Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7 edit

Template:Largest cities of California 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 per this discussion and discussion of similar templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this template, no specific reason why there are ten listed, no relevance beyond population size. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. Every Settlement, whether it be a country, city, or state has a table of ten cities. One, as I said before all U.S. states have one. Two, why pick on California, why not also delete it from New York, Texas, Florida, etc. Three, there are ten listed because those are the ten most populated cities. Most cities after ten on the list of populated cities aren't as large or important as these. --Pollack man34 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. It seems to be a half-baked work-in-progress. The wikilinks need disambiguating. It doesn't list any towns (and it unlikely to) so should be named correctly. Why not fill the remainder of the box with, say, the top 20 cities (similar to Template:Largest cities of the United Kingdom)? From what I understand, sources shouldn't be displayed in templates (maybe replace these with a link to List of cities and towns in California. These sort of template seem commonly occurring and have some informational value. Sionk (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to Sionk: It's funny you say that since I just finished cleaning it up. I put new photos for the four cities and added ten to make it twenty most populated cities. I will work on the linsk ASAP!--Pollack man34 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The largest cities are supposed to be linked by {{California}}. Unlike the county navbox(es) at the bottom of each article, this has no clear inclusion criteria; when those navboxes were created, they included every community in the county, and they're still meant to do that. Ten is purely an arbitrary number and unrelated to how many articles are in county navboxes; templates like {{Los Angeles County, California}} have over 100 different entries, while {{Loving County, Texas}} has exactly two. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ten isn't random. It is the ten largest cities. With the exception of California (which is why we changed it from ten to twenty), most cities after the first ten aren't that important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is apparently only used in one article, which has a nice section of prose and a useful link to List of largest California cities by population. this is just bloating the article. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relevant for each of the (now) 20 cities listed in it, and not redundant with the {{California}} navbox (which lists metro areas rather than cities and alphabetically rather than sorted by population). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navbox with arbitrary inclusion criteria. List of cities and towns in California are generally linked from articles in the intro, (ex: "...San Francisco is the fourth most populous city in California, after Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose,...") -Optigan13 (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navboxes are meant to aid navigation, it does not need to include additional information like this list of population numbers. WP:TCREEP applies here, because the same articles can be reached as through {{California}}. The city articles itself already state the population rank in California, including a link to the full list. So I do not think this navbox aids navigation CRwikiCA talk 15:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful in the articles where it is used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2013 (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) 00:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not at all arbitrary, and not redundant to {{California}} as it lists different articles in a different order. It's a useful way of navigating the articles its used on without needing to go backwards and forwards to a separate list article each time. Population is a (if not the) key bit of data about human settlements, so wanting to navigate articles in this way is a logical desire. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The navigation boxes themselves are not meant to be list articles themselves. The question is whether adding this template aids navigation.
    Even if it would be kept, its default state should be closed to stay in line with the other templates on these pages. The only items on this template that do not occur in {{California}} are Chula Vista and Fontana, both could be added there for their respective metro areas if desired. This means that the same articles can be reached and that the only presumably added value would be the fact that {{Largest cities of California}} has population data and ranking in the navbox. The value of this is were people disagree, I personally do not think that the majority of readers would go through the cities of California by size. The select few that do, would be fine with List of largest California cities by population, which at the moment is not linked from {{California}} and probably should be included there.
    That being sad, if the contributors of the effected Californian articles agree with each other that this navbox has added value, then there is no problem in keeping this template. CRwikiCA talk 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{California}}, and is article content masquerading as a navbox, thus managing to serve neither function well. Resolute 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is easy to be put off by the fluff such as the inclusion of photos in the template (it's a navigation box not an article), and by excessive detail in the text. However, those are presentational issue which could be fixed if the template was kept.
    The big problem with this template is that it is basically superfluous. Most of the articles on this template already have a link in the first para to List of largest California cities by population, and usually in the first sentence; that list is longer than the navbox, provides more info, and is sortable. Meanwhile the articles are mostly deluged with navboxes, and one less would improve usability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Every single US state has a navbox and a largest cities template on their page. Why don't we discuss all of those for deletion? Why are we picking on California?--Pollack man34 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion about those, of which some are not even used, is the same. Feel free to list all of them for deletion. CRwikiCA talk 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has listed a selection of these for deletion, see here. CRwikiCA talk 02:14, 15 April 2013 (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:SpongeBob SquarePants Season 1 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) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpongeBob SquarePants Season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:NENAN due to the low number of actual working links, this is redundant to the main season article. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:20, 8 April 2013 (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:PD-Iran-unrecognised 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) 17:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Iran-unrecognised (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Appears to contradict Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations? where it was decided that Iranian copyright should be respected for such photos. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we already have files that use a PD-Iran-US-unrecognized template, except not this particular template, as they are currently using {{User:Buffs/PD-Iran in US}}. That template can be converted over to here, to sit in the general template space. So, the box in Buff's be a transclusion of this one, with a merger in content from Buff's box into this one. Additionally, Buff's box should be moved to templatespace as {{PD-Iran in US-temporary}} to indicate the temporary nature of the box. (or both templates can be merged together as this one, since it is already in templatespace. ) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regardless of whether we respect Iran's copyrights, this template describes the actual situation wrt US copyright protections, so should be used for all files that qualify for it. Whether we use those images as fair-use or not is not the same as whether they are protected under US law or not. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The servers are located in Florida, are they not? In regards to copyright, the English Wikipedia is only legally obligated to follow United States copyright law, is it not? Regarding that talk page discussion, I was not aware that discussion took place, otherwise I would have participated. Does that discussion mean that there is a new rule that's set in stone? (Note: I personally don't mind whether or not this template is deleted; I just have a few questions to ask, that's all.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • English Wikipedia isn't legally required to follow Iranian law. However, that RfC concluded that Wikipedia wishes to respect Iranian law anyway in these cases and that such files are to be treated as unfree unless they are in the public domain in Iran, or, I presume, some other standard template such as {{PD-1923}} applies. Also, the template isn't entirely accurate. The country of creation is irrelevant. Instead, the requirements are the following:
      • The work is a published work. Unpublished works are protected by copyright unless they satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
      • The work was first published in Iran and not published anywhere outside Iran (not counting Afghanistan, Iraq or a handful other countries) within 30 days after publication in Iran. Warning: Iranian photos on Flickr, Facebook and similar sites were first published in the United States and are protected by copyright in the United States!
      • The author was, at the time of creation, a citizen and resident of Iran (or of Afghanistan, Iraq or a handful other countries). Warning: Works by foreigners are protected by copyright in the United States if the United States has copyright relations with the country in which the person is a resident or citizen. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2013 (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:Err 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Err (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Error (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Err with Template:Error.
Duplicated template with much less transclusions Eyesnore (PC) 18:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge as creator. There's no need for two of these. --NYKevin 19:05, 7 April 2013 (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 Monthly Megazin 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) 01:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Monthly Megazin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The sole transclusion, in a WP:AfC draft, suggests that this template is functionally redundant to Template:Infobox magazine ("megazin"). Content is pre–filled-out infobox fields, none of which requires a separate template. SuperMarioMan 00:51, 7 April 2013 (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:Rel-top 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 userfy, if someone wants to rename it, or wants to use it in userspace. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates accessible at user:Thryduulf/hidden columns top, user:Thryduulf/hidden columns mid and user:Thryduulf/hidden columns bottom. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Rel-top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rel-mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rel-bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

mash-up of {{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}} and {{col-begin}}/{{col-end}}. I have remove its use in articles, since it was placing undue emphasis on particular sections in articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment they appear to have been copied from Wiktionary -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for use outside article space. Over at Wiktionary they are used to create collapsible multi-column lists of related terms (which often get very long), and I see no reason why this functionality should not be available for use in such environments as userspace and talk pages. They should probably be renamed though to be more descriptive of their function. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (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) 00:14, 7 April 2013 (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/2013_April_7&oldid=1136430363"