Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

edit

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Albanai

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, is misspelling of the country name, and a proper spelled template exists. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NPB labeled map

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Skagway Borough, Alaska

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only the head article and one other item. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Somali presidential elections

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Somali presidential elections with Template:Somali elections.
Already covered by the latter, just migrate the years. Brandmeistertalk 16:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure why this is being relisted again given the comprehensive explanation as to the reason for this template's existence, which the IP who originally suggested the merger was presumably unaware of. A merge would create inconsistency between the templates in this topic area. Number 57 12:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Number 57 said and the organisational structure we've been using in WP Elections for years now. —Nightstallion 12:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-art-US-1996

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template is now seemingly unused. Uploads under this criteria of this license should be uploaded directly to Commons, making the local version redundant or deprecated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This tag may be required for files temporarily copied from commons for protection purposes. For work in joint copyright this tag may be one of several for a file that is in copyright in one of the source countries and so may not be hosted on commons. Template deletion is not an appropriate way of encouraging uploading to commons. This is a template associated with a policy, WP:Image use policy, and so should not have been nominated here ("cannot be listed at TFD", see above). Thincat (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:EngvarO

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Performance art

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too loosely connected to each other for a cohesive navbox. Inclusion is selective and subjective: who decides which artwork or artist is or isn't included? Best left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't inclusion of most on WP always selective and subjective. I'm not sure I understand what the concern is. A performance art piece is a work just as clearly as a choreographed dance or painting. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concern.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Littleolive oil, I believe the question is "who decides which articles from Category:Performance_art and subcategories are used in the navigational box?". clearly not all the articles in the Category:Performance_art category tree are in the template. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Ugh, {{Shakespeare authorship question}} is a truly awful example of a navbox. I see Sandra Day O'Connor and Mark Rylance are listed as "sceptics", without a single mention of Shakespeare on either article. All of the "sceptics" should probably be stripped from the navbox due to subjective/selective inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Shakespeare authorship question template is quite educational and interesting. If you found two pages which don't fit the template because of no mention on their pages, please remove them with an adequate edit summary. To find two and because of those two erase all the rest seems WP:BABYOUTWITHBATHWATER, no?. Randy Kryn 12:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed that the selection criteria is poor (WP:NAVBOX#3). This isn't a movement template with reasonable bounds for inclusion ({{Fluxus}}, {{Arte Povera}}, {{Der Blaue Reiter}}) but just as there is no template for {{video art}} or {{installation art}}, picking articles to include for {{performance art}} is tantamount to choosing a canon... In this case, the category does a better job without discrimination. This said, if there were a series of subarticles about concepts within performance art, and each article was related to each other and the template stuck to that, then this would be a different discussion.   czar 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as a representative template of an artform, Performance art, the entries included seem to be those which unarguably fall within that artform. It is an informative template and a good map to the subject. If the nominator wants to add more items to the template then he or she should do that, which would enhance and expand this perfectly fine site-map. Randy Kryn 11:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more is not the answer. This would involve including everything at Category:Performance art and subcategories, which is clearly unmanageable. Best left for the category to be the "perfectly fine site-map". The only acceptable option in order to keep the navbox would be to strip it of all individuals, etc, and leave it as a broad topic navbox, i.e. including things like Performance art in China, Extreme performance art, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, hi, and good additions. I've added them, except for two duplicates, to the template and added a section 'Groups'. I'll go over the new additions further soon to both see if any questions arise and further educate myself about the field. Please have a look and hopefully this will satisfy your concern (the template is still not very large even with these additions). Nice work, and thank you. With the additions the template is better due to this nomination, which should be the case in every nomination that editors object to. Randy Kryn 17:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy Kryn et al, I've changed my comment to Keep. The template is more balanced now. Thanks for your work on it. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order for this to be non-subjective, you'll need to add all the performance artists under Category:Performance artists and subcategories. Note that there are 341 in Category:American performance artists alone. This template is clearly impossible to maintain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very good template getting better by the day. If you'd like every page listed in the categories represented on the template you can add one of those "(more)" links to the categories at the end of the artists section. Easy as pie. Randy Kryn 12:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those kind of "more" category links should not be encouraged in navboxes, which are for navigating between articles, not categories. We have had discussions about this in the past. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So a good solution is offered by adding (more), and you say no, that good solution is untenable, because we shouldn't do that. Catch-a-22. So instead of listing very notable artists and saying "here's more of 'em" you'd rather say "here's none of them and that's all you get". Even King Solomon might shake his head at that one. Randy Kryn 21:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Does the discussion group have any thoughts on whether it would improve the template to include a section on scholars/historians of the field of Performance Art? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of people like Roselee Goldberg and Joanna Frueh in particular, but perhaps even cultural critics like Greil Marcus and curators like Thierry de Duve and Nicolas Bourriaud. Feedback is appreciated, as this is the first time I've tried to help with a template. Netherzone (talk)
Again, these would all be subjective choices and would make an impossible navbox even more impossible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template is very good, and getting better because of user Netherzone. Maybe those questions about inclusion are better discussed at the template talk page itself. Randy Kryn 12:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should be discouraged, as scholars like this have ties to more than one field. Again, subjective choices. Any individuals, unless they are actually a founder of a movement, should not be in a navbox like this. Imagine if we listed all the individuals involved in {{Rock music}} or {{Science fiction}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Weighing in again on this template - I continue to think that the concept of a template for Performance Art is relevant the Wikipedia, but that the template as it stands, particularly the "Work" section is heavily biased towards shock-art, body art, abject art - and those pieces involving self-harm or harm by others. These works represent a very small spectrum of the genre of Performance art, and therefore were selected/curated in an unbalanced manner. The template still needs a lot of work, in fact the genre of Performance art needs more development, so that there are more articles on specific works involving other approaches to the practice. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete An arbitrary and subjective collection of articles does not make a good navigation box. Already on the large side, the only way to fix it would be to include all (people and other articles) that are categorised as such, but that would render it impossibly large.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm leaning towards delete, as I see that there is a bias in the interpretation of what constitutes Performance art. I will modify my vote above. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the delete people are tossing several babies out with the bathwater. Netherzone, please add more articles about performances. Imagine Joe Smo, coming to look up a page about a performance artist his cousin told him she saw, and then, at the bottom of the page, an entire world of Performance art and artists open up to him. This template provides a fine representative overview of the notable artists and their work. If it goes away Joe Smo reads a page about one artist, and then he goes away. That is the literal truth of how these things work, removing templates, which seem a hobby for some people here, removes knowledge, removes the diversity of the field, and gives our readers less information. Other art-form templates are limited to very notable works and artists (see {{Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood}} which has a section 'Well known works'). There is no really no reason to delete this template if we take the dissemination of knowledge on Wikipedia as the goal in mind. Randy Kryn 00:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood}} is also incredibly problematic. If it was just a template listing the core members of the brotherhood that would be fine, and possibly any collaborative works or works about the brotherhood could be included, but all the "associated" people, models, and the subjective list of "well known" works should not be included. A good navbox has strong ties between all of the articles included, not tangential links. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, some articles which should be included there, but aren't: The Love School; Hogarth Club; and The Germ (periodical). These relate to the group as a whole, rather than some of the tangential links we do see. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, please add them. Your comment is an example of differing points of view. Is it "Incredibly problematic"? Not in the least. Just the opposite. The well-known works are fine, the models are very connected to the subject as most of the painters used the same models who became famous for their participation in this art movement, and the template's listings has "strong ties" between every listing. Again, when Wikipedia removes templates it removes knowledge, it removes a key part of the readers chance to explore the entire topic. Removing a template like 'Performance art' harms the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn 13:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "well known" works are not "fine". They are subjective. A lot of the individuals are also subjectively included, and fail a lot of the points at WP:NAVBOX. Some of their articles do not even mention the brotherhood. Navboxes work well when there is a defined set, which is not the case here, and hardly ever the case when we start including "associated" people. As for your claim that "the template's listings has strong ties between every listing", this is clearly not true. What links say, Marie Spartali Stillman and A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids??? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Stillman was a painter, her page says probably the most important of the movement's female painters, which is cool, and the painting is an example of the movement's artwork. The relation is the Pre-Ral.Brotherhood art movement (well, in Stillman's case, brotherandsisterhood), one of the most important art movement's of the era (and one of my favorite art periods, which might give you more incentive to go after it). Are you actually interpreting ties between every listing as being so literal that every artist has to collaborate on every work of art? That's what I mean by "makes no sense". The movement itself ties every item on that wonderful template together. And yes, the models are as much members of that movement as the artists. Wonder if EEng would rename that picture "A Converted British Family Sheltering an Inclusionist Missionary from the Persecution of the Deletionists" (or visa versa). Randy Kryn 21:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This template provides a fine representative overview of the notable artists and their work". No it doesn’t. I mean, whether it is representative or not is entirely subjective; it contains only a small fraction of the notable artists with articles on WP, More importantly navboxes are meant to be complete and contain all articles in a group or class. When that is not possible as there are far too many then it is not a suitable subject for a navbox.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my position that a template for the genre of Performance art is relevant to the goals of Wikipedia. And that the template as it stands needs more balance and diversity, and multicultural, multiracial and aesthetic inclusion. It does not make sense to delete the template while these deliberations are still under discussion. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do this work for the creator of the template. Hope they can jump in asap and develop it so that it is inclusive, unbiased and fairly curated - before it may be deleted. My support is with you. Hope it gets improved. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

People's Choice Awards 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Choice Awards are not noteworthy/prestigious enough to warrant templates for every category. charge2charge (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Montanabw. I do not know that much about People's Choice Awards much less their notability, however, I believe outright deletion is not merited. If they are indeed not notable enough to for separate category navboxes, I believe merging to the main one is a more appropriate response. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they are fine templates of notable subjects and contain interesting encyclopedic information. The reasoning, that the People's Choice awards are not themselves notable, seems to be incorrect. Maybe list one or two that really need deletion, but baby/bathwater applies here as well. Maybe editors are running out of things to delete? Randy Kryn 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been mentioned before that a wider discussion is needed regarding awards navboxes, as they are one of the worst causes of WP:NAVBOXCREEP that we find on Wikipedia. I'd be inclined to delete all awards navboxes as list and category navigation is a far better way of dealing with this. Have a look at the number of navboxes on Viola Davis (to take one example). --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, who would have thought that {{Teen Choice Award Choice Hissy Fit}} needed a navbox... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those hissy fits are examples of really good acting and deserved the award, the winners probably honor it. There is nothing wrong with having awards templates, they are educational, interesting, and useful to readers and people "in the business". Templates give a full view of a subject, and awards constitute major subjects in their particular field. Randy Kryn 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not that significant of an award, a simple category and/or list article will suffice. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant award and more than enough links for each template. The entire purpose of these templates is to know the winners of each category, which would not be the case if you merge them or create a simple category. 132.205.64.130 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those awards are significant enough to justify templates. Award templates are necessary because it is to know the winners of each category and if you removed, it will make things difficult to find out. We have to keep those templates because the awards are significant enough. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Furry comics

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. There seems to be some support for merging parts of this template into {{furry fandom}}, but not enough to officially add it to the close as needing to be done (and some who think that template needs trimming as well). However, the overall consensus was that this template should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template fails the navbox guidelines and consists of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. The subject are furry comics. List of furry comics starts with "Listed are a variety of notable comic books, comic strips, and webcomics that cater predominantly to furry fans. Many of these titles are part of a genre also referred to as funny animals." The supposed intention of "catering predominantly to furry fans" is vague and not a valid reason of inclusion.

Only Albedo, Furrlough, Genus, Heathen City, Katmandu, Tales of Beatrix, Jack and Kevin and Kell actually mention "furry" in some manner, but there is no "single, coherent subject": the comics listed just feature anthropomorphic animals. Several entries here do not have the navbox either. The articles do not refer to each other either.

I could trim the fat and leave only the articles that actually mention "furry", but it still is not a "single, coherent subject". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively it could be trimmed and merged with {{Furry fandom}}, which could use some trimming itself. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some fans call all comics featuring anthropomorphic (animal) characters 'furry', and the initial template was close to the definition of 'furry' work offered by the Furry Writers' Guild:

[…] the defining factor of furry fiction is the presence of one or more anthropomorphic animal characters, usually as the protagonist. These may be true “talking animals” (as in Watership Down), animal-like aliens, or bipedal animals who evolved alongside humans, were genetically engineered in some fashion, or inhabit their own secondary world.

But I accept that a navbox should have a citable relation linking titles together - and in this case, it's clearer to cite relations via 'furry fandom' than 'furry'. In this spirit, maybe rename to Template:Furry fandom comics? That way we don't have to explain why Dilbert isn't furry despite Dogbert et. al., or that Calvin and Hobbes only has an imaginary tiger, rather than a society of non-human people - let alone distinguish between relations between intelligent non-human animals (e.g. Omaha the Cat Dancer), and/or between humans and such animals (e.g. Twokinds), or the exhibition of animal behaviour vs. Animal Farm/Maus-style racial/class metaphors.
Sandra and Woo is a borderline case - the artist has drawn furries for a while, while the writer is a furry fan [and edited   de:Ozy and Millie and   de:Unten am Fluss], but he was surprised by the comic's nomination for a furry award since the majority of pages feature humans - probably because there are regular segments and one-shots focused on Woo and his friends, or their interaction with humans.
Of course, just because the creators are involved in furry fan activity, it doesn't mean a specific work is furry. From J Greb's comment on the Category:Furry comics merge discussion:

I'm tempted to say it is unique in that a work needs a combination of self identification and fan base recognition, with the latter being more important, before it qualifies for the genre.

The Anthropomorphic Research Project studies "those who call themselves furry". I can't think of a case where a notable work was called 'furry' by its creator(s) without fans agreeing; it'd be acceptable as a self-published assertion. Yet not all creators make such assertions - some fear being pigeon-holed, especially given public perception; others wish to leave it open to interpretation, or drifted away from furry over time. Where it's unclear, the Ursa Major Awards' comic strip and graphic story categories are competitive, so nomination or victory might be considered a reliable source of "fan base recognition" (User:Feldo gave this reason to add Housepets!). Failing that, attention by furry-specific presses like Rabbit Valley and FurPlanet or coverage by reviewers such as Fred Patten in e.g. YARF! or Flayrah may also be relevant.
I think all the comics already mentioned meet the tests above, as does Usagi Yojimbo - not just for its awards, but because its original publication was in furry fan literature. I'd also include Sandra and Woo (they seem glad to cite UMA nominations on their site), but I'd welcome to other people's thoughts on that. Most who wrote for Critters can be shown to be active in the fandom through Rowrbrazzle (WikiFur has a list of members), which by itself probably should be mentioned somehow in the template since it contains a significant fraction of the 80s comics published by furry fans. Conversely Fritz the Cat is out of such a template, as I think are works such as Tellos, Space Beaver, Bucky O'Hare, Captain Carrot and probably Blacksad (even though Blacksad: Amarillo got an UMA for 2014 and has been frequently reviewed by furries). "Omaha" is a tricky one - is it merely a salacious funny animal comic series, or a crucial part of furry fandom's origins? - but given its critical timing, and the fact that Reed Waller put together a 25-minute panel on the history of sex in funny animals and its links to furry (presented at Furry Migration II in 2015, where he was a guest of honour), I'd tend towards inclusion in some fashion. GreenReaper (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenReaper I am afraid I have to disagree, because it is based upon a very specific element: comics that somehow feature furry fandom-related content. To me, that's not a "single, coherent subject". There are different writers, publishers and artists, that just happen to feature anthropomorphic animals in their work. Navboxes based upon comics featuring vampires, Steampunk comics or comics with animals wouldn't make sense, right? This would work well for a category, but not a navbox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree that "comics featuring anthropomorphic animals" isn't a suitable topic for a navbox - it's fine just as a category. But "furry comics" are, in some definable-by-authority way, part of furry fandom - the specific, coherent topic you're looking for, which already has a navbox. The best way to understand {{furry comics}} is that it's conceptually a sub-box of {{furry fandom}}, split to keep the size of both boxes down, and to make both more specific and coherent. That's why Rob suggested a merge, although I feel the reasons to split remain valid. To answer your question: "Comics featuring vampires" is not enough. "Vampire anime and manga" is warmer. But {{Goth comics}}, as determined by authorities on Goth subculture, is what we're aiming for: importing and imparting to the reader the knowledge of a closer relation between the topics; which may rest in part on the presence of, say, vampires, witches, or the supernatural in a work, but also on discerning judgement of the use of horror, glorification of death, depictions of exotic fashion, etc. The difference is that "X has Y" is a decision which any non-expert with access to the work could make, while "X is part of Y" relies on determinations made by citable reliable sources - which is why I presented ideas on where such sources might be found. It's why self-labelling may be useful in some cases (as for furry fandom people, which is both a category and part of the navbox). And it's why many of the comics currently in the navbox should probably not be there, because their relation to furry fandom is not verifiable, either through self-published primary or reliable secondary sources. GreenReaper (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox map

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It looks like {{infobox map}} has changed quite a bit since the discussion was started, so I am closing this as "no consensus" with the suggestion of continuing the discussion elsewhere or starting a new discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox map with Template:Location map.
Former is a wrapper of the latter, and is almost identical. Additionally, some features like user selection of multiple maps using radio buttons don't work properly in {{Infobox map}}. Not sure why we need two different templates which perform the same function. (As the former is supposed to only be used in infoboxes, inconsistencies like automatic captions could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.) x%/y% and x/y parameters could be added to Module:Location map. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, for now. Let's not be too hasty: this template is transcluded into 28,000+ articles. As I recall, User:Droll created this template for explicit use in infoboxes, while Module:Location map can be used anywhere. There are explicit defaults in this template which may not be appropriate for general use. For example, the width of the map defaults to 220px. Is that acceptable for general use?
    • Further, this template can work even when there is no appropriate location map data template (see the use of either {{superimpose}} or {{location mark+}} down at the bottom. Does equivalent code currently exist in Module:Location map? Should it? It seems out-of-scope. I cannot guarantee that the {{location mark+}} and {{superimpose}} code never gets used. A merge very well may break articles. I would recommend against a merge, unless editors are confident that we will not break anything.
    • Is there some way to fix multiple maps? I thought that feature did work with this template. Do you have an example where it doesn't work? I can try to fix it. —hike395 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hike395: I think it's because I was trying to use it in page preview, which doesn't load the radio buttons for some reason. I'll update the text at the top of the section to note that it probably does work. As for the image width, the Location map default of 240px is probably fine since infoboxes likely became slightly wider after the skin change from Monobook to Vector (but we might have to fix transclusions using the x/y parameters). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me       14:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there consensus to add the x/y and arbitrary map image features to the Location map template? That template has only 71 watchers but is transcluded in 500,000 pages, so it has many more than 71 stakeholders. What is the plan for establishing that consensus? Where has this discussion been advertised? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jonesey95: Dunno, just thought it might be a good idea; many infoboxes use {{Location map}} directly. I think there are only a few dozen maps which make use of the x%/y% or x/y parameters, probably on historic maps which don't have {{Location map}} definitions. (Adding the features to the module would probably only require several additional or statements, although not sure about the tracking.) If the defaults are considered necessary then we may as well just keep the template, but most infoboxes are wider than the Location map default of 240px as well as the Infobox map default of 220px, and both templates use an 8px-wide File:Red pog.svg as the default marker anyway (they're redundant in {{Infobox map}}). Possibly changing the default caption to a more-helpful "Location of label/article title in location map name" could also work, although this would definitely require further discussion. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me       12:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. Location maps should work identically across infoboxes. It is not good for readers or editors if they see different behaviours based only on which infobox is used. Whether the map should be wider is an editorial decision for articles, and should be decided on an article-by-article basis, not imposed by an infobox. The same goes for other options. As for 28,000/500,000 pages it is used in only 16 Infoboxes, meaning very little needs to be done. The articles will update automatically. If there are any issues these can be fixed in the normal way, monitoring the various tracking categories.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To find out the size of the problem, I added Category:Pages using infobox map without location map to {{Infobox map}}. There are ~720 articles that call {{Infobox map}} without a call to Module:Location map. Many of these articles are very popular, e.g., Alps and Yellowstone National Park. It is possible to add additional map parameters to the 16 infoboxes that call {{Infobox map}}, which would not call Module:Location map, but what do we gain? To eliminate some redundancy in templates, we'll gain confusion (and possible editor error) by having multiple ways of invoking maps in infoboxes. It doesn't seem worth it to me. —hike395 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of those though does it make sense? I had a look at Yellowstone National Park and it would be far better served by {{location map}}; in particular being able to specify two maps separated by '#' makes a lot of sense in US locations as the USA is so big that maps of the whole country are very imprecise, while state maps are more precise but unclear to many, especially foreign, readers who do not know where individual states are. Some articles are even served best by three levels of map, country, state and city/county.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the better question is how many are using a non-coordinates based pin-placement method. I have added additional tracking to find these cases. clearly the cases where the template is adding a map without a pin can be handled with a less complicated solution. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the map without coords usage, having not seen it before. And it’s a terrible way to do it: every time you want to use the map like that you have to download the image, work out by hand the pixel count or % x and y of the location, and use that to locate the dot. Even the most prepared editor will find that tedious and easy to make a mistake doing. Many editors, such as those without graphics editing programs, will find it impossible. And it needs to be done every article the map is used. It’s also much harder to correct errors: with coords you can simply click on them and check on your preferred map if the location is right. That’s just not possible for manually entered pixel coords. You need to re-do the check manually. Goodness knows how many of these maps are wrong, by small or large amounts, but they are never checked as there is no easy way to do so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnBlackburne and Beeblebrox: Yes, I agree that those parameters are very hard to use: I remember trying it a few years back and it was a giant pain. I would be happy if those parameters were deprecated. Many of the uses of |x=, |x%=, or |pixel_x= come from Canadian parks. I used AWB to use existing provincial or Canada-wide maps instead of the custom ones. I almost got rid of the |pixel_x= usage, except that Beeblebrox reverted me on Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park. Looks like s/he prefers the custom map to the standard location map: we need to discuss those maps. —hike395 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Custom maps that are images can be treated as images. Those that are maps but which require manually entered pixel coords can be used as a location map, as I did here Module:Location map/data/Beijing. The advantage of doing that is, once done, it can be used in all articles just by supplying coords. And once it’s used in many articles errors should be spotted and fixed, so there should be no concerns about accuracy.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnBlackburne: I'm not sure that every map can be turned into a location map. The documentation says that only equirectangular maps can be used a location maps, and some of the popular maps that are used (e.g., File:BC parks.png) are definitely not equirectangular. —hike395 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly use non-equirectangular maps, otherwise how would e.g. the map of the USA work? Here’s how it’s done in that case.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnBlackburne: That looks very tricky -- the probability of an incorrectly specified single-use map seems higher than asking people to enter fractional position within a map. —hike395 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s tricky, but so is downloading a map and judging the correct position by hand where it’s easy to go wrong in a number of ways. The point is that creating a new location map is non-trivial, even for the equirectangular case. But it only needs to be done once, and so likely is to be done carefully. As it gets added to multiple pages, if there are any problems they should be quickly spotted and the map fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, Frietjes! That's great! Very well done! Now we don't need to modify Module:Location map at all, but just add the file exists check to all of the infoboxes that remain in Category:Pages using infobox map with x or y, and call Module:InfoboxImage instead (per Jc86035, above). That would allow us to delete {{Infobox map}}. Very clean and nice. —hike395 (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035, Frietjes, Jonesey95, and JohnBlackburne: Later: I just eliminated {{Infobox map}} from {{Infobox cave}}, {{Infobox climbing route}}, and {{Infobox forest}}. Converting the latter makes me question the wisdom of any merge/delete. Many infoboxes have two calls to {{Infobox map}}: one for when there is a photo, one for not. There is a lot of cloned cone: 16 infoboxes * potentially 2 calls per infobox. Why are we in such a rush to get rid of {{Infobox map}}? Why can't we hide the if statement and the call to Module:InfoboxImage inside of {{Infobox map}} and Keep the template? In other words, keep the template and eliminate the now-unused custom marker positioning code? —hike395 (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: Not sure about that, but you could change the parameter name with an #if: statement to avoid duplicating the large chunk of code. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: Sorry --- not sure I understand? —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: | {{#if:{{{photo|}}}|data11|image2}} = {{#if:{{#ifexist: .... Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is that |map= has two purposes, either (a) an image or (b) the name of a location map. in {{infobox settlement}} and so many others, we have two parameters, one for |image_map= and one for |pushpin_map=. we should add |image_map= to these templates, and deprecate the passing of an image through the |map=. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I think that is orthogonal to keeping {{Infobox map}}. Even if we have two differently-named parameters, you'll pass a bunch of parameters to {{location map}} (like |map_width= and |map_alt=) and many of the same parameters to Module:InfoboxImage. There is default handling that gets cloned twice. And now we have to put all of that default handling in up to 32 places. It's certainly feasible, but seems ugly and difficult to maintain. Look at my latest edits to {{Infobox forest}} and see. —hike395 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hike395, I simplified infobox forest for you. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Hike395: I think it's better to code it into Module:Location map, as it already does a sort of #ifexist: call to determine which sort of data page to use. Then the module could pass all its parameters through to Module:InfoboxImage, and add a tracking category if desired. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035 and Frietjes: That's a very nice trick, I didn't know that worked! Thanks!
At this point, I don't have a strong opinion about whether the if statement and argument handling should be in {{Infobox map}} or Module:Location map. Frietjes: if you want to get consensus about changing the ~15 infoboxes over to use |image_map= and |pushpin_map=, I would suggest bringing it up in a central discussion place. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Infoboxes ?
I am going to back out of my changes to the three infoboxes and attempt a central edit at {{Infobox map}}. —hike395 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Later: The code in {{Infobox map}} is now simplified and ready to convert to Lua (if desired). See Template talk:Infobox map#Recent edits for more details. —hike395 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Talk-warn

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6&oldid=1142562393"