Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18 edit

Template:Outdent2 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus, leaning keep on the grounds that at least for some users, the stylistic variation carries information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant stylistic variation of {{Outdent}}, but with only 496 transclusions (compared to 39,438 for the latter). All of the existing transclusions should be replaced with the more common template. there is no need for two such templates, for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: if this is deleted, please update WP:INDENT accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has found use, and can be used differently from the outdent1, as it can form a portion of the outdented comment, instead of being separate from it. It is an alternate presentation, and why shouldn't we have some choice? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where that choice is to use a different visual icon to that used in the vast majority of other cases, it is harmful. The way in which it is harmful it is that its meaning is likely to be unclear, and thus confusing, to editors encountering it for the first time. Consistency in icon usage is a basic tenet of good design principles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; almost 500 transclusions is not trivial. (←) is different from, and less intrusive than
    ; I use the former in preference to the latter. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Umm... here we go again... I will politely ask what the transclusion count has to do with anything? Are we running out of disk space? This is a lovely essay that you've created, but there's not a whole lot of "maintenance" involved with a little arrow that links to somewhere? Meanwhile the appearance is dramatically different than the original {{od}}, and at least for me, serves a different purpose. I use {{od2}} for general outdenting, and the more visible {{od}} when replying to a large thread that was awaiting my response, or otherwise to make my comment more prominent, for whatever reason — MusikAnimal talk 00:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transclusion count has to do, in this case - and as I indicated in my nomination - with giving an indication of which of the two styles of outdent template the community prefers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part I don't understand is why we can't have multiple variations? Maintenance effort doesn't seem to apply to this particular template. I don't find it to be redundant either, as I said they serve different purposes for me. No one is stopping me from manually typing this out, so why can't I use a nifty template? Should I create one in my userspace, and use that moving forward? — MusikAnimal talk 18:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with different template Template:Undent which is much closer in expected use; something like |1=arrow. --Izno (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TFD#REASONS #2 ("The template is redundant to a better-designed template"). All arguments for keeping this have been WP:ILIKEIT. Not a single person has argued against redundancy. ~ RobTalk 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Not a single person has argued against redundancy." Have you not read the comments above yours? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this looks better" is not an argument against redundancy. And when terms are thrown around like "an alternate presentation", it becomes clear that the keep voters are actively acknowledging the redundancy. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'an alternate presentation' is not an acknowledgment of redundancy; redundancy isn't a purely macroscopically functional aspect. Izkala (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Template:Outdent2 and Template:Undent per nom and BU Rob13: These are redundant to a better-designed, more self-explaining template. Though not really necessary, I'm not against adding a parameter to additionally prepend the comment with that Template:Outdent2-style linked arrow. --PanchoS (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because {{od2}} is different from {{od}} and they have different uses. {{od}} is more intrusive than {{od2}} and is used more for visual effect. Compare this outdent:
    to this outdent: (←) . epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2016 (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).

Template:Uw-puf-remove 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is being closed, this template should either be deleted or redirected to/turned into a warning template for removing {{ffd}} tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a preference for deletion, but it could also be redirected to Template:Uw-idt1 (which seems very weakly worded; maybe there is a better one similar to PUF?). --Izno (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2016 (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).

Template:Royalty (album) track listing 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).

The result of the discussion was delete all. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of those irrelevant templates, delete per precedence. Basically we need to revisit everything under Category:Album track list templates. —IB [ Poke ] 11:53, 18 April 2016 (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).

Template:JYP Entertainment 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).

The result of the discussion was keep as per my close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 17#Template:YG Entertainment, where this was discussed at greater length. Izkala (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The artist roster was removed by Robsinden, per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. The template doesn't really serve a useful purpose without the artist roster. Random86 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The YG Entertainment discussion (the one I mentioned in my original comment) just closed. The result of that discussion was keep the template and restore the artist roster. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I forgot to actually put in a "keep" vote last time. But I think we should keep this template and add the artist roster back in. See the link in my previous comment for more explanation about why the precedent should not apply to Korean entertainment companies. Gottagotospace (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--per the other discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous consensus simply doesn't take into consideration the particularities of the K-pop industry that users Gottagotospace, Evaders99 and KIDE777 explained well on the other discussion. The template should be kept and the articles on the artists should be included back.--Cattus talk 02:27, 25 April 2016 (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).

Template:Painters and Sculptors of India 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 14:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an WP:OR set of Indian painters and sculptors. Looking at Category:Indian painters there are hundreds of painters there but only a random assortment here. Similarly, there are 60 pages in Category:Indian sculptors. Either all of those pages are going to be listed here (making this close to unmanageable) or some assortment but no criteria I can figure out. The categories already exist so I don't see what the template accomplishes. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this template, let me assure you that it was not WP:OR, rather I just tried to group the articles that my search could locate. The fact that I missed out on a number of articles only illustrates my ineptitude. A closer scrutiny of the categories mentioned by Ricky81682 will reveal that while 438 pages were included in Category:Indian painters, many of them were repetitive; the same is the case with Category:Indian sculptors, where 60 articles are grouped together. The template lists 262 pages and with the repetitions excluded, the template will still remain manageable, even after including the missing pages. By the way, categories and navigational templates can co-exist; Template:Nobel Prize in Physics and Category:Nobel laureates in Physics are examples. Though both are primarily navigational tools, a template often has a broader canvass. As I tend to lean towards inclusionism, I would advocate for this template's retention. Wikipedia being a universally preferred source of reference, it would be prudent to ensure that suitable alternatives are available here before doing away with content. If consensus is reached in this discussion for the retention of the template, I agree to update the template by including the missing articles.--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian painters category has 38 women painters but only 29 here. The main category has close to 350 painters (Mughal, 19th, 20th, 21st and the main one) and that's excluding portrait painters. That's a simply unmanageable template. There are no other templates for "All British painters" or "All American painters" because we have categories for that. In contrast, Nobel Prize winners are a concrete set of individuals with a set order. We don't have a template for Indian physicists in contrast. The painters here aren't even organized by type or time, it looks like alphabetically by first name which is a very strange convention. It's just all painters (and sculptors) put together with a separation by gender. WP:NENAN applies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is why we have categories. Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2016 (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).

Template:Wikitree name 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site violates WP:ELNO. In particular, most of the profiles on Wikitree reference back to Wikipedia, which is specifically noted as something you shouldn't link to at ELNO. Pinging all contributors to the relevant previous TfD: @Irn, Twiceuponatime, KinCityKitty, Pigsonthewing, and Izkala:. ~ RobTalk 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of WikiTree profiles (I'd estimate at least 11.0 out of 11.1 million profiles) *do not* link back to Wikipedia, as they are for non-notable ancestors and their living descendants, or a biography has been written by WikiTree contributors. However, the WikiTree Notables project uses Wikipedia's standards for notability. It's therefore common for WikiTree biographers to link to Wikipedia biographies as a concise way of confirming notability. Because genealogy websites such as WikiTree focus on a person's pedigree and family ties with source citations confirming life events (birth, death, immigration, etc.), some contributors are not interested in drafting original biographies and simply link to Wikipedia articles about notable ancestors and living people. Just as Template:Find a Grave allows Wikipedia readers to locate information about the gravesite of a notable person, this template allows readers to learn about a person's extended family far beyond their parents, spouses, or siblings that might be noted here on Wikipedia. For instance, follow the links at the bottom of the WikiTree profiles for Lucille Ball and David Niven showing how they connect to Kevin Bacon, Queen Elizabeth and Alex Haley. Kjtobo (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the notables are the only people who this template would be linking to. I checked 5-6 of the transclusions that are currently in-use, and 100% of the ones I checked provided Wikipedia as a source at least once. ELNO is clear on that. As far as the family tree bit, where is this information coming from? How is it verified? Can it be verified? ~ RobTalk 05:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, you're exactly right - the template would only be used here for notable folks, and for the modern-day celebrities it's quite likely that the WikiTree contributor would link to the Wikipedia article. Is your point about avoiding links back to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 12, or is there another statement that covers this? The links back to Wikipedia could be removed if that's really a sticking point, but I don't believe WikiTree is forking or mirroring Wikipedia, and WikiTree users would lose the benefit of reading the great biographies here. The family tree information is coming from peer contributor-reviewed genealogy research by WikiTree contributors, with a focus on collaborative editing and citing your sources. Sound familiar? : ) For more, see the WikiTree Honor Code. Kjtobo (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If sources are actually cited, I may withdraw this, but where can I find the sources? For instance, if I go to the James Squire family tree I'm not seeing a single source. And yes, I am referring to item 12. The biographies are undoubtedly forking Wikipedia; large sections of them are more-or-less copied from Wikipedia and use Wikipedia as their only source. ~ RobTalk 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't have added the WikiTree link to James Squire's Wikipedia article, as the WikiTree profile was unsourced (I did quickly find a single source for his christening), unconnected to the global tree, and adds no content beyond what is found in the Wikipedia article. It's not a good example of how I would expect the link to benefit readers. Perhaps a better example is my use of the template on articles for Alejandro García Padilla and his brothers, where WikiTree shows an extended family tree with primary sources.
WikiTree does have a style guide note advising against copying from Wikipedia, but like WP:MOS it often goes unheeded by less experienced contributors. Kjtobo (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information on the Squires page comes from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is given as one of the main sources along with the user who created the page, familysearch - which is not a reliable site, and a pub website. The actual family tree was generated from information on our Wikipedia page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Those are the footnotes for the biography (the first tab), which makes no mention of his parentage. They don't actually cite any sources for the family tree, as far as I can see; it says confirmed by DNA, but where have they got that information form? Izkala (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that information comes from the unverified research by the user who created the page. There is room for all manner of dubious goings on to take place on that website (same as there is on Wikipedia - which is why we always stress that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source). I can't see how it is appropriate for us to be linking to such a site. There may be WP:BLP issues with using links to that site from a BLP article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! That "confirmed by DNA" bit was an unsourced conclusion added in error - I've removed it. Kjtobo (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review of the language at ELNO #12 indicates that ELNO#12 does not apply. A) This website has a substantial number of contributors; B) has an 8-year history of existence; and C) does not exist primarily as a fork or mirror of Wikipedia. Keep. --Izno (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikitree (when it works right) is an index to information not otherwise readily findable, so it's good for putting in "see also" lists. Any such site is only as good as its sources, but then again, that can be pretty good at times. Alvestrand (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the site is not a reliable source, it mirrors Wikipedia, and offers little of value. Each WikiTree page I looked at that is linked on Wikipedia gets its main info from Wikipedia and sources we regard as unreliable such as Find a Grave, IMDB, and familysearch. The template does not meet WP:ELYES - the material is not reliable so cannot be confirmed as "accurate", and is not copyright, and is not extensive (it provides basic info on dates of birth and death of parents and siblings, which if relevant are already in our articles, or can be tracked through the sources already provided). The template does not meet WP:ELMAYBE because the site does not contain information from knowledgeable sources, it contains user generated material gleaned from Wikipedia, IMDB, Find a Grave, and familysearch, which are unreliable sources. It fails WP:ELNO#1 as the main family details would be in a featured article. It fails WP:ELNO#2 as the material is user generated from unreliable sources. And it possibly fails WP:ELNO#12 as it's a Wiki that substantially mirrors Wikipedia. Using this template would be a sloppy way of avoiding proper research, and diminishes Wikipedia's aim of being a reliable source of information. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, thanks for adding youur input. While the user-submitted family tree on FamilySearch is often unsourced and unreliable, the vast collection of primary source records on FamilySearch are exactly the citations that are invaluable to genealogists: the original census, birth, marriage, and death records that show a person to have lived in a particular place and time. The citations referencing FamilySearch on the WikiTree profiles of Lucille Ball, David Niven, and Alejandro García Padilla are used because FamilySearch.org is an excellent free repository for these primary source records originally produced by government agencies of the US, UK, and Puerto Rico in these examples. Similarly, a Find a Grave page with an unsourced biography and family links is a poor source, but a Find a Grave page with a photo of an original tombstone is an excellent source of information about a person's death and burial. Kjtobo (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is useful information from reliable sources then that should be added to the Wikipedia article in the normal way. We restrict links to external sites as it was a founding principle of Wikipedia that it should not serve as a directory (WP:PILLARS / WP:NOTDIRECTORY). We are not the internet we are a general encyclopedia providing curious readers with a reliable, neutral and balanced summary of the main points of a topic. If a reader wishes to learn more about a topic they may consult the reliable sources we list as having provided our information, or do their own research (highly reccomended). Wikitree is not a reliable source, and gathers its information in the same way as Wikipedia - that is from other sources, though mainly, it appears, unreliable sources such as IMDB, Find A Grave, Wikipedia itself, or unverified research by a user; as such it is inappropriate for us to be using it in any form, and we should not be recommending it to our readers. Let us provide them with the reliable sources, not with an unreliable substitute. As for serving the specific interests of genealogists, that is not our aim. We cannot aim to serve everyone. Again - we are not the internet, we are an encyclopedia; there is a limit to what we can and should provide, otherwise we will become drowned in links to various facets connected to an article topic. Find A Grave is a dubious website which we tolerate links to in certain circumstances as it does have as you say a photo of the tomb which can be useful, but we will remove the link as soon as we have a more reliable source. I don't see what Wikitree can offer in the same unique way - it gets its info from other sources anyway. Let us go to those sources and bypass Wikitree completely. Remember, we do not need to have an online link to a source - much of our most valuable information comes entirely from printed sources not (yet?) available on the internet. What is important is that the source is reliable, not that it is online. Though, having said that, if there are two reliable sources, one online and one only in print, I tend to prefer the online source as its easier for a reader to check. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:08, 28 April 2016 (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).

Template:Visa policies and requirements in Greater China 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant as it is covered by Template:Visa requirements and Template:Visa policy by country. Szqecs (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, clear to see the visa requirements and visa policies in the Great China region, since the four regions are much relative to each other than the otheres. Jiangyu911 (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So by your logic, there should be a template with the UK and it's overseas territories as well? Szqecs (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes and the nominator. I don't see a need to focus on the regions in specific. --Izno (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, China, HK and Macau must be kept since they belong to the same country (the PRC), Taiwan is included because officially it continues its sovereign claim to all PRC soil (vice versa for PRC). also legislation in these regions means that the immigration procedures for nationals and residents involve acquisition of other travel documents rather than visas as passports are generally not accepted for direct travel (unlike the United Kingdom and its territories), hence deletion of such template is a violation of political neutrality and cannot accurately reflect the unique laws and regulations in these regions.C-GAUN (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because HK and Macau are part of China doesn't mean there needs to be a separate template. There aren't separate templates for UK, US and France with their overseas territories. If Taiwan is included just because it claims PRC territory, maybe there should be a template for the two Koreas? Also the permits that these places require for each other's citizens are not equivalent to visas, but passports. That's even more reason for it to remove it. Szqecs (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's talk about your examples: UK accepts other British passports issued to BOTCs for entry, US citizens have the right to reside in any of the overseas territories and travelling between them are not even considered international travel, and France has only one nationality for all overseas residents hence they only issue one type of passport. North Korea and South Korea do not recognize passports issued by each other but these two places are technically in a state of war and they do not claim territories to each other. Also why don't you look up "passport" in a dictionary before calling these permits "passports"? I know none of us speak English as a first language but at least you should have a better grasp at some basic words. C-GAUN (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say permits and passports are the same thing, I said they're more similar to each other than visas. Let me get things straight. This template involves visa requirements and visa policy of countries and territories for 4 places, which doesn't just concern these 4 places and is already covered by 2 other templates. Your reasoning for this template to exist: Mainland, HK and Macao same country but different policies and requirements, you said travel between US and its overseas territory isn't international, but so isn't Mainland<>HK. US and its overseas territories have different policies too. The only 2 differences is that US citizens can live in OT (but not the away around? Not sure) and that travel between them is special (though not really that special either). Either way, this criteria is weird because the template contains links to requirements and policies for all countries. Having a template just because travel between them is special isn't reason enough. For Taiwan it's even more weird. The criteria is that there are territorial disputes between them. There are many other disputes out there:List of territorial disputes and the two Koreas DO claim each other. Also the ROC and PRC didn't negotiate peace, so they're technically at war as well. If you really want such a template, it should be a template of the permits used between them, not links to visa reqs and policies. Szqecs (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote you: "Also the permits that these places require for each other's citizens are not equivalent to visas, but passports." your words exactly. As for your war argument the de facto ceasefire has been in place for over three decades and the South and the North are both full UN members and DO consider each other to be separated countries (doesn't mean they stopped conquering each other) while the ROC is REPLACED by PRC in 1971 in the UN which made it a partially recognized country. Also a U.S. citizen have the right to travel to and reside in any U.S. territory with a form of identification (such as a driver's license) as he would in any other states and does NOT have to go through immigration (although their luggage may be inspected as they are in different custom zones), while a Mainland resident have to carry his two-way permit and proper entry endorsements (de facto visas issued by Mainland) for travelling to HK and MAC and clear immigration in one of the ports of entry unlike his travel to other places in Mainland (only with a Chinese ID card). Furthermore, Hong Kong do authorize Chinese missions abroad to issue entry permits to be affixed on Chinese passports for travelling which is also a de facto visa. Taiwan's EEP (another form of de facto visa) requires a personal application to the Taiwanese missions abroad or though a travel agency (which is issued by Taiwan), and when travelling from Mainland China to Taiwan one also need to carry his Mainland-issued pink travel permit with another exit endorsement (exit visa). So in conclusion, you got five types of individual, standalone, credit card sized/passport-sized permits which can be used as a form of ID (the Two-way Permit, One-way permit (for settlement in HK and MAC), Taiwan Compatriot Permit, Home Return Permit and the pink permit to Taiwan), two types of exit/entry endorsements (de facto exit or entry visas) affixed on permits (the entry permit for Hong Kong and Macau on the TWP and the exit permit to Taiwan for the pink booklet), several loose-leaf de facto visas and e-visas (Taiwan's EEP and the pre-arrival online regisration for HK and MAC rsidents, and HK's pre-arrival registration for Taiwanese), The Macau travel permit issued by the HK ImmD for Macau residents and one entry endorsement (also a de facto visa) issued on a national passport (the HKSAR Entry Permit on the Chinese passport) and they all are exclusively placed on the ROC and PRC nationals by the four governments. That's over 10 types of IDs, permits, de facto loose leaf visas and e-visas and one type of de facto visa affixed on passport issued by the four governments to the respective residents for border-crossing purposes not involving passports. Not even the three NAFTA countries can match this level of complexity. In addition, all of the movements of people and goods between these places are treated as INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL as they need to go through customs and immigration like any international travelers. Seriously if this messy regulations don't deserve a separate template, then I don't know what else do. You argue against the statement simply because you feel that the criteria is "weird", and that is quite unreasonable and childish.C-GAUN (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant navigation. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an alternative means of discovery. Izkala (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18&oldid=1141875800"