Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

edit

Template:FeaturedNVSR

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stolen from WP:NYSR, and the project doesn't actually use this. Rschen7754 20:48, 30 December 2009 (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:Pakistani Districts

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani Districts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, the generic infobox for settlements should now be used for all settlement related articles therefore this template is no longer required and can be deleted. Taqi Haider (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant to the standard {{infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we have a standardized template for "any subdivision below the level of a country," which applies to Pakistan's districts. (One should really be adapted for the districts though.)—DMCer™ 10:47, 4 January 2010 (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.

Forks of {{electromagnetism}}

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) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electromagnetism2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Electromagnetism3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are merely forks of {{electromagnetism}} created in the hope of providing a tidier version. {{Electromagnetism2}} was the first attempt but it cut a lot of links. A better solution came with {{electromagnetism3}} where show/hide boxes were used. The improvements have since been implimented in the original template and now we're left with two unused forks. JIMp talk·cont 08:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Electromagnetism2 as an orphan that served its purpose. The other is a redirect and shouldn't be listed here. — Bility (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary, now that the imrovements are in the original. Not quite uncontroversial enough for G6, but it really is just housekeeping. I can't understand why anyone would prefer these over {{Electromagnetism}}. As for 3, the redirect, it was probably redirected because of it's redundancy. It could be un-redirected, or taken to RfD (I'd suggest the former, as it's a lot less work for something that'll most likely bring about the same outcome), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:08, 6 January 2010 (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:GSVtable

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 Substitute and delete A single use template which serves as a replacement for text is not proper use of templates. The argument that substituting it would bloat the article is flawed since the size of the rendered HTML is the same regardless. If the table is to large, it should be shortened. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

That template is completely non-useful and makes very hard to navigate Google Street View article. In future GSV will add thousands locations in entire world. In fact, we have a development section in Template:GSVadditions. That is useful. TouLouse (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form at least. 1.) It may be worth moving into main article space or to keep as a template embedded into another mainspace article (split per Wikipedia:Article size), and/or possibly trimming by removing a lot of obviously minor cities and towns. 2.) Per Wikipedia:Crystal ball, stating what Google will do in the future should not be a reason to delete; no one knows how long it'll actually take for Google to accomplish that or if they even will. With 200 countries to cover, this could be years off. But this list is not about the future; it is about now, and it shows where there is coverage now, something a reader will very likely want to know. True, in the United States, most urban and many rural areas have at least some coverage, but this cannot be said about many other countries for which GSV is in its infancy. The only way to clarify this difference is to maintain such a list. And 3.) per Wikipedia:Reasons to delete a template, this one meets none of the four primary reasons for deleting a template. Sebwite (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The template has way too much info and I don't know why we should even attempt to list every place in Google view, but this seems like a content issue, not a template issue. There's nothing inherently wrong or broken with the template, so its removal should first be discussed on the Google Street View page. — Bility (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do indeed believe the content should be somewhat more limited. The point of it is not to be a comprehensive list, but an idea of what major areas are covered. It started out that way, but many people continued to add their own little towns following that. For example, once you have Boston, there is no need to list additional nearby smaller cities like Cambridge, Newton, etc. Minneapolis and St. Paul could both be listed because one is the state's capitol and the other the state's largest city. Another alternative is listing areas rather than cities in some cases (e.g. Tampa Bay Area rather than Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, etc.). This would cut out a lot. Sebwite (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have started removing all locations with a population under 50K unless otherwise highly notable. For example, the town of Gila Bend, Arizona, with a population of around 2000, does not belong on a list like this. Sebwite (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. For several reasons, listed here. Discussion Retracted as redundant. Changed to Speedy Delete, See below.

  • Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY Item 6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "Cities which have Google Street View" Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories. This policy violation satisfies the reason-for-deletion criteria mentioned by Sebwite. I see no evidence that the intersection of "City" and "has Google Street View" is culturally significant. When GSV was new and novel, and only major world cites were covered, the set of the select few that had GSV was significant. These days, when even Gila Bend, Arizona has GSV coverage, the intersection of these two sets is no longer notable, and will become less so as GSV becomes increasingly ubiquitous.
  • Wikipedia:OR Creating this list and stating it is a canonical list of cities with GSV is OR. To say it is not OR would require verification that all cities with GSV are listed in Wiki and that no cities listed in the WIKI are missing GSV. Given Google's continual updates, this verification would be substantially challenging.
  • Wikipedia:NPOV via arbitrary inclusion criteria: Cities are supposedly not candidates unless they are of some certain arbitrary size? Cities are supposedly not candidates unless they have "Full" coverage, not just "Major streets"? Yet Google often doesn't delve into residential suburbs. Cedar Rapids, IA, isn't in the list, yet has GSV coverage, just not "enough" coverage? There are several threads of discussion on Talk:Google_Street_View, each trying to establish consensus on reasonable inclusion criteria. With Sebwite's comment, the same arguments are starting here in this page too.
  • Maintainability: Google continually updates and increases its coverage. To keep wiki up to date, at this point, would require continual maintenance from editors.
  • Utility: Google maps is already an authoritative source of which maps have GSV. No sane user would look on Wiki to decide whether GSV is enabled in their city. They look at google maps for that.
Twredfish (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with all the above for the following reasons:
  1. This does not seem to fit a description of any type of anti-directory guidelines under WP:NOTDIR. It is not a comprehensive directory, rather it gives an idea of what is covered (or at least is supposed to). This was not intended to be a list of all details possible (item #7). Item #6 states "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." GSV is already a "culturally significant phenomenon," being covered in so many sources.
  2. This is not pure OR. In fact, many of the cities, towns, and other places that are covered by GSV are verifiable through reliable sources, as there have indeed been news reports and other similar information regarding their coverage. The solution to unsourced information that is verifiable is to add souces, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and delete it.
  3. As for NPOV, this, once again is more of a verifiability than a neutrality issue. It can be solved by footnoting, etc.
  4. "Maintainability": This is not under any Wikipedia guideline a reason for exclusion. There never will be either. If there were a guideline, there would be a lot of deletion (e.g. those on sports scores, as many sports are played almost daily).
  5. "Utility": See the arguments under WP:USELESS.
Sebwite (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left comments here, which can bee seen in the logs, but they're redundant I removed to cut down on clutter. Twredfish (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This has already been decided once. see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Google_Street_View_locations_(2nd_nomination) in which The result was delete as an apparently indiscriminate list. All arguments listed there are valid. All that's happened in the meantime is that it's now a template instead of a page. Twredfish (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is different enough from those original versions that speedy deletion is not applicable. Speedy deletion for recreations applies only when the recreated version is unchanged. And this is plenty different from that. Since consensus can change, and this template was created as a result of discussion held at the time of deletion (and subsequently was accepted by consensus), this is not a criterion for CSD. Sebwite (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is this list different from the deleted article, other than having a different set of items included or not included in the indiscriminate list? What changes were made that are sufficient to render the arguments which led to the the consensus delete in the AfD to no longer be relevant? If this template really has been sufficiently improved that it is no longer an indiscriminate list, please, defend those changes and tell us how they makes a difference. Twredfish (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has changed? All the 'keep' arguments presented here, and on Talk:Google_Street_View appear to be exactly the same as they were in the AfD. All the 'delete' arguments here and on the talk page appear to be exactly the same as they were in the AfD. Consensus there was delete. What has changed that makes things different now than they were before? Twredfish (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, when there is doubt as to whether or not something should be speedied, it is not. In this discussion, we do not have 5-6 people saying "delete" versus any number of "keeps." So you cannot call that a consensus. In fact, we have gotten comment from few people at all.
Either way, I do not believe a list of places covered by GSV should be all or none, and I'm sure most people believe pretty much the same, and that a trimmed-down list would be a compromise. Under multiple Wikipedia guidelines, the way to handle this would not be to delete this one and create a new one, especially that this has a large edit history. The solution is to make appropriate changes. Sebwite (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Segregating article content into a single-use template "in order to prevent a large filesize of the page" (as the template's own documentation says) is disguising a problem, not addressing it. The content itself can be argued over by the page editors, and probably should be trimmed, but it does not need to exist as a template of any length. --RL0919 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with every bit of what you said, except for the "delete" part of it. If so, don't you think that it should be merged so that the valuable edit history is not lost? I agree it should be trimmed, and the conclusion I am coming toward, and that I hope others are agreeing with, is not only a simplified list, but one of places that are properly sourced. Also, I believe that the editors will want one of two things in the end: an Embedded list or a subarticle (the subarticle is the one that was previously deleted). Sebwite (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (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:Nelvana animated 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nelvana animated films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generally, we do not do templates of titles for production companies like this, as it quickly gets unwieldy and really does not aid in navigation. Further, this particular company already has one template, Template:Nelvana. It does not need two nor three (as per nom below) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:24, 30 December 2009 (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:Nelvana live-action 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nelvana live-action films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template of only four films, of which only two really are "Nelvana live-action films" while the other two they did a little work on. Template really isn't clear as to why it is relevant that these are live-action, and why they are being singled out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 30 December 2009 (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:Major cities of 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major cities of Greater China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm moving this here from MfD, where it was originally nominated by Dave1185. His rationale was: "This article is a random list of "Major cities of Greater China". There are many cities of substantial Chinese population but they do not necessarily all speak Chinese or other Chinese dialects and even a complete list of them would serve no purpose as this categorization is without meaning. It would be similar to creating a "List of cities by the river" or "List of cities by the sea", in other words it is an inherently non-encyclopedic list." As the procedural nominator here, I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE: this template has been hijacked by several POV pusher to include cities like Singapore (and especially Singapore), Vancouver, Georgetown and Kuala Lumpur because of their substantial population of ethnic Chinese. IMO, there should be clear line drawn between greater China and those outside of it (and that includes Taiwan, which is considered as a "renegade province") but clearly somebody don't get it and kept insisting on getting a consensus to to do the above whilst discussing at the article's talk page. Lastly, I'm still of the view that this template is not really encyclopedic, at all, and serves no meaningful purpose. --Dave 1185 04:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:cities with large ethnic Chinese populations and qualify it in the template documentation with Chinese populations exceeding whatever cutoff is determined to be. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Greater China here refers to mainland China and Taiwan. The template is so named because calling it anything else would provoke disputes related to the status of Taiwan. It is not intended to include every city in the world with a substantial Chinese population. As a template that lists major cities in both mainland China and Taiwan, it serves its intended purpose.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Changed to Delete per Readin.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's "One China" , not "Greater China" 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That "Greater China" consists only of Taiwan and China is an opinion that is supported by some sources but not by all. This is the heart of the problem. "Greater China", like "Greater Serbia" is sometimes seen as an imperialist notion to excuse China's attempts to take over Taiwan. But "Greater China" is also used as a business/marketing term to refer to areas that are hit with common movies, songs, etc.. This includes areas where, for example Hong Kong movies are popular (with their Chinese subtitles). This applies outside of Taiwan and China. Readin (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination seems to be be based on a misunderstanding of what the template is supposed to contain. Based on what it does contain, it appears to be a useful navbox. It might be helpful if some documentation was added explaining the inclusion criteria, to avoid future misunderstandings. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I don't see any problem with this template, it doesn't include any cities besides the ones in "Greater" china region and i vote for Keep--LLTimes (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But it doesn't include all the cities in "Greater China" and for some people even including cities like Taipei, while possibly accurate given usage, is very offensive. It is one thing to state what some people's opinions are when those opinions are offensive, but should we be making navboxes based on offensive opinions? Readin (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because we don't have a neutral way to distinguish between what is inside and outside of "Greater China". The Greater China article does not draw firm boundaries. The term sometimes includes only Taiwan and China, and at other times includes other places with large Chinese speaking populations such as those in Singapore and Malaysia. The terms seems to have originated as a business term which allowed for focusing on marketing commonalities and working with people who could communicate with each other and had similar culture. Instead, this template is being used as a way to push a POV that Taiwan is part of China. If we decide to keep it, we need to do as 76.66.192.35 and give it a less politically loaded name and have clearer guidelines for its use. I had proposed using a simple measure of 50% Chinese speaking population and setting a minimum population (500,000 was proposed by someone). But attempting to use this standard generated a fierce emotional response from people who did not want to have Singapore included - again showing how politically charged the term "Greater China" is and the difficulty in using it as a template. Delete it. Readin (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (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:Timeline Classical Composers Famous

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 Userfy This single use template contains links already found in other timelines trascluded in List of classical music composers. The article in question does not cite any reliable sources, which could be used to justify which composers are considered to be famous. As a result, I am closing this as "userfy", until the POV/OR issues can be addressed, and until there is a use for the template in more than one article. Otherwise, there is no strong reason why it shouldn't be substituted instead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Combination of original thought and bad graphics. Eccentric POV selection from Ockeghem (born around 1410/25) to Holst born 1874 (including minor figures like Carissimi). Cut-off date unexplained. Eras simplistic. Vertical axis unexplained (in contrast to horizontal axis which represents time). Mediawiki markup template ingenious, but result crude compared to what could be achieved using Illustrator/Photoshop and jpeg/svg. Kleinzach 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepComment: I admit that the graphics could be better. However, this template offers the advantage to link directly to the mentioned composers, which could not be achieved in a jpec/svg file (as far as I know). I have seen that the template is just used in List of classical music composers. However, several others similar figures are used for other time periods in this list. If this template was deleted, all these figures would have to be deleted and the list either also deleted or completely new written. I am not sure whether it really makes sense to do either of these options. Therefore, I suggest keeping the template and and modify if necessary. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a number of versions of these timelines, see for example Classical composers time-line. Conventional lists of composers that link directly to articles are plentiful (I've counted 88), see Category:Lists of composers. (There are arguably too many of them.) --Kleinzach 07:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that this topic was so redundantly covered in WP. Since I am not an expert in the field I adjusted my initial vote to a neutral Comment. I still think that this timeline is rather a central part of the mentioned list. However, a deletion may make sense if there is a better replacement (better graphics, more neutral POV, merge with the obviously existing other timelines,...). --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – What Kleinzach said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have doubts about the utility of these lists in any form. They mislead the beginner into thinking there is some sort of Official List of Great Composers, which of course is not true at all. Also, the list leaves off Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and other great composers of the 20th century, which seems very odd. Maybe the author got the list from a very old source. Opus33 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These graphics and lists etc are the sort of stuff I used to do when I was 10. They did help me to relate composers chronologically and (eventually, after a fair amount of study in my teens) in terms of their influence on one another. The real problem, though is that every attempt is going to be POV even if sourced because not even the "experts" agree on the names. In his own time, Beethoven was consigned to the second ranks far below Louis Spohr [Who he? -ed]. Mahler and Bruckner used to be laughed out of court for writing over-blown rubbish. JS Bach was hardly known except as a rather fine organist until Mendelssohn came along. If even those composers can be questioned what about Saint-Saens, Chopin, Vivaldi etc etc? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Note that this relates directly to the discussion surrounding Classical composers time-line. The issue is essentially that neither timeline is sourced and therefore entirely OR (based on personal decisions by editors) and POV (the number of editors involved is irrelevent if the stuff isn't sourced - and even then...). Furthermore, they come very close to duplicating one another's basic rationale since most famous composers happen also to be important. We therefore only need need one fully sourced timeline covering "famous" and "important" composers (if we even need that). Note as well that each period has its own timeline, several countries have their own timlines and lists and other lists exist for other things... Women have their own listing and given their small number and relative obscurity this is probably the only genuinely useful list. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is not great but why throw it away? If we pruned the lesser names, such as Carissimi, Pachelbel (1 short work only), Salieri (it's not enough to have failed to poison Mozart), Czerny, Gounod, Offenbach, Smetana, Bruch, Faure, Elgar, Delius, Scriabin and Holst, then it would be a lot better. Also, the 1875 birth-date cut-off is arbitrary. Of course, Mahler, Sibelius and Richard Strauss should be added even if the 1875 restriction is kept. Soler97 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Lesser names"? I would dispute the removal of at least half of those you mentioned; others would probably object to the removal of the other half. There is no way that a lasting consensus on the content of a template called "Timeline Classical Composers Famous" will ever be achieved. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Mahler, Sibelius and Richard Strauss have now been added. I've pruned a few too (but they're commented out to allow easy reinstatement). Like the previous commenter, however, I really can't accept all those you mention are 'lesser names'. --(RT) (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for illustrating why this should be deleted. Wikipedia discourages original thought. List games ('Who were the 50 greatest composers' or whatever) are fun for broadcasters (like the BBC). They don't belong here. --Kleinzach 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. What it demonstrates is the need for objective criteria and external sources for any selective overview. But if there was no overview at all users would be faced with just an mass of names right down to the most obscure. Not very helpful. --(RT) (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding cite's to the timeline isn't a problem, as long as there is a <references> template somewhere on the target page. (And one is now temporarily-provided in edit-previews, if we are editing a page/section that includes cites but no <references> templates)
However, the content is the important part - what we should not throw away - the page title(and namespace) can be changed anytime. If we were to subst it into List of classical music composers (possibly along with the other templates that make up the page) that would be fine too, though it would be worth asking on the talkpage first. WP:TIND :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The font of Easytimeline is ugly, not my choice, hacked into it for unicode support. That needs to be fixed sometime now that newer and better fonts with large set of glyphs emerge. Someone who proposes Photoshop or Gimp does not understand the concept of a wiki. Has slick presentation become more important than collaborative processing? Why throw away something that can be improved? If our collective wisdom can not find a reasonable method to select most noteworthy composers (to help newcomers to classical music to see the wood from the trees, most of use learned some names before others) then we fail where other encyclopedias give guidance, which I suspect 9/10 readers find useful while making first steps into new territory. I am not the person who can make those decisions, not an expert in classical music. Throwing things away is a pity alternative to making difficult choices. Deactivating (parking) complex content that needs to be improved is more sympathetic than removing it from the database alltogether. Erik Zachte (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Zachte: You created this in 2004. (As you acknowledge) it hasn't been improved much, but you're free to work on it in userspace, if you so wish. --Kleinzach 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach I created it in 2004, and left it wiki-wise to others who know better to improve it, which 10+ people did over the years. Again my main point what satisfaction does it give to throw other people's work away? Unlink it from wherever you find it is inappropriate, archive (through categorization), don't delete. Erik Zachte (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete. Highly subjective NNPOV classification of musicians, very misleading for the less-informed who come across it, clunky, and adds no value.--Smerus (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. In addition to Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous which is the subject of this Tfd, and the near-identical article Classical composers time-line, there is another unused Template:Classical composers timeline, again covering the same information. --Kleinzach 07:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that the template design could be nicer (the font is particularly bad), and that those composers included could be edited and extended (earlier and later) - but some kind of overview is needed. This template does have the advantage of hyperlinks and relatively easy editing too. I did some editing of the names in the template about a month ago, and would quite happily see further names added or removed. Personally I think its rather 19th century centric at the moment, so weeding out a few names and substituting some medieval and contemporary ones here might help. Not that we are ever likely to reach a complete consensus... --(RT) (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
  1. So far as the content is concerned, you will see that I have now edited the composers and extended the timeline up to 2000. More work is needed, but being a wiki template it is open to others to continue to improve it.
  2. I would oppose any move to use a graphic - however nice it might look - as it is considerably harder for collaborative editing. The emphasis should be on enhancing or replacing the wiki timeline template.
  3. The eras are quite simplistic, and I have some quibbles with the ones chosen, but they are used throughout the detailed lists of composers (and other composer timeline templates). There is a legitimate discussion to he had about these, but simply attacking the overview template without addressing the wider usage is going for the wrong target. Actually a simple scheme seems more apt to me in an overview than elsewhere.
  4. I acknowledge that choosing who is included and who is left out is problematic and potentially POV. And perhaps being 'famous' is not the best criterion. I think the best way to address this is to use one or two authoritative external sources to determine the choice. But amending the content has got to be better than no overview at all. --(RT) (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my 'clarification' (immediately above your comment). Why do we need three near-identical graphics, each with its own POV selection? --Kleinzach 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we don't need three similar templates. But this template is the overview section of List of classical music composers which I think was there first and is the hub of all the other era lists. Really as the other templates are less central to the scheme of things I would be inclined to merge them into this one.
However I assume you want to make the article Classical composers time-line the centrepiece - but at present it is far less developed. Where I would agree with you is that the duplication needs to end. However we should consolidate the work that has been done so far. --(RT) (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't want Classical composers time-line the centrepiece of anything. We have three versions, each one developed by a competing editor or editors, each editor insisting on his or her own POV list of favourite composers! This has been going on since 2004 and I don't believe there is even now any substantial content worth merging. --Kleinzach 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We disagree on the value of what is there at present, but can we agree that one overview timeline (or list) with clear criteria and preferably referencing suitable external sources should be an objective? At least that should limit the scope for editors to simply use their own POV and should provide a useful starting point for WP users. If this is agreed, then I am more than happy to do some work on criteria, find sources and edit the timeline. Of the three templates, I think this timeline has the most potential, but if a better case is made for one of the others templates, I will transfer my efforts there.
Regarding the articles into which the chosen template is embedded, we seem to have a choice of List of classical music composers or Classical composers time-line. The former has the advantage of already linking to the more detailed era lists, which I think is important. Either way a merger of the two articles would make matters less confusing and concentrate efforts in one place. --(RT) (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, a composers' timeline would be useful if (1) the graphic had clarity, legible captions, meaningful vertical and horizontal axes, and provided greater information than plain text, and (2) the selection of composers was based on at least six published lists (see for comparison the List of major opera composers which used 10). Unfortunately no one has been willing to put the necessary effort into creating such a graphic, hence the existing clutter of half-finished attempts. --Kleinzach 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is possible to achieve most of your points using this template - at any rate I am quite willing to put in some editing time over the next few weeks towards that end. However I would feel happier doing so if the immediate threat of deletion was removed - progress can always be reviewed again later.
To address your specific points: -
  • "legible captions" - within the current limitations of Easytimeline it is possible to adjust the font size and placement. Replacing the Easytimeline font completely may need technical input from others, but I will see what is possible.
  • "meaningful vertical and horizontal axes" - the horizontal axis already clearly represents time in years, but could be labelled. All the composer timelines show composers in order of birth date in the vertical dimension, although in this case it is complicated slightly by including two barset breaks to ensure the timeline dosn't take up too much vertical space. I can think of a couple of ways to eliminate the breaks and a labelled vertical axis could be added.
  • "provided greater information than plain text" - I don't think the point of this (or any) timeline is necessarily to present more information than plain text - but by presenting the same information visually it can make it clearer.
  • "the selection of composers was based on at least six published lists" - I like this general approach and the implementation at List of major opera composers. However I'm not sure why you stipulate 6 lists (rather than, for example, 5 or 7). Something like this should be possible without too much work, and I have already identified a few possible sources. We may not be able to get there in one step, but once a few source lists are identified we can begin adding references. Note however that not all such lists cover the entire period of the overview (and I would like to cover the Medieval era too if possible), so this may complicate the list selection.
I would add that the other composer timelines (used by the article List of classical music composers, inter alia), will need to be addressed at some point. I have my doubts whether they are all as useful as this overview timeline, but suggest we see what progress can be made here first. --(RT) (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach, just to update you: I have done some more work on identifying reference lists to use here so hope to go ahead with a first pass re-edit soon. Your comments on my remarks above, therefore, would be very helpful. --(RT) (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(RT); I guess you are referring to Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous. What should be done with the others? Re: "the selection of composers was based on at least six published lists", these lists vary greatly so we need to use a large number of them to achieve a NPOV. (The List of major opera composers used 10.) The vertical axis problem remains unsolved IMO. Relative position has meaning in periodization timelines, but not in these ones. If, for example, the vertical axis was geographical, there would be a point to it. --Kleinzach 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm referring to Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous. Hopefully I'll be able to get the planned changes underway soon. However I'm thinking that maybe renaming it Timeline Classical Composers Major would be an improvement - and on that basis I think something like 10 lists should be achievable. I have several potentially suitable ones which I'll make available for comment shortly.
I'll look in to the axis options further.
So far as the other two timelines are concerned, I would suggest we wait to see whether a consensus emerges once this template is revamped. However my current thinking is:
  • Strong keep This is up for deletion?! This is a very useful timeline which I've used to show others the overlapping effects of classical music "periods". A visual timeline works the best for this job. Who goes in and who goes out is a product of consensus, not original research. This is just like how discographies are compiled; not every recording can go in a discography but the ones that the community feels are the most important make the list. If you feel a prominent composer is not listed, then just list him. If you feel someone is obscure and doesn't contribute to the timeline, remove him. This type of constructive editing is much easier to do with the current template than with an image file. ThemFromSpace 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list will always be POV and original research, as this discussion has amply shown. — Bility (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As indicated earlier in the discussion, referencing sufficient external lists can achieve a neutral POV (following the precedent of List of major opera composers) and avoid adopting the POV of any WP editor(s). No OR needs to be involved. I have located some potential lists we might reference - now shown here - although I think more sources are needed yet. Comments and suggestions welcome. I am currently giving some attention to the design of timeline itself. --(RT) (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read through all of the above to see if I could close the discussion, but what I find instead is a desire to contribute my own !vote instead. There is much discussion above about issues such as POV and the aesthetic appearance of the template, which are typically issues that should be resolved by editing rather than deletion. (Sometimes POV is inherent in the very concept of a template, but I don't think that is true here.) What is gone largely unmentioned are the issues that are more typical reasons for deletion of templates: 1) this is a single-use timeline, appearing only in List of classical music composers; and 2) it is multiply redundant, not only to the similar timeline in Classical composers time-line, but also to the individual era timelines that appear below it in List of classical music composers. So my advice is to combine the two articles (which are clearly about the same subject matter) and use the individual era timelines rather than trying to cram all the composers into one. And take User:Kleinzach's advice and use multiple reliable sources to make the decisions on which composers belong in the article at all. And, of course, only create a template if a timeline will appear in more than one article. Good luck! --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (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/2009_December_30&oldid=1144894133"