Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22 edit

Template:News media 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate title and the source is out of date, and therefore there is a POV issue for you can take any source and that source could say the exact opposite of what is in this template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes. This page can be deleted. Ranks of liberal and conservative may have bias. Marxistfounder (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a ranking of Media sources by their responding audience, so it includes no Wikipedia-related bias. It is also not dates, as the source only dates to 2014. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. 2014 is not out-of-date, and if you have even-more-recent sources, then improve the content. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If you dislike the title of news media because you are concerned that not every instance of a news-publishing-entity is included, or because you think the listed organizations tend to be USA-centric rather than representing a worldwide view on the subject, I would agree with a title change, but then WP:SOFIXIT and change the title to something better. As for your assertion that the news organizations listed in the template, may dispute their own ranking, that is also not very pertinent as a reason to delete. I agree that per WP:ABOUTSELF we can say in the New York Times article that they describe themselves as honest and unbiased (they do!), and we can even say per WP:ABOUTSELF in the Breitbart.com article that they describe their target audience as center-right to conservative (they do!), but that has no bearing on whether we have a table at the journalism article which summarizes what the bulk of the independent-of-those-news-entities reliable sources say is the ACTUAL audience of each entity. There are plenty of pre-2014 sources, as well, such as the 2005 paper discussed here, direct link here.[1] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don not see the value of showing the bias of the readers, as opposed to the publication, and it can cause confusion. The Economist for example is not liberal, even if the readers are. The Wall Street Journal draws readers equally from accross the political spectrum not, as the chart implies, mainly from the center. There is also, beyond the range presented, left-wing media such as The Nation and Mother Jones and right-wing media such as Alex Jones' Prison Planet and World Net Daily, as well as sites further left, such as the World Socialist Website, and further right, such as The Daily Stormer. Who reads what is interesting, but it needs explanation, which a template cannot do. TFD (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: The "{{News media}}" template is a sampling of audience preferences for several very major media sources (esp those in the USA) - and is based on a very WP:Reliable source (ie, Pew Research Center at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - the template is not intended as a comprehensive listing of all news media - the noted news sources are wikilinked (hyperlinked?) to the noted news source articles for more details - to be clearer - and to avoid confusion - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a template that needs lots of time and effort to update and per nom's reasoning. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 04:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: Thank you for your comments - template content may not need "lots of time and effort to update" and may be easily updated (if ever needed); content seems very similar (and consistent?) from one ref source to another (1; 2), and which seems well supported as such in the following discussions: Template talk:News media#Which news entities belong on which rows? - and/or - Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2#Useful charts but not deliberate hoax fraud - hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A selection of media outlets ranked by the ideological lean of their audience is not a thing we need a template for. For just one sample of the problems here, The Colbert Report is (a) a comedy show, not a media outlet comparable to NPR or The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, and (b) not in production anymore, and thus not a source that anybody can consult for new content anymore. For another, Google News is not an originator of news content; it's merely an aggregator that just picks up and indexes content produced by other media outlets — so the ideological makeup of its users is not even interesting or relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Thank you for your comments - and possible concerns - yes - agreed - there may be room for improving the template - for example, the items you've noted may be easily removed from the template - esp if there's WP:CONSENSUS among editors of course - the remaining portion of the template may still be useful to viewers - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to reserve this sort of thing for an article which can include more detail and discussion of the ranking methodology, and possibly presenting alternative rankings. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - related detail and discussion is presented at the main article for the template => Media bias in the United States - the template serves as a summary (and/or introduction) to this article - and related ones as well - hope this helps - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drbogdan: — However the template as it stands inadequatly summarizes the different rankings (see the template talk-page), and only serves to confuse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly confusing and does not accurately convey the sources. There are a multitude of such rankings available — and they most assuredly belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but not in a transcludable template. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: Thank you for your comments - the News media template seems clear, easy-to-understand and sufficiently accurate based on the cited reference => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ - the news source audiences, as particularly noted on the template, are => "[ranked accurately; scaled for clarity]" - however - suggestions to improve the template even more are always welcome of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2017 (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:Infobox National Day Parade 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All pages using this template have now been deleted as non-notable. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (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:Events at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redlinked template. Primefac (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (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:Dutch general election, 2017 potential coalitions 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 Relisted on 2017 January 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (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:Colored link 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 do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Colored link with Template:Font color.
Utterly redundant. The syntax for these templates is exactly the same with the exception that one parameter needs to be names instead of numbered in {{colored link}} Pppery 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So template {{colored link}} is a compact, specific version of the generic {{font color}}, which needs both a |text= and |link= parameter to do the same. Specific templates are useful because they are short and easy to use. Otherwise one could propose to create super-generic "CSS"-template that merges "font color" with other attributes such as font-style, font-size etc. Rfassbind – talk 12:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rfassbind. Please close this discussion quickly, the "‹See Tfd›" tag now appears on many pages and templates. Msjraz64 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rfassbind, and I don't see a strong reason to merge them for now. You might be able to convince me otherwise, but I strongly agree it's best to close this out quickly -- the "See Tfd" link appears on 5,400 articles, and it's slightly disruptive on infoboxes (like the top here). Stephen (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rfassbind; and agree with Msjraz64 and Slaporte to close this out quickly, as scale of "See Tfd" tab's appearance is rather disruptive to many infoboxes and other templates.Nikikana (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rfassbind. Although we can live without the template, doing so would make things more complex, so merging would be detremental. Bazonka (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2017 (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:Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here. Rschen7754 00:46, 22 January 2017 (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:SpoilerArticle 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 Speedy delete (CSD G4:Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Versions of this have existed in the past, and numerous prolonged discussions have repeatedly concluded that we should not have such a template. As well as the discussions linked below, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8#Template:Spoiler. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPOILER and WP:NODISCLAIMERS guidelines, it is completely inappropriate to place disclaimers, and especially spoiler warnings, on articles. The original spoiler warning template was deleted in 2006 after a long and arduous discussion(RfC · RfC talk · RfC 2 · RfC 2 talk). Since then, there has been no consensus to recreate any disclaimers to add to articles. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as G4. Pppery 14:25, 22 January 2017 (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:Presidents of Joint Council of Municipalities 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

connects two articles which can be accomplished without a navbox Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all thank you for invitation to discussion. I was just thinking what to do with this template. It was one of the first I ever created. I think a good idea is to connect (redirect) all of the existing templates related to the topic to one template (since one template can better represent the topic instead of few separated). So I think that actually the best idea is to redirect all of the following templates Template:Settlements of Joint Council of Municipalities, Template:Presidents of Joint Council of Municipalities and Template:Locations in Joint Council of Municipalities to reorganized Template:Joint Council of Municipalities. I think that it is now good time to resolve this long lasting unusual situation with multiply templates. I will highly appreciate if someone can help me in this redirection and reorganization job, or at least postpone deletion until templates are all integrated into one. All the best!--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Mirko proposes above is the way to go: definitely a single template is the best solution. I don't think, however, that presidents should be included in it: they are not necessarily individually notable, and navboxes should not contain permanent redlinks. I'd be willing to help with the merger of the rest, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reorganized main template so that now it include most of the old templates contents. I decided to change content a bit (you can give your opinion on this since I am not sure if this is the best idea). I decided to exclude geographic locations and non-minority institutions or religious organizations (originally I was thinking it is not the best idea not to include them, now I think the other way around). At the same time I included some communities and institutions/organizations that are outside of the member municipalities, but still in the area of two counties to which territory work of this organization is limited based on agreement with government. I also changed the colors of template to be more in line with Pan-Slavic colors used in both states and colors of different Serbs national symbols (some of them like National colours of Serbia officially used in Croatia trough the Flag of Serbs of Croatia or Flag of Serbian Orthodox Church, especially in this region). Also, municipalities in question use similar colors on their local symbols as can be confirmed on this and this link.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (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:555 Port-Mann Exp 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route map for non-notable bus route, 555 Express/555 Port Mann Express "Pepper" @ 04:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pepper! This route template is used on Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) page. It is a primary transit connection to the Skytrain network from the Township of Langley. It receives 868,000 trips per year (page 88), this is less than the 501 but is notable as an express bus route with few stops. I think we should keep it. James.bc (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@James.bc:, thanks for the comment. As the 555 does not have its own article (and probably shouldn't based on discussions regarding other non B-Line express bus routes in Metro Vancouver, 43 Express, 480 Express, 84 Express), there is no notability basis to keep this template. I also feel that its placement in Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) is unnecessary, and would support removing the template from that page whatever the outcome of this discussion. In general though, thanks for your work on Metro Vancouver topics! "Pepper" @ 19:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were a standalone article about this particular line for the template to be used in, then there'd be a stronger basis for retaining it — but if it's being used on the parent article about the municipality because of a consensus that the line itself isn't a suitable topic for a standalone article, then it's not needed or useful in that context. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, to argue your point Bearcat, if there is no standalone article, shouldn't we just write one up? There's plenty to talk about the service, I'll write one if that's what it will take to keep this. Template:84 Express also doesn't have a main article either, why is the 555 being singled out here from the list on Category:Canada transport templates? This template has been kept up to date which suggests it has been useful to other users who think it is important. --James.bc (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Because we hardly need a template for a three-stop spur line, especially given that it's a bus line and not a subway or Skytrain line; bus routes generally don't qualify for their own standalone articles on Wikipedia, with extremely rare exceptions for special "overarching significance" cases like maybe the bus Rosa Parks was on. But if even downtown Vancouver bus lines don't qualify for articles, I can't imagine any circumstances in which a suburban bus line in Langley could be more notable. (b) Probably just because nobody saw the 84 Express until you pointed it out; things can only be listed for deletion if they're seen. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I hadn't noticed Template:84 Express existed, and would support deleting it as well for similar reasons. "Pepper" @ 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a template that is only used on one page. For what it's worth, these sorts of diagrams are problematic because they do not meet accessibility guidelines. --Rschen7754 04:57, 29 January 2017 (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/2017_January_22&oldid=1138373705"