Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19 edit

Template:Transylvania University 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. This is not a single use template, as the nomination reason indicates. There has been virtually no discussion about the actual merit. It's not clear if more discussion is still desirable, so this is kept for now without prejudice and speedy re-nomination is possible Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transylvania University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • dismiss. The template is not single use any longer. Please dismiss your tag. --Ohisylvania (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (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:Convert/lengthcalc 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 template.Jimp 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC): Template:Convert/lengthcalc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) old test, not part of convert. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2014 (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:September in India 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:September in India calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, almost entirely redlinks, and redundant to {{calendar}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused/redundant —PC-XT+ 04:04, 21 October 2014 (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:Convert/date 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 template.Jimp 10:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused and inefficient way of doing what the #time parser could do (and has nothing to do with {{convert}} anyway). Jimp 05:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a conversion at all, just formatting. And I guess there must be more comprehensive date formatting templates for WP:DATEFORMAT (having more options, to keep an article in one format style). -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to just use '#time'. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 04:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case someone finds it useful, here's a link to #time and similar parser functions, for reference. —PC-XT+ 04:21, 21 October 2014 (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:Runtime 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 template and all subpages.Jimp 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Formerly used (under different name) on only six pages (Scott Mills (radio show), The Radio 1 Breakfast Show, The Surgery, Fearne Cotton (radio show), The Official Chart and Dan and Phil), this template calculates the running time (for radio shows etc.) between a start and finish time. It seems more of an effort to use the template than to figure it out in your head. Perhaps this calculation could be done by the infobox it's used in (i.e. merge to Template:Infobox radio show as a subroutine) but I don't see the point in keeping this as a separate entity. Jimp 05:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was it undocumented? Can't find a /doc content. -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to myself: there no content documentation. I had to create the current /doc to house categories myself, lol. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. No need to maintain an undocumented too-narrow formatting template. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete functionality merged with 'infobox radio show' (record of changes). Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it has been merged —PC-XT+ 04:26, 21 October 2014 (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:Modern Indian religions writers 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) 23:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Indian religions writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well covered under Template:Modern Dharmic writers and rarely transcluded. An IP had started a merge discussion of the two but had failed to actually start the discussion. Continuing that I propose deletion of this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template: Modern Dharmic writers

Template:Modern Dharmic writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Template:Modern Dharmic writers" is not an alternative, and should be deleted too, since that's not WP:COMMONNAME. From WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:

"When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."

There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:

The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":

Available alternatives are:

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, both templates cover same/similar names and hence only one of the two is necessary. I am fine with deletion of either. But just note that Template:Modern Dharmic writers is older and has more entries and if we are keeping the "Dharmic" one, we can change its name to something. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Modern Indian religions writers"... Or "Modern Asian religions writers". Have a look at the links; this issue has been debated over and over again. All the arguments are in there. Neither of them is being used; the specific templates suffice, plus the Indian religions portal for those who really want to have it all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair! I would have gone and closed this discussion now. But we need some admin-tools for what we want. What we finally want is to delete the current "Indian religions" template and keep the "Dharmic" template. AND we want to rename the "Dharmic" template to "Modern Indian religions writers". Is that right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, delete both. what's the rationale for including those different writers in one template? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the two, probably Indian Religions. The main reason that neither of the two templates are being used is that Jonathan Joshua has more time to put into Wikipedia than the people who disagreed with him. When, contrary to the consensus at the time, he started substituting tradition-specific templates for the more inclusive templates, no one appears to have wanted to take on the task of reverting his massive, non-consensual changes. A more charitable way of saying this is that he was being "bold". Still, I can tell you that I would have pushed back if I had had the massive amount of time to put into Wikipedia that it seems Joshua Jonathan has, month after month, year after year. While "dharmic" is not so much a common name, and "Indian religions" is not a perfect fit, there is a clearly arguable role for the more inclusive templates, and such templates would still be in usage if it were not for the trial-by-exhaustion that was implemented many months ago by Joshua Jonathan. The boundaries between the various Indian-derived traditions are not as hermetically sealed as some might want to argue, or as JJ's massive substitutions imply. The boundaries may be firm in JJ's corner of the universe, presumably somewhere in the Netherlands, but to overgeneralize from that would be his bias and his misunderstanding. Many readers of Wikipedia will appreciate a larger, more inclusive template, and there is no reason not to include such templates -- perhaps in combination with the tradition-specific templates, although perhaps the latter would often become redundant. This is not an issue of reliable sources, nor of common name -- this is an issue of exposition and audience selection, and of whether Wikipedia wishes to project a stylistic POV-based impression that the traditions are normatively separate. Probably while thinking that he was doing good, JJ has succeeded in imposing his bias, and now wants to make it harder to restore the more inclusive view. This should be opposed, and the usage of the more inclusive template should be resumed much more widely than at present. And JJ should restrain himself, and not use a trial by exhaustion to impose his POV. --Presearch (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny that you call it POV, and use ad hominim arguments. The previous discussions apparently escaped your attention? Anyway, how about "Modern Indian religious writers", instead of "Indian religions writers"? Clear boundary (India, religious), no fuzzy edge on whether Chinese and Japanese Buddhists should also be included. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that would also include Islamic writers. Or is that a boundary that should be preserved, despite the centuries-long interaction between Hinduism and Islam? Which shows the agenda of "Dharmic", doesn't it: true Indian religions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      OK to include Islam. It would be fine with me to have a Indian religious writers template that includes Islamic writers -- yes, examples such as Kabir show that the boundary is more permeable there, too, than sometimes claimed. Mahatma Gandhi tells of his experience growing up in a temple where the reading on alternate days might be from the Bhagavad Gita and from the Qu'ran. A template focusing on modern writers only in traditions that originated in India might be more logistically manageable (since otherwise can any religion not be included if even comprises .001% of Indian population?), and the permeability might be higher between those traditions, but I have no opposition in principle to including Islam, say, or Zoriastrianism. But if it's logistically manageable (perhaps because of a finite number of notable writers?), then that's fine with me -- I think it would serve the purpose more or less equally well.
      Example of Need. Now just to reiterate the original point, here's an example of how a more inclusive template can be of interest to Wikipedia readership. This is a quote from Indian journalist Arun Shourie: "We are Hindus... persons like me, all my reading is Buddhist, many of my practices would be from teaching of the Buddha but nobody would say that I am less of a Hindu or more of a Buddhist or vice versa". This is one bit of illustrative evidence that "on the ground" there are large numbers of people who feel free to cross over such boundaries. That is my experience in my non-India neck of the woods (is this a pro-hominem argument?  ), and I think it is even more common in India. Thus, WP editors who do not see such boundary-crossing in your neck of the woods, you should not generalize and assume that is how it is everywhere. Therefore, to serve that portion of the Wikipedia readership, keeping one of these large templates, and resuscitating its use more widely than at present, helps fulfill the goal of the encyclopedia of making balanced information readily available in a form useful to the readership. --Presearch (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wauw! That's great that you're willing to include Islam! Really great! You've got a Big Heart. For the rest of my response, addressing the "wider interest", see below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No! There is no point in having "Modern Indian religious writers". We don't need a template of Indians who write about religions. That's over categorization. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tough - How about deleting both templates because we have covered both of the concepts? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:NAVBOX":

"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate."
  • ad1: "dharmic religions" is not a single, coherent subject;
  • ad2: "dharmic religions" is not mentioned in most of those articles, nor won't it, given the previous concensus on the use of the term "dharmic";
  • ad3: most articles do not refer to each other;
  • ad4: there is no article on "Dharmic religions", beacuse of the same concencus;
  • ad5: that's a matter of preference, but it's clear that for example articles on Hindu political writers, and western Zen-teachers, are not likely to be linked.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can be Successful. For #1 above ("All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject"), what about conceptualizing the template as "Modern writers on religious traditions that originated in India". There may not be an article, but it has coherent boundaries. I don't see any article for "Modern Buddhist writers", or for "Modern Jain writers" - it seems that their coherence as a topic is being judged affirmatively without an accompanying article. By many measures, this was a "successful" template (even if "dharmic" was not common name, and admittedly needed fixing by WP guidelines) before it was mass-removed without agreement a few months ago. --Presearch (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting both is also fine per Bladesmulti. We already have "Modern [religion name] writers". (That nomenclature should actually have been "Modern writers on [religion name]ism") §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's yet another rationale for the "Dharmic"-template, to which the user-page of the creator gives a hint: Ralph Waldo Emerson, that is, Transcendentalism/Theosophy/Perennialism/New age: the idea that the eastern religions, more specific, Buddhism and Hinduism, preserve an ancient wisdom, which in essence is universal. I can understand the wish for such a template from this POV, but that's exactly what it is: POV. So, I'd say: delete both. And, still: this Portal:Indian religions covers all of it, so just use that portal, in a portalbar, to which also Hinduism etc can be added:
{{Portalbar|Indian religions|Hinduism|Buddhism|Jainism|India|Yoga|Religion|Spirituality}}
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's more relevant is the claim that large numbers of Wikipedia readers are likely to be interested in the wider topic and larger template. That hasn't yet been addressed by those arguing for deletion. If this discussion is closed in favor of deletion without sincerely addressing the issue of the likely interests of (a sizeable portion though not all of) the audience for which we are writing, that speaks rather unfavorably of us and the our commitment to serving that readership. --Presearch (talk)

I see your point here. It also addresses the other rationale, let's call it "multi-faith interest". My objection is the term Dharmic, which has Hindutva-undertones, as far as I can see. So, can we find another "label" to justify such a template? See also the guidelines above, maybe especially point 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". For example, Multiple religious belonging? If we take "Modern Indian religious writers" (to which Dharmadhyaksha strongly objects), that also misses the point, doesn't it? I've still got this draft for User:Joshua Jonathan/Asian Modernisation and Religion. Or Syncretism? Or, maybe, still the other alternative: categories for Category:Modern Hindu writers, and an overarching category of Category:Writers by religion. By the way, this "cross-over" is also my experience. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_21#Category:Modern_Buddhist_writers... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also Category:Religious leaders by religion. Wouldn't that suffice? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I glanced over this page too quickly but it looked to me that maybe we have a viable option going forward that consists of keeping the "Dharmic" template, but renaming it. With regard to the new name, JJ said Dharmadhyaksha strongly objected to "Modern Indian religious writers", but I couldn't find his strong objection. At any rate, perhaps there's a way to go forward with a name derived from somehow assembling the words Modern, Indian, relig*, and Writers. To me that appears the sensible approach because 1) It is implicitly grounded in the argument that a major reason for the template is that it will be of interest to many WP readers, and 2) It avoids ("brackets") the question of precisely how or why readers are crossing over boundaries between the different traditions. That is, people may do reading from multiple traditions for a variety of reasons that include a) so-called syncretic belief systems (Bahai? Certain versions of "perennial philosophy"?); b) Multiple belonging (and believing there is not a contradiction); c) adhering to the practices of only ONE tradition, or one lineage, but finding value, such as inspiration, in reading (some/many) writers from other traditions (some call this reading many places for inspiration but reading only one place for instruction). To embed a single one of these uses or functions into the name of the template seems both unnecessarily limiting, and also somewhat presumptive, if we can simply use a merely descriptive name, such as "Modern Indian [Relig*] Writers". [BTW my WP time is scarce these days so I haven't read older linked discussions] --Presearch (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS with regard to the Navbox guidelines, the text from that page does not seem to require that ALL of the points are met: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines..." (and I've already mentioned my perspective that historically, i.e., up to a year or two ago, the "dharmic" navbox was in many ways successful). To me as a reader, a category would be better than nothing, but a navbox would be better than a category. My experience with categories is that are not uncommonly disorganized and often over time grow to possess a substantial portion of inappropriate material. Perhaps the same could be said of a navbox template, but I think the accretion of garbage is slower (and much more easily noticed), which means that templates (if they have a reasonable and coherent logic for what they are allowed to contain) are easier to maintain. Also, categories need a separate window from any of their constituent articles, are less efficient in how they use space, and are less flexible in how they are structured. So I think it is a definite service to readers to maintain a navbox, rather than one or more categories. --Presearch (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2014 (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) 02:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your "[Relig*]"; it reminds of "Rg". And templates do indeed read easier. Maybe we should just use that term; it's funny. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete both, better covered by a category and/or list article. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, and use a list or category, instead, since there is already effective navigation for these articles without these templates —PC-XT+ 04:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Frietjes and PC-XT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Frietjes, PC-XT, and Martijn Hoekstra. Modern Dharmic writers was created with the intent of some sort of cross-religion promotion of certain teachers considered by a certain editor to be "Dharmic", but it is not a category in common academic use and it is not the function of navigation templates to promote cross-cultural interest. The list is also potentially endless, the choices for inclusion seem to be made simply on the basis of editors' likes and dislikes rather than from sources defining important works in the categories. This is really not template material. Use category and/or list article instead. Skyerise (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (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:Only in print 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. It seems there may be another solution, or a way to fix this template, but there is no consensus on exactly what to do at this point. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Only in print (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template no longer makes text only appear in print. Instead, the text simply doesn't appear at all, for either PDF generation or normal page rendering. This is due to changes in the PDF renderer and the deprecation of Category:Exclude in print - and according to bugzilla:48052, the old behaviour won't be coming back. You can verify that this template no longer works using the example in my sandbox. We should be able to substitute this template without any loss of functionality on pages that transclude it, but we should consider how it interacts with Template:Hide in print first. These two templates were often used together to define print and non-print behaviour, but their intended effect is often quite different from the current behaviour of the PDF renderer. For example, in Template:Infobox election, these two templates were used to hide the navigation links between the previous and next election pages, but the current PDF renderer simply omits the infobox altogether. If we only subst Template:Only in print without considering Template:Hide in print it may make it harder for editors to work out what the code was supposed to do and how best to fix it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr. Stradivarius, it looks like it has about 42k transclusions. will a bot simply substitute it, or will this require human clean up? Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frietjes: It could be safely substituted, yes, as the output is always guaranteed to be blank. However, human clean up may be the easier way in the long run, due to the way this template was often intended to interact with {{hide in print}}. I'll try and work out how many pages would actually need to be edited for this to be cleaned manually so that we can see what we're dealing with. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I fixed template:infobox election. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the fix. My script has finished running, and {{only in print}} is only used on 71 pages (excluding talk pages and user pages, which were not scanned). You can see the complete list of pages at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Only in print. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have an opinion about this, but can the TfD template on it be hidden, as it's making a bit of a mess of infoboxes it's transcluded in. Thanks, Number 57 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    noinclude tags have been added for now, if these are REALLY needed please discuss and restore. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Number 57 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does {{Hide in print}} work correctly right now? I agree that we have to consider the ramifications of the interaction between these two templates. For now, I'd suggest keeping the templates, because if a technical solution to printworthiness is ever found in the future, it'll make it easier to figure out what to do. One thing that is quite crucial is to make sure that of the two templates, the content of exactly one is always shown; we may want to replace {{hide in print}} with a template that never hides its content in order to ensure that information doesn't just get arbitrarily deleted in printed versions. --ais523 15:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    No, {{Hide in print}} doesn't currently hide its content in print (or in normal display). This used to work because it was in Category:Exclude in print, but that category doesn't have the effect of excluding things from PDF output any more. It should be possible to replace most instances with {{noprint}}, but this can mess up things like table syntax in some instances, so for that reason alone we would have to replace them manually. Also, if we convert {{hide in print}} to {{noprint}} we could theoretically see the arbitrary deletion of content in print versions that you mention, which is why working through {{only in print}} and {{hide in print}} manually at the same time would be a good idea. (I'm just now calculating how many pages would have to be edited manually - the script will take a few hours to finish.) This might be moot, though, as we effectively already have arbitrary deletion of content - all the infoboxes and navboxes are removed from PDFs now, for a start. This state of affairs probably won't change any time soon, so I think it would be better to alter the templates to reflect the reality of how things are actually rendered in PDFs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only really used in a few templates and can be easily edited out, for example in Template:LCC, could change to just be the bit within the hide in print section but without the hiding. A number of other templates would be similar. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • the use in {{doi}} accounts for about 17k transclusions. I would suggest fixing that one first. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now The solution seems to be "fix the new renderer to respect Category:Exclude in print and {{Hide in print}}/{{Only in print}}", not "remove these templates and categories outright". Maybe there's a different way of doing things than these templates/categories, but it would have to be proposed first before we remove these templates. For instance, in the old renderer, doi:10.1234/56789 would appear as doi:10.1234/56789 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1234/56789] or doi:10.01234567[1] with a "[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1234/56789" in the reference section, depending on where exactly in the article those links were found. The hide in print/only in print was needed so that online we had doi:10.1234/56789, and PDF we have doi:10.1234/56789 instead of doi:10.1234/56789 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1234/56789]. This was the type of thing these templates aimed to fix. Now it's possible that the new renderer will render links, and that this functionality could be useful in the {{doi}} case, but we'd need to make sure that the other templates would not have their behaviours broken.
There's also no good reason why infoboxes should be excluded from print. These are content. They should be included. Books like Book:Chemical elements and Book:Messier objects would be thoroughly crippled by this decision. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: The problem with the option of fixing the new renderer to respect Category:Exclude in print is that it's not actually an option - this possibility was ruled out after bugzilla:48052 was closed as WONTFIX. In that bug report MaxSem mentioned that print CSS will be the method used in the future for hiding things from print versions. As I understand it, this means that from now on the "noprint" class will be the only thing that can be used by non-admins to stop things appearing in print versions. We can adapt {{hide in print}} to use that class, but that won't help with {{only in print}}, as there is no equivalent class for putting things in print versions only. As for showing infoboxes, I'm not sure exactly where the CSS is that's hiding them, but we might be able to fix that from MediaWiki:Print.css. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't tried this yet and really oughtn't speak till I see what happens (and don't have time right now), but could you modify the template to use a Lua script that looks up the parent frame of its parent frame to see if there is a parameter set? I'm thinking you could print out the page in "print" form by rendering another page that contains {{(Article_name)|print=yes}} and having your script catch that "print" parameter value, then return the text passed to "only in print" if and only if it is nonblank. Wnt (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wnt: You can't access grandparent frames from Scribunto, so that part won't work. Also, if we want to do something like this it would probably be better to do it from inside MediaWiki - rendering a different page from the one that was requested seems a bit too much of a hack to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have <span class="noprint">Text only for screen</span>, which can also be used via {{noprint}} to hide things when printing. What we now need is a {{onlyprint}} which actually works. If we have <span style="display:none;" class="onlyprint">Text only for print</span> and also have some css:
@media print{
	.onlyprint { display:inline !important; }
}
then we might be good to go. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good solution to me if it will work, but I never really took the time to learn the details of MediaWiki CSS. @Edokter and TheDJ: what do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May be neater though to have a single template to which both the print and screen outputs are passed. {{Print or Screen|screen=Display text|print=Printer text}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think separate templates might be cleaner at least for {{Hide in print}}, where it's most often used without a counterpart {{Only in print}}. On the other hand, I can't think of a case where you would use {{Only in print}} without {{Hide in print}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:50, 7 October 2014 (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) 02:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, but keep a list of the impacted templates in case an alternative solution is derived. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting would mean that the solution is nearly impossible to implement by hand, because we would have to re-check every template manually, and find what exactly needs to be included/excluded. This information needs to be retained until we have the solution, then it can be implemented. Quite likely via the same templates we already have. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This template indicates that it should only be displayed in print media. Right now, that directive is broken, but there is active discussion on how we can fix it (see the css options above). If we delete this now, we make the way back harder. We could re-visit this some time in the future when things are clearer and more fleshed out. Unfortunately this is one of those 'someone should look at that' things, where there is relatively little chance someone will actually look at it. Still, let's not burn bridges here and assume the negative. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (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:Athletics abbreviations legend 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 move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Athletics abbreviations legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly unused at this time. I actually have a lot of usage to place it, but building this navbox from existing formats has not worked. I don't want to transclude it if it doesn't work. I would actually like to request technical assistance from someone who knows navbox construction. How do I find this person? If we can build this small enough, this legend will help decipher abbreviations used on thousands of athletics articles. That would not be served by deleting and placing a red mark on the template. Trackinfo (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the broken formatting, but it would be good to see examples where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (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) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unused, with no objection to userfication if Trackinfo would like to keep developing the template to make it useful and used in the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2014 (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:Mothers of the Ottoman Sultans 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) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mothers of the Ottoman Sultans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a compilation of randomly chosen persons. These women did not all enjoy the same position, the same honours or the same privileges and powers as mothers of sultans. Some did not enjoy any of that because they were never actually "mother of the sultan", having died long before their sons ascended. We don't have Template:Mothers of the Presidents of the United States, Template:Aunts of the Kings of France, or Template:Best friends of the Kings of England. Apparently, the creator's only argument for keeping this template, as stated on the talk page, is that "almost all mothers have articles in WP". That's far from convincing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:According to Wikipedia, a navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. In WP mothers of almost all sultans have articles and this template is created to group them. It is perfectly in accord with the definition given above. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Nedim is right in so far as the article does not contravene policy, but Surtdicna does make a valid point: navboxes should provide some useful feature, not simply be collections of links "because we can". In other words, they should be reserved for something that is of some importance, not try to visualize every conceivable category there is, otherwise we would get swamped by navboxes. I would much prefer to see this template reduced to covering the valide sultanas, who had a recognized and important role within the palace and the Ottoman state, while the generic mothers will still be found in the relevant category. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people like to see a nav-template of the valide Sultans. OK, they can create it , no limitations. But the Valide Sultan and Mother of the sultan are quite different concepts. Hürrem Sultan, one of the most famous of all mothers was not a valide sultan and Nakşidil Sultan one of the most famous Valide Sultans was probably not a mother of a sultan at all. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there must be limitations. You cannot create any navigation template you like. You cannot create a navigation template that lists Pikachu and Pertevniyal Sultan simply because their names start with a P. As stated on the talk page, I agree with Constantine's suggestion. The template should cover women who actually had a role as mother of the sultan. Hürrem is not famous as a mother. She is notable as a wife. How on Earth could she be famous as a sultan's mother when she died decades before her son ascended? What exactly did she do in her capacity as mother of the sultan? The template is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Your suggestion that creating Template:Mothers of the Presidents of the United States would be OK because we have articles about those women says a lot about the need for this template. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ridiculous Why ? Please don't be rude. I've given the WP definition of the nav template above. It groups the related article (in this case the mothers). What is wrong with this grouping and why do you define the template ridiculous ? You may think that a template about the title Valide Sultan is more appropriate. OK, then why don't you create one ? I promise not to define it ridiculous.(By the way such a template would cover onty as half as of the mothers' template) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should we delete this template? I compare this template with Template:British consort, Template:English consort, etc. I suggest rename this template as Ottoman consort not Mothers of the Ottoman sultans. Keivan.fTalk 07:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Keivan.f:, "Mother of the Sultan" is not the same as queen/prince consort or whatever, as the Ottoman system was quite different to the Western custom. Ottoman sultans are quite famous for having a harem. There were several official wives, and a lot more concubines. Not all of the former were mothers of sultans; indeed, most sultans were children of concubines, especially since formal marriage no longer took place after Suleyman the Magnificent. In addition, while the wife of a sultan was largely an honorary post (although it could be combined with power and influence, like Roxelana), the valide sultan had a recognized, established role in the state. Constantine ✍ 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @Cplakidas: I know how the Ottoman system was and that they had a lot of wives. But only a few of them were notable and influential. I mean that we can have a template which includes the senior consorts (Haseki sultans) and also the others who became Valide sultans in the future. Keivan.fTalk 07:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we would need two templates, because these are two different positions: the one relating to the standing of a particular concubine with her "husband", the reigning sultan, the other relating to the position of "queen mother". Anyhow, the point that Surtsicna makes, and I tend to agree with him, is that not all mothers should be presented under the same headline, because there is a huge difference between a concubine whose son ruled after she had died, to a concubine who wielded the immense influence of a valide, and that only the latter have enough historical significance to warrant a navbox. Constantine ✍ 08:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you mean that we should have a template only about valide sultans and another one for haseki sultans and kadin efendis? Under this point that you mentioned I think even not all valide sultans should be presented under the same headline, nor all haseki sultans. I gave an example before, Hürrem Sultan who died 8 years before her son became sultan, was very powerful and influential even more than most of the valide sultans, she wasn't also a concubine and was a free woman and legal wife of the sultan. Isn't a huge difference between her and Hatice Muazzez Sultan, who was also a haseki but not as influential as Hürrem? Also Kösem Sultan and Nurbanu Sultan were more powerful than many other valide sultans because not all valide sultans wielded an immense influence, for example Rahime Perestu Sultan who was not active in politics. We can't compare these women by their titles or that they lived longer than their husbands or not. Keivan.fTalk 10:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the rule. The POV shouldn't refer to examples in other articles. But since User:Surtsicna made fun of some imaginary templates like "Aunts of Kings of France", its my right to refer to some existing templates such as Wives of Muhammad, Henry VIII and Sigismund Augustus as well as the consorts of Japan, Luxembourg and Two Sicilienes.@Keivan.f: Queen consort is defined as the wife of the reigning king. But this template is about the mothers and it is far more important then the consort. Because while every sultan had a single biological mother, there were countless ikbals and hasekis in the harem. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Consorts of Japan, Template:Consorts of Luxembourg and Template:Consorts of the Two Sicilies are completely different with this template. Those women were Imperial or Royal Consorts not concubines and they used the titles Empress Consort or Queen Consort, like Template:English consort. I know that a lot of hasekis or ikbals were in the harem, but just the influential ones can be added to this template. Being the mother of a sultan doesn't make a person very influential. For example Hürrem Sultan was only a haseki sultan but was more powerful than most of the valide sultans. Keivan.fTalk 08:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every sultan had a single biological mother, but so did every living person on the planet. That means that there could be templates listing mothers of every possible group of people. How about Template:Mothers of Classical-era composers, listing women such as Maria Barbara Bach, Anna Maria Mozart, Anna Magdalena Bach, etc? Or Template:Mothers of Swedish physicists? Wouldn't that be absurd? Yes, you have a right to cite any example you want, but you cannot seriously compare this template to Template:Wives of Muhammad or Template:Wives of Henry VIII. The lives of those women were shaped by the fact that they were married to their respective husbands. The lives of many women listed on this template were not at all affected by the status of their respective sons. Navigational templates, like you yourself noted, serve to connect related articles to each other. This template does not do that. It misleads the reader, lest I say that it gives outright inaccurate information. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — If grouping is all that is needed, this seems better covered by a category. —PC-XT+ 08:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (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) 02:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for further reference or idea, this template should be kept. Delibzr (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (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.

S-line/Edmonton LRT left/Valley 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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/Edmonton LRT left/Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Edmonton LRT right/Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template for an LRT line that doesn't exist, and was previously deleted. 117Avenue (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2014 (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/2014_October_19&oldid=1136066726"