Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27

edit

Template:8TeamBracket-2Legs

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 10. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Metro Dagupan

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 10. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. I am willing to userfy these templates upon request, but with the templates already orphaned and only the Cullinan Diamond under any sort of scrutiny there is little point in keeping them. That being said, if a discussion (likely an RFC) determines that this template family are useful, either in their current location or after rename, there is no prejudice against recreation/restoration. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a series of secondary templates that were originally created in support of the main Template:Inflation functionality, but are now obsolete. The reason is that the series initially chosen happened to be chosen by mistake, and are not suitable for inflation adjustments. See Template talk:Inflation for details.

The proposal is to remove these obsolete templates now, as the main template doesn't rely on them any longer. cherkash (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose GDP per capita can be used to compare relative incomes. Rename if necessary. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest an article where such a comparison would actually be done? Furthermore, would it be done in enough articles to justify doing it via a template?--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel Lambert has just popped up on my watchlist, so I will use this as a typical example. If you look at Daniel Lambert#Weight, he receives an annuity of £50 on losing his job in 1805, which the inflation template tells us is equivalent to £3,700 now, but that is misleading. An income of £50 in 1805 was a respectable income, enough for an ordinary person to live on, and about twice the average earnings of a farm labourer. There is no way anyone in England could live on £3,700 per annum today. The correct relative measure is GDP per capita, which gives a better estimate of equivalent value today of £49,000. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the correct measure is not GDP per capita. Lambert really did make the equivalent of 3,700 pounds, and, no, he could not live on that in England today. That is because both production and consumption is greatly increased across these eras, as is the amount one must earn and spend to live in modern, prosperous countries. Just because GDPPC gives a figure in line with your modern expectations doesn't mean such a figure is correct. Living conditions, and expenses, in 1805 England, even for the relatively prosperous, were more in line with a Third World lifestyle today. I'm sure it's more than you want to read, but https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth gives a good overview of how the very nature of prosperity has changed across the centuries.--Father Goose (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't usually orphan a template before the formal deletion discussion. It's considered best practice to wait until after the deletion discussion has concluded with consensus to delete. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prior use of the template/dataset (to calculate inflation) created a factual error spread across many pages, as GDP per capita is not appropriate to use for adjusting for inflation. Removing all instances of its erroneous use is not just justified, but necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at a random half-dozen of the AWB edits: I couldn't see anywhere the template had been used to calculate inflation. They were all being used to estimate relative values. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • By "estimate relative values", do you mean adjust for inflation? Because that is what the {{inflation}} template does.--Father Goose (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I mean "estimate relative worth", which is what the website linked through the template, MeasuringWorth, does. DrKay (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I see. Unfortunately, if you can't describe what the meaning of the adjustment is, it's not appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's basically WP:OR to use an adjustment (a numerical multiplier) that does not have a standard meaning in the economics world. Price indexes to adjust for inflation are bog standard, and the meaning of "adjusting for inflation" is standard as well. The Measures of Worth essay on Measuring Worth is an interesting academic exercise, but not one we should treat as some standard way of adjusting numbers, as it is most definitely not.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per DrKay, we should rename it. Incorrect uses of the template can always be updated to a deflator version. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All uses of this template/dataset to calculate inflation are incorrect, and as a consequence, all uses of it have been updated to use the deflator version. The only remaining use for it is some hypothetical, and unlikely, repurposing.--Father Goose (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming suggestion is totally reasonable, but only if you can identify what it should be renamed to. Wiki should not be turning into a collection of random orphaned datasets. So unless there's a particular suggestion, the delete is a way to go. cherkash (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support – as I've justified in my nomination and the linked discussion (on the Template talk:Inflation page), these are just service sub-templates whose existence could be justified only if relevant for the main template. As they are emphatically not relevant to the main template anymore (as they are not used to measure anything related to inflation), so they should be deleted. As a side comment, their contents are ultimately trivial, and can be re-created anytime in any other context when/if relevant. cherkash (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and reinstate. See the comments at Talk:Cullinan Diamond#Inflation-adjusted value. This template gave more realistic estimates for equivalent modern-day values for certain things. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The datasets contained within these templates should never have been used on Wikipedia – at the very least, not for making inflation adjustments, nor for the other vague purposes suggested above either. We have at least stopped the use of these incorrect datasets (by deprecating the {{inflation}} parameter that invokes them), and deletion is the next step, because they are no longer used, and should not be.
    Unfortunately, those opposing the deletion of the datasets don't understand why the they are incorrect – or at least, didn't when they first !voted here. Cherkash and I have done what we could to explain the issue, but a deletion poll is not the right forum for it – "straw polls [cannot] be used to determine a question of fact", as WP:POLL points out. I doubt the templates will be deleted at this time based on how the above polling has gone, but I affirm once again that although the numbers they generate might seem right in certain contexts, they are not right. I would be happy to continue attempting to explain why, if anyone is still willing to continue the conversation.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Migrate to Growth/.*. The Daniel Lambert article example is exactly correct. When dealing with relative wage levels / consumption levels over time in terms of societal status it is meaningless to give an as-of-2018 reader the comparison of a third world income, because this displays product preferences as of 2018 in relation to a 1805 expenditure. Product preferences of 1805 involve comparative status displays. The only correct way to get an automated social relativity comparison over time would be via NGDPPC. Our readers desire to understand what £50 meant to a person in 1805. In relation to understanding 1805£50 as social status CPI is useless, as is a GDP deflator. Correspondingly, in the decision to make large structural purchases, the question "what would it take to recreate this today," may be contrasted with, "to a contemporary, how ought they understand what was forgone at that time?" These are not equivalent questions in terms of the meaning of money over time. All in all the Inflation series (and if migrate is successful,) related social worth over time series need far better explanation for editors in their use. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up question – What do you mean by "Growth/.*." in this case, Fifelfoo? cherkash (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do want want to take such an approach, Fifelfoo, what kind of language would you use to explain to readers what calculation is being performed? You can't say "adjusted for inflation", as that implies the use of a price index; "adjusted for growth" has no readily understood meaning; and "equivalent to" (if it means anything) means "adjusted for inflation". (One could argue that maybe we shouldn't use the language "equivalent to" in general...)--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Editors are crap at making comparisons in money over time. They don't understand consumption bundles to begin with.
      2. I have previously argued that any comparison over time is original research, as it requires intelligent selection of CPI/GDP/NGDPPC to reflect consumption bundle, reproduction cost, equivalent social exertion.
      3. However, given that we can't stop them, and that other editors have disagreed with me on original research we may as well do it the best way possible.
        • Fred bought a beer for AUD2 in 1997, (the equivalent of a beer of AUD6 in 2017).[cpi]
        • Fred bought a 1950 class Destroyer in 1950 for AU£50000, (the equivalent of making the same destroyer in 2017 for AUD2 million).[gdp]
        • Fred bought a beer for AUD2 in 1997, (the equivalent social power of buying beer of AUD14 in 2017).[ngdppc]
        • Fred bought a 1950 class Destroyer in 1950 for AU£50000, (the equivalent proportion of the Australian economy of the 1950s as AUD4 million in 2017).[ngdppc]
      4. Or similar. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fifelfoo: Now I'm even less clear on what it is you want to do. You've given four examples: which of the four are "intelligent selections", according to your views? All four, only two, only one? And why?--Father Goose (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The correct editorial choice depends entirely on why a comparison of a monetary figure over time is being made. If the comparison relates to wage worker wages in decade time spans, and the purpose of the comparison relates to understanding the past value as a portion of a households wage purchased expenses, then consumption bundles are relevant—how many beers was that hat worth? If it relates to a comparison where the modern reader wants to know the current reproduction cost of an item, then GDP—what would it take today to remake an A4 steam engine. If it relates to understanding the weight of past social choices, expressed against an equivalent dedication of social exertion today, then NGDPPC—how expensive was beer, or WWII, proportionate to the total economy of the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is unfortunate. You are not managing to make a clear statement at all.--Father Goose (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry that you're imputing your comprehension issues to me. Editors make comparisons in money values over time to explain the meaning of money in the past. For people in the past, they related to money in various ways. They purchased households with it. They purchased capital with it. They exerted social status with it. Purchasing a household is a consumption bundle purchase, a cpi purchase. Editors should use cpi to express this. Purchasing capital is a capital purchase, a gdp purchase. Editors should use gdp to express this. Exerting social status commands a proportion of the total economy. Editors should use ngdppc to express this. What meaning money had, and how to express that meaning to modern readers as of 2018, is an editorial decision. Many times editors wish to express what kind of social power was being exerted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, DrKay. And the reason for this has been explained clearly during the nomination (see above): "The reason is that the series initially chosen happened to be chosen by mistake, and are not suitable for inflation adjustments. See Template talk:Inflation for details." So all these nominated series carry no value anymore, and are ripe for deletion. cherkash (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of these two editors have voted to delete on that basis. This is why we deprecate orphaning templates before the discussion is concluded: it gives a skewed view of the template's usefulness. The template does not measure inflation, it measures relative worth. Misnaming a template is not a valid reason for deletion when they can be easily moved to new names. DrKay (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was just pointing out that your claim of previous "extensive use" is irrelevant – this was because these templates were created by mistake in the first place which has since been fixed. So the current state of being unused is quite relevant and meaningful, which was correctly noted by the last two editors' votes. cherkash (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Asim Raza

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful, two entries can be covered in 'See also'. Störm (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Outline header

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally developed in 2009, this template has either remained unused, or fallen into disuse. The template is only linked to, not actually used anywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Jenny Parks

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) 13:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are too few entries here to merit a template, per WP:NENAN. A See also section would easily suffice. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:UsernameSoftBlocked

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 March 10. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_27&oldid=830048981"