Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 30

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

March 30 edit

Template:Fb cs footer 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, however it appears there may be consensus to merge some of these since there are so many of them. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cs footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A perfect example of over-templating, serves no real purpose, obsolete to {{updated}}. GiantSnowman 13:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. the best practise is to close the table properly in the page and then add {{updated}}. Delete and replace by {{updated}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are far too many fb templates; many serve no purpose and were created without consultation or consensus. GiantSnowman 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the template is not obsolete and it does serve a purpose to the editors of the article. If there was no date mentioned as to when the last update occurred then it would be difficult to determine when and where the table became out of date. After every match that Everton plays people use the footer to determine whether or not the table needs to be updated. It is helpful during the season that the article pertains to and I suggest that it is left that way until said season concludes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CowBoyJim (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 March 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) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reply to CowBoyJim - you are missing the point completely, a far more efficient template already exists and is in wide use. This one serves no purpose and is obsolete. GiantSnowman 10:59, 6 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 museum 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox museum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very similar, and redundant, to {{Infobox building}}; merge there, or make module for the unique parameters. Note that |publictransit= and |car_park= should not be used, per WP:NOT; such detail belongs on WikiVoyage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The infobox is fine as is and broadly used in 3,782 articles. There is no need to complicate and confuse things by mergers into generic infoboxes, which are harder and less efficient to use. As an editor with considerable experience I find hyper-generic infoboxes such as infobox person and infobox building difficult to use, and I'm sure they make the work of new editors unreasonably harder. While rationalising templates is welcome, amalgamations which lead towards Template:Infobox anything are not. --ELEKHHT 03:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the infobox is "fine" is both vague and unsubstantiated. Its number of transclusions is not a reason to keep it. The "template anything" comment is a slippery slope fallacy. Further, the template currently packs many of Infobox building's parameters which are relevant to museums; merging or modularising would make them available for articles on museums. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elekhh, who is absolutely right. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a parameter here is a lot better & easier than merging the templates. But for very few museums is the architect actually very important information, so I don't see it as a problem that it isn't there. If it was people would always add it, which would be bad. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It seems that John arrived here after being canvassed by a note which falsely claimed that the template has been "nominated for removal". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That note is inaccurate, but it doesn't breach WP:CANVASS, being a neutral project notification. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not "neutral" if it misrepresents the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is neutral because it doesn't encourage people to take any side in the discussion. A simple mistake of wording doesn't make it canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not "canvassed by a note" - the discussion was very properly notified to the Museums Wikiproject. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A museum is an institution that may or may not be housed in one or more buildings. The most important things about it are its contents, not where those contents are displayed. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of this infobox's fields are in the Building infobox; this proposal includes all those that are not; except for the two listed breaches of WP:NOT. Infobox building can be and is used for clusters of buildings, equally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I'm generally not in favour of the strategy of using the lengthy, generic and intimidating "Building" infobox for all building types, I have difficulty with the "Museum" infobox. Like some other Infoboxes (e.g. Infobox church) it encourages people to use Wikipedia as an extension to the organisation's website rather than to describe notable aspects. I doubt curators meet WP:GNG or are of general interest. I completely agree with Pigsonthewig that 'carparking' and 'public transit' should be left to tourist guides. Equally, many museums are great works of architecture and are notable for aspects other than the director, president and curator. I'm inclined to argue for deletion in this case. Sionk (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no requirement for anything mentioned in infobox parameters to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. A curator is an essential part of an institution that is a museum, as opposed to a building that houses a museum, so should be identified in an infobox in a museum's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal does nothing to prevent that. You seem to be tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you seem to be failing to accept that anyone else's point of view might be valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • In what way is your view about curators a valid contribution to discussion of the proposal in hand (which includes noting to prevent the use of |curator=)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is a valid contribution because it is a direct reply to Sionk's comment, and because it is a valid parameter for an infobox about a museum but not for an infobox about a building. You don't get to restrict the discussion to your cherry-picked parameters. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at some concrete examples to illustrate what I have been trying to get across, i.e. that a museum is not a building. Take Tate Modern. That institution would be notable wherever it was housed, for example if it was in a nondescript prefabricated former warehouse on an industrial estate, and the building that it is in would be notable even if it had been left empty for the last 13 years. The museum and the building are different things, so an infobox designed for buildings is inappropriate for an article about the museum. And how about the Chiltern Open Air Museum. That has some buildings as exhibits, but can't itself be said to constitute a building. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better example might be Beamish Museum which actually uses the infobox in question. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Tate Modern is not a good example because the building is of major importance to the museum! Sionk (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A museum is not defined by the building it is located in, and may not actually be in a single building. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, per your and my examples, may not be in a building at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is not whether or not a museum is a building, but whether the two infoboxes are sufficiently similar or not, to warrant their continued existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you could keep merging infoboxes until there is one infobox to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been noted above that a weakness of the infobox is that it contains the fields car park and publictransit, which are not in scope. Several editors seem to agree including myself. I think the solution to that problem is to remove them from the infobox, not to add dozens of other potentially less-relevant fields by the proposed merger, such as quantity_surveyor, ren_qty_surveyor. etc. Therefore I started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox museum#The fields "car_park" and "publictransit". --ELEKHHT 19:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Museums, being important generally independently of the buildings in which they're located, shouldn't have similar parameters in their infoboxes. A museum infobox should have parameters for information about the collection, the history of the organisation, the current nature of the organisation, etc (all of which would be inappropriate for Infobox building), and parameters such as the construction date for the museum's building should be relegated to the building infobox. Current similarities between the two infoboxes are reason for making them more different, not reason for merging them. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see that Andy isn't proposing the removal of parameters like |director= et al., which pertain to the museum as an institution, but these do seem like rather odd parameters for {{Infobox building}} to have. Having said that, I can see the advantages of having more of the parameters of {{Infobox building}} available for museums; I've had to use both {{Infobox museum}} and {{Infobox historic site}} in the article National Gallery, whereas I would prefer a single infobox in the lede that gives information on both the institution and its building.
My preferred solution would be to retain the infobox but with an initial section dealing with 'general information' (foundation date, address, director etc.) followed by another, optional one for architecture, with parameters taken from {{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox historic site}}. I agree with the nom that transport information belongs on Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. Ham 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least one too many at National Gallery, and I see that even with two infoboxes, neither gives any information as to the type of objects in the collection. Words fail me! Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are various reasons why this sort of template exists despite the existence of similar templates such as the Building template. One reason is that similar is not the same as identical. Yes, there are similarities, but there are enough unique differences between a building the two to warrant the Keeping of this template. On the other hand, the real problem that I see with this museum template is that (like so many other things in an encyclopedia under developemnt such as is the case with Wikipedia) it needs editors that will help perfect it. For example, in addition to the fields unique to museums and already in the template (collection size, curator, visitors (generic buildings rarely keep a count of its visitors), etc.), the museum template could benefit from the addition of fileds such as "Accreditation" (which could be populated by the likes of American Association of Museums, etc), "Key works" (which could be populated by the likes of Mona Lisa, Flaming June, The Creation of Adam, etc), and "Collections" (which could be populated by the likes of Baroque, Pre-Raphaelite, Golden Age, etc ). Simply because most of the existing fields in Museum infobox template are also already found in Building infobox template is not enough justification to delete Museum, but -- since we all know a building and a museum are not the same thing -- it would be enough motivation to add the fields the Museum template might still be missing. In short, there are ocassions when deleting a template helps improve Wikipedia, but this is not one of them; instead, this is an ocassion when the encyclopedia could benefit from adding to the Museum infobox template those fields that are still missing. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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:Jackson malls and shopping centers 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) 23:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackson malls and shopping centers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only four objects. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep (by author): Despite the number of objects, Jackson is the largest metropolitan area in Mississippi, which is justified to provide a template listing the major enclosed shopping malls, especially if one of those happens to be the largest in the state.
  • Delete on the basis there is little content and the articles that are linked are horrific promotional pages for these (possibly) non-notable privately run shopping malls. This sort of thing doesn't need encouraging! Sionk (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not needed. we can easily link these using a see also section. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now just three links, in a blown-up and unnecessary navbar. --ELEKHHT 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added "See also" sections to the linked articles. —rybec 20:58, 6 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:Robinsons-May history 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) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robinsons-May history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two unrelated chains. Meier & Frank and Robinsons-May were only "related" for 3 years at best. This would be akin to lumping, say, Marshall Field's and Foley's on the same template — both were May brands, but otherwise unrelated for most of their life. Either way, there are only four links, putting it well short of WP:NENAN. And there is no reason to have a section on "Conversions to Meier & Frank" since ZCMI was the only chain that converted any locations. Furthermore, the history is already included on {{Macy's history}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:47, 30 March 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:Flagicon2 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. Feel free to propose adding a link text option to {{flagicon image}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flagicon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to be a general fork of template:flagicon image. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (as creator). I created the template because I didn't know flag {{flagicon image}} existed. However, it does provide functionality beyond what {{flagicon image}} can do (e.g. provides optional link text). --RA (talk) 20:15, 6 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_March_30&oldid=1138534996"