Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

June 28 edit

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site 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 keep. Please feel free to discuss the embedding requirement further on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless to most readers. Protracted discussions attempting to resolve this on the talk page, over the last couple of years, have come to nothing, Redundant to a variety of other templates (e.g. {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox religious building}}, {{Infobox ancient site}}). If not deleted, it stand-alone use should be deprecated, and each instance refactored as a child template of one of those more generic infoboxes. An example of such embedding may be seen at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few WHS specific fields which will not be in other templates, for example the link to the official inscription webpage and the criteria. Having the info box declare it prominently as a WHS is a good thing. However it lacks most of the useful parameters which you would find in an infobox for a building, so the embedding solution is a good idea. There are some sites where I'm not sure there is a good alternative, does Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape really fit with {{Infobox ancient site}}? Not sure if all proposed parent template support embedding. I've dropped the protection level to semi-protected as there are only 1000 or so transclusions, this should make it easier to update the template.--Salix (talk): 13:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "fields which will not be in other templates" will not be an issue if this template is used as a module in those other templates. A facility for embedding can be added to any infobox where it is required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the WHS template - World Heritage sites can be buildings, locations (like portions of towns), natural sites or a collective set of natural sites (like six national parks grouped together under one site heading). This would mean editing many types of templates to cover all possible permutations of World Heritage Sites to include a WHS field with the relevant info like inscription date, criteria etc (all of which are important and a good thing to include). The fact that certain information is meaningless to most readers doesn't seem a reason to delete it - much information on Wikipedia is understood by small audiences, but that doesn't make the information any less valid or important when someone eventually discovers a need to know the meaning of it. I also share Salix's view that it's useful and important to prominently identify these places as World Heritage Sites in the title space of the infobox, to immediately distinguish them from other less significant natural or manmade places. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No templates need "editing to cover all possible permutations of World Heritage Sites" if this one is available as a sub-template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template should be used to present basic data about the site's designation status, e.g. why and when it attained WHS status, and such information would be out of place in any other template. What's more, Salix makes a good point — a site's WHS status needs to get big bold emphasis, and other templates don't (and shouldn't) be doing that. Embed it into other infoxes if you wish, as that seems entirely reasonable, but deletion would go too far. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would "such information be out of place in any other template"? That statement appears to lack any foundation; as does the statement about "big bold emphasis". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you suggesting that we modify {{infobox building}} so that it has parameters for the date when a place was designated a WHS or that we add a parameter to {{Infobox ancient site}} so that it will explain the criterion/criteria under which the place qualified as a WHS? If so, why do you believe them to be relevant to those infoboxes? And if not, what do you mean? Meanwhile, World Heritage Site is an extremely rare and significant designation (fewer than 1000 places worldwide), so it might be just a little bit helpful to put that at the top of the infobox — and putting that at the top of any other infobox would be quite unhelpful because it wouldn't be correct for the vast majority of transclusions. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No; I'm suggesting that - if we keep it - we use the WHS infobox only as a module inside other infoboxes; I gave an example in the nomination, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but embed where appropriate. Informative and educational. The statement: "Meaningless to most readers" is without foundation. For a useful, and relevant, example of including documnentation on embedding, see Template:Infobox_NRHP#Embedding. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A cursory read of the template's talk page will show the foundation for the statement that it is meaningless to most readers; who can hardly be expected to know what, say, "Criteria i, ii, iii " means, on Silbury Hill, where the infobox provides that information, but not the coordinates, the area and height of the mound, the county or town in which it sits, its age, the name of organisation responsible for its upkeep, or any other of a number of useful facts one might find in {{Infobox historic site}}. True, someone might find it handy to be reminded that the United Kingdom is in "Europe and North America", though I'm not sure who...Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You got me wondering what those criteria were, so I clicked on the word "Criteria" in the infobox and was informed and educated thus: "(i) "represents a masterpiece of human creative genius"(ii) "exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of time, or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning, or landscape design" (iii) "bears a unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared". World_Heritage_Site#Selection_criteria Thanks for making my point for me. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary: you make my point for me. The box as configured fails its prime purpose of providing an at a glance summary of the contents of the article. Like I say, this issue has been discussed at length on the template's talk page (and elsewhere) over a few years. The issue now is not whether the problem exists, but how to resolve it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It should be noted that (1) you can use multiple infoboxes if needed to cover all infobox-worthy information (see for instance Brett Moffitt), and (2) the comment about a lack of coordinates and precise location in the infobox on the example article above are a failure of editing, not the infobox (those paramaters are in the infobox coding), and it would be a trivial matter for the "responsible organisation" and "age" to be added as parameters to the infobox coding. This is a case where something that could be solved by a bit of editing is instead hit with the sledgehammer of deletion because of an assumption that Wikipedia's readers lack clue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't make a habit of, nor encourage, using two infoboxes (which entails repeating information, not least the name), when one can be a module of the other. There is no suggestion that readers "lack clue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A particularly innocuous infobox. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to TfD probably wasn't the right approach. There seems to be a general agreement that we should embed where possible; as such, the way forward here should be to put an appropriate note on the doc (not {{deprecated}}), add a cleanup category for non-embedded instances (i.e. those which don't have child=yes set) and work on clearing the backlog. We can reevaluate whether standalone use is ever necessary after we've had a while to work at that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful infobox, often used standalone for specific WHS sites like Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra or Australian Convict Sites. It can be improved, but merger is not the solution. --ELEKHH^T 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and informative, I cannot join the statement: "Meaningless to most readers"; Wikipedia ist not only for informations, what are useful to more as 1XXX people. Furthermore, I agree with the statement "World Heritage sites can be buildings, locations (like portions of towns), natural sites or a collective set of natural sites (like six national parks grouped together under one site heading). This would mean editing many types of templates to cover all possible permutations of World Heritage Sites to include a WHS field with the relevant info like inscription date, criteria etc (all of which are important and a good thing to include)." Uncle Scrooge (talk) 20:48, 5 July 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 toxic gas leak 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) 00:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox toxic gas leak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox news event}}. Was single use on Bhopal disaster; now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too specific.--Salix (talk): 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nothing's unique about a gas explosion for the purposes of an infobox. I was going to suggest replacement with some other disaster infobox, e.g. Infobox disaster or Infobox explosion, but no such infoboxes seem to exist. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Purely out of curiosity, I discovered we do have Template:Infobox oil spill which is pretty widely used. Perhaps that one could be generalized to other environmental accidents/disasters. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With only 26 transclusions, I'm not sure I'd call it "pretty widely used". I note that we don't have a standalone infobox for nuclear accidents either. These incidents are, in my opinion, important for the context more than the specifics, and while it's convenient to rattle off a bunch of statistics it's not necessarily interesting to readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 3 July 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.