Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30

edit

Template:Montgomery Bowl navbox

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 G7 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigation template for a football game that will have only one edition. Fbdave (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2020 (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:Valentinian dynasty

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 the horizontal/standard navbox format. Any extant uses should be properly transcluded (from top to bottom of the page). Once this is complete, there is no prejudice against renomination for deletion and/or merging with other templates (opinions were mixed in this discussion). Primefac (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sidebar navbox is atrociously big and disruptive, not particularly useful, not currently used anywhere, and unlikely to ever be used in the future. The editors in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Imperial dynasty navboxes broadly agree that these sidebar navboxes of dynasties are more or less useless, and disruptive too – particularly this one whose deletion I'm currently proposing. Avis11 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it was used in 2012, or I would not have created it. I used it as a navigation aid on the page describing that dynasty, and it appears that you removed it. But many of the pages to which it is relevant or may have been relevant, have been rewritten or reformatted. I'm not sure what you mean by "disruptive", it and similar templates were very useful when I was writing the pages dealing with this period of Roman history. As far as being too large, these navboxes can easily be reformatted using collapsible lists. Also the size issue is simply relative to the extent of the text. They certainly were not fly-by and were integral to a rewriting of the history of the period, my primary interest at the time was the Eastern Empire because I was developing a comprehensive history of Anatolia. What are you proposing instead? I agree that horizontal navboxes are an alternative. Also I did not read "broadly agree" into the discussion, you link to but you clearly have strong feelings on the issue. I tend to belong to the school of improve rather than delete. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Goodyear: You're not the first to cynically imply I removed it from all pages in order to claim that it's unused. I didn't, and it was already out of use by the time I noticed it. The template as it stands is basically a list of emperors, which is not of much use, considering there is already a page (Valentinianic dynasty) themed on the dynasty itself. Unless its usefulness can be actively demonstrated, the space occupied by the sidebar template could be filled with pertinent images, for example. Most of the people in the linked conversation agreed that sidebar templates like this aren't good, so I think 'broadly agree' is accurate, even if some preferred a conversion to horizontal form; one editor back there described this one in particular as "just hopeless". Even if you support improving, you might equally assent to deleting this one and starting from scratch; I do as well believe that this one is hopeless, and even if it wasn't, I don't see where a sidebar navbox like this can be of much use. Avis11 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Avis11: You did remove it! See: [1]. GPinkerton (talk)
Admittedly I didn't remember that one specifically, thanks to you and Michael Goodyear for reminding me I suppose. Avis11 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have suggested elsewhere, the dynasties navboxes should include the female dynasts, a thing that would not be appropriate in the general Roman emperors template. GPinkerton (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve Unfortunately some of the rhetoric here and the associated discussion at the Project talk page lacks objectivity. Clearly the template as it now stands is not "useless", since it has uses and has been used. In fact I found it very useful. Traditionally vertical sidebar navboxes have had two rationales, 1. A concise and visible summary of the page topic and related topics, and 2. as the name implies, are navigational aids between related pages. There is nothing cynical about saying it was removed from the page, the page history quite clearly shows the proposer removed it on September 4 with the tag rm useless and intrusive navbox. I have addressed the question of adjusting size above. If there is an issue as to its size in relation to the page text, the fault lies with the page text, which can be further developed. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did delete the Theodosian and Julio-Claudian navboxes in some pages, but I don't recall specifically doing any such thing with the Valentinian one (perhaps I'm wrong, but I also don't know which page you're talking about; there is more than one page where the template could be used). With regards to your argument on its usefulness: again, dynastic navboxes display nothing which Template:Roman emperors doesn't too, and the latter lists everything at once, which makes any navigation redundant. Emperor infoboxes already label their dynasty anyway. Moreover, not all emperors are dynastic and many dynasties aren't even notable topics in their own right, so trying to lump all emperors into a chronological succession of these divisions (dynastic or periodical) seems like a complicated/unnecessary task. Avis11 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI: Valentinianic dynasty 4 September 2020. Indeed the the template Template:Epochs of Roman Emperors is at the foot of that page, and quite clearly does not substitute for the template in question. However I see the template you refer to is similar but different, but is not on that page, and I contend still is no substitute. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I have replaced the template on the page to demonstrate this. Doubtless it can benefit from some further tweaking. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Evidently Avis 11 was mistaken in this detail, far above, and Michael Goodyear has now shown exactly what was the mistake. Fine. But the presence of the template on that one page is not an argument for keeping it. The topic of that page is the topic of the template. The information can perfectly well be given in the text of the page and in its genealogical tables (it has two) without the need for a template. Is it helpful on any other page, or not? That's the question, I think. Andrew Dalby 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • True. However as I have pointed out, navboxes were designed with two major objectives, a summary at a glance, and functionally for simple navigation between related pages. Arguably they could be placed on each page of the people listed. However as I originally designed it in 2012, it was a series, which was placed on each successive dynasty page, eg Constantinian dynasty. The request for deletion here would appear to be part of an iconoclastic move to remove all of them. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • And this arises first because it's the weakest link, scarcely a dynasty at all. Or so I'm guessing. (In retrospect it would have been useful to create a category for this series, so that one could quickly discover how many pages each of the others is useful to. One doesn't always think of these things at the time, I know that very well from creating lots of politician navboxes on Vicipaedia.)
              • If that issue really should arise, [for what it's worth] I have been against dynasty boxes on Vicipaedia: the deciding factor for me [there] was that there are usually no Latin sources for naming the dynasties, and Wikipedias ought not to invent names. In general there are English sources for the Roman dynasties and their names, and that would probably decide me in favour of the series of boxes [here] if that question arose. Hence I'm against eating away at the series bit by bit. Sorry, this is very wordy, but it ends up as a Keep. Andrew Dalby 08:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, Andrew, some interesting ideas. My guiding principle here would be that what would be considered some of the most authoritative sources, such as the Cambridge Ancient History, all refer to dynasties at least as constructs. In fact I so far have not seen a single source challenging this. Of course, historiographically speaking history is a continuum, but the people involved saw their families and their connections as very real things. I will try and give that a bit more space. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think probably convert this to a horizontal template, or delete and add its content into the main one (is there a specific reason why female dynasts cannot be in it?). Then, on Valentinianic dynasty, use {{Infobox noble house}} as a proper infobox rather than this as a psuedo-infobox, like we do at eg Julio-Claudian dynasty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two issues, at least. That page has multiple issues, and appears to actually have both templates - noble house and the equivalent of this one. There is no reason why women should not be included, obviously, and others have made this point. I assume you mean the consorts of augusti? However this becomes one of those try to please everybody and please nobody issues, since others wanted less information, and recently truncated it. The females are represented in the genealogy, but none were elected or appointed as rulers in their own right, unfortunately. Horizontal boxes at the bottom of the page do not serve the same purpose as sidebar navboxes. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as horizontal; the arguments in favour of SOME KIND of navbox are sufficient, but the disadvantages of especially a very large sidebox are serious, and a horizontal navbar is far preferable as less obtrusive, whether alone or beside other navbars. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out this is or was part of a series, so the preceding dynasty page, Constantinian dynasty has a matching template as did till just now when someone removed it, the succeeding dynasty page, Theodosian dynasty --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:33, 1 November 2020 (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:Navbox x-word

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 2020 November 11. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2020 (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:Dragon Ball family tree

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template violates WP:OR. Editor who created the family tree does not provide citations from reliable sources to verify the information on the family tree and posts it in all relevant character pages without prior discussion or consensus. Haleth (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softdelete if no response from editor or if editor can't get it referenced in 2-3 weeks. Userfy if editor says they need more than a week but less than 2-3 weeks to add references. Obviously keep if properly referenced by end of this discussion. A note to the creator: For something like this, in-universe references may be acceptable if they are considered canon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Update Keep as it is now mostly referenced. It still needs some work but it is not WP:OR anymore. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 2nd update: weak keep - "weak" per "non-encyclopedic"/"fancruft" comments below, "keep" per I "no longer WP:OR." Against outright deletion of content but I'm seeing this ending as something other than "keep", so here are some suggested alternatives: Merge into one article, or userfy for long enough for editor to make an off-Wiki copy for use on non-Wikimedia-owned web sites that use the same software. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: @Davidwr: In the process of adding the references now. It will not take nearly that long. Cassandra872 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassandra872:: I am still unconvinced that the family tree is relevant and informative in any meaningful way. Lord Opeth have already summarized what I wanted to say, but I'll elaborate my response as follows, if the consensus is ultimately to keep and improve the article:
  • Family relationships could already be adequately described in a fictional character infobox section without the need of a convoluted family tree. Again, WP:UNDUE.
  • The names of a few of the characters listed on the tree are never referenced in the primary sources (anime or manga). You keep referring to Gohan as "Son Gohan II" when neither primary nor secondary sources explicitly specifically refer to him with such a term. The Ox-King's wife is never named (and is so minor she doesn't even warrant a mention on the list of DB characters article), Mr Satan's wife is never depicted or referenced in the primary source material and is only alluded to in a casual Q&A session with Toriyama. All this stuff is WP:FAN that belong on Fandom, not Wikipedia. davidwr suggested that this stuff is ok as long as it's canon. Well, speaking as someone who is familiar with the subject material, it isn't and the information you have provided is not verifiable. Therefore, still in violation of WP:OR guideline.
  • Barring a small reference in FighterZ where the Fusion characters actually make a reference to their familial relationships (and that was used as a gag), the inclusion of Fusion/amalgamated characters in the tree are completely inappropriate and serve no meaningful purpose. What are the chances of reliable secondary sources discussing Fusion characters within the context of family, or are considered to be an extension of the family unit? Haleth (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much think the same as Haleth. I am still trying to find a source that states that Bulma Leigh is Bulla's descendant and not Trunks', for example. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of the information is false, some other is OR, some other entries are strangely presented (like the fusions characters, which could be mistaken for sons). -LoЯd ۞pεth 18:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: @Davidwr: @Lord Opeth: I have it fully referenced now; fusions more clearly listed. Would you say this is enough? Cassandra872 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I put the references in a collapsed section so they don't take up as much screen real estate unless the reader expands them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? All of the references are primary, either to the show itself or a "dictionary" written by the creator. Woodroar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassandra872: At one time, "independent" sources were needed for article pages but not necessarily for templates like this one. Based on the discussion above, it is possible that WP:Consensus either has changed in the past few years or is in the process of changing. Given the discussion above, it might be best to use this in one article, rather than have a template for it, as another editor suggested above (that suggestion was contingent on it being "properly sourced" - I'm okay with the existing sources, that editor is not). In any case, third-party, out-of-universe citations are better than in-universe ones. If you can find a "reliable source" book someone who has no ties to the company that owns the rights to this material (see WP:Independent sources) has written, even one not written in English, that you can use as a source, that would put the "original research" argument to bed. However, others have raised issues the nominator has not raised, including WP:FANCRUFT. Although I still recommend "keep" my support is weaker than before, and I'm seeing the handwriting on the wall, this will probably be closed as "merge with one article" or "delete," possibly as "userfy" so the editor can copy the Wiki-code to a non-MediaWiki project if desired. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar: @Davidwr: I added them seconds ago. Cassandra872 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would the Dragon Ball Z "It's Over 9,000!" When Worldviews Collide, reference book by "The Dao of Dragon Ball" blogger Derek Padula do? I know this book is unofficial, and I believe the author has no explicit ties to the company, if I need anything other than the secondary sources provided as well? Cassandra872 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That book is self-published and the author doesn't appear to have any education/training or credentials or history in media analysis, so I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. After looking over the rest of the sources, I'm seeing the same issues as on Template:Metal Gear family tree: a mixture of reliable and question/unreliable sources that mention a relationship here or there but never go into any comprehensive detail. My opinion is shifting from "these family trees are inappropriate on character articles but might be useful on one article about the characters" to "if reliable, third-party sources don't give this any significant coverage then it would be UNDUE for Wikipedia to include a family tree at all". Woodroar (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete per Haleth's assertion that 1) he is familiar with the subject matter, 2) it is not canon, and 3) as non-canon, it requires much better sourcing in my mind, which it lacks. In my mind, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to in-universe sources for "canon" material, my earlier opinions were on the assumption, now contested, that this was canon. I still think that as a courtesy, the Wikicode should be made available to the author for use outside Wikipedia, but that is as a courtesy only. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone finds enough third party reliable sources then this can always be re-created. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (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:Composer sidebar

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 2020 November 16. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (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:Add-desc-S

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:Add-desc-I as that template is more general (though no prejudice against keeping the redirect and/or renaming to a "better" name). Primefac (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Add-desc-S with Template:Add-desc-I.
Both templates notify the user that the file they added is missing information. No need for a spacecraft specific one, just as we don't need one for every type of media out there. I'll note that both templates aren't in Twinkle (that I could see), so not sure if these are even used at all. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2020 (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/2020_October_30&oldid=991335393"