Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29

edit

Template:External music video

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External music video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Last TfD was inconclusive, but this seems to have been rather widely adopted. Unfortunately, by its very nature it encourages links to copyvios: most music videos are not available online for free, and a quick look through the existing transclusions shows a pretty overwhelming preference for linking to copyvios on YouTube (many of which no longer work). On the few occasions when an external link to a free video is available we can (and already do) link to it from the external links section, which is appropriate; on the fewer still occasions when a sample is available we can (and should) include that in the article itself rather than linking to it externally. {{External media}} allows for short-term use of this format if required, but keeping it out of the main infobox helps to ensure that it isn't made a permanent fixture. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "most music videos are not available online for free". I'm not sure this is accurate. Sites like mtvmusic.com have pretty big archives of legally-hosted music videos. If linking to YouTube is the problem, perhaps we can add an explicit warning against it in the template instructions. I'm not totally opposed to deleting the template, but I think a lot of people do find it useful (given it's widespread adoption). Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MTVmusic.com doesn't stream videos outside of the U.S. AFAIK. The whole area is a bit of a minefield, and it definitely encourages people to link to copyvios if they happen to be out there. It's true that it's popular, but that is not necessarily a good thing (indeed, it's a very bad thing if it gets us into trouble with the copyright holders). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful template, just because "exist transclusions of copyvios on YouTube" the entire template must dissappear?, also why create a "External links" section with only one link. TbhotchTalk C. 06:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That a video (a copyrighted source) may be available somewhere does not mean that it must be included in the article infobox. That a worrying proportion of the existing uses link to attempted copyright violations suggests that this template is encouraging it. And anything in an infobox should always be included in the article body anyway, so there shouldn't be any links there that aren't in the external links section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete, not useful. If a link to the video must be included but it in external links, but I don't even agree with a link to a video involved period. Candyo32 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this template is not necessary, if problem, just put an external link of the needed video for the song.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More useful than an external link.-5- (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with those that prefer this to an external link section. Not needed, much neater this way. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this link can be useful to users to understand what is being stated in the "Music video" section of the article. It also makes it easier to find if it is included in the infobox, rather than an external link. If anything, there should be some kind of guideline which states that only music videos (on YouTube) from the official label, the artist/group, or VEVO can be used. Or even better, if the artist/group/label have it on their official website, than it should be linked there. AGiorgio08 talk 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This template is designed to use as a subtemplate of {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}}. Deleting this template does not prevent videos from being added to the infobox. If the intent is to remove external video links from the infobox, then that requires a RFC in appropriate places. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:42, 7 July 2010 (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) 07:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems unwise to delete a template just because some people misuse it. It does appear useful to have a link to a legally hosted video in the infobox similar to having a sample of a song in an infobox is.--Rockfang (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it is worth, I just went through 32 articles that transclude this template. In only two of them the end result was the infoboxes having no link to a video because of copyright violations. I think that nominator's comment of "pretty overwhelming preference for linking to copyvios on YouTube" may be incorrect.--Rockfang (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I disagree with comments that deleting the template due to misuse is wrong. I have been working a lot with GA/FA articles in music recently and almost everytime the GA/FA reviewer has said please remove the {{External music video}} link from the infobox. IMO I agree, it causes more trouble than its worth and frankly add extra padding to the infobox which is not required. A link to the video can be provided in the == External links == section of an article. In my view this template is almost depreciated (its not used in many GA/FAs) so its time it was retired. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i also don't think it fits properly with the infobox and adds unecessary length. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AGiorgio08 talk 22:57, 29 July 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:Infobox settlement/ukr

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement/ukr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: I find Category:Populated places in Ukraine and see, that many articles are without Infoboxes. Then I try to use Template:Infobox settlement. Then I see, that some parameters are repeating for articles Category:Populated places in Ukraine and some parameters of Template:Infobox settlement do not use.--Амба (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create new template without any discussion. Template:Infobox settlement is protected. I can't edit. Template:Infobox settlement include Template:Location map. Template:Infobox settlement/ukr include Template:Location map2. Template:Location map do not work with location map templates with x, y parameters. Template:Location map2 include function of automatic_position--Амба (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why there is a talk page. If the main template is missing a field or feature, discuss it. Someone may have a better way to do it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want, that all articles about Ukrainian settlements contains the same code?--Амба (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

| native_name_lang        = uk
| pushpin_map             = Ukraine
| latNS  = N
| longEW = E
| coordinates_display     = inline,title
| subdivision_type        = Country
| subdivision_name        =   Ukraine
| subdivision_type1       = Oblast (province)
| subdivision_type2       = Raion (district)
| established_title       = Established
| population_density_km2  = auto
| timezone                = EET
| utc_offset              = +2
| timezone_DST            = EEST
| utc_offset_DST          = +3
| postal_code_type        = Postal code
| area_code_type          = Area code(s)

--Амба (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced to keep because I think the number of fields is enough, considering the number of articles (geostubs) it is likely to be used on. WP:CRYSTAL does not, I think, apply to templates only articles: so is this likely to make it easier for people to expand Ukrainian stubs into fuller articles? My own experience expanding Hungarian stubs with, first, {{Magyar telepules infobox}} which used Hungarian names and died, then {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} which used English names and got to AfD but was kept with "keep for now", shows it is.
I entirely agree that these should come under the cuddly blanket of Infobox settlement in general as subtemplates, although I disagree in the particular mentioned above about it being "by country" (I think there's a typo there "by county"); but by any important region subtemplates could override the basic behaviour of Infobox settlement. The TfD is basically saying "delete this because everything can be done by Infobox settlement" – yes it can but then everything can be done by writing it out longhand. I should mark that those in favour of deleting helper templates like this can not run to MoS or anything saying Infobox settlement must be used, and I for myself find it so clumsy that if there is a wholehearted attempt to ban specialized templates I shall simply include the infobox longhand and forget about {{Infobox settlement}} all together. The balance is whether the stuff this fills in for the average editor but not template editor makes it a help or a hindrance. In my opinion, it makes it a help.
There was a ridiculous argument to rename it to {{Infobox populated place}} which just shows how much concern the people who advocate the {{Infobox settlement}} template as a cure-all have for the people who actually use it when expanding geostub articles. Er, let's think of a longer, less inimical name for the thing cos it is somehow more accurate to fit a category. Er my dears, how about "{{Infobox place}}"? I could argue that Infobox settlement could derive, itself, from Infobox place being any sodding place on the planet that has no population at all, but we are not here to build class hierarchies or do taxonomy, we are here to make useful templates that are actually used.
To give full disclosure, obviously I work on Hungarian geostub sometimes, and on French ones from time to time, but have not worked on any Ukranian ones. Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The example instance (er, transculsion) of the table above is screwing the formatting of this debate. Si Trew (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument, or rather not argument but bald statement, to delete as redundant forgets that at the top of the page it says "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". They forget the "better-designed template bit". Infobox settlement is rightly a base template that is all things to all people, it can quite happily be specialized, and better designed, for particular reasons. Ukr is not redundant by those words, it is a complimentary, additional tool in the toolbox. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The better design of {{Infobox settlement}} notwithstanding, the wording you cite is followed by "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:07, 6 August 2010 (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) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From experience of doing it the other way, I firmly believe that it's desirable to have an open beta on a sample of articles, to prove the need for a change to a fully protected template. In the absence of strong arguments either way, I believe the best course of action is to keep, on the understanding that the benefits and drawbacks of the changes will be studied carefully, and that in the longer term it will be merged into its parent if it becomes redundant. --WFC-- 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—because of procedural concern over the misuse of the current deletion criteria. The use of the term "redundant" in this context is inappropriate as this template inherits from the {{Infobox settlement}} template. Thus, as far as I can discern, at present there is no documented consensus criteria for deleting this template. However, some form of merger would be an acceptable alternative, or else a revision to the deletion criteria.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template, as nominated, did not "inherit from the {{Infobox settlement}} template" - it was a fork of it. There is no "documented consensus criteria" for deleting any template, other than the process conducted on this page. Your procedural objection would there fore seem to be without basis. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The template is only used on one page, Bohuslav, and it's only purpose is to preload the {{Infobox settlement}} infobox with a couple of Ukraine-specific items. If the {{Infobox settlement}} syntax is overly confusing (and I don't think it is), then the solution is to make it less confusing, not spawn a bunch of country-specific templates. SnottyWong confabulate 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Snottywong. Airplaneman ✈ 23:36, 12 August 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:GAList/check

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GAList/check (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sym (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both templates are good, but have the same purpose. I documented {{sym}} since it had none, I forget how I came across it (badly categorized I imagine), but it seems better to me to have a top-level template than one as a subtemplate of a particular process; I think at this point WP:COMMON beats any kind of provenance, though history could be preserved if it is useful. I note my documentation (for which I did not consult that of GAList/Check) is roughly same as that, and can only say good job on both parties there (slaps self on back), since undocumented templates are next to useless in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care, but your marking of the GAList one has busted formatting on uses of that template, see Talk:Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/GA1 for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAList/check is used in hundreds of pages, and Sym was actually copy&pasted from GAList/check. If anything, the two should be histmerged, and GAList/check should remain as a redirect.
    However, I don't see the harm in having both a specialized GA process template and a general purpose symbols template. The two templates have different semantics, and may well develop in different directions. For example, changing the set of GA process images at some point in the future should not have an effect on the symbol produced by e.g. {{sym|+}}:  . Merging them would make any future symbol changes difficult. 88.217.27.119 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (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) 01:36, 21 July 2010 (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) 22:15, 29 July 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:Years Active

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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Years Active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Years active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and undocumented Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 29 July 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:EWZ

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 G7. Skier Dude (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that transcludes non-existent templates. Probably copied from dewiki. Svick (talk) 17:48, 29 July 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:Micronations

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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. Only navigates among four articles, which is way too small for a navbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a proper navbox. A link to the list would be fine as the label for that navbox section, but the list of micronations themselves should be added, which would round out the template nicely. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that it is of limited use in its current form, but as Imzadi says there is scope to convert this into a useful one. I'll get onto it. --WFC-- 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've worked on the template, it's now in the sort of form I was thinking of. --WFC-- 08:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the form it's take now over what it was before. Nice job! Imzadi 1979 → 10:40, 1 August 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:Bkg

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 Keep all. —fetch·comms 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to simple span css markup and {{colors}}, {{TextColors}}, {{bg}} (which are also of limited use, so should perhaps be deleted as well?) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I trust this template was created as a convenience shortcut for the lazy folks (like me) who have trouble memorizing the exact syntax of the span markup and prefer something simpler. As such, it is rather useful when substituted (which would explain the dearth of incoming links).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 29, 2010; 17:08 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems marginally useful. None of the templates are fully redundant, they all set a different span parameter. SnottyWong converse 16:59, 11 August 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.

Items in Category:Placebox templates

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) 14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City-authority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:City-founded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:City-header-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:City-poli-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:City-poli-ar-ba (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dep-header-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dep-headtown-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-begin-data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-coor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-density (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-elevation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-end-data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-phone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-phone-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-pop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-postal-code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Placebox-postal-code-ar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure how best to list - and flag - these, but all Placebox-* templates in Category:Placebox templates, which are now orphaned after replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}, to which they are redundant. I've added a flag to {{Placebox-begin}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:45, 29 July 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:WikiProject mtsu

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) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject mtsu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have {{User WikiProject MTSU}}. This one is unnecessary and may confuse with {{WikiProject MTSU}} which only differs in capitalisation. Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 29 July 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:Infobox route

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) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seeming recreation of Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) busway, which was deleted. Cannot see much value in this "infobox" when it is too specialized for general use and is used on only three articles: South East Busway, Northern Busway, Brisbane, Eastern Busway. I would imagine that one of the existing infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox bus transit or Template:Infobox public transit or any of the others ones in Category:Transport infobox templates would work just fine for those three articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an infobox for rail lines, and I believe one of the more general templates available could easily accommodate the needs of those three articles. Please see my expanded rationale above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:03, 29 July 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/2010_July_29&oldid=1146596511"