Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

edit

Template:Orbit Culture

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 speedy deleted as recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion. DrKay (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NENAN. With only two related articles that already link to and from one another, there is no need for this navbox at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:38, 3 November 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:Inner west line 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 delete. No objections. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused - line no longer exists Gareth (talk) 21:45, 3 November 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:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

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 convert to wrapper. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per request of Ymblanter, additional rationale: The issues raised by those in opposition to the conversion to a wrapper are largely that things that aren't broken shouldn't be fixed, and that the presentation of the current template is better than that of the wrapper. Regarding the first point, those supporting a change argue that there are indeed improvements from doing the conversion, in regards to maintenance and other issues.

On the second point of presentation, some of the issues raised were addressed, and those supporting argued that it is more important to standardize the presentation. Since the argument of standardizing presentation vs. a specific presentation for Russian localities is not an issue that can be weighed against policies or guidelines, one has to defer largely to a vote count, which is clearly in favour of the conversion. (a third issue raised was that of not breaking things/backwards compatibility; any template edit, including the conversion of this template to a wrapper, certainly needs to be properly tested so that things don't break; as long as that is done, however, that isn't a substantive reason against the conversion) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago I created a wrapper version for this template based on {{Infobox settlement}} which I think works quite well and could replace the current, dated design. The proposal is not to delete Russian inhabited locality or to merge it with IB settlement, but to turn it into a wrapper like Template:Infobox South African town and countless others like it. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am sorry to say,I like the current version more, and I am probably the person on this project using it the most. I appreciate time you invested to create a new version, but at this point I do not see any arguments why it is better.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of the {{Infobox settlement}}-based replacement. Increasing standardisation is preferable for ease of maintenance, reducing the cognitive burden on editors, and for the convenience of our readers. If any editor feels that they can make a case that the features of the nominated template are preferable, they should suggest on the Settlement infobox's talk page that they be adapted in that template for the benefit of the whole project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at the side-by-side comparison on the sandbox and couldn't understand the hang-up on using the current version over the standard one used in almost all other articles. As Andy said, if there is something missing that you want, ask for it to be added to the main one, don't just re-create a different one. Also, this brings these articles visual style in-line with all the other articles, which is a desired expectation from our readers perspective. --Gonnym (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Test case for Irkutsk does not show:
    1. "Mayor" under "Municipal status"
    2. Pop. density.
    3. Representative body
    4. Anthem=none
  • 85.179.26.146 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others. Seriously though why is this needed? What are it's advantages? @Ymblanter: I am more than willing to strike my !vote if you can tell me what makes this better. So far it seems like your arguement have been I work on these, nobody else here does. And this isn't the same as the Russian District discussion, because there are several ones like that one such as Template:Infobox U.S. county. This seems like a type all its own. You need to explain here why it should be separate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We had discussions before, I referenced one of them. People who are (or were) working with this template are fine. (Unfortunately I am the only one left). People who do not work with the template want to have it deleted. There are no policy-based arguments why it should be deleted, only who likes what. Concerning the it is unique - I do not know, what is about {{Infobox Australian place}} for example? Anybody wants to nominate it for deletion?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Advantages are obviously that Russian city is not always just a settlement - it is often at the same time a second level administrative unit. (There cound be in theory two different articles but in practice they are always together, with a few exceptions). We have administrative and municipal divisions which are not necessarily the same. The current version is customized and takes this into account easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see some more discussion of the changes, if there is to be an upgrade. I do a lot of editing of Russian municipal districts and edit associated localities when I see a need. The current infobox has some features that I believe deserve preservation or at least consideration if there is to be a wrapper.
What I like about the current inhabited localities template:
a) The first map places the locality on an all-Russia map. Non-Russians don't generally recognize Russian federal subjects (oblasts, krais, republics, etc.) by shape. So the first map they see should help them place the locality within, say, 5,000 miles. Instead of puzzling out what they are looking at - Perm? Kemerovo? - they see quickly the locality's location. "Oh, it's near the Pacific", or "Looks like it's near Moscow." Location-in-country maps are especially important on cellphones, where every mystery requiring a page-down loses many viewers. If "country map first" is an option on the proposed wrapper, it should at least be above the flag, symbol, anthem, and other lower importance items.
b) The governmental subdivisions are presented in a more logical, visual manner. In the current template, there are two governmental sections, clearly separated with bright bars. The first (Administrative status) descends vertically from the country (Russia) level down through constituent subdivisions to just above the town. The reader sees a powerful visual clue of where the locality sits at the bottom of some ladder, which may vary and get more complicated towards the lower levels. The second section (Municipal status) reminds the reader that local governance can add governmental units independent of the national administrative state, and with status boundaries and naming conventions that may be place-dependent, overlapping, or otherwise idiosyncratic. Especially in the Republics where language differences become more arcane. By its visual structure, the current infobox helps enforce quality: because order and terminology are so obviously important, non-specialists are less tempted to fill in infobox line-items without confirming exact language. (I count myself as a non-specialist in the varieties of Russian local governance, so if I've gotten anything wrong here, I welcome correction.)
The proposed template splits the governmental hierarchy into three sections, thus not showing the full "administrative" chain in one place (the country and subject float by themselves higher up), and it downplays the distinctions and importance of terminology. My personal preference is that local variances be highlighted.
c) More wikilinks to confusing terms. The current template, for example, has wikilinks to "town of district significance", "administrative center of" and other item labels. These are lost in the wrapper. The wikilinks not only give the reader a place to find out more, they are themselves a clue that these are terms of art, and that the distinctions are important. Russian governmental taxonomy is sprawling and complex; I would hope that any wrapper would be helping to draw attention to differences from perhaps simpler practices in other countries. The "as of" dates from the current template should also be added in any wrapper, because editors synchronizing locality articles with municipal district articles need to check each level.
Both the current and proposed templates have issues I'd like to see addressed. The average reader will wonder why, for example, "Irkutsk (City)" from the top of the infobox is "administratively subordinated to" the "City of Irkutsk" further down. Perhaps the "type of locality" field at the top should be labelled as such? Also, should there be a field for the new OKATO ID codes? Might help with disambiguation and referencing.
I understand the value of standard look-and-feel, and I appreciate editors who work to upgrade and maintain templates. If a wrapper can extend a long-standing template with the best features retained, and no mass breakage requiring cleanup, I welcome progress. My concern is that a wrapper be a true extension, and not something that shoehorns a complex subject into simpler norms for aesthetic uniformity alone. It is good for the project to have strong volunteers on both the programming and content side. Is there a joint solution? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Every-leaf-that-trembles: agreed with point A, I changed it so that the first map to show up is that of Russia (which now includes a pinpoint, unlike the current template) while the federal subject map can be selected with the radio button. I'll look into fixing the other points you made as soon as I can.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point C: the link to Town of district significance has been restored. So was the link to Administrative centre, though that is not a Russia-specific article, hence it doesn't provide much country-specific information.
Point B is the hardest to address; when designing the wrapper I tried to mimic the current template where possible, but I feel that many of the design issues are down to the wish to present too much information at once. For Irkutsk, the Russian article has just 'Country = Russia; Federation Subject = Irkutsk Region; Urban District = City of Irkutsk', and I think that works much better. Attempting to explain everything in the infobox just overwhelms the reader (this issue affects the current version just as much).
Adding the OKATO ID is pretty easy, they can just be transcluded from Wikidata: see Irkutsk

.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my design comments. I understand that tastes in colors and formats can vary and appreciate your consideration of my opinions. Point B covers the difficult substantive issue, which is how the various governmental relationships are to be presented if at all. I still feel that, in the case of complicated Russian localities, the infobox has value beyond just summarizing the article. It imposes structure on the governmental relationship, forces a level of quality control, requires consistent referencing and dating, and avoids unnecessary article proliferation where a locality's duties are multi-jurisdictional. The article text by contrast is unstructured. It can have all kinds of sentences about "okrug this" or "administrative center of that" or "not officially a part of" - and all with no word-by-word referencing or dating. But in the infobox, the terms must fit a straight jacket of requirements.
Those requirements were developed over a long time by editors who read obscure local constitutions in the original Russian or republic languages, wrote a lot of articles that required making fine distinctions, and embedded a lot of knowledge in the selection, arrangement, and commenting of the current template. I don't have that local knowledge, and depend on the current template's specialized format to make sure I'm even editing the right entity. An analogy in English might be encountering the phrase "New York, New York"; one is a state the other a city, but the overall phrase refers to a particular city. But "New York" can also be a collection of counties (or boroughs), or a statistical district (SMSA), or in some contexts a reference to Manhattan, or other some other entity. Russia appears to have this kind of issue all over. To me, the current Russian localities infobox's format creates a way to summarize a locality in one place, rather than have a different article for each of the different modes. To do this, the template design needs the specialized understanding of Russian editors. On these matters, I defer in my editing to the judgement of User:Ezhiki, User:Ymblanter and others with local understanding. I've seen them spend a lot of time cleaning up well-meaning locality edits that were just plain wrong. On experienced ears those edits must have grated like "West Virginia, New York".
The other part of my original comment was the desire to avoid what I called "mass breakage". I have slogged though hundreds of manual updates when templates started throwing errors. Changing templates, even to a wrapper, should involve all of the usual precautions of a software rollout: (1) will there be regression testing across the full range of governmental combinations?, (2) who will provide on-going maintenance?, (3) will there be backwards compatibility (the current template is supporting deprecated parameters) and what is the plan for fixing deprecated entries?, (4) will any validation routines in the current template be included in the new version? (there appear to be many tests for incompatible combinations of locality designations in the current template), and (5) how will this affect the resources needed to create future Russian locality articles? There are currently 2,900 Russian inhabited locality articles, and what, maybe 30,000-40,000 localities still to go? I would like to spend more time editing such articles; I'm sorry if I seem picky about the template. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / unify I like green, but there are benefits for using the same standardized look for cities everywhere. There is some fuss related to adopting it at first for sure, but you'll get used to it and it should have been done years ago already. --Pudeo (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support rewrite as a wrapper. the merged maps and more consistent styling is an improvement, although I would probably put the more specific map first and the generic Russia map last. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to stay out of these, because I don't understand a bunch of the terminology (I shouldn't vote on something if I don't understand it), but I don't see how the map issue really is an issue: {{infobox settlement}} can toggle among maps. See Red House, Virginia, which displays Virginia as the default but offers a US map too; if you wanted US as default with Virginia too, you'd just rearrange the code. Presumably the same could be done with Russia, using a national map and a map of the appropriate federal subject. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 17 November 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:FCI 6

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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging deletion Template:FCI 6 with Template:Hounds. An unnecessary navbox that replicates the older template, all breeds are covered by the older template and now all scenthound breed pages contain both. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Amended nomination to deletion. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:22, 3 November 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:Geobox

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).

Result: Speedy close This has already been done and the use of Geobox for settlements is long-since deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Propose merging Template:Geobox with Template:Infobox settlement.
Can we put this issue to bed and get documented consensus that pages about settlements should use {{Infobox settlement}} not {{Geobox}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dog breed navboxes by FCI classification

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 after replacing the FCI 2 with other navboxes Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion - as with the below nomination, all are duplicates of existing templates (Template:Pastoral dogs, Template:Terriers, Template:Spitz, Template:Primitive dogs, Template:Hounds and Template:Gundogs). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FCI 2 Group is quite a different from already existing templates. For example, it includes the Schnauzer and Pinscher breeds - as well as Mastiff/Dogo type Molossers. Those breeds do not have another existing template yet. Another option is to create templates for Pinscher/Schnauzer breeds and Mastiffs or Molosser dogs because leaving only one FCI template would look kind of strange.
In some Wikipedias, like in the French one, there exist both templates "Chiens de Berger" and "Races de chien du groupe 1 selon la Fédération cynologique internationale (FCI)". --Canarian (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the creation of a Mastiff breeds navbox (Livestock guardian dogs are already covered in Template:Pastoral dogs) and also a Pinscher/Schnauzer breeds navbox, although the name of the latter should be discussed. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 3 November 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).
Followup request
edit

@Plastikspork, Cavalryman V31, Canarian, Galobtter, and Izno: Could we please have a summary (from whoever[s] among you may know) at WT:DOGS#Nomination for deletion of multiple dog breed Templates by FCI classification of what exactly happened, like what was moved or merged or whatever, and what effects this had on which groups of articles? We're kind of programmatic in how we template the breed articles and it would be nice to be clear on what this mass-deletion means in practical terms. PS: I was on wikibreak while this was going on, but would have supported us not having all these redundant templates. There are multiple notable dog fancier and breeder associations, and creating a bunch of nav stuff for all of their overlapping classifications would create a massive mess at the bottom of breed articles. We've also been steadily merging WP:CONTENTFORK articles – split-off but redundant (often confusing) stand-alone articles about specific association classifiers – into general dog type articles with sectional information about what breeds are included in which organization's version of that classification and what the exact name of the classification is in the organization's show rules and breed standards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SMcCandlish and others, the process was a little convoluted because I was initially alerted to Template:FCI 6, and having nominated it became aware of the entire series, so nominated them as a group. To summarise the outcome:
I hope that summarises everything. Of the last point, I would be understanding if someone objected to the speedy deletion, but if that happens then I believe Pastoral dogs should be narrowed to just the livestock herding breeds. Additionally, I hope Canarian does not take my actions as an attack, she does great work. That being said, I do not believe we should establish navboxes for every show bench association’s groupings of breeds, the status quo is a good foundation. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Perfect; that's just what I was after. And I agree with the result; keeping it to general categorizations in plain English is how the articles are being consolidated, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's all ok, no offense taken. I think it was a good solution to add the Pinscher/Schnauzer template, so now all different breed types have a template category. --Canarian (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_3&oldid=869771696"