Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13

edit

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

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) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Refactor as a module of {{Infobox criminal}}, to which it is very similar. This would also allow it to be used as a module of {{Infobox person}} or other such templates, when required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template has already been nominated twice for deletion, both times resulting in keep. This template is meant to address suspects that are notable for their inclusion by the FBI that have not yet been convicted of a crime. Infobox criminal serves the need for convicts. The nominator has no new or compelling reason for this nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid help avoid any BLP issues which could arise from using the criminal infobox on a person who has yet to be convicted of a crime (it is important to note that "Wanted" does not equal "Convicted"). Should such a case come up, this infobox is better than the standard person infobox. Canuck89 (what's up?) 08:20, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
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 storm

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox cyclone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox winter storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox storm with Template:Infobox cyclone and Template:Infobox winter storm.
Merge as discussed at last year's TfD for the storm infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose, mostly per the oppose votes given here. Canuck89 (have words with me) 08:24, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • There were three "oppose" comments in that previous discussion (and three comments in support), which proposed that {{Infobox storm}} was redundant to {{Infobox hurricane}}; the first says "A better target for the merge might be {{Infobox cyclone}}" and the second "I propose a merger of {{Infobox cyclone}}, {{Infobox winter storm}} and {{Infobox storm}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment not all storms are cyclonic, so merging into cyclone would be wrong, also hurricane. The generic form should be "storm" if there is a merger. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong oppose I agree with 76.65.128.222. Winter storms should definitly have their own separate infoboxes. Also, the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone is officially neither Tropical, nor extratropical, so merging all of the templates would only complicate the matter. Additionally, the merging of the Winter Storm templates would result in many pages losing their respective templates, forcing users to correct the problem by inserting the new template, and readding the storms' information all over again. However, if the Winter Storm templates are to be merged, then all of the different features they possess should all be present in the final result, otherwise the parts of the merged templates that are left out would result in a massive loss of storm data. If the templates are to be merged, then the target should be Template:Cyclone, because it has the largest amount of information, and seems to cover most, if not all the information the other templates have.LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I dont see the problem with merging these three infoboxes together is since they mainly have the same parameters. Also i disagree with LightandDark2000 when he says that we would have to reinsert the storm info all over again since most of the parameters of the infoboxes are the same and a bot can be sent out to correct the infobox and any parameter name.Jason Rees (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge. I agree with Jason Rees, there is enough similarity that merging should not be difficult. Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge. The dispute seems to be over the name, so just pick the most encompassing one and keep the redirects. — Lfdder (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - redirects can be used to avoid any naming issues.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (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:Inline warning

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. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inline warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in mainspace (I replaced 3 instances of it with the more appropriate {{Clarify}} and {{Dead link}}). Deletion to reduce instruction-creep/cruft. –Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (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:Hudson Valley municipalities

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus for Hudson Valley geography, but delete the rest. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hudson Valley geography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hudson Valley railroads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hudson Valley roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hudson Valley municipalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hudson Valley transportation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (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:Peru girls volleyball team 2013 world championship

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. delete. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peru girls volleyball team 2013 world championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Youth tournament. It should be deleted per numerous previous discussions, like here. 183.81.105.59 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2013 (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.

Traditional counties

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, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Traditional counties of the United Kingdom‎ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:British Counties‎ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per this edit, these two templates were established for use by the Association of British Counties, a pressure group set up to campaign for the fringe theory that there is a single, established set of "Traditional counties" across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, established in the Norman era, that are the correct use of the term "county" despite the many changes to the county system that have happened since. As such the templates are inherently POV. Examples include the use of the link text "British Counties" pipelinked to the article Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, links through to Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties, itself set up to attract members of the pressure group, and links through to the county days and county flags that the ABC promotes. The templates are additionally redundant - links to articles on the county systems of the UK before the reforms from the 19th century onwards are perfectly well catered for by the templates Template:England counties/ancient, Template:Historic Counties of Wales, Template:Scotland counties and Template:Counties and cities of Northern Ireland JimmyGuano (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To JimmyGuano. If you had actually given me some time to make changes, then I would have been in a much better position to explain myself. I would (presume) that these issues have been discussed amongst 'Wikiproject: UK Geography' before, hence why pages were deleted very swiftly, certainly not in ways which I have experienced before (usually it takes weeks and a discussion!!). I have been a member of Wikipedia for a very long time (June 2006), contributing to a variety of articles particularly linked to sport (I was a member of WikiProject: Rugby league), music, and (some) linguistics. I saw a clear gap in Wikipedia, when I wanted information about my home county, and thus decided to do some research. Whilst some of this did include a trip to Cambridge Uni Library (I hadn't got round to writing/refs what I had done there!), some of it was provided by ABC and HTC, two websites that I deemed reputable - perhaps I shouldn't have now; and I have always believed that if a group can add history and information to Wikipedia then they should. I thought the community would be best placed to revive some of the articles hence why they were mentioned. I realise now that WikiProject: UK Geography seems to a have a strong voice on all matters relating to county and is the 'place to be' or 'place to discuss'. If I had known I would have published my work on their page first, asking for feedback, instead of posting it straight onto Wikipedia, but I did not realise this was such a tetchy subject.
Continues for another six long paragraphs (tl;dr)
I think at the very core of this discussion though is what is a county, and I think this is where many people would disagree with Wikipedia's current stance. But this has also caused huge confusion when it comes to signage, postage, and history in this country too! Wikipedia's stance seems to be that county is primarily concerned with governance and administration. One might argue that this was the reason for the original founding of the counties but actually I think you would find that there were separations in culture and environment between counties and that it wasn't just a case of administration or 'who owned what'. In my opinion this is not the case however. When something is longstanding it is not just about governance at all, but there is something else that represents community and culture. Changing governmental boundaries does not in my experience effect that whatsoever. Clearly though county is administration too, and thus a middle point must be made. I just don't don't think Wikipedia has found it.
Your argument saying there has been many changes over the years is not entirely true really! Of course some have been, but the system has been fairly static for 500-1000+ years now. More changes have occured in the last 35 years then the hundreds before then! I really cannot fault ABC for standardising this, and they seem to have used very good sources and been very thorough in their 'Gazetter' upon doing this. From the pages I've looked at online they seem to have much support too (even amongst politicians as your friend Tmol42 acknowledged on your comments page), and their database is sold to companies. It makes perfect sense to me as there are and no doubt will always be changes in administrative and political boundaries in the near future (as I think generally our politicians put party and power before country).
I have looked at the treatment of counties on Wikipedia concerning Ireland and I think it is much better to be honest. For instance they have North Tipperary County Council and South Tipperary County Council but County Tipperary as an article still lives on and has weight. In fact there's an article on Google saying that the Dail recently recommended that the two merge back into one Tipperary Council, despite it being just 12 years old! Which kind of gives weight to my argument! It would seem that articles and categories are more 'dualed' if you like (for instance modern articles categorised as both North Tipperary and County Tipperary).
All I can say is that as someone in their 20s, I consider myself to be from Huntingdonshire. And I consider that to be a county. Yes Huntingdonshire may be administered by Cambridgeshire County Council, but for most they have allegiance to, and use, Huntingdonshire. When we receive post the letters always say Huntingdonshire! Several pubs and shops have the green flag of Huntingdonshire behind the counter/bar. And there are cars with Hunts stickers. I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the Cambridge News (our local paper) uses Huntingdonshire too if, for example, an accident has happened there. There are few who really use Cambridgeshire, except perhaps, those from other parts of the country. Because of this I find it extremely difficult to accept Wikipedia's layout of things! Just last week I had a friend over (same age) who was from Wigtownshire, and once again she uses that term. But I presume you guys would argue that it has been dead and buried since 1975, just because it's 'Dumfries and Galloway' that collects her rubbish! Last year I visited the Banffshire Coast, advertised as Banffshire by Aberdeenshire Council!! (see banffshirecoast.com) with signs saying Welcome to Banffshire, but you must think it's... Aberdeenshire?! Or Grampian?! And of course my family and relatives who still live in the great maritime city I was born say they are from Lancashire! But of course I understand I cannot speak for the entire country.
I think it would be better if infoboxs mentioned (in some way) both, even if traditional was clearly subordinate. That there can be categories for both usages too. And that one can update articles like Huntingdonshire and bring them into 2013! (it has the population figures for 1911 in it's infobox!!). I admit it would be very hard on an article like Lancashire though (whether to include info on Liverpool and Manchester too for example). I would hazard a guess that some of this has been discussed before! I did notice though that I was very quickly linked to the 'WikiProject: Greater Manchester' page after submitting my article, which might explain why if it has been discussed before it may have been defeated. After all if one has spent months on articles about County Greater Manchester then they are not going to want changes to effect their hard work. I completely understand that.
Feel free to delete the two templates if there is consensus. The former took me quite a while but is a little pointless without a corresponding article. Although it may still be of use for quick flicking. The flags used on there correspond to the traditional boundaries. I've noticed for example on the Lancashire article (of the 'non-metropolitan borough') you have used the flag of the proper county but there is no note there which is slightly misleading, so really it should probably be removed from the article. In future I will consult WikiProject: UK Geography if I am posting any geographic related articles and am sorry if I ruined your groups pages and articles or upset your members!! I will post this message onto the other page too as nobody has commented on this yet!
Regards, Poiuytre (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Nothing has been deleted yet. There does need to be a discussion where the issue is considered and this is that discussion.
Wikipedia does not have any favoured definition of a county - that is not our role. The history of the subdivisions of the UK (including its counties) is complex and multi-faceted and it is our job to explain that complexity in a neutral way. This is why we have articles on, for example Administrative counties of England, Postal counties of the United Kingdom. Historic counties of England, Shire, Ceremonial counties of England, Metropolitan county, Non-metropolitan county, to mention just a few, and an umbrella article Counties of the United Kingdom to fit it all together.
Different people identify with different geographical areas in different ways. If you identify strongly with Huntingdonshire then that is neither unusual nor unreasonable, but this does not mean that Wikipedia should be structured to give the specific set of territorial divisions you favour an elevated status as - to use your phrase above - "proper counties". That is the effect of these templates and that is why they should be deleted. We have a perfectly serviceable set of existing templates that already cover the various classes and eras of county government, including those that include Huntingdonshire. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of openness, I suspect they're referring to Talk:List of British flags. Any ad hominem argument is inherently invalid as you say, but for anybody with the stamina to get through it all I would hope the impression given is of somebody trying to find acceptable compromises to reach a balanced article reflecting the available sources. Even where I do express a personal POV I'm quite clear that "(nb my personal opinions are no more definitive than yours, I'm just using them to illustrate the point)". JimmyGuano (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2013 (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/2013_August_13&oldid=1142562848"