Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12 edit

Template:Infobox Civil Conflict 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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Civil Conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is an almost guaranteed violation of NPOV anywhere it's used. We don't need to refer to the budget debate in Wisconsin (or the internets drama around Scientology or a few dozen Israelis whining about gas prices) using the same approach as we do for the Battle of Stalingrad. That is an unnecessary injection of drama into otherwise quotidian events, and therefore not neutral coverage. Plus there's no such notion in social science as a "civil conflict." This template needs to be deleted. -- Y not? 01:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The purpose of this template is not to show a civil conflict in the same light as Battle of Stalingrad; the purpose is to provide a less loaded alternative to Template:Infobox military conflict for non-military uses. Btw, user:Y, you're very biased or uninformed if you're saying the Wisconsin protests are merely a budget debate. Also, you believe these are a "quotidian" event? So you're trying to claim having 75-100k protesters is a normal day? If you need to claim that the mere use of the template is a "guaranteed violation of NPOV", then you need to say how. You seem to only link to articles when they are at their most biased and not what they evolved to be currently. I do agree that the template is a terrible fit for Scientology versus the Internet, as that's hardly a civil conflict. If you need a definition of a civil conflict, go look at one of the millions of google search results or one of the 20k scholarly articles on the subject. The purpose of the template is to show that civil conflicts, for instance the uprising in Bahrain, is not one sided. One of the optional features of the template, not that you have to use it, shows both sides of the conflict. In an upraising, this would be the rebellion and the government forces. The main purpose of an infobox is to provide the reader with a quick summary of the article. The existing Template:Infobox military conflict contains too many loaded terms and Template:Infobox uprising fails to provide enough fields to adequately provide a summary of the article for the reader. The purpose of this template is to span the area inclusively between protests to small armed rebellion and provide a useful template for the natural fluid progression that civil dispute takes between those stages. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example uses:
Saudi Arabian protests with vs. Saudi Arabian protests without (current)
2011 Somalian protests, although I'm not sure of the notability of the article anyway. Perhaps more news will flow. Update: page deleted with my support.
Wisconsin Protests with vs. Wisconsin protests without (current)
Bahraini protests with vs. Bahraini protests without (current)
Indiana legislative walkouts with vs. Indiana legislative walkouts without (current)
Lebanese protests with vs. (no version without) (current)

The history of why it was needed is here: Talk:2011_Wisconsin_protests#Military_conflict_template. People thought Template:Infobox military conflict was a poor fit as the article is not about a war. People also objected to Template:Infobox uprising as it has connotations of an attempt to overthrow a government. There was an unanswered call for an infobox which would be suitable for low to mid civil conflicts, and hence I made one. I'm very open to help from anyone willing to make the template as suitable for that purpose as possible as none other seem to exist. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Template has no definable limits and is an inevitable POV violation. Someone could put this one on Schneider v. New Jersey or the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair or Snyder v. Phelps. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for commenting. While any infobox could likely be used for any page, if not poorly, these examples are much better served w/ their current infoboxes. I find no issue with an infobox being a versatile tool. Please explain why you think it's a POV issue. Do you equally want to delete Template:Infobox military conflict & Template:Infobox uprising because they could be a POV issue and used on other pages? See history listed above for why it was created. My original limits that I had in mind for the infobox is listed above: "The purpose of this template is to span the area inclusively between protests to small armed rebellion and provide a useful template for the natural fluid progression that civil dispute takes between those stages." ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are saying that by sticking that box into the Wisconsin article, we are in essence expressing an editorial opinion that their little labor spat is going to "fluid[ly] progress[]" to "small armed rebellion"? That is the very definition of a POV-introducing template. -- Y not? 05:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • user:Y: Quite the odd conclusion you come to by picking apart my words. Please look at the 2011 Wisconsin protests article and explain how you think the template means the people of Wisconsin are attempting to overthrow the government with a small armed rebellion. There's of course nothing inevitable that a protest will escalate or deescalate; what do you see in the template that implies this? Merely because an infobox can be used for a few situations, of course doesn't mean that that one of those situations will change into another.
          Hypothetically, let's assume someone makes an infobox very specifically only for a 'small protest' that couldn't be used for a 'large protest'. By your argument, wouldn't using that infobox on an article about a small protest create a POV that the topic of the article will never become a 'large protest'? This continuation of your argument seems to lead to a reductio ad absurdum specifically, that no infobox can be used for any current event that may change.
          On another note, do you think it's better to make a template that can only be used for extremely specific situations than one that works well for a few? How would you make an infobox differently to be used only for small protests? Sorry, this being a discussion and not a court of law, my language is imprecise; the 'fluidity' in my statement merely references that the definition has no clear, or hard division line between the low end and higher end of a civil conflict; the 'fluidity' isn't referencing that a conflict necessarily transitions easily; I should have worded that more clearly. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This infobox is useful in many articles and I don't see why using it would violate NPOV or make a civil dispute comparable to the Battle of Stalingrad. –CWenger (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, and apply a trout to anyone forking existing templates rather than discussing ways of improving them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox is definitely not redundant. See history above which begins w/ "The history of why it was needed is..." for why no other inbox suited the need. There was simply was no good infobox to be used for small civil conflicts, eg protests. Pigsonthewing, if, as you state it's redundant, which infobox would you use for a protest and why? ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you stop rebutting anyone who says thing you don't like? -- Y not? 01:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Off topic: Sorry, it's in my nature to be straight forward. If I think someone is incorrect, I will tell them so and why I think they are incorrect. Now I'm not always right, so good reasoning and examples are useful to couter me. Perhaps next time I'll just take my fork and eat his trout before another person is slapped w/ it. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I see no suitable alternative for the 2011 Wisconsin protests page, and I really do think any argument is moot until a suitable alternative is produced. --thejoewoods (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I find it helpful. Richard Myers (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—There is definitely a need for this infobox and I hope its use becomes more widespread. I was pleasantly surprised to stumble upon it. I don't think a logical argument has been made re NPOV. —Diiscool (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This infobox fills a need which isn't met by other infoboxes, definitely useful for articles like 2011 Bahraini protests--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. First things first: if it's being kept, it absolutely should not be inheriting its styling from MILHIST, which sends out entirely the wrong impression. Secondly, the various non-arguments above to keep ("helpful", "needed") do not address the scope / definition problems raised in the nomination. Given the huge variety in "civil conflicts", it doesn't seem at all appropriate to shoehorn them into a precooked infobox. If infoboxes are needed on a per-article basis then by all means use {{infobox}} inline to create them, but there's no need to extrapolate from one incident (the Wisconsin protests) to a generalised infobox and then go looking for places to apply it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done Thanks for the wonderful suggestion. Style now originates from Template:Civil Conflict Infobox style. One great thing about this infobox is that it can be made to look quite different for the various uses. See its testcases page for some examples (beyond what's above). As you can see in the testcases, various parts of the infobox can be used or not used as the situation demands. The infobox isn't "precooked", quite the opposite in fact, it's very flexable. I've also addressed the scope issue more above. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh, again. Please do not invent new styles (and overwrought templates to implement them) on a whim: we are stuck with MILHIST because that project got its act together before the rest of the encyclopedia agreed on {{infobox}}, and should certainly not be taken as a good place to start. If this is absolutely necessary (and I consider that very much to still be in debate, as it has less than a dozen very recent articlespace uses) then it should be implemented as in {{infobox}} to match the vast majority of the project. And by "precooked" I meant "centrally defined": it is yet to be established that a centralised template for this purpose is anything other than a solution looking for a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The style template is trivially simple. Consisting of nothing more than a single switch statement which chooses between 15 CSS statements. About the main template in question here, I have no issue with {{infobox}}. But the main argument I see for using {{infobox}} vs. a more flexible custom design, is that it's easy to create a new template using it. Seeing that the template already exists, this argument doesn't hold much water. That aside, if it can easily be done, {{infobox}} would be fine to use in this infobox, but I assume there's a reason MILHIST doesn't use it. Sorry for misinterpreting your "precooked" wording. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main reason for using {{infobox}} (other than simplicity of implementation) is that it presents a consistent and attractive layout for all of these boxes to readers which can be centrally controlled from one place. The vast majority of infoboxes now in use on the project use this styling, and the few exceptions are generally due to specific parts of the project having historical reasons for choosing their own set of defaults (most prominently MILHIST). I can see absolutely no good reason to arbitrarily deviate from the defaults here, especially by choosing the MILHIST styling which is actively confusing to readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This thread of the discussion has it's own page. Please add more discussions to this tangential thread here: TfD 2011_March_18#Template:Civil_Conflict_Infobox_style ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Note to closer: There may be additional relevant discussion here: TfD 2011_March_18#Template:Civil_Conflict_Infobox_style ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (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.

Infobox Sri Lankan Administrative 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Administrative District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox district (settlement).♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 12 March 2011 (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:Folkinfo search plus others 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Folkinfo search (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Moozone artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Qriocity artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Grooveshark artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Harmony Central (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BEA band (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Deezer artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MusicBrainz artist2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Internet Archive search (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as per deletion of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_9#Template:Musician-info-footer - more templates created by now-blocked sock, which add music site search results as external links against WP:EL policy, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all - as per discussion they are just to spamMoxy (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reverted {{Harmony Central}}, as it wasn't actually new but had been changed to a search link rather than a direct link. However, the direct link version doesn't work any more and I can't see any new way to link directly - all I can see is a search format now. So I think this one should go too, even if it's a bit old - there aren't many usages of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my arguments at Template:Musician-info-footer. They are against the the current guidelines on external links at WP:EL and the majority of these sites, especially the commerical ones add zero value to articles. On the rare occasion when it might be appropriate to link to a specific page on one of them, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other templates were recently created as part of the above series:
  • (Second vote)Support Deletion of addition templates - Thank you for finding this - he was very busy making as many as he could wasn't he.Moxy (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As discussed elsewhere, all these templates serve the purpose of making it easier to add external links indiscriminately. Such usage would have an "official" appearance because if the template exists it must be good to use it as much as possible. However, each external link needs to be considered by the editor adding the link, and by reviewing editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These templates encourage people to indiscriminately add external links that contain no info beyond that already in the article. I spot-checked a bunch of them while the discussion was ongoing and found little of value at any of these sites. If a link has valuable information, an editor can add it manually or incorportate the info into the body of the article and use the link as a reference. --Diannaa (Talk) 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Also delete the others found by Johnuniq -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional delete to include the others found by Johnuniq. Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all +additional against WP:RS; {{Allmusic artist}} and {{IMDb search}} are blatant copies of {{Allmusic}} and {{IMDb}}.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:58, 14 March 2011 (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 Wing Commander Character 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wing Commander Character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be a template containing a filled-out instance of an infobox with a circular reference, which could presumably only be relevant in one article even if properly formatted. Presumably it was an attempt to create a new kind of infobox? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2011 (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:Ry Cuming 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ry Cuming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Artist with a single album release doesn't need a NavBox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2011 (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:Sandbox graphical timeline 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sandbox graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misplaced article — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (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:Copyrighted 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, then redirect to {{copyvio}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A copy/paste of an old version of {{Copyviocore}} (which used to be located at {{copyvio}}, hence the old instruction). I looked and I can't find any instructions suggesting that this version be used, nor any reason that it should. As was pointed out in the TFD of the old template that used to be here (an image copyright template dating back to the days when we used to have "Wikipedia only permissions"), this is a misnomer as substantially all of our text is copyrighted. Just because it's licensed doesn't mean it's not also copyrighted. B (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —GƒoleyFour— 04:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Superseded and improved. Mostly used in user spaces, no articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (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/2011_March_12&oldid=1078570070"