Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 6

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

May 6

edit

Template:Bura G

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; deleted as G2 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template; creator authored an article space page with the same name, deleted as WP:A7. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2019 (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:Aramean political parties

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) 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Aramean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (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:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties

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. But, feel free to make a different merge proposal Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that as second best. PPEMES (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support MJL's proposal. What name did you have in mind? Currently it's Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties. Charles Essie (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but since terminology has been rather an issue in this topic, perhaps it should remain "Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties"? PPEMES (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Wasn't your original proposal to just call it {{Assyrian people footer}}? Also, per our article on Assyrian people, Assyrian people (Syriac: ܐܫܘܪܝܐ), or Syriacs (see terms for Syriac Christians), are an ethnic group indigenous to Western Asia. Some of them self-identify as Arameans, or as Chaldeans. Speakers of modern Aramaic and as well as the primary languages in their countries of residence, modern Assyrians are Syriac Christians who claim descent from Assyria, one of the oldest civilizations in the world, dating back to 2500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. (citations omitted). I am aware of the intricacies of the dispute, but at the end of the day it really should just match the main article. We're not renaming any of the organisations, so we should be okay if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, I wouldn't contend as long as it doesn't mean an obstacle to realising the merge. PPEMES (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2019 (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).

Module:ParseVauthors

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 merge to Template:Vcite journal. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete now that Module:Citation/CS1 natively supports a |vauthors= parameter. * Pppery * has returned 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few more comments would be nice; also, just to clarify, the talkpage transclusions are inconsequential?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to template:vcite journal. If deleted, pppery's plan can be implemented, selectively, so that discussions about this template don't point to the wrong thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 May 2019 (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:Contains Ashanti text

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 2019 May 15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (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:Gangstar series

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigates very-few topics, such that these could linked (or are already linked) in the articles-proper. Izno (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (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:2018–19 Pakistan Premier League table

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 all except Template:2018–19 Saudi Professional League table, which is used in multiple articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:02, 7 May 2019 (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:Big Brother Canada contestants

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 people listed, one is a YouTube channel. Pretty much an overkill for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (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:Contains Akan text

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 2019 May 15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (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:The Connection

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This band's navigational template consists of two links: one of the band's members and one of their albums. There is no article for the band itself because it redirects to the member's article. There are not enough articles to justify this navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2019 (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:Curlie

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. This isn't going to develop a consensus for deletion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administratively handling the request by User:ElKevbo, who will write an actual nom... DMacks (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this template for deletion as it appears that the website to which this template links appears to be very outdated and largely unmaintained making it unhelpful for readers at best and misleading or dangerous at worst. ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Is it still being actively maintained? My brief explorations in the areas I know seem to indicate that the links are very sporadic and frequently out-of-date which really makes me worry both about the utility of the site and the growing security risk of recommending that readers visit a list of links that don't lead to their original targets. It was a wonderful tool when it was actively maintained but I think its time has passed. ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that depends on what you mean by "actively maintained", ElKevbo. From what I understand, it used to be a lot busier. But the bunch still adds new entries and curates old ones. It's not a read-only copy of the original DMOZ database. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curlie is not "very outdated"; categories are being maintained daily, admittedly with less editors than there were in the noughties, but there are lots of improvements since then, and Curlie is complementary since it saves Wikipedians having to deal with/ delete external links . . please keep! unsigned contribution by IP 86.185.0.142
@ElKevbo: Please show me one page with dead links on Curlie. Thanks in advance! --Murma174 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall (recently) running into any dead links; my experience has largely been of pages with a handful of links, often to an eclectic set of pages and no clear curation strategy. ElKevbo (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an active Curlie editor, I don't think I should !Vote here. However, the "dead link" removal bot is running again, and there was recently a mass mailing to all editors active when DMOZ was decommissioned by AOL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your experience and knowledge could be very helpful in this discussion! Is there some analogue to our "Recent changes" page or up-to-date statistics that could help us understand the status of the project? ElKevbo (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Ab)using External links sections to point certain editors to another website where they can create collections of external links isn't a valid reason to keep this template. If you want to teach editors, the software (MediaWiki) could be modified to show a note about link directories when editors are modifying External links sections. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, having a Mediawiki message when editors are modifying External links sections is not possible. I don't even think our filter setup can recognize that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki is free and open source software, licensed GPL2+. In theory, we can make it do whatever we want. If you don't believe me, ask the developers on IRC (#wikimedia-dev). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Finnusertop. As Doc James has pointed out, having a link to Curlie in the external links section of an article helps us, and by linking to it we signpost users who want to curate a collection of websites to a more suitable place to do so than on Wikipedia articles. Many categories on Curlie are updated frequently. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would like to link to Curlie in every single External links section then, to point editors who want to curate a collection of websites in the right direction. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I wrote in January 2019, the template should be deleted and the domain should be added to WP:SPB. First, quoting User:Acabashi, "Curlie, which has been added as a template to articles, is a depository allowing the liberal addition of spam links, so I would go further and add it to the list of banned sources." The template also makes it too easy to get around Wikipedia policy and guidelines (e.g. keeping links to a minimum, not linking to copyrighted works). There is a serious risk that fans of Curlie - including Curlie editors who want to promote their own pages - will add Curlie links to thousands and thousands of External links sections of Wikipedia. They've already started doing this. I too often run into External links sections where the very first link is to Curlie, even above the official website. Examples are Alaska, Government of Barbados, Belfast, Cardiff, David Letterman, Dundee, Esperanto, Hertfordshire, Kent. Then there are External links sections where Curlie is the only external link, meaning we indirectly give our readers Curlie for further reading. Examples are Alternative medicine, Anime, Analytical chemistry, Alcoholism, Blackjack, Software, Crime. We, the Wikipedia community, should pick what are useful external links; we should not rely on the non-notable Curlie do this for us. Curlie is not a sister project of Wikipedia. I don't want Computer science#External links to start with a link to Curlie. I don't want any links to Curlie. This template was actually nominated for deletion twice already, in 2006 and 2017, and the only reasons this template was kept are a) pure laziness of Wikipedia editors who don't want to combat spam links and prefer to have another website's volunteers do that work, and b) votes to keep the template by DMOZ/Curlie editors. We need to take back control of our External links sections. On top of this, their Terms state (emphasis mine): "Unless otherwise noted, you may view, copy, download, and print documents from Curlie so long as you use them only for personal, non-commercial purposes and do not post, distribute, or modify them or remove any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices." This goes against their claim of using CC BY 3.0. (Note: if they ever claim they will fix this contradiction, that's not the same as them actually changing it. Keep an eye on their terms.) --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum. Maybe we should ask Curlie to join us :-) User:Arthur Rubin any interest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what I can say about the internal organizational discussions. There was discussion about being acquired by Wikimedia, but discussion I can report from Resource Zone suggested that the editor community did not feel that the Wikipedia model was appropriate. I can report that Curlie's COI regulations seem incompatible with the Wikimedia Foundation's. Curlie allows editors with an apparent or actual COI to edit, as long as the questionable actions are neutral and reported to the metas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit paranoid to think that just because we don't directly control something and it can go bad, it will we should stay as far away from it as possible. There is a world beyond Wikipedia that we don't control, yet we feel confident enough to rely on it. As for the previous keep closes; I was one of those supporting keep and I am not and have never been a DMOZ/Curlie contributor, so there are obviously other reasons than that for keeping. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so as not to go back to the days of having to deal with an endless stream of related links being dropped into medical articles. Per Doc James and Finneruserstop. And Arthur Rubin's information is encouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per 77.173.90.33. I don't have a problem with an external link to this site, assuming the directory is up-to-date, and has a collection of useful links that it makes sense not to list on Wikipedia. But I worry that the template results in the problem 77 mentions, where every (or a number of major topics) EL section now has a link to Curly, but they don't align with us as far as CC license goes. = paul2520 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . . . but not "link to Curlie in every single External links section then, to point editors who want to curate a collection of websites in the right direction. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)"!

As the editor named in Analytical Chemistry for almost 20 years, I feel a need to respond to --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This was before I had even heard of Wikipedia, so it wasn't me who put the link to dMoz, and looking at the wiki page, I still wouldn't list it on the grounds that the content isn't original. That is not to say wiki pages aren't listed in subcategories. The Curlie categories don't need to be mapped to every wiki pages, or vice versa. I seem to remember contributers to wiki are encouraged to be bold, where as the opposite was true of culture in dMoz. ODP was less tolerant of vandalism. 

has approximately 500 website listings, leading to up to 5 subcategory layers of listings, but also that many waiting in "unreviewed", so we are not short of work, and there are lots of reasons other editors don't have time to participate in this thread.

Since those years, discovery of a gem is rare, and corporate submissions are the norm. If wiki had no template, think of all those website owners adding to the external links section. I am in no doubt that Curlie has more efficient systems of dealing with dead links, redirects and hijacks, than can be seen in wiki pages.

Deleting the template wouldn't be doing Wikipedians any favours, and with time you may realise Curlie is worth a page independent of DMOZ.

  • Comments.
    • See DMOZ#Policies and procedures for information on the "admin" and "meta" levels, although I don't know if the "admin"s are the same as officers of the non-profit corporation now running Curlie.org.
    • There is internal discussion about the license. As Curlie is now run by a non-profit corporation (at least, I think so — I haven't seen the corporate documents), and is accepting monetary donations (although not as obtrusively as the Wikimedia Foundation), there is a single (small) body to talk to about having an appropriate CC license.
    • Resource Zone (www.resource-zone.com) is an official editor-run web site, even before DMOZ was discontinued by AOL. I don't know if there is sufficient evidence for that to make pronouncements there "official", but there is subforum at https://www.resource-zone.com/forum/f/announcements.10/ devoted to announcements (I don't know if only "admin"s, or also "meta"s, can post there.) I'll suggest that "what's new" be added there, as well as somewhere on curlie.org.
    • I'm not sure what I'm allowed to report from the internal fora I to which I have access. I'll suggest that one of the "admin"s make a post in an appropriate place.
    • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In each article authors can decide, whether they link to Curlie or not. But that's no reason to delete the template. The template is a useful tool, it may be used or not. --Murma174 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Also Wikidata uses Curlie categories as reliable source: d:Property:P998 --Murma174 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very high value for reducing link bloat per WP:EL. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with everyone who values this for taking pressure off our External links sections. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2019 (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 Province Peru

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 replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete - regions/departments, districts, towns etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". 77.183.32.215 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2019 (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/2019_May_6&oldid=1252006516"