Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1 edit

Template:Country data Aromanians 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Aromanians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and out-of-scope part of the "country data" template series, since Aromanians aren't a country. Also, the flag shown by this template (File:Aromanian flag.svg) is a dubious invention by some amateur researchers of "eurominority.eu" (see [1]) and apparently quite unhistoric. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 1 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite archers episode 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge with {{cite episode}}, {{cite web}}, or whatever per this and related discussions. This should also help with potential "overlinking" problems. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite archers episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is only used on two articles, both of which are on The Archers itself. We shouldn't need a dedicated template solely for the purpose of adding primary sources to a tiny number of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This family of templates is, indeed, designed to cite a specific set of sources associated with the long-running British radio programme The Archers, in common with many other templates on Wikipedia. It is used extensively on the two pages which form the main Wikipedia coverage of this programme in order to demonstrate clear verifiability, context and source for further reading/research. Even if this were basically a simple template providing simple links to a canonical external website, a case could be made that it remains a useful contribution, but this template is substantially more complicated that this. The logic encoded in this family of templates allows the appropriate web addresses for the two main episode-specific sites to be calculated from the date of the cited radio episode, ensuring that the citation links are accurate and consistently cited. Furthermore, any change in the underlying structure of these external websites can be accommodated in the templates, correcting many citations at once. On this basis, the benefits of retaining these templates seem substantially to outweigh any possible perceived "improvement" gained by removing them. TimR (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the auto-linkage of "The Archers" should be removed, then, as on exactly 50% of the current articles which use it it leads to an unacceptable amount of bold markup in the references. Furthermore, considering its limited usage the template is massively overengineered (commendable though the actual work may be), with its logic split over three templates and a large amount of conditional code which might be appropriate for bulletproofing a more widely-used citation template but is overkill here. But regardless of that, the matter is that these templates are never going to be used for references other than primary sources on a very limited number of articles; the "improvement" to be gained is that editing the template so that it can be substituted to produce more widely adopted cite templates would make it easier for others to contribute to the two articles which presently use it as they wouldn't have to learn a new citation template for such a niche purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding on your comments. To be honest, I find it a little puzzling why someone for whom I cannot immediately see any previous connection with these articles simply wants to come and remove functionality which provides a useful purpose, designed to ensure the best possible external references for a Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, if you really want to pick this fight, I will attempt to address your points one at a time:
• You claim, without any supporting argument, that this template is "overkill" due to its being "massively overengineered" "considering its limited use" in that it uses "a large amount of conditional code." The aim of the template is very simple: given the date of an episode of The Archers, this template automatically creates the necessary code to cite that episode consistently and to provide links to one of both of the canonical external reference sources for that broadcast. In order to do this complicated job cleanly and effectively within the constrains of the Mediawiki environment, several templates are required. This is because these two websites arrange their pages in different and sometimes inconsistent ways, and that different dates are valid for one website, as to the other. Given the inherent restrictions, the collection of templates is pretty much as "underengineered" as possible - if you or anyone else can simplify them without losing the exisiting clarity, functionality and flexibility, please do. As I'm sure you are aware, there are very many complex templates in Wikipedia. From your comments I am left with the impression that you believe that complex templates are more acceptable where they are used on a large number of pages, but less so when used on only a few. I would take issue with that: I believe that a good template, however complex, has its place in Wikipedia if it is well-implemented and serves a useful purpose. However, if you are still fixated on the number of times a template is used, you might be interested to notice that the main template is currently called 21 time on the The Archers page, and 18 times on the List of The Archers characters page.
• It is not currently clear to me what alternative you are proposing to the use of this template. I'm assuming that you are not of the opinion that simply removing these references to external websites would be an improvement, as this seriously compromises the verifiability of the article. Perhaps you are suggesting that each use of this template should be replaced by one or more uses of a more widely-used template, such as Template:Cite web or Template:cite episode. Taking this approach would mean replacing a template call like this:
{{cite archers episode|date=2002-09-22}}
which results in this:
{{cite archers episode|date=2002-09-22}}
with something like this:
{{cite episode
| title         = Episode broadcast on 22 September 2002
| series        = The Archers
| serieslink    = The Archers
| network       = [[BBC Radio 4]]
| airdate       = 2002-09-22
}} BBC summary: {{cite web
| url         = http://www.lowfield.co.uk/archers/daily.phtml?20020922
| title       = A Day in Ambridge
| accessdate  = 2010-04-02
}} Unofficial summary: {{cite web
| url         = http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/archive_synopsis.shtml?week=20020922&day=0
| title       = BBC - Radio 4 - The Archers - Synopsis
| publisher   = [[BBC Radio 4]]
| accessdate  = 2010-04-02
}}
which results in this:
"Episode broadcast on 22 September 2002". The Archers. 2002-09-22. BBC Radio 4. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help) BBC summary: "A Day in Ambridge". Retrieved 2010-04-02. Unofficial summary: "BBC - Radio 4 - The Archers - Synopsis". BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 2010-04-02.
To me, this does not appear to me to be an improvement, either in conciseness of generating wikitext, or readability of the final citations. Furthermore, your concern that editors would have "to learn a new citation template" if {{cite archers episode}} is to continue to be used seems ill-founded, given the simplicity of the simple usage:
{{cite archers episode|date=2002-09-22}}
compared with any less-subject-specific alternative.
• Lastly, the most specific concern which you cite is the fact that the template introduces, in your view, "an unacceptable amount of bold markup in the references" although you don't explain why you find this particularly unacceptable, or refer to any other assessments or guidelines as to how much text bold text can be used in references. While I don't agree that this is "unacceptable," I will change the template so that it doesn't link to the main The Archers page when used on that page itself. This will reduce the bold on that page, while leaving the useful link from other pages to use that. I do find it ironic, though, that this will require further use of conditional code, and trust that you will won't view this change as further "overengineering." TimR (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Source-specific templates are not necessarily a bad thing, but templates only used on two articles, and where a perfectly valid existing template can be used, is not good practice. It is not necessary to use {{cite web}} for the summary links; the following wiki markup is quite sufficient:
{{cite episode |title = 22 September 2002 |series=The Archers |network=BBC Radio 4}} 
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/archive_synopsis.shtml?week=20020922&day=0 (BBC summary)]
[http://www.lowfield.co.uk/archers/daily.phtml?20020922 (Unofficial summary)]
— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the argument that while source-specific templates aren't necessarily bad, it is not appropriate to have one with such limited usefulness. Also, the "unofficial summary" website probably should not be cited at all, because it appears to be a personal fansite, and as such probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, the {{cite episode}} call could look like:
{{cite episode |title=22 September 2002 |series=The Archers |network=BBC Radio 4 
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/archive_synopsis.shtml?week=20020922&day=0}}
"22 September 2002". The Archers. BBC Radio 4.
— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unreferenced edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of April Fools' silliness about the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Talk:April Fools' Day or in a huge drama-fest over how unfair this close was). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep the template, but Delete the nominator. After all the articles in Category:Articles lacking sources have been cleaned up, the nominator will be deleted, salted, peppered, and maybe a dash of cilantro will be added. RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generating too much work for editors. Fletsi (aklt) 10:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep template, delete workload...it's the workload that's too much for the editors! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and bring to DRV in 210 minutes, to reduce workload even further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate being mildly amusing. 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) kept to yourself. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Update Watch Reviewed 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Update Watch Reviewed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The WikiProject this is associated with seems to be inactive, and it's only used on a handful of pages. As with {{UpdateWatch}}, this isn't really an appropriate way to track article cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:04, 1 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UpdateWatch 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{Update}}. RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UpdateWatch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to {{update}}. We don't use talk header banners for tracking content problems with articles. The WikiProject this is associated with seems to be inactive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 1 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MSNav 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Yep, I used bolding. RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MSNav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An instance of linkspam: While navigational boxes are meant to group links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles, this template which groups multiple Microsoft template together, spams visitors with Wikilinks that are not relevant, confusing them and making them lose their way.

In addition, this template can be abused to make non-notable standalone articles which do not merit inclusion look like being parts of a series, making those article appear in "What links here" tool list.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I was involved in the original rewrite of the MS navbox templates back in the day, and I think this has outlived its usefulness. There's no need to drag the entire Microsoft article map into every article covered by one part of it; the most relevant navboxes should be included directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris? I think you forgot to specify your !vote. So, I took the liberty of adding it (Delete) to your reply. I hope you don't mind? Fleet Command (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. WP:NOTVOTE. Would that everyone stopped using this ridiculous "!vote" contrivance and then treating comments as votes anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Sigh!) Yes... I'd just love to agree with you... (Sigh!) The truth is never romantic. Fleet Command (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyways, what course of action do you recommend? Deletion? Correction? Turning a blind eye? Fleet Command (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Part of the reason that I don't bold my comments is that I expect people to actually read them rather than just scanning for the bold bit and moving to the next comment. I think my reply is clear enough as to where I stand here; the closing administrator chooses the most appropriate resolution based on the comments made. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 2 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Demographic info 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demographic info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to standard geographic location templates (e.g., {{infobox settlement}}) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 1 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Gd place 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Gd place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now orphaned template. All cities, towns, and villages in Grenada are using {{infobox settlement}} directly. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now that articles have been updated and the template is orphaned. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Caribbean has been notified. Ruodyssey (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox UK district 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been deprecated since early 2008, and I just finished converting the last of a few dozen transclusions to use {{Infobox settlement}}, see this discussion. I suggest that it can now be safely deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per rationale in nomination. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and convert to call Infobox Settlement. Delete per prior discussion. Digression: While some may hold that those templates that call Settlement are redundant and hinder standardization and centralized development in template space, others would argue that inherited templates are customized for their scope and are thus shorter and easier to update in article space. Settlement is powerful, all-inclusive, and, I would think, intimidating to casual editors. Templates extending Settlement can come "pre-loaded" with stanardizations (eg.: links, naming conventions of higher- and low-order divisions, political leaders, political terminology, ISO codes, etc. -- thank you for filling all that in BTW), requiring only basic input and even enabling short-hands like pop_ref instead of population_footnotes. I think there are valid points on either side. - Ruodyssey (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In general, I support the idea of region-specific infoboxes that use {{Infobox settlement}} as an underlying meta-template, but we're past that now. All the affected articles now use Infobox settlement directly (such that Infobox UK district is completely orphaned), so it would be counter-productive to go back and re-install a modified Infobox UK district. Also, the year-old project discussion has consensus for deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the project approves, even better. I just want to make sure this isn't part of a larger effort to coax region-specific infoboxes to use Settlement instead. And I do appreciate the care taken during conversion. Ruodyssey (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lb 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete as a well advertised prod with no objections Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, should probably make room for {{Lx}} style template for the Book namespace (e.g. for usage on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). The Evil IP address (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_1&oldid=1138694017"