Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14 edit

Organisation language 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. Feel free to continue any discussion concerning adding links to the parent organiztion templates on the respective talk pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African Union languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Official UN languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Official EU languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:International organization language templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superfluous navboxes, listing the langs in each org's article is enough. — Lfdder (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. They're just decoration, not s.t. anyone would use for navigation. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These do not need to appear on language articles, but should appear as part of the navigation for the related organization template.
    -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why they should. — Lfdder (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because they help navigate to topics that a reader of UN/EU/AU articles would wish to read. I did not say add the templates to the language articles, only that the languages should appear on the UN/EU/AU articls -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a threshold. Someone looking to learn about the UN will probably want to know what the UN's official/working languages are, but why would they want to read each language's article? The language article has nothing to do with and nothing about the UN. — Lfdder (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The language articles indicate their prominence, which is why they were selected as UN official languages, therefore something that someone looking at the UN would want to read about. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's stretching it quite far for a navbox. — Lfdder (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, navbox clutter. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is never enough to have a list on a single article. Navigation boxes help navigate between all relevant subjects in the easies possible manner. Very useful to any reader. Dimadick (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • what are you voting for exactly? To keep all navboxes on Wikipedia? — Lfdder (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, just those involving wide groups of countries. I could live without navboxes involving individual humans, animals, etc. I would be lost without the geopolitical templates. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So this is just personal preference then. — Lfdder (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes are meant to navigate through a series of articles. These don't navigate through a series at all, they are essentially category boxes and that's what categories are for. Make a cat, "Languages of the EU", if there isn't one already (I suspect there is).

If I want to know what are the official languages of the EU, and occasionally I must, then I search for"Official Languages of the EU" and hope that the Wikipedia search will turn up an article about it, or redirect to it. Having a navbox at the end of "English language" or "Hungarian language" or "French language" telling me so is just a waste of bandwidth and pixel lumens.

It's the equivalent of WP:OVERLINK Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Estonian dialects 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. The consensus is that the linking provided by this template is a subset of the linking provided by the Uralic languages template, and that anything not linked there could be covered in Uralic languages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonian dialects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

4 links: 2 are languages, 1 is a dialect of 1 of the 2. These 3 aren't Estonian dialects and shouldn't be in the navbox, leaving only 1 dialect (group) with an article: Northeastern coastal dialect. — Lfdder (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, assuming the links with articles are in template:Uralic languages. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, there is some controversy as to whether the 2 languages are in fact languages or dialects. For example this source[1] discusses Võro and Seto as dialects, while this source[2] states "The Võro language is historically a dialect of the South Estonian language". This source[3] shows the geographical distribution of dialects within Estonia. --Nug (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, too few links and it was created in February 2009‎ so it's not a WIP, either.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four of the articles have blue links (Seto dialect, South_Estonian_language, Võro language and eastern_coastal_dialect), and those four articles have substantial Interwiki links, with substantial articles on the few I clicked through, so I am assuming the topics are notable in English and other Wikipedias. Red links are ok! I don't particularly want an article for every dialect of every language, but if it's notable it can stand on its own feet, and I don't see why a template should be deleted when it is used and there is no substitute for it. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substitute, Template:Uralic languages which includes the same links and more.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Derive 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 merge, the syntax issue can be addressed by simple '#ifexist' for the ISO name, or by using the #language magic word. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Derive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Etymology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ety (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Derive with Template:Etymology.
These two serve the same purpose. {{etymology}} seems to be meatier and more robust (uses {{ISO 639 name}}). — Lfdder (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about {{derive}}, but {{Etymology}} came about through considerable discussion, and I wrote many of the subtemplates under it. But is little used, I think, and certainly doesn't need three versions. {{ety}}, which I preferred for brevity, was ruled out in preference of {{etymology}}. So T:Etymology should stand and the other two be deleted or deprecated; redirect or subst of course as appropriate.

Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit I add T:Ety to the merge proposal (I hope that is all right. It is a template redirect to T:Etymology, but I don't think it needs to be listed elsewhere.
It's probably technically wrong to change someone else's proposal to include another page, but I hope it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The transclusion count is 120 v 300 in favour of Derive, will it be possible to merge it with Etymology without having to change 300 pages?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checking "What Links Here", T:Derive is used exclusively on articles about Ireland, mostly placenames - about 500 of them. I guess it was invented to serve the purpose {{etymology}} was put in place to serve, but nobody knew its existence. I will check up on the history on T:Derive, but probably worth a word to Project:Ireland. I say this here because it will take me ages to get around to doing it, and even in my brief apperances here I am not around much these days, so I hope this helps whoever takes it up. Si Trew (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging these might mean having to change all the articles that transclude it. The language parameter from {{derive}} goes via {{language}} to convert "Irish" into "Irish language".
Some go via Scots Gaelic language, mea cupla. They do seem to be mostly used for Scots and Irish Gaelic derivations. I would alter my comment above about them being used "exclusively" on articles about Ireland, which I thought was the case; but I let my error stand. They seem to be mostly used on articles where the etymology is Gaelic; for example Rutherglen does not use {{etymology}} or {{derive}} in its opening sentence containing etymologies, but uses {{etymology}} requires 1st or 2nd parameter in each triplet! farther down. Derive just expands to {{etymology}} requires 1st or 2nd parameter in each triplet!.
So perhaps Project:Gaelic language or something is where to ask, who made this template and why? Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake: Since T:Derive just allows free text to express the language, rather than go through an ISO 639 name, yes it would be necessary to change all those articles to conform with the template. Which begs the question of why T:derive exists. The intention with T:etymology, were it to be taken up, was eventually to categorize articles automatically with "Article Titles with German Etymology/Origins" etc; but since its take-up was poor, they should probably both be abandoned and deleted. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is also an option, but that would require to make changes to the 300 pages using derive, and the 120 pages using etymology. Asking the WikiProjects to carry out such an unpleasant task would be unfair IMO, and I also want to avoid another debacle like Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could be SUBST by a bot. But then, so could any other mass change we propose here, if it's simple enough.
I agree we can't expect anyone to change 400-odd articles to suit a template; templates are servants not masters. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T:Derive predates T:Etymology by three years. But then, this is the general problem with templates: unless one knows of their existence they can be very hard to find (one thinks "Surely there must be a template for such-and-such", but intelligent searching yields nothing.) I'm not het up on the name, and presumably there would be a redirect anyway, but the few editors who made T:Etymology seemed to have a preference for it being called that. I already declared an interest in that I helped create that; personally I would have preferred it to be at {{ety}} as shorter, as I already said; in any case, I don't think that an older article automatically has priority? This is not to pre-empt the discussion but rather to add information to it. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add some background info: as its talk page shows, T:Etymology was created primarily in an effort to add a house style for etymologies to MoS. (There are a couple of examples at WP:FORLANG but no actual statement of what form an etymology was taken). This was not, of course, to beg the question, but it always helps to have an example if then pleading one's case. Perhaps because the template had such a poor take up, despite even its recommendation at the project WP:Ety, it wasn't pursued to try to get a style added to MoS -– though another editor might know better. Of course that would not be to say, that the MoS would conform to T:Etymology, but rather the other way around, that T:Etymology could be changed relatively easily to any agreed style rules, without having to change all the articles it was used in.
T:Derive would not allow that kind of flexibilitz since essentially it just sticks three strings together. However it's very handy for finding articles on placenames with Gaelic toponymy, although that is possibly better served by a category (so what, just add a category to the template. [[Category:Articles with {{language|{{{1}}}} toponymy}}.) The whole point of having the templates at all, when it is as easy or easier to write it out longhand, is presumably to help standardization and allow this kind of thing to happen over time. That being said, I seem often to be in a minority view there, and many editors seem to think that templates are there simply to save typing, and these don't, which is why I said they might as well be deleted then (if that's the view). (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Launching/Falcon 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. Per nominator's request; the issue doesn't require deletion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Launching/Falcon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

SpaceX launched slipped; current launch is TBD. Template is no longer relevant as a upcoming launch. First time requesting a deletion, sorry if I screw up. CamelNotation (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this template has existed since 2008, how has it been always upcoming? If article attached to the template is no longer an imminent launch, just remove the transclusion. We don't create a new template for every new event, and clearly this wasn't as it has been in existence for many years. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Launching -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just de-transclude the template until the launch is rescheduled, as mentioned above. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above and established precedent. I'll set the template to hidden so it doesn't even need to be detranscluded. --W. D. Graham 10:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't quite understand what "deleting" was. I thought it would just delete that particular version. All those points are valid. Can I redact my request for deletion? CamelNotation (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you support the changes made to the template (so that it doesn't show up in articles for now), it will be enough to ask for the deletion discussion to be closed, and an administrator will take care of that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do support the changes made. My request for deletion was based on a misunderstanding of templates. I no longer feel this template should be deleted. I'd like to either withdraw my deletion request or ask that the discussion be closed early. Is there a tag I can put here to draw attention to that or should I just wait and hope an admin comes along? CamelNotation (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally only admins can close discussions, but since this seems broadly uncontroversial I closed it myself. Anyone can revert me if this is considered inappropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_14&oldid=1138534744"