a {{COI}} tag. This tag includes "influenced by" to handle that. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be arguing that because we throw the term "COI" around at the drop of a hat that we shouldn't be using it in, well, the most blatant case of all. A better solution would be to try to curb the use of COI to mean "this article has been edited by someone who once glanced sideways at the subject in passing on the street". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know if we throw the term "COI" around at the drop of a hat. Maybe we do. But it doesn't much apply to what I'm saying. I'm saying that {{coi}} says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", and (whether this is used too much or not) "close connection" could cover family relationships and a lot more, and we need a template for the specific subset "paid agency". Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What difference does that make in terms of how if affects the article? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Enough of a difference that it's appropriate to have a separate template, I'd say. Introducing money into a transaction alters the dynamic differently than other COI. Suppose I'm being sued and the plaintiff is the judge's cousin (and he doesn't recuse himself). That's bad. Now suppose I'm being sued and the plaintiff has given the judge $100,000 to rule in her favor. That's a different kind of bad. The situations are similar in some ways but not identical. Herostratus (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia isn't a court. In terms of how it affects us, there is no difference at all between those two scenarios. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I hear you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this. Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read over the exchange between Chris and Herostratus, and I'm unpersuaded that this template is necessary. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2012 (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:NCCS worship team1 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) 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS worship team1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 12 November 2012 (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:NCCS yearbook staff table1 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) 04:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS yearbook staff table1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (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:NCCS staff table1 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) 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCCS staff table1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only for article on New Covenant Christian School. for which it is inappropriate and over-detailed content which belongs only on their web p. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (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:LotR navbox 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) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LotR navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

My feeling is that this template highly duplicates content already found in the articles themselves, particularly in the infoboxes, as well as Template:The Lord of the Rings (which includes more information). Izno (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Though I wouldn't mind seeing it integrated into the infoboxes in question. - jc37 02:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anaemic and superfluous. This doesn't add value to articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to the larger infobox. Robofish (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's been a number of years(!) since I created this (6 years and four months), but my recollection is that at the time it was intended to be a navigation box (as the title indicates) to be placed in the articles as a kind of sidebar to help navigate quickly between the three articles in question without having to scroll around too much. It doesn't really serve that purpose any more (likely it never did). So no objection to deletion. A lesson that if you don't maintain templates and keep them useful, they eventually become redundant or fall into disuse. At least this template never got bloated like some of the footer templates... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2012 (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 BART station 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) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BART station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. The user has replaced the regular infobox with this new one in some places. 69.158.95.113 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've spent a considerable amount of time merging per-line infoboxes together: forking a new one here would probably not be a good idea. Any required new fields should be added to the generic station infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. We don't need another one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my defence, similar infoboxes like Infobox LACMTA station existed and no one intends to remove it. The only reason I did this is to create a custom infobox system for BART, just as how they do in other metro systems like LA Metro or NYC Subway. I am currently implementing the new infobox in all the BART stations. I don't see the reason why creating new infobox system is such a bad thing that requires its deletion. Otherwise, shouldn't LA Metro's infobox be deleted as well? --Yong (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're making an assumption of other templates here. In time, the LACTMA template will be nominated for deletion as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's indeed the point of my message. I'd be glad to see this issue to be dealt systematically rather than individually. --Yong (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with a systematic approach to this. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox Bahnhof, where I am advocating a comprehensive look at a series of Infobox station clones. If a nominated infobox has a structure similar to others, it makes sense to deal with them all at the same time, rather than coming back and doing exactly the same thing one by one by one. Any additional parameters can then be added with a wider perspective. Choosing one template makes the process appear arbitrary, random and sometimes, to you the creator, petty. {{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox road}} are examples of how a much more complicated infobox can be successfully integrated to suit many disparate situations. This template can be adjusted to suit most of your needs. What do you need? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed this nomination seems to be personally arbitrary and petty to me, especially as a user who had recently restarted to contribute to Wikipedia (and probably will cease again/retire after this hassle), this is quite disheartening to see the time and effort being dumped by complex guidelines and bureaucracy. I do appreciate your undertaking in merging all the station infoboxes in the Wikipedia universe into one grand infobox. I'm not sure, though, if this attempt is significantly helpful to Wikipedia or simply feasible. I would argue that my motivation to create this infobox is that I simply found {{Infobox station}} to be insufficient to display some details of metro stations (which was why {{Infobox LACMTA station}} and {{Infobox NYCS}} were created as well, see Template:Infobox LACMTA station for its rationale). If you're willing to teach me how to recreate my format (and appearance) using {{Infobox station}}, I'd be glad to give in to your ideals. --Yong (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you find {{Infobox station}} inadequate, then the correct thing to do is to raise the matter on its talk page, and see if there is consensus to modify it in the manner you propose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You see, I knew you would be taking this personally. Now just tell the nice boys and girls, who can fix those things, specifically what you think is missing from the standard infobox and they will help you. When people say "I just don't like it", they get upset. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Glad to see you guys take this issue with seriously even as I attempt to challenge your effort with various reactions. I'll be straightforward and admit that I am conducting a scientific study on Wikipedia and I really appreciate you guys' efforts and genuine reactions (which was why I created an badly-made, identical copy of the LACMTA template and implement it halfway so someone would notice). I hope no hard feelings are made throughout this conversation and I do agree with you guys' belief that an integral effort to organise all the templates. On the other hand, the present problem still exists, so perhaps I shall nominate {{Infobox LACMTA station}} for deletion? In the meantime, please delete template {{Infobox BART station}} now that my study is over (unless other editors have different opinions on this). Thank you all for your participation. --Yong (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Since you have requested the deletion of this infobox you created, I have reverted the only two uses. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC))- Keep it.[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/2012_November_12&oldid=1087818165"