Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 19

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

October 19 edit

Template:Infobox river 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 merge to Template:Infobox river They are both infobox templates and both have similar functionality. There is a strong consensus in this discussion that they should be merged into one. As Template:Infobox river has the older history, more revisions, and the more standard name for infobox templates it makes most sense to merge in that direction. Two editors have expressed a strong preference for the appearance of Template:Geobox/type/river (in particular User:Shannon1's points have been descriptive). I will add to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox river with factors that have emerged in this discussion by Shannon1 and others, to see if a consensus can be found. I will wait 30 days to give time for these discussions to conclude, before beginning the implementation of this merger. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox river with Template:Geobox/type/river.
I wanted to see if we could get an official decision to deprecate Template:Geobox/type/river in favor of Template:Infobox river. I know that {{Geobox}} has been a contentious template and I'm not trying to advocate a solution to all the issues, but it would seem that rivers have a good solid infobox, so can we officially deprecate the use of Geobox for rivers?

It is interesting to note that the very river that is used as the example on {{Infobox river}} (Amazon River) actually still uses the Geobox. I did a quick search and it looks like there are approximately 12,500 pages for rivers that are using Geoboxes. I'm happy to start converting them over but want to make sure we have an official consensus. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't exactly talking about functionality, more that geobox just looks better when more data is involved, while infobox becomes ugly/unwieldy. Also, the geobox template isn't any more difficult to fill in than infobox. (in fact, it also provides automatic unit conversions, which infobox lacks!) Shannon [ Talk ] 07:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also provide a test case - observe how the geobox presents the exact same data in a more compact, and arguably more legible manner, than the infobox. Shannon [ Talk ] 08:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I just felt it funny that we were both using the same discussion to support opposing views. Personally, I think the infobox in your testcase looks better. The content in the geobox looks too squashed together. Of course, like the functionality in the infobox, this is something that can probably be fixed. Automatic conversions are not an issue because this can, and should be, implemented. It's not a huge drama to implement the same functionality in each but we don't need both and how the infobox looks is really just preference. As for the difficuly of filling in the geobox, the documentation is vague, barely useable and not even visible on the same page as geobox while Template:Infobox river gets you the infobox as well as the documentation, which actually explains what the fields mean. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to fix the geobox documentation myself (frankly I'm surprised it doesn't exist) though seeing as this motion is likely to pass, I'll hold off on that for now. Also, can someone explain how exactly this conversion is going to be done? Who's going to go through 15,000 articles and clean up errors after a bot does the work?Shannon [ Talk ] 15:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no need for two templates when one template will suffice. Best to kill two birds with one stone ;)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - as noted above, they are still not identical, as Geobox River can make automatic unit conversions (which the Infobox River still cannot do). For comparison purposes, how many articles is Infobox River used on? When we have had this discussion in the past, it was noted that Geobox River is used by the majority of river FAs and GAs, so editors who make the highest quality articles prefer the Geobox. I also note that only 3 editors here (Shannon, Rmhermen, and i) are actiually listed as members of WikiProject Rivers. The standard argument here seems to be that A and B both exist and are similar, so lets only use A. No other rationale is given, except that B is not A. Geobox River is used on over 15,000 river and stream articles, surely there is a better use of editor or bot resources than this? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Projects don't own infoboxes so I don't see why membership of the project is relevant. Automatic conversions can be added to the infobox during a merge so that's really not an issue and, according to this, the infobox is used in nearly 15,000 articles so it's a 49:51 split between the two. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch: your arguments are completely invalid... If you're concerned that {{Infobox river}} can't autoconvert data, that is trivial to add... Part of this discussion is to find where that template is still lacking. Additionally, surely there is a better use of editor or bot resources than this is entirely invalid. You don't have to work on it if you feel there are things that are a better use of your time, but don't tell others what to do with their time. Finally, as AussieLegend pointed out, membership in a WikiProject is completely irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion. Everyone gets an equal say in this mater. The fact that you are a member of a project doesn't give you more say than anyone else. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Completely invalid" and "completely irrelevant" - Gee thanks Zackmann, you sure know how to make a user feel special - I guess "everyone gets an equal say" but me ;-). I am not trying to claim ownership for myself or the WikiProject, but here is a template (Geobox) that just over half the river articles use. Someone had to create and edit those roughly 30,000 articles, and more often than not they chose to use Geobox. Does that count for something? When editors (myself included) put in the extra effort to get river articles to FA and GA status, they have overwhelmingly used Geobox (it is in the past discussions, you can look it up). Does that count for something? The argument made is always that the Infobox River is somehow superior, and when things it still cannot do (like convert units automatically) are pointed out, these concerns are dismissed with "easily fixed". I am not a template person so I am not able to judge how easily fixed these issues are, but these same problems have been around since 2013 (see previous discussions) and no one has fixed them yet. To me that sounds like they are not as easy to fix as claimed. A main argument in support of the Infobox is that it can do everything the Geobox can. It demonstrably cannot, so doesn't that make the argument invalid? The other arguments seem to be about aesthetics (hard to prove those), and some vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT rumblings that Inoboxes are naturally superior. Shannon has offered to fix the documentation for the Geobox, which seems like it addresses a major issue. My last concern is suppose Geobox does go away, and Infobox replaces it everywhere. Do you really believe that making changes to 15,500 articles won't create problems / errors in at least some of them? Who is going to check all these - one reason why I brought up the editors that actually write river articles. YMMV, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Here are the main things I like about geobox as compared to infobox, from the perspective of someone who's worked on 200+ river articles and used both geobox and infobox many times. If these changes can be made, I would not oppose replacement (though I still don't see why it is necessary; as I mentioned, I'm happy to update the geobox documentation to make it more accessible to new editors.) Shannon [ Talk ] 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: geobox requires maintaining dozens of subtemplates. An infobox, which conforms to the standards of every other infobox on the website, does not. It is that simple. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: What about the layout concerns I brought up? My concern was that for the average reader, geobox river displays info in a clearer way than infobox river does. Shannon [ Talk ] 22:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: ok time for me to eat a little bit of humble pie.... TBH I kind of agree with you. lol. Here's what I think we need to do... What if we kept the look and feel of the geobox on the front end, but made it one template, rather than relying on all these subtemplates. Basically there are 2 issues here. 1) How it looks on the front end, 2) how insanely complicated it is to maintain on the backend. We are both talking about different issues. I REALLY want to get away from the Geobox's cluster$%^& of code (no offense meant towards ANYONE with that comment!!! I've written plenty of code that I cry when I try to debug later). So my end goal here is to get rivers to start using a template that has {{infobox}} as a base. But that should NEVER compromise usability on the front end. So, as the person who originally opened this TFD, I will state that IF we decide to implement this merge, I will update {{infobox river}} to support the things that you pointed out. I don't have time right this minute, but I want to try to mock something up later. For arguments sake, take a look at {{Infobox settlement}}. I think that follows the same design patterns you are looking for, but does it in much more manageable code.
@Rehman, Keith D, Jonesey95, Bermicourt, AussieLegend, and Ruhrfisch: I'd really like you guys/gals to read the above because while I initially wrote off Shannon1's comments, they are actually spot on. I think that IF this merge does take place, we need to go back to the drawing board on {{Infobox river}}. I think that needs to be a condition of this moving forward. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08:: Thanks so much for clearing that up. I wasn't aware that the issue was with the Geobox code; I thought it was a (relatively) simple matter of updating the Geobox documentation to be equally readable as Infobox documentation. I understand now that this is more about long term maintenance costs. And I absolutely agree that what Template:Infobox settlement does, solves most of the issues I brought up. If a identical/very similar layout to Geobox can be preserved, that would also ward off most potential issues with the bot doing the conversions. Shannon [ Talk ] 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: stellar!! I'm going to make that my task over the next day or two, to mock up a good replacement. using the look and feel of Infobox settlement. I will definitely keep you posted. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox river/testcases has a mockup of the newly formatted template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with going back to the drawing board for the infobox. Sometimes that's just the best way to do things and I've had to do that several times. I don't really think appearance is a big issue. Personally I prefer the standard infobox layout that is used in most infoboxes while I know others prefer the old geobox style layout but you can't please everyone. The main thing, in my opinion, is that we should aim for a user-friendly interface that does as much as possible for the editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation - I am also OK with trying to come up with a revamped River Infobox that has all the functionality of the Geobox River but is easier to maintain as code. WOuld it be possible to have a toggle that either displayed the extra data labels (per Shannon's figure, like Geobox) or did not (like Infobox)? That way the editor could have it look the way the preferred. Back when User:Caroig developed them, the original idea behind the Geoboxes (which I did not work on) was that they would be a series of geographic templates that could all call on the same components (bits of code) as needed. Since the Geobixes have been whittled away over the years through various TfDs, what is left is probably more clunky because of this (and likely has not been updated much in years, as Cariog has not been active since 2013 and really stopped editing a lot in 2007). I'm old... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, really, really strong support (are those sufficient superlatives?): It beggars belief that we are still debating this so long after it was originally proposed. There are no sound arguments for having two templates for one purpose; and many against doing so, as has been previously explained at length. If the "Geobox" features are better, or its visual presentation preferable, merge them into the Infobox. And do it soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support duplicacy should be avoided and standardisation should be promoted in tech stuff. Also WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 19:19, 25 October 2018 (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:FIFA World Cup symbols 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 2018 October 27. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (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:Portal-inline/chemistry 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (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:Hammer Film Productions films 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little too large to be useful. The breakdown of this navbox by genre actually hinders navigation. Who has decided what belongs in "mystery" and not "crime drama" or "gothic horror" and not "horror", etc, etc? It is not good practice for film studios to have a navbox of their entire filmography anyway, as this is best left for category and/or list navigation. Imagine if we started creating navboxes for other, larger, film studios. --woodensuperman 13:13, 19 October 2018 (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:Royal Family of Bagrationi – Imereti (Ghvankiti) 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and malformed. Duplicates Template:Georgian Royal Family (Mukhrani). Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (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:Anti-consumerism 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox-shaped navbox is WP:SYNTH and unnecessary on virtually all of the pages it is included on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 19 October 2018 (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:On-former browse 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{ON former}} – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 03:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure why this was replaced. What is the reason, if any?

    In any case, I'd suggest that there should be a discussion of the appropriateness of segregating former highways from current ones. The practice in all 50 of the US states is to include all of them in the same browser "chain", and any link to a separate list of former highways is included next to the regular listing. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also don't see the reason. Aside from the lack of manual override for shield sizes, this new template is a duplicate and IT should be deleted. Please stop removing the manual overrides in your template modifying quest; I put them in place for good reason. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason Ontario has it is becuase we have WAY more former highways then basically every other province/stane in Canada and the US. And many former highways are redirects to a list of former highways rather then an artice, which would break the link loop. I think It should be a stanrd feature in {{Infobox road}}, but would take ALOT of work. {{ON former}} is the best I can do. {{On-former browse}} was being used on pages that didn't need it, so {{ON former}} was made. It still uses the infobox for current routes, so it's only used for former routes. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note nominator orphaned the template before nomination. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the original—based on the non-answer above, the original template, which is being nominated for deletion here, should be kept and restored back to use, and the new template should be deleted instead. We still should have a discussion about the necessity, as Michigan has many former highways that redirect to the list, so Ontario is hardly unique. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't answer the question as to why this template was replaced, BrandonXLF. Floydian's already told us that the original template had additional functionality, so it's preferable that we keep to the original unless there's some good reason why you created a new template that duplicated it. As for integrating into {{infobox road}}, that's another discussion I already alluded to by putting the former highways into the same browser chain, like Michigan already does, and adding the former highway list link into the browse links, just like Georgia does. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979: I replaced the old template because it was being used on pages where it didn't need to be used and because of the extra functionality. The extra functionality of {{On-former browse}} is duplicate functionality of {{infobox road}}. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those is then a good reason to create a new template. If it was being using on pages where it didn't belong, then it should have been removed from those pages. If it had extra functionality not needed on some pages, you don't use that extra functionality on those pages. In short, the new template was unneeded and should never have been created, BrandonXLF Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979:The extra functionality isn't needed on ANY pages. I would have used the same template but uses had to changed, so remove the extra functionality before using the parameters of {{infobox road}} would have caused issues. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrandonXLF: if it wasn't needed, you should have just removed it from the existing template, but I believe Floydian asserted that it is needed. In any case, the new template is not needed. The original template should be restored back to use, and further discussions should take place first before moving onto any additional projects. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979: I already said why I couldn't just remove it. I don't see the issue with how it is now. It's more organized, less useless uses of it will be made and it avoids duplicate usage between {{infobox road}} and it unlike {{On-former browse}} did. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BrandonXLF. Can you say why you created a new template instead of replacing the code of the old template with your new code? You wouldn't need this discussion and could preserve the history. I didn't see that explained above. --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this template to simplify modifications and provide something seamless across every provincial highway. It has an override for size given the variation of highway shields, junction shields, 407 shield, tourist shields (i.e. TCH or Highway of Heroes), county shields, etc. I admire your dedication to this, but it could be better employed elsewhere. No need to reinvent the wheel. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominating user has been blocked for multiple transgressions including WP:IDHT and insisting that things be done their way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (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/2018_October_19&oldid=1142562361"